| Literature DB >> 35742232 |
Hua Guo1, Fan Gu1, Yanling Peng1, Xin Deng1, Lili Guo1.
Abstract
Agricultural green development is increasingly being discussed in sustainable development. This paper constructs agricultural green development from four dimensions: resource savings, environmental protection, ecological conservation, and quality industrialization. We apply the entropy-weighted Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method to measure agricultural green development and employ a panel dataset of provinces in China from 2011-2019. Then, the dynamic spatial Durbin model is adopted to estimate the spatial effect of digital inclusive finance on agricultural green development. The main findings are as follows: (1) digital inclusive finance effectively promotes agricultural green development, and the promotional effect shows temporary and spatial spillover; (2) regional heterogeneity exists in the spatial effect in the short and long term; and (3) education, digital infrastructure, and traditional finance are important factors influencing this spatial effect of digital inclusive finance on agricultural green development.Entities:
Keywords: China; agricultural green development; digital inclusive finance; dynamic spatial Durbin model; entropy-weighted TOPSIS method; sustainable development
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742232 PMCID: PMC9223100 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19126982
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
The system of the agricultural green development index.
| agricultural green development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| resource savings | multiple cropping index of cropland | % | + | improve the intensity of land resource utilization | 1.253 | 0.376 | |
| water saving irrigation cropland ratio | % | + | improve the utilization intensity of water resources | 0.291 | 0.231 | ||
| land labor ratio | ha/num | + | increase labor input intensity | 5.833 | 3.278 | ||
| use intensity of agricultural machinery | kw/ha | + | improve resource utilization intensity | 8.154 | 3.566 | ||
| environmental protection | use intensity of pesticide | kg/ha | − | reduce pesticide use intensity | 15.316 | 12.540 | |
| use intensity of chemical fertilizer | kg/ha | − | reduce the use intensity of chemical fertilizer | 462.284 | 212.737 | ||
| use intensity of diesel | kg/ha | − | reduce agricultural waste discharge | 210.862 | 208.644 | ||
| use intensity of plastic film | kg/ha | − | reduce agricultural waste discharge | 23.247 | 16.974 | ||
| ecological conservation | area ratio of nature reserves | % | + | strengthen the protection of natural ecological environment | 0.117 | 0.122 | |
| area ratio of wetland | % | + | strengthen wetland environmental protection | 0.086 | 0.124 | ||
| forest coverage | % | + | improve ecological conservation | 0.328 | 0.180 | ||
| quality industrialization | amount of green food labeling enterprises per unit cropland area | num/10,000 ha | + | improve the industrialization of green agriculture | 0.576 | 1.588 | |
| amount of green food labeling products per unit cropland area | num/10,000 ha | + | improve the brand quality of green agricultural products | 1.194 | 2.648 | ||
| agricultural income per unit cropland area | 10,000 yuan/ha | + | increase farmers’ agricultural income | 4.837 | 2.589 |
Descriptive statistics of variables.
| Variable | Means | S.D. | C·V | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.428 | 0.064 | 0.150 | 0.318 | 0.751 |
|
| 5.143 | 0.679 | 0.132 | 2.786 | 6.017 |
|
| 0.115 | 0.033 | 0.287 | 0.041 | 0.203 |
|
| 0.030 | 0.010 | 0.333 | 0.012 | 0.068 |
|
| 0.207 | 0.113 | 0.546 | 0.016 | 0.900 |
|
| 0.234 | 0.280 | 1.197 | 0.005 | 1.441 |
|
| 0.151 | 0.117 | 0.775 | 0.000 | 0.618 |
|
| 0.135 | 0.073 | 0.541 | 0.024 | 0.505 |
|
| 0.222 | 0.112 | 0.505 | 0.000 | 0.596 |
|
| 0.472 | 0.127 | 0.269 | 0.188 | 0.814 |
Variable stationarity test.
| Variable | LLC | IPS |
|---|---|---|
|
| −35.464 *** | −10.001 *** |
|
| −20.414 *** | −14.657 *** |
|
| −18.212 *** | −4.381 *** |
|
| −12.799 *** | −1.558 *** |
|
| −24.460 *** | −5.678 *** |
|
| −27.708 *** | −9.875 *** |
|
| −16.073 *** | −3.770 *** |
Notes: *** denote statistical significance levels at 1%.
Global Moran’s I index of digital inclusive finance and agricultural green development.
| Year |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 0.220 *** | 0.217 *** |
| 2012 | 0.290 *** | 0.267 *** |
| 2013 | 0.239 *** | 0.261 *** |
| 2014 | 0.275 *** | 0.272 *** |
| 2015 | 0.267 *** | 0.251 *** |
| 2016 | 0.285 *** | 0.262 *** |
| 2017 | 0.328 *** | 0.288 *** |
| 2018 | 0.273 *** | 0.315 *** |
| 2019 | 0.256 *** | 0.320 *** |
Notes: *** denote statistical significance levels at 1%.
Figure 1Local Moran’s I index of digital inclusive finance and agricultural green development.
The results of the dynamic spatial Durbin model.
| Pool | Subsample | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | East | Middle | West | ||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ||
|
| 1.157 *** | 0.904 *** | 0.957 *** | 1.352 *** | |
| (0.015) | (0.038) | (0.022) | (0.032) | ||
| short-term | Direct effect | 0.189 *** | 0.556 *** | 0.635 *** | 0.284 *** |
| (0.036) | (0.140) | (0.092) | (0.069) | ||
| Indirect effect | 1.040 *** | 1.527 *** | 1.587 * | 0.886 * | |
| (0.124) | (0.268) | (0.207) | (0.403) | ||
| Total effect | 1.229 *** | 2.083 *** | 2.222 *** | 1.070 *** | |
| (0.125) | (0.328) | (0.235) | (0.457) | ||
| long-term | Direct effect | 0.117 | 0.067 *** | 0.014 ** | 0.051 |
| (0.641) | (0.067) | (0.017) | (0.057) | ||
| Indirect effect | 0.783 | 0.312 | 0.048 | 0.062 | |
| (0.083) | (0.068) | (0.048) | (0.062) | ||
| Total effect | 0.056 | 0.146 ** | 0.249 | 1.079 | |
| (0.031) | (0.063) | (0.027) | (0.196) | ||
| Control variables | Yes | ||||
|
| 0.277 *** | 0.192 *** | 0.058 *** | 0.543 *** | |
|
| 0.987 | 0.995 | 0.998 | 0.932 | |
|
| 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | |
| L-L | 249.700 | 233.500 | 378.200 | 272.400 | |
Notes: represents the one-period lag of agricultural green development. t statistics in parentheses. represents the spatial autoregressive coefficient. L-L represents the log likelihood estimator. *, ** and *** denote statistical significance levels at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
The results of the moderating effect model.
| Education | Digital Infrastructure | Traditional Finance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | ||
|
| 1.144 *** | 1.177 *** | 1.151 *** | |
| (0.015) | (0.015) | (0.015) | ||
| short-term | Direct effect | 0.008 ** | 0.006 ** | −0.002 ** |
| (0.003) | (0.003) | (0.003) | ||
| Indirect effect | 0.014 | 0.007 * | −0.005 * | |
| (0.001) | (0.004) | (0.003) | ||
| Total effect | 0.007 ** | 0.007 * | −0.006 ** | |
| (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.003) | ||
| long-term | Direct effect | 0.029 ** | 0.020 ** | 0.004 * |
| (0.006) | (0.034) | (0.184) | ||
| Indirect effect | 0.016 | 0.008 * | 0.018 | |
| (0.003) | (0.035) | (0.185) | ||
| Total effect | 0.015 ** | 0.013 * | 0.014 * | |
| (0.007) | (0.006) | (0.007) | ||
| Control variables | Yes | |||
|
| 0.231 *** | 0.223 *** | 0.203 *** | |
|
| 0.937 | 0.933 | 0.940 | |
|
| 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | |
| L-L | 261.040 | 226.274 | 260.835 | |
Notes: represents the one-period lag of agricultural green development. t statistics in parentheses. represents the spatial autoregressive coefficient. L-L represents the log likelihood estimator. *, ** and *** denote statistical significance levels at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
Robustness test results for the dynamic spatial Durbin model.
| Pool | Subsample | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | East | Middle | West | ||
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ||
|
| 1.113 *** | 1.055 *** | 0.994 *** | 1.582 *** | |
| (0.015) | (0.036) | (0.022) | (0.039) | ||
| short-term | Direct effect | 0.154 *** | 0.266 *** | 0.432 *** | 0.268 *** |
| (0.034) | (0.152) | (0.168) | (0.207) | ||
| Indirect effect | 0.923 *** | 1.112 *** | 1.688 * | 0.187 * | |
| (0.163) | (0.386) | (0.446) | (0.060) | ||
| Total effect | 1.077 *** | 1.544 *** | 1.954 *** | 1.404 *** | |
| (0.159) | (0.458) | (0.588) | (0.587) | ||
| long-term | Direct effect | 0.126 | 0.451 *** | 0.329 ** | 0.151 |
| (0.007) | (0.161) | (0.451) | (0.413) | ||
| Indirect effect | 0.045 | 0.121 | 0.047 | 0.019 | |
| (0.004) | (0.121) | (1.120) | (0.019) | ||
| Total effect | 0.103 | 0.246 ** | 1.679 | 0.133 | |
| (0.339) | (0.093) | (1.234) | (0.204) | ||
| Control variables | Yes | ||||
|
| 0.297 *** | 0.358 *** | 0.513 *** | 0.478 *** | |
|
| 0.989 | 0.994 | 0.895 | 0.989 | |
|
| 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | |
| L-L | 280.400 | 242.612 | 292.641 | 218.600 | |
Notes: represents the one-period lag of agricultural green development. t statistics in parentheses. represents the spatial autoregressive coefficient. L-L represents the log likelihood estimator. *, ** and *** denote statistical significance levels at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
Robustness test results of the moderating effect model.
| Education | Digital Infrastructure | Traditional Finance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | ||
|
| 1.050 *** | 1.130 *** | 1.153 *** | |
| (0.015) | (0.015) | (0.015) | ||
| short-term | Direct effect | 0.006 ** | 0.004 ** | −0.002 ** |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | ||
| Indirect effect | 0.011 | 0.002 * | −0.005 * | |
| (0.004) | (0.003) | (0.003) | ||
| Total effect | 0.005 ** | 0.002 * | −0.006 ** | |
| (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.003) | ||
| long-term | Direct effect | 0.023 ** | 0.012 ** | 0.011 * |
| (0.711) | (0.004) | (0.004) | ||
| Indirect effect | 0.030 | 0.007 * | 0.027 | |
| (0.710) | (0.006) | (0.002) | ||
| Total effect | 0.013 ** | 0.005 * | 0.013 * | |
| (0.011) | (0.009) | (0.007) | ||
| Control variables | Yes | |||
|
| 0.249 *** | 0.191 *** | 0.213 *** | |
|
| 0.955 | 0.953 | 0.943 | |
|
| 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.001 *** | |
| L-L | 368.823 | 326.840 | 279.574 | |
Notes: represents the one-period lag of agricultural green development. t statistics in parentheses. represents the spatial autoregressive coefficient. L-L represents the log likelihood estimator. *, ** and *** denote statistical significance levels at 10%, 5% and 1%, respectively.