| Literature DB >> 35682414 |
Yutian Liang1, Jiaxi Zhang1, Kan Zhou2.
Abstract
As a typical basin area in China, the Pearl River-Xijiang River Economic Belt (PRXREB) faces multiple types of environmental problems caused by the different development conditions of basins. To identify the situations of environmental pollution in the PRXREB, this paper constructed the Environment Pollution Composite Index (EPCI) by using four environmental pollutant emission indicators based on the entropy weight method, and explored the spatial effects and driving factors of environmental pollution by using the Spatial Error Model (SEM). The results showed that: (1) EPCI of the PRXREB decreased significantly from 2012 to 2016, and the spatial patterns were relatively stable. Wherein, the midstream and downstream were always the critical areas of environmental pollution. (2) Spatial spillover effects were significant in the PRXREB, which revealed that the local environmental pollution degree was affected by adjacent areas. (3) Industrial structure, infrastructure construction, and regulatory measures were the main driving factors of environmental pollution in the PRXREB. (4) To balance economic development and environmental protection in basin areas, environmental regulations such as environmental access, pollution payment, and cross-border early warning should be jointly established.Entities:
Keywords: environmental pollution; spatial effects; spatial error model; the Pearl River-Xijiang River Economic Belt (PRXREB)
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682414 PMCID: PMC9180618 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116833
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Location of the PRXREB.
Figure 2The driving mechanism of environmental pollution in the PRXREB.
Figure 3Changes in EPCI in different basins in the PRXREB.
Figure 4Spatial distribution of EPCI at the county scale in the PRXREB.
Figure 5Types of changes in hot spots in the PRXREB.
Parameter estimation results of spatial effects in 2012, 2016.
| Year | Test | The PRXREB | The Guangxi Section | The Guangdong Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Moran’s I (error) | 3.3944 *** | 2.6251 *** | −1.5360 * |
| LM-lag | 3.1192 * | 2.7508 * | 2.5600 * | |
| Robust LM (lag) | 0.1825 | 0.0502 | 0.0000 | |
| LM-Error | 7.4511 *** | 4.1499 ** | 3.9718 ** | |
| Robust LM (error) | 4.5144 ** | 1.4494 | 1.4118 | |
| 2016 | Moran’s I (error) | 2.8526 *** | 2.8740 *** | 0.0523 |
| LM-lag | 1.2418 | 3.3421 * | 0.3291 | |
| Robust LM (lag) | 2.0705 | 0.0017 | 0.0035 | |
| LM-Error | 2.0705 ** | 5.5644 ** | 0.4140 | |
| Robust LM (error) | 6.0304 *** | 5.5644 * | 0.0884 |
Notes: ***, ** and * indicate significance levels of 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1, respectively.
Parameter estimation results of econometric models in 2012 and 2016.
| Variables | 2012 | 2016 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | SEM | SLM | OLS | SEM | SLM | |
| CONSTANT | −12.6668 *** | −12.9131 *** | −11.3242 *** | −6.2156 * | −5.0494 *** | −5.5671 * |
| lnPGDP | 0.0155 | 0.1216 | −0.0301 | 0.3513 * | 0.4223 ** | 0.3141 * |
| lnIS | 0.9027 *** | 0.8587 *** | 0.8525 *** | 0.8454 *** | 0.8063 *** | 0.8411 *** |
| lnSFA | 0.4560 *** | 0.4582 *** | 0.4866 *** | −0.0331 * | −0.1764 | −0.1966 |
| lnSC | 0.1895 | 0.1398 | 0.1356 | 0.2946 ** | 0.2322 * | 0.2825 ** |
| lnFED | 0.2783 * | 0.2912 ** | 0.1355 * | 0.5523 *** | 0.6919 *** | 0.5005 *** |
|
| - | 0.3576 *** | - | - | 0.4006 *** | - |
|
| - | - | 0.2154 * | - | - | 0.1559 |
| AIC | 190.612 | 185.124 | 189.237 | 226.029 | 219.42 | 226.666 |
| SC | 205.125 | 199.637 | 206.169 | 240.542 | 233.933 | 243.598 |
| R-squared | 0.6208 | 0.6566 | 0.6401 | 0.4730 | 0.5334 | 0.4846 |
| Log-Likelihood | −89.3059 | −86.5618 | −87.6186 | −107.015 | −103.7099 | −106.333 |
Notes: ***, ** and * indicate significance levels of 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1, respectively.
Parameter estimation results of econometric models in the Guangxi section.
| Variables | 2012 | 2016 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | SEM | SLM | OLS | SEM | SLM | |
| CONSTANT | −15.4083 *** | −14.164 *** | −12.3648 *** | −5.9894 * | −4.8688 | −3.251 |
| lnPGDP | −0.1461 | 0.0711 | −0.0826 | 0.4957 * | 0.5676 ** | 0.5137 ** |
| lnIS | 0.8936 *** | 0.8583 *** | 0.9152 *** | 1.1580 *** | 0.9426 *** | 1.0953 *** |
| lnSFA | 0.8716 ** | 0.7250 ** | 0.7367 ** | −0.2851 ** | −0.2613 * | −0.2669 * |
| lnSC | 0.0448 | 0.0374 | 0.0337 | 0.4569 ** | 0.3839 ** | 0.3830 ** |
| lnFED | 0.2322 | 0.3809 | 0.3499 | 0.9538 ** | 1.0125 *** | 1.0572 *** |
|
| 0.4429 *** | 0.4369 *** | ||||
|
| 0.2808 ** | 0.333 *** | ||||
| AIC | 133.197 | 126.744 | 131.733 | 151.377 | 145.893 | 149.009 |
| SC | 145.131 | 138.678 | 145.656 | 163.31 | 157.827 | 162.931 |
| R-squared | 0.6203 | 0.6812 | 0.6512 | 0.5116 | 0.5819 | 0.5628 |
| Log-Likelihood | −60.5986 | −57.372 | −58.8666 | −69.6883 | −66.9464 | −67.5043 |
Notes: ***, ** and * indicate significance levels of 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1, respectively.
Parameter estimation results of econometric models in the Guangdong section.
| Variables | 2012 | 2016 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLS | SEM | SLM | OLS | SEM | SLM | |
| CONSTANT | −9.8021 *** | −10.3936 *** | −11.8562 *** | 1.8356 | 1.9802 | 1.7797 |
| lnPGDP | 0.0032 | −0.1189 | 0.0198 | 0.0858 | 0.0828 | 0.0906 |
| lnIS | 0.5594 *** | 0.5895 *** | 0.6512 *** | 0.1328 | 0.1122 | 0.1331 |
| lnSFA | 0.5211 ** | 0.5754 *** | 0.5551 *** | 0.1686 | 0.1846 | 0.1709 |
| lnSC | −0.0727 | −0.0196 | −0.0397 | −0.1766 | −0.1905 | −0.1772 |
| lnFED | 0.0773 | 0.0333 | 0.0619 | 0.7008 ** | 0.7099 *** | 0.7102 *** |
|
| −0.6015 *** | −0.079 | ||||
|
| −0.2575 | −0.0217 | ||||
| AIC | 46.3257 | 42.3899 | 46.6576 | 67.7198 | 67.6443 | 149.009 |
| SC | 54.5295 | 50.5937 | 56.2287 | 75.9236 | 75.848 | 162.931 |
| R-squared | 0.6043 | 0.6818 | 0.6320 | 0.5016 | 0.5036 | 0.5628 |
| Log-Likelihood | −17.1628 | −15.1949 | −16.3288 | −27.8599 | −27.8221 | −67.5043 |
Notes: *** and ** indicate significance levels of 0.01 and 0.05, respectively.