| Literature DB >> 36078408 |
Meili Tang1, Jia'ni Ding2, Haojia Kong3, Brandon J Bethel4, Decai Tang2.
Abstract
Along with the development of society and the deepening contradiction between economic growth and natural resources, green finance has attracted more and more attention. As an area of great strategic significance in China's modernization, the development of green finance can improve the quality of its ecological environment and find new economic growth points for it. Based on the index system of pressure state response and while considering the scientific nature and desirability of the indicators, this paper selects 12 indicators to construct an index system of eco-environmental quality. It uses the entropy method to calculate the level of eco-environmental quality. Then, three control variables are selected, and the difference-in-difference model is used for empirical analysis. It is found that green finance positively affects the ecological environment quality of the Yangtze River Delta. In addition, the level of opening to the outside world and the level of economic development also have a positive effect on the quality of the ecological environment to a certain extent. Still, the impact of industrial structure on it is negative. Therefore, this paper puts forward some suggestions for strengthening the disclosure of green financial information, paying attention to the concept of green development and strengthening regional cooperation and exchange to promote the development of green finance further and promote the coordination of economic development and ecological protection in the Yangtze River Delta.Entities:
Keywords: Yangtze River Delta; ecological environment quality; green finance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078408 PMCID: PMC9518592 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Yangtze River Delta map.
Index system of eco-environmental quality.
| Level Indicators | Secondary Index (Unit) | Logo | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure | Industrial wastewater discharge (ten thousand tons) | X1 | − |
| Industrial smoke emission (ten thousand tons) | X2 | − | |
| Sulfur dioxide emissions (ten thousand tons) | X3 | − | |
| Production of general solid waste (ten thousand tons) | X4 | − | |
| State | Water resources per capita (m3/person) | X5 | + |
| Per capita urban park area (m2/person) | X6 | + | |
| Road occupancy per capita (m2/person) | X7 | + | |
| Forest coverage rate (%) | X8 | + | |
| Green coverage rate of built-up area (%) | X9 | + | |
| Response | Urban domestic sewage treatment rate (%) | X10 | + |
| Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste (%) | X11 | + | |
| Harmless treatment rate of household garbage (%) | X12 | + |
Variable description.
| Variable Type | Indicator Name | Variable Interpretation | Abbreviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explained Variable | The level of ecological environment quality | The comprehensive index of ecological Environment quality | EQ |
| Explanatory Variable | Green finance | The investment amount in industrial pollution control | GF |
| Control Variables | The level of foreign opening | The proportion of total imports and exports in GDP | OPEN |
| The level of economic development | GDP per capita | PGDP | |
| Industrial structure | The proportion of the added value of the secondary industry in GDP | STRU |
Descriptive statistics of eco-environmental quality index evaluation system.
| Indicator Name | Mean | Min | Max | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial wastewater discharge | 110,193.15 | 29,100.00 | 263,760.00 | 70,238.4926 |
| Industrial smoke emission | 30.77 | 0.78 | 92.66 | 22.82 |
| Sulfur dioxide emissions | 39.20 | 0.54 | 105.38 | 29.89 |
| Production of general solid waste | 7890.00 | 1789.00 | 16,571.00 | 4823.30 |
| Water resources per capita | 1029.35 | 89.10 | 2644.80 | 792.50 |
| Per capita urban park area | 12.07 | 6.97 | 15.34 | 2.73 |
| Road occupancy per capita | 16.76 | 4.04 | 25.62 | 7.72 |
| Forest coverage rate | 27.90 | 9.41 | 59.43 | 19.08 |
| Green coverage rate of built-up area | 40.07 | 36.20 | 43.50 | 1.86 |
| Urban domestic sewage treatment rate | 92.92 | 82.70 | 97.70 | 4.20 |
| Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solid waste | 91.55 | 79.83 | 99.01 | 4.72 |
| Harmless treatment rate of household garbage | 96.10 | 61.00 | 100.00 | 8.57 |
Descriptive statistics of each variable.
| Variables | Mean | Min | Max | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQ | 0.521 | 0.262 | 0.839 | 0.169 |
| GF | 12.49 | 10.86 | 13.61 | 0.758 |
| OPEN | 0.577 | 0.112 | 1.413 | 0.369 |
| PGDP | 80,272.909 | 21,923 | 156,803 | 33,617.098 |
| STRU | 0.432 | 0.266 | 0.528 | 0.073 |
Level of eco-environmental quality in the YRD.
| Year | Shanghai | Jiangsu | Zhejiang | Anhui | Mean Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 0.2768 | 0.3399 | 0.6930 | 0.4637 | 0.4433 |
| 2011 | 0.2618 | 0.3613 | 0.6292 | 0.4728 | 0.4313 |
| 2012 | 0.3036 | 0.3550 | 0.7463 | 0.4846 | 0.4724 |
| 2013 | 0.3014 | 0.4098 | 0.7132 | 0.5189 | 0.4858 |
| 2014 | 0.3230 | 0.4376 | 0.7531 | 0.5516 | 0.5164 |
| 2015 | 0.3408 | 0.4686 | 0.7936 | 0.5766 | 0.5449 |
| 2016 | 0.3578 | 0.4844 | 0.7847 | 0.6071 | 0.5585 |
| 2017 | 0.3611 | 0.4835 | 0.7427 | 0.5969 | 0.5461 |
| 2018 | 0.3539 | 0.4949 | 0.7688 | 0.6142 | 0.5579 |
| 2019 | 0.3632 | 0.4744 | 0.8387 | 0.5618 | 0.5595 |
| 2020 | 0.3885 | 0.5582 | 0.8301 | 0.6937 | 0.6176 |
| Mean value | 0.3302 | 0.4425 | 0.7540 | 0.5584 | 0.5212 |
Sorting out panel regression results.
| Variables | (1) | (2) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Std. Err. | Coefficient | Std. Err. | |
|
| 0.0237 | −0.1103 | 0.0324 ** | 0.0034 |
| GF | / | / | 0.0231 ** | 0.0213 |
| OPEN | / | / | 0.2091 ** | 0.0027 |
| PGDP | / | / | 0.0112 *** | 0.0000 |
| STRU | / | / | −0.689 * | 0.0913 |
| Constant | −0.542 | −0.172 | 0.322 | 0.0334 |
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Robustness test.
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. Err. |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.0337 | −0.2113 |
| GF | 0.0347 ** | −0.0113 |
| OPEN | 0.102 * | −0.0722 |
| PGDP | 0.121 *** | 0.000 |
| STRU | −0.522 | −0.153 |
| Constant | 0.126 | −0.2112 |
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.