| Literature DB >> 35886238 |
Lili Guo1, Yuting Song1, Mengqian Tang1, Jinyang Tang1, Bright Senyo Dogbe1, Mengying Su2, Houjian Li1.
Abstract
Concern for environmental issues is a crucial component in achieving the goal of sustainable development of humankind. Different countries face various challenges and difficulties in this process, which require unique solutions. This study investigated the relationship between land transfer, fertilizer usage, and PM2.5 pollution in rural China from 2000 to 2019, considering their essential roles in agricultural development and overall national welfare. A cross section dependence test, unit root test, and cointegration test, among other methods, were used to test the panel data. A Granger causality test was used to determine the causal relationship between variables, and an empirical analysis of the impulse response and variance decomposition was carried out. The results show that the use of chemical fertilizers had a significant positive impact on PM2.5 pollution, but the impact of land transfer on PM2.5 pollution was negative. In addition, land transfer can reduce the use of chemical fertilizers through economies of scale, thus reducing air pollution. More specifically, for every 1% increase in fertilizer usage, PM2.5 increased by 0.17%, and for every 1% increase in land transfer rate, PM2.5 decreased by about 0.07%. The study on the causal relationship between land transfer, fertilizer usage, and PM2.5 pollution in this paper is helpful for exploring environmental change-they are supplements and innovations which are based on previous studies and provide policy-makers with a basis and inspiration for decision-making.Entities:
Keywords: PM2.5 pollution; fertilizer usage; land transfer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35886238 PMCID: PMC9323440 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19148387
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Distribution of mean PM2.5 of each province. Note: Data source is the Atmospheric Composition Analysis Group of Washington University.
Descriptive statistics of variables of interest.
| Count | Mean | Std | Min | 25% | 50% | 75% | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| perfertilizer | 600 | 0.47 | 0.40 | 0.08 | 0.27 | 0.44 | 0.58 | 4.15 |
| landtransferate | 450 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.24 | 0.93 |
| PM2.5 | 570 | 47.28 | 17.18 | 15.40 | 34.50 | 46.80 | 59.55 | 112.70 |
| Lnperfertilizer | 600 | −0.95 | 0.62 | −2.55 | −1.30 | −0.82 | −0.54 | 1.42 |
| Lnlandtransferate | 450 | −2.27 | 1.10 | −4.96 | −2.90 | −2.07 | −1.41 | −0.08 |
| LnPM2.5 | 570 | 3.78 | 0.40 | 2.73 | 3.54 | 3.85 | 4.09 | 4.72 |
Figure 2Study content and methodology framework.
Cross-sectional dependence test results.
| Test | Statistic | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| Breusch–Pagan LM | 2756.0190 | 0.0000 *** |
| Pesaran scaled LM | 78.6899 | |
| Pesaran CD | 47.3619 |
Note: *** is significant at the level of 1%. The cross-sectional dependence test results in the third column of the table are all 1% significant.
Panel unit root tests results.
| Variables | Level | First-Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Intercept and Trend | Intercept | Intercept and Trend | |
| LLC test | ||||
| LnPM2.5 | 0.0215 | 0.2195 | 0.0000 *** | 0.0000 *** |
| Lnfertilizer | 0.0000 | 1.0000 | ||
| Lnlandtransferate | 0.2869 | 0.7774 | ||
| Im, Pesaran, and Shin test | ||||
| LnPM2.5 | 0.0030 | 0.9886 | ||
| Lnfertilizer | 0.1394 | 1.0000 | ||
| Lnlandtransferate | 0.2952 | 0.9454 | ||
| ADF-Fisher Chi-square test | ||||
| LnPM2.5 | 0.0001 | 0.4311 | ||
| Lnfertilizer | 0.2152 | 1.0000 | ||
| Lnlandtransferate | 0.7871 | 0.9947 | ||
| PP-Fisher Chi-square test | ||||
| LnPM2.5 | 0.0000 | 0.2686 | ||
| Lnfertilizer | 0.0194 | 1.0000 | ||
| Lnlandtransferate | 0.5854 | 0.9991 | ||
Note: *** is significant at the level of 1%. The results of the four panel unit root tests after the first difference are the same, and they are significant at the 1% level. LLC: Levin-Lin-Chu Test.
Kao’s residual panel cointegration test results (ADF).
| Null Hypothesis | Probability | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ADF | No co-integration | −1.8403 | 0.0329 ** |
Note: ** is significant at the level of 5%. ADF: augmented dickey–fuller test.
Figure 3Inverse roots of the PVAR characteristic polynomial. Note: the circle in the figure represents the unit circle.
The results of FMOLS, DOLS estimation techniques: full panel.
| Variables | Coefficient | Standard Error | Probability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMOLS | ||||
| LNPERFERTILIZER | 0.1672 | 0.0615 | 2.7184 | 0.0069 *** |
| LNLANDTRANSFERATE | −0.0723 | 0.0130 | −5.5514 | 0.0000 *** |
| DOLS | ||||
| LNPERFERTILIZER | 0.5841 | 0.1609 | 3.6297 | 0.0004 *** |
| LNLANDTRANSFERATE | −0.0869 | 0.0250 | −3.4839 | 0.0007 *** |
Note: *** is significant at the level of 1%. FMOLS: fully modified least squares. DOLS: dynamic least squares.
Pairwise Granger Causality Tests.
| Null Hypothesis | F-Statistic | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| LNPERFERTILIZER is not a cause of LNPM2.5 | 10.8216 | 0.0000 *** |
| LNPM2.5 is not a cause of LNPERFERTILIZER | 9.4480 | 0.0000 *** |
| LNLANDTRANSFERATE is not a cause of LNPM2.5 | 2.3823 | 0.0187 ** |
| LNPM2.5 is not a cause of LNLANDTRANSFERATE | 1.8407 | 0.0730 * |
| LNLANDTRANSFERATE is not a cause of LNPERFERTILIZER | 1.8220 | 0.0750 * |
| LNPERFERTILIZER is not a cause of LNLANDTRANSFERATE | 2.3372 | 0.0203 ** |
Note: *** is significant at the level of 1%, ** is significant at the level of 5%, and * is significant at the level of 10%.
Variance decomposition result.
| Period | Standard Error | LNPM2.5 | LNPERFERTILIZER | LNLANDTRANSFERATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variance Decomposition of LNPM2.5 | ||||
| 1 | 0.115135 | 100.0000 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 2 | 0.139743 | 99.30975 | 0.016292 | 0.673959 |
| 3 | 0.164213 | 99.45920 | 0.040039 | 0.500763 |
| 4 | 0.183580 | 99.48060 | 0.099349 | 0.420056 |
| 5 | 0.200954 | 99.30485 | 0.194925 | 0.500228 |
| 6 | 0.216554 | 98.95226 | 0.306540 | 0.741204 |
| 7 | 0.230904 | 98.44637 | 0.422994 | 1.130635 |
| 8 | 0.244235 | 97.82241 | 0.534944 | 1.642641 |
| 9 | 0.256733 | 97.11040 | 0.636664 | 2.252931 |
| 10 | 0.268522 | 96.33659 | 0.724818 | 2.938590 |
| 11 | 0.279692 | 95.52227 | 0.797946 | 3.679785 |
| 12 | 0.290312 | 94.68443 | 0.855882 | 4.459684 |
| 13 | 0.300434 | 93.83634 | 0.899323 | 5.264339 |
| 14 | 0.310101 | 92.98815 | 0.929495 | 6.082354 |
| 15 | 0.319346 | 92.14754 | 0.947918 | 6.904544 |
| Variance Decomposition of LNPERFERTILIZER | ||||
| 1 | 0.169845 | 8.68 × 10−5 | 99.99991 | 0.000000 |
| 2 | 0.231111 | 0.019958 | 99.37400 | 0.606041 |
| 3 | 0.271837 | 0.014629 | 98.96764 | 1.017731 |
| 4 | 0.301632 | 0.013770 | 98.63929 | 1.346938 |
| 5 | 0.324492 | 0.021302 | 98.35129 | 1.627407 |
| 6 | 0.342535 | 0.037971 | 98.08514 | 1.876892 |
| 7 | 0.357054 | 0.064266 | 97.83485 | 2.100885 |
| 8 | 0.368905 | 0.100043 | 97.59800 | 2.301960 |
| 9 | 0.378686 | 0.145043 | 97.37364 | 2.481319 |
| 10 | 0.386829 | 0.198853 | 97.16129 | 2.639854 |
| 11 | 0.393660 | 0.260988 | 96.96058 | 2.778436 |
| 12 | 0.399426 | 0.330908 | 96.77104 | 2.898057 |
| 13 | 0.404321 | 0.408037 | 96.59211 | 2.999853 |
| 14 | 0.408496 | 0.491780 | 96.42313 | 3.085095 |
| 15 | 0.412074 | 0.581532 | 96.26332 | 3.155150 |
| Variance Decomposition of LNLANDTRANSFERATE: | ||||
| 1 | 0.284353 | 0.074641 | 37.79296 | 62.13239 |
| 2 | 0.387579 | 0.056880 | 35.21509 | 64.72803 |
| 3 | 0.451648 | 0.052132 | 33.42575 | 66.52212 |
| 4 | 0.496082 | 0.061876 | 31.91942 | 68.01871 |
| 5 | 0.528335 | 0.076144 | 30.60939 | 69.31446 |
| 6 | 0.552514 | 0.094534 | 29.45579 | 70.44968 |
| 7 | 0.571050 | 0.115456 | 28.44131 | 71.44323 |
| 8 | 0.585521 | 0.138153 | 27.55349 | 72.30836 |
| 9 | 0.596999 | 0.161883 | 26.78174 | 73.05637 |
| 10 | 0.606232 | 0.186067 | 26.11587 | 73.69807 |
| 11 | 0.613759 | 0.210215 | 25.54577 | 74.24402 |
| 12 | 0.619968 | 0.233930 | 25.06150 | 74.70457 |
| 13 | 0.625151 | 0.256899 | 24.65341 | 75.08969 |
| 14 | 0.629522 | 0.278881 | 24.31230 | 75.40882 |
| 15 | 0.633245 | 0.299700 | 24.02956 | 75.67074 |
Figure 4Impulse response plot for three variables. (a,b) are the graphs of the impulse response of PM2.5 to fertilizer and landtransferate, (c,d) are the graph of the impulse response of fertilizer to PM2.5 and landtransferate, (e,f) are the graph of the impulse response of landtransferate to PM2.5 and fertilizer. Note: red lines represent the upper and lower lines of the 95% confidence interval, blue line represents the impulse response function.