| Literature DB >> 36011646 |
Jing Bian1,2, Feng Lan1,2, Yulin Zhou1,2, Zhenzhen Peng1,2, Mingfang Dong1.
Abstract
Extensive development leads to the decline of ecological well-being, and it is necessary to improve the urban ecological well-being performance (EWP). This paper adopted the Super-slack-based measure (Super-SBM) model to evaluate the EWP of 285 Chinese prefecture level cities from 2011 to 2017. The exploratory spatial data analysis method (ESDA) was used to explore the spatial and temporal evolution characteristics of the EWP, and then the spatial Durbin model (SDM) was adopted to analyze the driving factors of the EWP. The results show that the trend of the overall average EWP has experienced a stage evolution process of "upward → downward → upward". The urban EWPs have significant spatial agglomeration and path dependence. The economic development level and technological progress had the positive impacts on the EWP, and the urbanization level, economic extroversion and industrial structure had the negative impacts on the EWP. The result reveals that there was a "U-shaped" relationship existing between urbanization level and the EWP. The negative spatial spillover effect of urbanization level on the EWP was significant. The corresponding policy implications were put forward. This study will provide strategic guidance for policy makers to optimize and enhance the urban EWP.Entities:
Keywords: ecological well-being performance; spatial Durbin model; super-SBM model; sustainable development
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011646 PMCID: PMC9408040 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169996
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1China’s per capita energy gap from 1980 to 2019.
Figure 2The flowchart of the research methods used in this study.
Figure 3The evaluation indicator structure of the EWP.
The indicator descriptions of the EWP evaluation.
| Dimension | Criteria | Indicators | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input indicators | Ecological input | Per capita urban electricity consumption ( | Kwh |
| Per capita water consumption of residential use ( | Ton | ||
| Per capita built-up area ( |
| ||
| Output indicators | Well-being | Per capita GDP ( | Yuan |
| The number of students enrolled per | Person | ||
| The number of doctors per | Year | ||
| Environment pollutants | Per capita wastewater discharge ( | Ton | |
| Per capita SO2 ( | kg | ||
| Per capita soot /dust ( | kg |
Note: In order to negate the influence of inflation, the economic data of the GDP were normalized to that of 2011.
The definition of variables.
| Explanatory Variables | Definitions of Variables | Variable Abbreviation | Key References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic development level | Per capita GDP (104 yuan/person) | PGDP | [ |
| (Per capita GDP)2 | PGS | ||
| Urbanization level | The proportion of urban population to total urban population (%) | UR | [ |
| Urban compactness | The population density(Person/square kilometer) | PD | [ |
| Industrial structure | The proportion of added value of secondary industry to GDP (%) | IS | [ |
| Economic extroversion | The proportion of foreign direct investment on GDP (%) | FDI | [ |
| Urban greening level | Per capita urban green area (m2/person) | UG | [ |
| Technological progress | The proportion of science and technology investment on GDP (%) | TP | [ |
Figure 4The EWP in Chinese eastern, central, western region and whole China from 2011–2017.
Figure 5Spatial pattern of the urban EWP in 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2011–2017.
Moran’s I statistical values for the EWP of 285 Chinese cities from 2011 to 2017.
| Year | Moran’s I | Z Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 0.0869 | 0.0070 | 2.3557 |
| 2012 | 0.1419 | 0.0010 | 3.5734 |
| 2013 | 0.1032 | 0.0030 | 2.7583 |
| 2014 | 0.0885 | 0.0100 | 2.3945 |
| 2015 | 0.0210 | 0.2530 | 0.6357 |
| 2016 | 0.0178 | 0.2840 | 0.6055 |
| 2017 | 0.1290 | 0.0010 | 3.4757 |
| 2011–2017 | 0.0900 | 0.0060 | 2.4520 |
Figure 6Moran scatter plots of the EWP in 2011 (left) and 2017 (right).
The non-spatial panel model test results of the EWP.
| Statistic | Mixed Effect | Spatial Fixed | Time Fixed | Double-Fixed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted R2 | 0.1740 | 0.0508 | 0.1830 | 0.0576 |
|
| 0.0595 | 0.0172 | 0.0586 | 0.0168 |
| loglikfe | −11.4752 | 24.7052 | 2.5676 | 25.1069 |
| LM Lag | 71.1922 *** | 53.3217 *** | 72.0546 *** | 40.2838 *** |
| Robust LM Lag | 39.6311 *** | 11.1342 *** | 31.5794 *** | 6.5575 *** |
| LM Error | 131.0704 *** | 65.6392 *** | 126.7096 *** | 49.2843 *** |
| Robust LM Error | 99.5093 *** | 23.4518 *** | 86.2344 *** | 15.5580 *** |
Note: *** indicates significant level of 1%.
The spatial effect panel regression results of the EWP.
| Variables | SDM | SAR | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | T | Coefficients | T | Coefficients | T | |
| PGDP | 0.0174 *** | 3.6777 | 0.0084 ** | 2.1429 | 0.0106 ** | 2.5289 |
| PGS | 0.0222 *** | 3.6157 | 0.0249 *** | 4.6640 | 0.0254 *** | 4.4866 |
| UR | −0.0041 *** | −4.9031 | −0.0043 *** | −5.0739 | −0.0042 *** | −4.9428 |
| ln PD | 0.0460 | 0.7145 | 0.0231 | 0.3682 | 0.0343 | 0.5376 |
| IS | −0.0021 ** | −2.0816 | −0.0021 ** | −2.3939 | −0.0022 ** | −2.3868 |
| FDI | −0.0028 * | −1.9392 | −0.0026 * | −1.8408 | −0.0027 * | −1.9149 |
| UG | −0.0005 | −2.0442 | −0.0005 | −2.0198 | −0.0006 | −2.2200 |
| TP | 0.0597 *** | 4.9796 | 0.0564 *** | 4.8698 | 0.0585 *** | 4.94709 |
| −0.0257 *** | −3.110 | |||||
| −0.0029 | −0.2805 | |||||
| −0.0015 | −0.8384 | |||||
| −0.2228 | −1.4155 | |||||
| 0.0020 | 1.1574 | |||||
| 0.0032 | 1.2116 | |||||
| 0.0011 ** | 2.0626 | |||||
| 0.0290 | 1.3504 | |||||
|
| 0.0188 | 0.0191 | 0.0190 | |||
| R-squared | 0.7764 | 0.7724 | 0.7660 | |||
| Log-likehood | 1282.9770 | 1265.5207 | 1269.5204 | |||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Wald_spatial_lag | 30.2098 ** | 0.0355 | ||||
| LR_spatial_lag | 34.9126 ** | 0.0187 | ||||
| Wald_spatial_error | 22.9044 *** | 0.0035 | ||||
| LR_spatial_error | 26.9133 ** | 0.0134 | ||||
| Hausman test | −68.0646 *** | 0.0000 | ||||
Note: * indicates significant level of 10%; ** indicates significant level of 5%; *** indicates significant level of 1%.
The spatial spillover effect of the EWP.
| Variables | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | T | Coefficient | T | Coefficient | T | |
| PGDP | 0.0167 *** | 3.6381 | −0.0274 *** | −2.8400 | −0.0108 | −1.2248 |
| PGS | 0.0220 *** | 3.7379 | 0.0021 | 0.1711 | 0.0241 * | 1.9455 |
| UR | −0.0042 *** | −5.0343 | −0.0030 | −1.3533 | −0.0072 *** | −2.9001 |
| ln PD | 0.0381 | 0.6219 | −0.2616 | −1.3815 | −0.2235 | −1.1584 |
| IS | −0.0020 ** | −2.0481 | 0.0020 | 0.9272 | −0.00004 | −0.0197 |
| FDI | −0.0030 * | −1.8749 | 0.0032 | 0.9610 | 0.0006 | 0.1698 |
| UG | −0.0005 * | −1.9544 | 0.0012 * | 1.8744 | 0.0007 | 0.9750 |
| TP | 0.0203 | −5.0581 | −0.0595 * | 0.7982 | −0.0391 | −1.4223 |
Note: * indicates significant level of 10%; ** indicates significant level of 5%; *** indicates significant level of 1%.
The analysis results of robustness test.
| Variables | SDM | SLM | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficients | T | Coefficients | T | Coefficients | T | |
| PGDP | 0.0164 *** | 3.3192 | 0.0074 * | 1.8925 | 0.0095 ** | 2.2372 |
| PGS | 0.0239 *** | 3.9582 | 0.0257 *** | 4.7986 | 0.0263 *** | 4.6925 |
| UR | −0.0041 *** | −4.8689 | −0.0043 *** | −5.1489 | −0.004 *** | −5.0713 |
| ln PD | 0.0380 | 0.5962 | 0.0298 | 0.4722 | 0.0372 | 0.5850 |
| IS | −0.0015 ** | −1.5868 | −0.0020 * | −2.2145 | −0.0019 ** | −2.1001 |
| FDI | −0.0026 * | −1.7957 | −0.0026 * | −1.8719 | −0.0027 * | −1.8616 |
| UG | −0.0004 | −1.6258 | −0.0005 | −2.0074 | −0.0005 | −2.0798 |
| TP | 0.0577 *** | 4.9013 | 0.0565 *** | 4.8537 | 0.0585 *** | 4.9841 |
| −0.0164 *** | −2.7416 | |||||
| −0.0030 | −0.3334 | |||||
| −0.0009 | −0.5931 | |||||
| −0.1382 | −1.1232 | |||||
| 0.0004 | −0.2447 | |||||
| 0.0024 | 0.7403 | |||||
| 0.0008 ** | 1.9851 | |||||
| 0.0276 | 1.5969 | |||||
|
| 0.0190 | 0.0193 | 0.0192 | |||
| R-squared | 0.7738 | 0.7706 | 0.7660 | |||
| Log-likehood | 1274.9153 | 1260.6148 | 1263.5959 | |||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Wald_spatial_lag | 24.6256 *** | 0.0018 | ||||
| LR_spatial_lag | 28.6011 *** | 0.0004 | ||||
| Wald_spatial_error | 19.7626 ** | 0.0113 | ||||
| LR_spatial_lag | 22.6389 *** | 0.0039 | ||||
| Hausman_ test | −35.2411 *** | 0.0058 | ||||
Note: * indicates significant level of 10%; ** indicates significant level of 5%; *** indicates significant level of 1%.