| Literature DB >> 35682045 |
Lindong Ma1,2, Yuanxiao Hong2, Xihui Chen3.
Abstract
China's high-speed economic growth and severe environmental problems have resulted in a poor Environmental Performance Index and have affected China's sustainable development and ecological welfare improvement. Therefore, exploring whether there is a certain relationship between the two and their influencing factors is an important way and a breakthrough to solve the problems regarding green economic progress and ecological welfare enhancement. To this end, by using the undesirable slack-based measure (SBM) model, this paper measures the ecological welfare performance and the green economic efficiency of 11 cities in Zhejiang Province, China, from 2000 to 2019. Through the methods of spatiotemporal evolution, coefficient of variation, coupling coordination degree, and the Tobit model, we found that: (1) The development trend of urban green economic efficiency and ecological welfare performance were both in a "U" shape that first fell and then rose; (2) The coupling coordination degree between green economic efficiency and ecological welfare performance showed a wave-like upward trend as a whole and most cities have entered a more advanced coupling coordination stage during the study period. The coefficient of variation revealed a downward trend; (3) The urbanization level, industrial structure, and government investment can promote the regional coordinated development, while the industrialization degree and the opening level had a negative impact on it; (4) The "Two Mountains" theory was beneficial to the improvement of regional urban green economic efficiency and ecological welfare performance and their coordinated development both in theory and practice. Finally, according to the findings, we offer relevant suggestions on making good use of the country's preferential policies and informatization means from the perspective of the regional coordinated development.Entities:
Keywords: China; Tobit model; Zhejiang Province; coupling coordination degree; ecological welfare performance; green economic efficiency; “Two Mountains” theory
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682045 PMCID: PMC9180280 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116460
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The coupling and driving mechanism of green economic efficiency and ecological welfare performance.
Figure 2City map of the Zhejiang Province and its location in China.
Green economy efficiency input–output index system.
| Category | First-Level Indicators | Second-Level Indicators | Attribute Description | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input indicators | Energy input | Industrial electricity consumption | 104 kw·h | |
| Labor input | Employees of the whole society | The total number of employees in the primary, secondary, and tertiary industries. | 104 persons | |
| Capital investment | Capital stock | The capital stock of each region is calculated by perpetual inventory method. Please refer to the processing methods of Boya Li [ | CNY 108 | |
| Output indicators | Expected output | Regional GDP | (+) | CNY 108 |
| Undesired output | Industrial wastewater discharge | (−) | 104 t | |
| Industrial SO2 emissions | (−) | t | ||
| Industrial smoke (powder) and dust emissions | (−) | t |
Note: “+” represents the desired output, the bigger the better; “−” represents the undesired output, the smaller the better.
Input–output index system of ecological welfare performance.
| Category | First-Level Indicators | Second-Level Indicators | Third-Level Indicators/Description | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecological input indicators | Resource consumption | Energy consumption | Industrial electricity input per capita | kw·h/person |
| Land consumption | Built-up land area per capita | M2/person | ||
| Water consumption | Water resources per capita | M3/person | ||
| Environmental pollution | Wastewater disposal | Wastewater disposal per capita | t/person | |
| Exhaust emissions | SO2 emissions per capita | t/person | ||
| Solid waste discharge | Industrial solid smoke (powder) emissions per capita | t/person | ||
| Welfare output indicators | Social welfare level | Economic development level | GDP per capita (+) | 104 CNY/person |
| Educational development level | Average years of education (+) | Year | ||
| Health care level | Number of beds per 10,000 people (+) | beds/104 person | ||
| Air quality level | The proportion of days when air quality reaches or is better than grade II (+) | (%) |
Note: Average years of education = (6 × P primary school + 9 × P junior high school + 12 × P high school + 16 × P college or above)/(P primary school + P junior high school + P high school + P college or above), where P means a person; “+” represents the desired output, the bigger the better.
Classification criteria for coordination.
| Coordination Interval | Coordination Level | Symbol |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0 ≤ D < 0.5 | General disorder | D1 |
| 0.5 ≤ D < 0.6 | Preliminary disorder | D2 |
| 0.6 ≤ D < 0.7 | Preliminary coordination | D3 |
| 0.7 ≤ D < 0.8 | Moderate coordination | D4 |
| 0.8 ≤ D ≤ 1.0 | Advanced coordination | D5 |
Figure 3The spatial and temporal evolution of green economic efficiency and ecological welfare performance of cities in the Zhejiang Province.
Figure 4The dynamic evolution trend of green economic efficiency, ecological welfare performance, coupling degree, and coupling coordination degree.
Figure 5The spatiotemporal development characteristics of the coupling coordination degree.
Figure 6Moran’s I scatter plot for the coupling coordination degree of each city in 2000 and 2019 (the line represents the global Moran’s I index for the year. Each dot represents the location of a sample point. The distance of the dot from the origin in the figure represents the level of aggregation significance, and the farther away from the origin, the better the significance level).
Figure 7Local spatial correlation map of cities in the Zhejiang Province in 2000 and 2019.
Moran index values and regions passing the significance test over the years.
| Year | Moran’s I |
| High–High | High–Low | Low–Low | Low–High |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 0.187 | 0.05 | Taizhou | |||
| 2001 | −0.078 | 0.05 | Jiaxing | |||
| 2002 | 0.243 | 0.05 | Jiaxing | Hangzhou * | ||
| 2003 | 0.192 | 0.05 | Ningbo | |||
| 2004 | 0.236 | 0.01 | Ningbo | |||
| 2005 | 0.179 | 0.01 | Ningbo | |||
| 2006 | 0.068 | 0.01 | Ningbo | |||
| 2007 | 0.254 | 0.01 | Ningbo | |||
| 2008 | 0.221 | 0.05 | Ningbo | |||
| 2009 | 0.188 | 0.05 | Hangzhou | |||
| 2010 | 0.065 | 0.05 | Quzhou | |||
| 2011 | 0.022 | 0.05 | Taizhou | |||
| 2012 | 0.168 | 0.01 | Ningbo | |||
| 2013 | 0.343 | 0.05 | Ningbo | |||
| 2014 | 0.283 | 0.05 | Ningbo | |||
| 2015 | 0.187 | 0.05 | Ningbo | Hangzhou | ||
| 2016 | −0.051 | 0.05 | ||||
| 2017 | −0.267 | 0.05 | Hangzhou | |||
| 2018 | −0.083 | 0.05 | Hangzhou | |||
| 2019 | −0.165 | 0.05 | Hangzhou |
* p < 0.01.
Variables for the influencing factors of coupling coordination degree.
| Variable | First-Level Indicators | Second-Level Indicators | Description and References | Symbol |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | Coordinated development | Coupling coordination degree | Describe the coordinated development level of GEE and EWP |
|
| Independent variables | Urbanization | The proportion of the urban population | Urbanization level |
|
| Industrialization | The proportion of total industrial output value in GDP | Industrialization level |
| |
| Industrial structure | The proportion of the output value of the tertiary industry in GDP | The rationality of industrial structure and structural transformation and upgrading |
| |
| Government input | The proportion of local fiscal expenditure in GDP | Government support level |
| |
| Opening to the outside world | The actual utilization of foreign capital per capita | The logarithm of the actual utilization of foreign capital per capita |
| |
| Economic development | GDP per capita | Regional economic development level |
| |
| The square of GDP per capita | Examine its nonlinear relationship with the coordination degree |
| ||
| Innovation capacity | Patent applications per 10,000 people | Reflect regional innovation capabilities |
| |
| Internet development | Accounts per 10,000 people | Reflect the popularity of networking |
|
Tobit regression results.
| Var | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.00502 *** | 0.00645 *** | 0.0073415 *** | 0.00657 *** | 0.00728 *** | 0.00668 *** | 0.00870 *** |
| [0.000792] | [0.000699] | [0.0008217] | −0.000747 | [0.000830] | [0.001074] | [0.001171] | |
|
| −0.00139 *** | −0.0012709 *** | −0.00130 *** | −0.00115 *** | −0.00116 *** | −0.00115 *** | |
| [0.000158] | [0.0001671] | [0.000197] | [0.000211] | [0.000212] | [0.000220] | ||
|
| 0.0032431 ** | 0.00303 ** | 0.00322 ** | 0.00306 ** | 0.00455 ** | ||
| [0.0016138] | [0.001508] | [0.001499] | [0.001507] | [0.001571] | |||
|
| 0.00788 *** | 0.00817 *** | 0.00871 *** | 0.0071494 *** | |||
| [0.001692] | [0.001686] | [0.001792] | [0.0016285] | ||||
|
| −0.0000914 * | −0.000123 ** | −0.0001633 *** | ||||
| [0.000048] | [0.00006] | [0.00006] | |||||
|
| 0.00384 | −0.0021 | |||||
| [0.004383] | [0.011426] | ||||||
|
| 0.00051 | ||||||
| [0.000722] | |||||||
| cons | 0.391 *** | 0.509 *** | 0.742 *** | 0.730 *** | 0.696 *** | 0.716 *** | 0.870 *** |
| [0.046127] | [0.041821] | [0.1229662] | [0.095213] | [0.096083] | [0.098685] | [0.131002] | |
| var(e.d) | 0.0155 *** | 0.0114 *** | 0.0112 *** | 0.0104 *** | 0.0102 *** | 0.0102 *** | 0.0099 *** |
| [0.001488] | [0.001098] | [0.001077] | [0.001] | [0.000984] | [0.00098] | [0.000949] | |
| Log likely-hood | 141.80249 | 175.02862 | 177.02849 | 184.7094 | 186.50245 | 186.8854 | 190.94897 |
Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Tobit robustness test results.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.00687 *** | 0.00748 *** | 0.00847 *** | 0.00943 *** |
| (0.001131) | (0.000819) | (0.001156) | (0.000906) | |
|
| −0.00102 *** | −0.00107 *** | −0.00114 *** | −0.00118 *** |
| (0.000243) | (0.000210) | (0.000217) | (0.000178) | |
|
| 0.00285 * | 0.00315 * | ||
| (0.001486) | (0.001475) | |||
|
| 0.00799 *** | 0.00758 *** | 0.00706 *** | 0.00608 *** |
| (0.001860) | (0.001673) | (0.001604) | (0.001339) | |
|
| −0.000148 * | −0.0000926 * | −0.000165 ** | −0.000102 * |
| (0.000063) | (0.000047) | (0.000062) | (0.000047) | |
|
| −0.000272 | 0.00400 | ||
| (0.011513) | (0.011493) | |||
|
| 0.000380 | 0.000182 | ||
| (0.000724) | (0.000722) | |||
|
| −0.00172 ** | −0.00169 ** | −0.00165 * | −0.00157 * |
| (0.000648) | (0.000635) | (0.000639) | (0.000629) | |
|
| 0.00443 ** | 0.00438 ** | ||
| (0.001547) | (0.001529) | |||
| cons | 0.835 *** | 0.818 *** | 1.002 *** | 0.945 *** |
| (0.113842) | (0.104959) | (0.138773) | (0.124078) | |
| var(e.d) | 0.00980 *** | 0.00988 *** | 0.00958 *** | 0.00969 *** |
| (0.000944) | (0.000952) | (0.000920) | (0.000931) | |
| Log likelihood | 190.88721 | 190.00062 | 194.23315 | 192.95838 |
Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.