| Literature DB >> 35681945 |
Mengchao Yao1, Jinjun Duan1, Qingsong Wang1.
Abstract
As a fusion point of innovation-driven green development, green technology innovation has become an essential engine for green transformation and high-quality economic development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Based on the panel data of 110 cities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2006 to 2020, this paper uses the super-SBM model to measure the efficiency of industrial green technology innovation. Then, the Dagum Gini coefficient and its subgroup decomposition method, kernel density estimation, and the spatial Markov chain will discuss the convergence characteristics and dynamic evolution law of industrial green technology innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. The results indicate several key points. (1) On the whole, the industrial green innovation efficiency of the Yangtze River Economic Belt shows a trend of the "N" type, which increases slowly at first and then decreases and then increases, and shows a non-equilibrium feature of "east high and west low" in space. (2) The average GML index of industrial green technology innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt is greater than 1, and technological progress is the main driving force in promoting efficiency growth. (3) There are spatial and temporal differences in industrial green technological innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Interregional differences and hypervariable density are the primary sources of overall differences. (4) During the study period, the absolute difference in industrial green technology innovation efficiency among regions showed a trend of "expansion-reduction-expansion", and the innovation efficiency gradually converged to a single equilibrium point. (5) The industrial green technology innovation efficiency transfer in the Yangtze River Economic Belt shows a specific spatial dependence. Accordingly, policy suggestions are put forward to further improve industrial green technological innovation in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.Entities:
Keywords: GML index; industrial green technology innovation; kernel density estimation; spatial Markov chain; super-SBM model
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681945 PMCID: PMC9180332 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116361
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The study framework research design.
The evaluation index system of industrial green technology innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.
| First-Level Indicator | Secondary Indicators | Indicator Description | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input variable | R&D staff input | Full-time equivalent of R&D personnel in industrial enterprises above designated size | People/year |
| R&D spending | Internal expenditure of R&D funds of industrial enterprises above a designated size | CNY 10,000 | |
| Industrial energy input | Total industrial energy consumption | 10,000 tons of standard coal | |
| Expected output | The number of patent applications applied for | The number of effective invention patents of industrial enterprises above the designated size | Item |
| The number of new product development projects | The number of new product projects of industrial enterprises above the designated size | Item | |
| New product sales revenue | New product sale revenues of industrial enterprises above designated size | CNY 10,000 | |
| Undesired output | Industrial waste | Industrial wastewater discharge | 10,000 tons |
| industrial waste | Industrial SO2 emissions | Billion cubic meters | |
| Industrial solid waste | The amount of industrial solid waste generated | 10,000 tons |
Figure 2The change trend of industrial green technology innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.
Figure 3Temporal and spatial evolution of industrial green technology innovation efficiency in 110 cities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.
GML index and its decomposition of industrial green technology innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.
| Year | Mean | Upstream | Midstream | Downstream | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GML | TC | EC | GML | TC | EC | GML | TC | EC | GML | TC | EC | |
| 2006–2007 | 1.028 | 1.021 | 1.007 | 1.029 | 1.016 | 1.012 | 1.017 | 1.022 | 0.995 | 1.037 | 1.025 | 1.012 |
| 2007–2008 | 0.852 | 1.069 | 0.797 | 0.838 | 1.028 | 0.815 | 0.828 | 1.076 | 0.769 | 0.889 | 1.102 | 0.806 |
| 2008–2009 | 0.948 | 1.119 | 0.848 | 0.935 | 1.059 | 0.882 | 0.934 | 1.120 | 0.834 | 0.975 | 1.179 | 0.827 |
| 2009–2010 | 1.221 | 1.121 | 1.088 | 1.235 | 1.108 | 1.114 | 1.182 | 1.127 | 1.049 | 1.246 | 1.130 | 1.102 |
| 2010–2011 | 1.088 | 1.050 | 1.036 | 1.077 | 1.014 | 1.063 | 1.028 | 1.049 | 0.981 | 1.159 | 1.086 | 1.066 |
| 2011–2012 | 1.108 | 1.127 | 0.984 | 1.171 | 1.097 | 1.067 | 1.081 | 1.135 | 0.951 | 1.074 | 1.150 | 0.934 |
| 2012–2013 | 1.035 | 1.024 | 1.011 | 1.057 | 1.031 | 1.024 | 1.007 | 1.017 | 0.990 | 1.041 | 1.022 | 1.017 |
| 2013–2014 | 1.010 | 1.066 | 0.947 | 0.971 | 1.016 | 0.955 | 0.991 | 0.922 | 1.075 | 1.067 | 1.104 | 0.965 |
| 2014–2015 | 1.188 | 1.136 | 1.046 | 1.183 | 1.103 | 1.072 | 1.167 | 1.137 | 1.026 | 1.213 | 1.167 | 1.040 |
| 2015–2016 | 0.901 | 0.845 | 1.066 | 0.913 | 0.826 | 1.104 | 0.878 | 0.848 | 1.035 | 0.911 | 0.860 | 1.059 |
| 2016–2017 | 1.170 | 1.142 | 1.024 | 1.109 | 1.116 | 0.992 | 1.274 | 1.163 | 1.095 | 1.127 | 1.144 | 0.985 |
| 2017–2018 | 1.095 | 1.091 | 1.005 | 1.049 | 1.038 | 1.010 | 1.109 | 1.108 | 1.001 | 1.127 | 1.125 | 1.001 |
| 2018–2019 | 1.020 | 1.082 | 0.944 | 1.004 | 1.020 | 0.983 | 1.010 | 1.097 | 0.921 | 1.045 | 1.126 | 0.927 |
| 2019–2020 | 1.093 | 1.104 | 0.991 | 1.024 | 1.021 | 1.003 | 1.107 | 1.127 | 0.982 | 1.146 | 1.163 | 0.986 |
| mean | 1.054 | 1.071 | 0.985 | 1.042 | 1.035 | 1.007 | 1.044 | 1.079 | 0.968 | 1.075 | 1.099 | 0.981 |
Table data source: calculated using Matlab 2014a.
Gini coefficient and decomposition results of industrial green technological innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.
| Year | Overall Coefficient | Regional Negini Coefficient | Gini Coefficient between Regions | Contribution Rate (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uptream | Midstream | Downstream | Up-Midstream | Mid-Downstream | Up-Midstream | Within the Area | Interregional | Hypervariable Density | ||
| 2006 | 0.484 | 0.319 | 0.346 | 0.577 | 0.583 | 0.552 | 0.344 | 31.00 | 41.35 | 27.65 |
| 2007 | 0.436 | 0.316 | 0.314 | 0.528 | 0.186 | 0.122 | 0.238 | 31.24 | 37.84 | 30.92 |
| 2008 | 0.427 | 0.313 | 0.311 | 0.493 | 0.302 | 0.184 | 0.252 | 30.42 | 36.01 | 33.57 |
| 2009 | 0.416 | 0.312 | 0.304 | 0.472 | 0.327 | 0.215 | 0.273 | 31.26 | 36.75 | 31.99 |
| 2010 | 0.405 | 0.312 | 0.294 | 0.450 | 0.471 | 0.431 | 0.310 | 32.65 | 35.12 | 32.23 |
| 2011 | 0.361 | 0.267 | 0.270 | 0.387 | 0.433 | 0.392 | 0.286 | 30.34 | 38.96 | 30.70 |
| 2012 | 0.324 | 0.258 | 0.236 | 0.354 | 0.394 | 0.351 | 0.256 | 32.24 | 36.71 | 31.05 |
| 2013 | 0.572 | 0.491 | 0.465 | 0.569 | 0.679 | 0.610 | 0.508 | 31.15 | 33.32 | 35.53 |
| 2014 | 0.324 | 0.297 | 0.223 | 0.350 | 0.388 | 0.336 | 0.274 | 31.23 | 34.07 | 34.70 |
| 2015 | 0.313 | 0.296 | 0.217 | 0.331 | 0.379 | 0.328 | 0.272 | 31.63 | 32.56 | 35.79 |
| 2016 | 0.308 | 0.294 | 0.220 | 0.329 | 0.372 | 0.322 | 0.276 | 32.53 | 33.02 | 34.45 |
| 2017 | 0.302 | 0.295 | 0.214 | 0.332 | 0.365 | 0.319 | 0.277 | 30.68 | 31.74 | 37.58 |
| 2018 | 0.304 | 0.290 | 0.212 | 0.328 | 0.360 | 0.312 | 0.279 | 32.14 | 30.22 | 36.65 |
| 2019 | 0.437 | 0.469 | 0.306 | 0.440 | 0.528 | 0.413 | 0.427 | 32.50 | 22.75 | 44.75 |
| 2020 | 0.353 | 0.348 | 0.254 | 0.360 | 0.436 | 0.341 | 0.323 | 30.38 | 31.36 | 38.26 |
Table data source: calculated using Matlab 2014a.
Figure 4The core density distribution of the innovation efficiency of green technology in the economy and industry of the Yangtze River.
Traditional Markov and Markov probability transition matrix of industrial green technology innovation efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt.
| Spatial Lag Type | I | II | III | IV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No lag | I | 0.806 | 0.181 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| II | 0.016 | 0.660 | 0.306 | 0.018 | |
| III | 0.000 | 0.017 | 0.742 | 0.241 | |
| IV | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.029 | 0.971 | |
| I | I | 0.847 | 0.127 | 0.026 | 0.000 |
| II | 0.174 | 0.720 | 0.106 | 0.000 | |
| III | 0.000 | 0.164 | 0.705 | 0.131 | |
| IV | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.084 | 0.916 | |
| II | I | 0.749 | 0.251 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| II | 0.042 | 0.773 | 0.185 | 0.000 | |
| III | 0.000 | 0.035 | 0.690 | 0.275 | |
| IV | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.065 | 0.935 | |
| III | I | 0.702 | 0.285 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| II | 0.000 | 0.793 | 0.217 | 0.000 | |
| III | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.763 | 0.237 | |
| IV | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.031 | 0.969 | |
| IV | I | 0.637 | 0.318 | 0.031 | 0.014 |
| II | 0.000 | 0.648 | 0.352 | 0.000 | |
| III | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.694 | 0.306 | |
| IV | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
Note: No lag represents the traditional Markov chain probability transition matrix. Table data source: calculated using stata.