| Literature DB >> 35774569 |
Lin Yang1.
Abstract
Environmental regulation is a tool for teaching social and fiscal development that is carbon neutral. The highly polluting food industry in China is a threat to the country's long-term environmental stability and affects public health in a significant way. Therefore, this study investigates the effect of environmental parameters on environmental quality in China's food industry using the cross-sectionally augmented ARDL (CS-ARDL) model over the period of 2010 to 2019. We find that environmental regulations negatively and significantly impact environmental quality. The U-shape relationship exists between environmental regulation and environmental quality. Moreover, government expenditure on health and technological innovation reduces carbon emissions. The study's findings suggest new policy implications supporting the Porter Hypothesis. Finally, this paper offers policy suggestions for China's food industry to enhance its environmental performance.Entities:
Keywords: Porter Hypothesis; economic environmental regulations; environmental quality; government health expenditure; innovation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35774569 PMCID: PMC9238292 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.910643
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1China's health expenditure and CO2 emissions over the period of 2000-to 2019.
Figure 2Methodological frame work.
Descriptive statics.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 | CO2 emissions in (million tons) | 281.164 | 227.653 | 7.883 | 1168.105 |
| ER | Public-based regulation | 0.373 | 0.295 | 0.000 | 1.719 |
| HEXP | Government health expenditure | 409.73 | 237.34 | 128.20 | 880.19 |
| Innovation | Technical innovation | 16.387 | 29.478 | 0.069 | 195.828 |
| Structure | Industrial structure | 0.485 | 0.075 | 0.200 | 0.620 |
| TO | Foreign direct investment | 131.975 | 165.562 | 0.188 | 980.703 |
| CS | Capital structure | 7.061 | 10.369 | 0.003 | 54.157 |
| ES | Energy structure | 0.072 | 0.056 | 0.001 | 0.324 |
Results of CD and LM test.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| CO2 | 39.368*** | 13.300*** |
| ER | 13.120*** | 10.042*** |
| HEXP | 60.230*** | 19.988*** |
| Innovation | 67.593*** | 3.420*** |
| Structure | 73.131*** | 14.725*** |
| TO | 26.800*** | 0.188*** |
| CS | 15.742*** | 10.450*** |
| ES | 31.048*** | 6.398*** |
***1% significance level.
Unit root test.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| CO2 | −2.035 | −2.109 | −3.558*** | −3.750*** | I( |
| ER | −2.038 | −2.096 | −4.634*** | −4.641*** | I( |
| HEXP | −1.928 | −2.151 | −3.992*** | −4.311*** | I( |
| Innovation | −1.317 | −1.736 | −3.450*** | −3.597*** | I( |
| Structure | −2.057 | −2.067 | −4.784*** | −4.807*** | I( |
| TO | −1.809 | −2.236 | −4.148*** | −4.235*** | I( |
| CS | −1.458 | −2.361 | −3.032*** | −3.591*** | I( |
| ES | −1.519 | −1.625 | −3.340*** | −3.417*** | I( |
***represent 1, 5, and 10% significance levels.
Westerlund's (87) ECM-based approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −4.085*** | −16.193*** | −35.751*** | −4.085*** |
| 2 | −4.157*** | −17.834*** | −31.972*** | −4.157*** |
| 3 | −3.715*** | −17.933*** | −28.444*** | −3.715*** |
1, 5, and 10% significance levels represents the .
Augmented mean group.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| ER | −0.13***[2.44] | −0.080***[2.35] |
| (0.015) | (0.019) | |
| HEXP | −0.57***[4.32] | −0.34*** [4.60] |
| (0.000) | (0.002) | |
| Innovation | −0.415***[−1.87] | −0.262***[−1.94] |
| (−0.061) | (−0.052) | |
| Structure | 0.051**[2.19] | 0.030**[2.19] |
| (0.028) | (0.029) | |
| TO | 0.33***[1.64] | −0.820*[2.75] |
| (0.015) | (−0.019) | |
| CS | 0.44***[2.52] | −0.64*[2.65] |
| (0.001) | 0.001 | |
| ES | 0.41***[−1.87] | 0.0026***[−1.94] |
| −0.061 | −0.052 | |
| ECM(−1) | −0.634***[−13.91] | – |
| 0.002 | ||
| CD-statistics | 1.69 (0.0917) | |
| RMSE | 0.01 | |
| F-statistics | 2.05*** (0.000) |
1, 5, and 10% significance levels represents the .
Regional heterogeneity estimation results.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ER | −77.01*** | −3.15** | −8.53 |
| −19.58 | −1.246 | −6.607 | |
| Public Health | 34,916 | 44.41** | 3,843*** |
| −22,545 | −20.29 | −1,485 | |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES |
| Constant | 0.907*** | 0.928*** | −0.0101 |
| −0.149 | −0.156 | −0.0541 | |
| Wald test | 107.84 | 81.34 | 111.41 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Rho | 0.554 | 0.509 | 0.134 |
| −0.127 | −0.133 | −0.085 | |
| Log-likelihood | 55.16 | 46.96 | 208.69 |
| LR test | 57.03 | 51.44 | 8.24 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
1, 5, and 10% significance levels represents the .
Robust results OLS.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| ER | −1.512*** | −1.748*** |
| HEXP | −0.1985*** | −0.1054*** |
| Innovation | −0.0505*** | −0.082*** |
| Structure | 0.447*** | 0.356*** |
| TO | 0.088*** | 0.651*** |
| CS | 0.057*** | 0.064*** |
| ES | −0.573*** | −0.824*** |
| Cons. | 3.632*** | 3.435*** |
1, 5, and 10% significance levels represents the .
Pair-wise panel causality tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 | – | 1.360** | 0.136** | 0.260*** | 0.407* | 3.290** |
| – | (0.002) | (0.528) | (0.451) | (0.378) | (0.042) | |
| ER | 0.177* | – | 1.197** | 2.922* | 0.037*** | 0.580* |
| (0.086) | – | (0.181) | (0.051) | (0.656) | (0.387) | |
| HEXP | 0.709** | 4.335*** | – | 5.837 | 2.064* | 0.391** |
| (0.024) | (0.021) | – | (0.009) | (0.093) | (0.486) | |
| Innovation | 0.813* | 0.867** | 0.475* | – | 0.119** | 0.124* |
| (0.251) | (0.240) | (0.351) | – | (0.554) | (0.675) | |
| Structure | 0.162** | 4.353** | 1.898** | 0.898 | – | 3.578*** |
| (0.046) | (0.021) | (0.105) | (0.234) | – | (0.017) | |
| TO | 7.142* | 4.322*** | 0.143* | 3.571* | 2.292** | – |
| (0.001) | (0.038) | (0.660) | (0.017) | (0.078) | – |
***, .
Figure 3Pair-wise panel causality tests.