| Literature DB >> 35897387 |
Dan Yan1,2, Guoliang Chen3, Yu Lei1, Qi Zhou1, Chengjun Liu4, Fan Su1.
Abstract
Air pollution has caused adverse effects on the climate, the ecological environment and human health, and it has become a major challenge facing the world today. The Yangtze River Delta (YRD) is the region with the most developed economy and the most concentrated population in China. Identifying and quantifying the spatiotemporal characteristics and impact mechanism of air quality in this region would help in formulating effective mitigation policies. Using annual data on the air quality index (AQI) of 39 cities in the YRD from 2015 to 2018, the spatiotemporal regularity of the AQI is meticulously uncovered. Furthermore, a geographically weighted regression (GWR) model is used to qualify the geographical heterogeneity of the effect of different socioeconomic variables on the AQI level. The empirical results show that (1) the urban agglomeration in the YRD presents an air pollution pattern of being low in the northwest and high in the southeast. The spatial correlation of the distribution of the AQI level is verified. The spatiotemporal regularity of the "high clustering club" and the "low clustering club" is obvious. (2) Different socioeconomic factors show obvious geographically heterogeneous effects on the AQI level. Among them, the impact intensity of transportation infrastructure is the largest, and the impact intensity of the openness level is the smallest. (3) The upgrading of the industrial structure improves the air quality status in the northwest more than it does in the southeast. The impact of transportation infrastructure on the air pollution of cities in Zhejiang Province is significantly higher than the impact on the air pollution of other cities. The air quality improvement brought by technological innovation decreases from north to south. With the expansion of urban size, there is a law according to which air quality first deteriorates and then improves. Finally, the government should promote the upgrading of key industries, reasonably control the scale of new construction land, and increase the cultivation of local green innovative enterprises.Entities:
Keywords: AQI; Yangtze River Delta; geographically weighted regression; heterogeneity; spatiotemporal regularity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35897387 PMCID: PMC9331707 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Classification standards for the AQI.
| AQI Value | Classification | Air Quality Level |
|---|---|---|
| 0~50 | Level 1 | Excellent |
| 51~100 | Level 2 | Good |
| 101~150 | Level 3 | Light pollution |
| 151~200 | Level 4 | Moderate pollution |
| 201~300 | Level 5 | Heavy pollution |
| >300 | Level 6 | Serious pollution |
Definitions of the socioeconomic variables.
| Abbreviation | Variables |
|---|---|
| Ind | The ratio of the output value of the tertiary industry to that of the secondary industry |
| Tran | Road area |
| Inno | The number of patents authorized |
| City | Population |
| FDI | The actual use of foreign capital as a percentage of GDP |
Figure 1The monthly trend of the AQI value in the YRD from 2015 to 2018.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of the AQI level in the YRD from 2015 to 2018.
Figure 3Spatial trend distribution of the AQI in the YRD in 2015 and 2018.
Moran’s I of the AQI in the YRD, 2015–2018.
| Year | Moran’s I | Expectation Index | Z Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 0.5061 | −0.0263 | 5.5495 | 0.00 |
| 2016 | 0.4913 | −0.0263 | 5.4248 | 0.00 |
| 2017 | 0.5496 | −0.0263 | 5.9235 | 0.00 |
| 2018 | 0.5634 | −0.0263 | 6.1176 | 0.00 |
Figure 4Types of clustering of the AQI level in the YRD from 2015 to 2018.
Figure 5Spatial distribution of hot and cold spots in the YRD from 2015 to 2018.
Descriptive statistics of the explanatory variables.
| Variable | Mean | Std. Dev | Minimum | Maximum | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ind | 1.1027 | 0.3278 | 0.6465 | 2.3472 | 1.76 |
| Tran | 3661.615 | 3357.416 | 652 | 15,904 | 3.05 |
| Inno | 19,453.79 | 20,976.73 | 1097 | 92,460 | 3.12 |
| FDI | 0.0244 | 0.0173 | 0.0033 | 0.0855 | 1.03 |
| City | 537 | 274.38 | 149 | 1459 | 1.65 |
Parameter estimation and test results of the GWR model.
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Bandwidth | 2.462822 |
| Residual Squares | 8.343186 |
| Effective Number | 15.666475 |
| Sigma | 0.597965 |
| AICc | 93.114997 |
| R2 | 0.786072 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.651606 |
Calculation results of the GWR model.
| Variable | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Median | Std. Dev |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ind | −0.7164 | −0.0943 | −0.3899 | −0.3699 | 0.1805 |
| Tran | 0.136 | 0.701 | 0.4042 | 0.3699 | 0.1561 |
| Inno | −1.0685 | −0.021 | −0.3548 | −0.3065 | 0.2233 |
| FDI | 0.0576 | 0.4642 | 0.2129 | 0.1754 | 0.1241 |
| City | −0.15 | 0.5202 | 0.2245 | 0.2321 | 0.1814 |
Figure 6The spatial distribution of the regression coefficient for Ind.
Figure 7The spatial distribution of the regression coefficient for Tran.
Figure 8The spatial distribution of the regression coefficient for FDI.
Figure 9The spatial distribution of the regression coefficient for Inno.
Figure 10The spatial distribution of the regression coefficient for City.