| Literature DB >> 35564546 |
Xiaojun Lyu1, Haiqian Ke1,2.
Abstract
Promoting technical change is an important driving force for promoting the sustainable development of urban economy and ecology; however, the technical change is not always neutral and technical change may has a certain direction. This paper uses the DEA-Malmquist index to measure the directed technical change of 280 cities in China from 2009 to 2019, and uses the DMSP/OLS night light data to characterize the urban economic development level. It uses the dynamic threshold regression model to analyze the impact of directed technical change on urban carbon footprint under different economic development levels. The results show that: (1) during the study period, the carbon footprint of Chinese cities has a positive spatial correlation, and the direction of technical change is towards capital-saving overall. (2) The impact of capital-saving technical change on urban carbon footprint presents a negative double-threshold characteristic in China, and the inhibition of capital-saving technical change on the urban carbon footprint becomes stronger with the increasing economic development level. (3) The inhibitory effect of capital-saving technical change on carbon footprint has regional heterogeneity, and the inhibitory effect of capital-saving technical change on carbon footprint is stronger in eastern China than other regions. (4) Industrial structure, energy structure and innovation efficiency are mediating variables of the inhibitory effect of capital-saving technical change on carbon footprint except for population density.Entities:
Keywords: carbon footprint; directed technical change; dynamic threshold regression
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564546 PMCID: PMC9105821 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1China’s urban carbon footprint in 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2019.
Carbon emission coefficients of various energy sources.
| Energy Types | Raw Coal | Coke | Crude Oil | Gasoline | Diesel Oil | Fuel Oil | Natural Gas | Heat | Electricity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| coefficients | 0.4861 | 0.7482 | 0.8206 | 0.8071 | 0.8453 | 0.8657 | 5.3903 | 0.0279 | 0.1623 |
Threshold effect test.
| Regions | National | Eastern | Central | Western | Northeastern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| single threshold test | 41.565 *** | 19.203 * | 26.187 ** | 19.054 ** | 22.019 * |
| (5.29) | (1.78) | (2.20) | (2.01) | (1.70) | |
| double threshold test | 28.005 *** | 17.146 *** | 22.436 *** | 20.183 *** | 27.043 ** |
| (3.09) | (4.17) | (6.88) | (5.90) | (2.09) | |
| triple threshold test | 11.001 * | 9.076 ** | 12.261 *** | 8.238 | 0.000 |
| (1.77) | (1.99) | (6.01) | (0.47) | (0.12) |
Note: ***, ** and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Threshold estimate.
| Single-Threshold | 95% Confidence | Double-Threshold | 95% Confidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entire country | 6864.52 | (5903.09, 7215.83) | 8136.44 | (7965.84, 9019.78) |
| East | 5824.17 | (4978.69, 6070.11) | 7211.86 | (6553.07, 7422.84) |
| Central | 7802.36 | (7255.39, 8104.61) | 8427.30 | (7909.68, 8577.93) |
| West | 6780.19 | (6407.63, 6978.26) | 8469.38 | (7719.36, 9066.78) |
| Northeast | 9245.32 | (8905.83, 9763.15) | 10,705.68 | (9758.89, 11,003.25) |
Dynamic threshold regression results of capital-saving technical change on carbon footprint in different regions.
| Variables | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | Model (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entire Country | East | Central | West | Northeast | |
|
| 2.0725 *** | 1.2073 *** | 1.0413 *** | 1.6073 *** | 1.0266 *** |
| (4.13) | (3.06) | (5.88) | (4.01) | (6.06) | |
|
| 1.8547 *** | 0.9877 *** | 0.8765 *** | 0.9463 *** | 0.9029 *** |
| (3.24) | (4.17) | (5.78) | (4.09) | (3.62) | |
| −0.2077 *** | −1.0208 *** | −0.0097 *** | −0.0038 ** | −0.7021 | |
| (−5.73) | (−4.17) | (−3.08) | (−2.10) | (0.88) | |
| −0.3003 *** | −1.0302 *** | −0.1015 *** | −0.0705 *** | −0.9006 | |
| (−3.01) | (−4.47) | (−5.13) | (−3.68) | (1.20) | |
| −0.3428 *** | −1.3063 *** | −0.2705 *** | −1.0003 *** | −1.0216 ** | |
| (−3.17) | (−5.44) | (−3.35) | (−5.08) | (−1.98) | |
|
| 0.9037 *** | 0.8025 *** | 1.0004 *** | −0.0713 *** | 0.5946 *** |
| (3.79) | (−3.29) | (6.09) | (−5.17) | (−4.16) | |
|
| 1.0005 *** | 0.9801 *** | 0.7975 *** | 0.8009 *** | 0.0429 *** |
| (3.91) | (3.83) | (3.46) | (4.08) | (5.91) | |
|
| −0.9358 *** | −1.0133 *** | −0.2046 *** | −0.7085 *** | −0.1129 *** |
| (−4.55) | (−5.06) | (−5.97) | (−4.83) | (−6.04) | |
|
| −0.9031 *** | −0.6708 *** | −0.4079 *** | −0.3397 *** | −0.4289 *** |
| (−4.00) | (−3.46) | (−4.82) | (−7.03) | (−5.62) | |
|
| 0.0740 | 0.0526 | 0.0899 | 0.0645 | 0.1012 |
| (0.45) | (1.02) | (1.23) | (0.97) | (1.38) | |
|
| −1.0802 | −0.9153 *** | −1.0246 | −0.9011 | −1.2038 |
| (−0.94) | (−1.02) | (−0.68) | (−0.93) | (−1.01) | |
|
| −1.2463 *** | −1.0589 *** | −0.9976 *** | −1.0205 ** | −1.6173 *** |
| (−4.07) | (−3.28) | (−4.03) | (−2.39) | (−3.04) | |
| C | 6.533 *** | 5.087 *** | 3.014 *** | 4.006 *** | 3.498 *** |
| (7.33) | (5.10) | (3.47) | (3.96) | (5.08) |
Note: *** and ** indicate significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
Mediation effect regression results of population density and industrial structure.
| Variables | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | Model (5) | Model (6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.0987 ** | −0.9045 *** | ||||
| (−2.20) | (−3.67) | |||||
|
| −0.0804 *** | −1.9421 *** | −0.9478 *** | −0.2766 *** | −0.4709 *** | −0.6570 ** |
| (−4.05) | (−3.00) | (−2.71) | (−4.88) | (−3.70) | −2.5 | |
|
| 0.0608 *** | 0.0931 *** | 0.0833 ** | 0.7302 *** | 0.4331 ** | 0.5062 *** |
| −5.47 | −3.99 | −2.39 | −4.07 | −2.22 | −5.78 | |
|
| 0.7576 *** | 0.0922 ** | 1.0273 *** | 0.0994 *** | 0.0871 *** | 0.9204 *** |
| −4.67 | −2.12 | −4.08 | −3.27 | −3.1 | −4.45 | |
|
| −0.9760 *** | −0.6834 ** | −0.0901 *** | −1.0742 ** | −0.9776 ** | −0.3802 *** |
| (−2.99) | (−2.07) | (−3.88) | (−2.62) | (−2.47) | (−5.06) | |
|
| −0.4698 *** | −0.0926 ** | −0.6609 *** | −0.0076 *** | −0.0328 * | −0.1059 *** |
| (−3.93) | (−1.98) | (−4.04) | (−3.97) | −1.84 | (−4.75) | |
|
| 0.0411 *** | −0.0289 *** | 0.0738 *** | 0.3776 *** | 0.2588 *** | 0.0901 *** |
| (−4.83) | (−5.07) | (−4.56) | (4.19) | −5.32 | −3.66 | |
|
| −0.0095 | −0.0702 | −0.0548 | −0.1023 | −0.3864 | −0.8991 |
| (−0.01) | (−0.49) | (−1.32) | (−0.99) | (−1.37) | (−0.71) | |
|
| −1.2205 *** | −0.1988 *** | −0.4759 *** | −0.1209 *** | −0.3765 *** | −0.8201 *** |
| (−4.30) | (−3.41) | (−3.26) | (−4.48) | (−3.70) | (−3.26) | |
| Time fixed effect | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control |
| Individual fixed effects | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control |
| Constant | 0.1920 *** | −0.9928 *** | 0.8330 *** | 3.8029 *** | −4.7280 *** | 3.6004 *** |
| −3.93 | (−3.30) | −4.99 | −3.43 | (−4.65) | −6.03 | |
| R2 | 0.758 | 0.7869 | 0.7761 | 0.7361 | 0.7822 | 0.7553 |
| Sobel | |Z| = 0.8703 ** | |Z| = 2.6935 ** | ||||
| Mediating effect | No mediating effect | Partial mediating effect | ||||
Note: ***, ** and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Mediation effect regression results of energy structure and innovation efficiency.
| Variables | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | Model (5) | Model (6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.9877 *** | −0.9832 *** | ||||
| (−3.70) | (−6.26) | |||||
|
| −0.1921 *** | −1.3706 *** | −0.4559 ** | −0.1937 *** | −2.0505 *** | −1.0841 ** |
| (−5.17) | (−4.65) | −2.33 | (−4.51) | (−3.89) | −2.45 | |
|
| 0.7325 *** | 0.6822 ** | 0.0905 *** | 0.0681 *** | 0.4073 ** | 0.0943 *** |
| −6.1 | −2.24 | −4.15 | −4.28 | −2.17 | −4.05 | |
|
| 0.0916 *** | 0.8807 ** | 0.1065 *** | 0.9925 *** | 0.9028 ** | 1.0085 *** |
| −4.09 | −2 | −3.9 | −3.85 | −2.19 | −5.68 | |
|
| −0.1050 ** | −0.3629 ** | −0.7609 *** | −0.9630 ** | −0.8240 ** | −0.9064 *** |
| (−2.18) | (−2.46) | (−4.57) | (−2.21) | (−2.36) | (−3.69) | |
|
| −0.9903 *** | −0.6304 * | −0.4937 *** | −0.6977 *** | −1.0025 ** | −0.7793 *** |
| (−4.03) | −1.86 | (−3.69) | −4.08 | −5.78 | −4.32 | |
|
| 0.9607 *** | 0.8219 *** | 0.6503 *** | 0.9118 *** | 0.9376 *** | 0.8762 *** |
| −4.66 | −7.9 | −4.89 | −3.95 | −4.26 | −5.07 | |
|
| −1.3227 | −0.8746 | −0.9972 | −0.9950 | −0.0617 | −1.0815 |
| (−0.98) | (−1.21) | (−0.79) | (−0.87) | (−1.06) | −0.69 | |
|
| −0.0736 *** | −0.1028 *** | −0.0977 *** | −0.5876 *** | −0.4210 *** | −0.3599 *** |
| (−3.28) | (−5.72) | (−5.68) | (−4.15) | (−3.09) | (−4.77) | |
| Time fixed effect | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control |
| Individual fixed effects | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control |
| Constant | 2.8240 *** | −5.9070 *** | 3.6094 *** | 1.0705 *** | −1.6368 *** | 3.9784 *** |
| −6.73 | (−4.22) | −3.94 | −5.21 | (−4.16) | −3.77 | |
| R2 | 0.7582 | 0.7981 | 0.7802 | 0.7258 | 0.7387 | 0.7972 |
| Sobel | |Z| = 2.0065 ** | |Z| = 1.9896 ** | ||||
| Mediating effect | Partial mediating effect | Partial mediating effect | ||||
Note: the data in the table are the F statistics corresponding to the threshold test, ***, ** and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively, and the P statistics are in brackets.