| Literature DB >> 36078448 |
Binsen Chen1, Bin Zhao1, Yi Li1, Qiuyue Yu1, Bingjian Zhao2, Junyin Tan3, Chuanhao Wen4.
Abstract
The construction of ecological civilization plays an important role in realizing the harmonious coexistence between man and nature. The aims of this study were to explore the development of ecological civilization in China's top 10 river basins from 2004 to 2018 and construct an evaluation index system of ecological civilization. Factor analysis was used for the evaluation, and intergroup gap and panel regression analyses were utilized to determine the evolution of the spatiotemporal patterns and factors affecting the development level of ecological civilization in Chinese river basins. The results show that areas with a high level of ecological civilization development gradually spread to peripheral basins such as the Liaohe, Yellow, and Songhua River basins. The level of ecological civilization in China's watersheds is undergoing continuous development. The degree of opening up, forest cover, and education have markedly positive effects on the development of ecological civilization in the basins, whereas urban development and financial autonomy have significant negative effects. The results of this study provide new ideas for evaluating the level of ecological civilization construction, as well as a reference for the government to formulate policies related to the construction of ecological civilization in river basins.Entities:
Keywords: ecological civilization; factor analysis method; watershed
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078448 PMCID: PMC9518408 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710728
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study area.
Index system of watershed ecological civilization.
| First Grade Index | Second Index | Attribute | Unit | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic dimension | Water consumption of 10,000-yuan industrial added value | Negative | m3/million | Total water consumption of industrial enterprises above scale/added value of industrial enterprises above scale |
| Average water consumption per hectare of farmland irrigation | Positive | million m3/ha | Irrigation water consumption/crop planting area | |
| Proportion of water-saving irrigation area | Positive | % | Water-saving irrigation area/irrigation area | |
| Water savings per unit industrial enterprise | Positive | 10,000 m3/unit | Urban industrial water conservation/number of industrial enterprises above scale | |
| Society dimension | Proportion of the groundwater supply | Positive | % | supply amount of groundwater/total water supply quantity |
| Treatment rate of domestic sewage | Positive | % | Treatment rate of domestic sewage | |
| Ecological water supplement per capita | Positive | m3/person | Ecological water supplement/total population | |
| Reuse of actual water per unit | Positive | % | Urban industrial water reuse/actual urban planned water consumption | |
| Ecological dimension | Chemical oxygen demand emissions per million yuan GDP | Negative | ton/yuan | Chemical oxygen demand emissions/GDP |
| Ammonia nitrogen emissions per million yuan GDP | Negative | ton/yuan | Ammonia nitrogen emissions/GDP | |
| 10,000 yuan GDP wastewater discharge | Negative | ton/yuan | Wastewater emissions/GDP | |
| Unit added value of industry water conservation and ecological water conservancy investment | Positive | % | Investment in water conservation and ecological water conservancy/value added of industrial enterprises above scale | |
| Cultural dimension | Number of national water-saving cities | Positive | law of individual variance | Number of national water-saving cities |
| National Water Conservancy Scenic Area | Positive | law of individual variance | National Water Conservancy Scenic Area | |
| Proportion of wetland area in the area of jurisdiction | Positive | % | Wetland area/urban area | |
| Political dimension | Water resources utilization ratio | Positive | % | Water resources utilization ratio |
| Proportion of environmental pollution control investment in GDP | Positive | % | Environmental pollution control investment/GDP | |
| New proportion of soil erosion control area per unit area of jurisdiction | Positive | % | Increased soil erosion control area/jurisdiction area | |
| Total investment of 10,000 yuan GDP central water conservancy construction plan | Positive | % | Central Water Conservancy Project Investment Total/GDP |
Figure 2The framework of study.
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s tests.
| Sample Sufficient Degree of KMO Metrics | 0.669 | |
|---|---|---|
| Bartlett’s spherical test | Approximate chi-square | 4380.380 |
| df | 171 | |
| Sigma | 0.000 |
Factor variance contribution rates.
| Factor | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variance | 4.309 | 2.462 | 2.309 | 1.856 | 1.397 | 1.069 | 1.025 |
| Variance contribution rate | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Cumulative contribution rate | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.48 | 0.58 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.76 |
Factor scoring coefficient matrix.
| First Grade Index | Second Index | Factor | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | ||
| Economic dimension | Water consumption of 10,000-yuan industrial added value | 0.264 | 0.123 | −0.163 | 0.166 | −0.015 | −0.297 | −0.223 |
| Average water consumption per hectare of farmland irrigation | 0.025 | −0.347 | −0.004 | 0.191 | 0.044 | 0.066 | 0.095 | |
| Proportion of water-saving irrigation area | 0.065 | 0.130 | 0.030 | −0.018 | 0.042 | 0.089 | −0.013 | |
| Water saving per unit industrial enterprise | −0.027 | 0.018 | −0.005 | 0.017 | −0.022 | 0.065 | 0.113 | |
| Society dimension | Proportion of groundwater supply | −0.039 | 0.205 | 0.007 | 0.080 | 0.554 | 0.050 | 0.247 |
| Treatment rate of domestic sewage | 0.176 | 0.050 | −0.037 | −0.025 | −0.106 | 0.117 | −0.270 | |
| Ecological water supplement per capita | 0.000 | 0.304 | −0.005 | −0.125 | 0.064 | −0.058 | 0.142 | |
| Reuse of actual water per unit | −0.018 | 0.002 | −0.076 | −0.052 | −0.100 | 0.828 | −0.028 | |
| Ecological dimension | Chemical oxygen demand emissions per million yuan GDP | 0.462 | −0.263 | −0.001 | −0.007 | −0.001 | −0.209 | 0.397 |
| Ammonia nitrogen emissions per million yuan GDP | 0.202 | 0.036 | −0.031 | −0.042 | 0.031 | −0.012 | −0.031 | |
| 10,000 yuan GDP wastewater discharge | −0.088 | 0.033 | 0.023 | −0.070 | 0.025 | 0.177 | 0.356 | |
| Added value of unit industry water conservation and ecological water conservancy investment | −0.058 | 0.121 | 0.024 | 0.058 | −0.495 | 0.137 | 0.318 | |
| Cultural dimension | Number of national water−saving cities | 0.053 | 0.033 | −0.028 | 0.033 | 0.033 | −0.005 | −0.073 |
| National Water Conservancy Scenic Area | 0.020 | −0.022 | 0.011 | 0.012 | −0.143 | 0.026 | 0.012 | |
| Proportion of wetland area in the area of the jurisdiction | 0.095 | −0.068 | 0.816 | −0.601 | 0.172 | 0.227 | −0.116 | |
| Political dimension | Water resources utilization ratio | 0.017 | 0.177 | 0.076 | 0.105 | 0.029 | −0.019 | −0.216 |
| Proportion of environmental pollution control investment in GDP | −0.055 | 0.159 | 0.060 | 0.069 | 0.010 | 0.096 | −0.046 | |
| New proportion of soil erosion control area per unit area of the jurisdiction | −0.011 | −0.015 | 0.261 | 0.436 | −0.087 | 0.038 | −0.102 | |
| Total investment of 10,000 yuan GDP in central water conservancy construction plans | −0.166 | −0.012 | 0.234 | 0.529 | −0.089 | −0.250 | 0.200 | |
Comprehensive scores and rankings of ecological civilization in ten river basins in China.
| Watershed | 2004 | 2008 | 2013 | 2018 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score | Rank | Score | Rank | Score | Rank | Score | Rank | |
| Haihe River | 0.37321 | 1 | 0.41250 | 1 | 0.42729 | 1 | 0.43651 | 1 |
| Liao River | 0.31006 | 2 | 0.35217 | 2 | 0.38562 | 2 | 0.42169 | 2 |
| Huaihe River | 0.28910 | 3 | 0.34416 | 3 | 0.36687 | 3 | 0.38367 | 5 |
| Songhua River | 0.27613 | 4 | 0.33082 | 5 | 0.34850 | 5 | 0.39635 | 3 |
| Yellow River | 0.27475 | 5 | 0.33644 | 4 | 0.36588 | 4 | 0.39112 | 4 |
| Rivers in southeastern China | 0.21886 | 6 | 0.25896 | 6 | 0.27296 | 8 | 0.28765 | 9 |
| Rivers in the northwestern China | 0.21886 | 7 | 0.25421 | 8 | 0.27193 | 9 | 0.31364 | 7 |
| Yangtze River | 0.18095 | 8 | 0.25428 | 7 | 0.28859 | 6 | 0.31855 | 6 |
| Zhujiang River | 0.15451 | 9 | 0.23275 | 9 | 0.28098 | 7 | 0.31233 | 8 |
| Rivers in southwestern China | 0.06182 | 10 | 0.07575 | 10 | 0.08089 | 10 | 0.09564 | 10 |
Figure 3Spatial distribution of the ecological civilization level in Chinese river basins in 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2018.
Figure 4Variation in the standard deviation of ecological civilization in Chinese watersheds.
Figure 5Variation in the coefficient of ecological civilization in Chinese watersheds.
Unit root test.
| Variable | LLC | ADF | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y | −4.2986 *** | P61.7565 *** | Z-4.9235 *** |
| L *-5.1794 *** | Pm6.6023 *** | ||
| LnX1 | −6.8159 *** | P47.4533 *** | Z-3.7415 *** |
| L *-3.8270 *** | Pm4.3407 *** | ||
| LnX2 | −6.8467 *** | P50.9162 *** | Z-4.2171 *** |
| L *-4.2427 *** | Pm4.8883 *** | ||
| LnX3 | −17.0669 *** | P42.7412 *** | Z-3.4789 *** |
| L *-3.4288 *** | Pm3.5957 *** | ||
| LnX4 | −2.2495 ** | P48.8862 *** | Z-3.5860 *** |
| L *-3.6286 *** | Pm4.5673 *** | ||
| LnX5 | −13.4728 *** | P49.5265 *** | Z-3.9259 *** |
| L *-4.0159 *** | Pm4.6685 *** | ||
*, **, and *** are significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.
Cointegration test.
| Statistic | Test |
|---|---|
| Modified Phillips–Perron t | 3.4924 *** |
| Phillips–Perron t | −3.5673 *** |
| Augmented Dickey–Fuller t | −4.1899 *** |
*, **, and *** are significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.
Model test results.
| Project | Mixed OLS | Fixed Effects | Random Effects | Generalized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-test | 80.56 *** | |||
| Hausman test | 10.22 | |||
| Modified Wald test for groupwiseheteroscedasticity | 166.57 *** | |||
| Wooldridge test forautocorrelation in panel data | 10.797 *** | |||
| LM simultaneous correlation test between groups | 166.712 *** | |||
*, **, and *** are significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.
Regression results of the models.
| Mixed OLS Model | Random Effect Model | Fixed Effect Model | Comprehensive FGLS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
| LnX1 | 0.0174 *** | 0.0058 * | 0.0049 | 0.0091 *** |
| (4.01) | (1.68) | (1.42) | (13.07) | |
| LnX2 | 0.2729 *** | 0.2233 *** | 0.1899 *** | −0.1212 *** |
| (17.14) | (13.82) | (9.96) | (−12.33) | |
| LnX3 | −0.0667 *** | −0.0154 | −0.0009 | 0.0198 *** |
| (−9.34) | (−1.46) | (−0.08) | (7.83) | |
| LnX4 | −0.1051 *** | −0.0730 ** | −0.1094 *** | 0.0167 * |
| (−6.80) | (−2.38) | (−3.23) | (1.91) | |
| LnX5 | −0.0195 | −0.0701 *** | −0.0997 *** | −0.0338 *** |
| (−0.87) | (−3.72) | (−4.8) | (−6.44) | |
| R-squared | 0.8370 | 0.7451 | 0.7772 | - |
| F-statistic | - | - | 80.56 *** | - |
| Wald | - | 465.79 *** | - | 91,638.94 *** |
| Observed Value | 150 | 150 | 150 | 150 |
*, **, and *** are significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.