| Literature DB >> 36141465 |
Chuansheng Wu1, Yuyue Li1, Lingling Qi2.
Abstract
The contradiction between the endless pursuit of material possessions and finite natural resources hampers ecological well-being performance (EWP) improvement. Green transformation, recognized as an emerging strategy in sustainable development, can help to coordinate ecological, social, and economic growth by optimizing resource usage, with the ultimate objective of enhancing EWP. This research quantifies how green transformation influences EWP by using panel data from 78 prefecture-level cities in western China from 2012 to 2019. Using the super-SBM and entropy weight models, we assess the EWP and green transformation index (GTI) of 78 prefecture-level cities in western China. On this basis, we quantify the spatial characteristics of EWP by an analysis of the Theil index and spatial autocorrelation. Finally, we examine how GTI affects EWP using the Spatial Durbin model. The results demonstrate that the GTI can raise the EWP of local and nearby cities in western China. According to a GTI analysis of internal indicators, the industrial solid waste usage, harm-less treatment rate of domestic waste, savings level, and R&D expenditure significantly affect EWP. In contrast, the soot emission and consumption levels impede EWP advancement. The analysis of effect decomposition indicates that the sewage treatment rate, expenditure on science and technology, and green patents have a significant spatial spillover effect on the improvement of EWP.Entities:
Keywords: ecological well-being performance; green transformation; spatial econometrics; sustainable development
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141465 PMCID: PMC9517600 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811200
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The research framework for the impact of green transition on ecological welfare performance.
Figure 2Research areas.
Studies related to ecological well-being performance.
| Researcher | Method | Input Indicators | Output Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang S. et al. (2018) [ | Ratio method | Ecological footprint | HDI |
| Behjat A. et al. (2021) [ | Ratio method | Ecological footprint | HDI |
| Long X. et al. (2020) [ | Ratio method | 3D Ecological footprint | HDI |
| Bian J. et al. (2020) [ | Super-SBM | Water, land, energy, environmental pollutants | HDI |
| Hou J. et al. (2020) [ | Two-stage Super-SBM | Water, land, energy, capital | Economic well-being, social well-being, environmental well-being and pollution |
| Zhou L. et al. (2021) [ | Super-SBM | Water, land, energy | GDP, environmental pollution |
| Hu M. et al. (2021) [ | Network DEA | Water, land, energy | Economic well-being, social well-being, environmental well-being |
| Wang S. et al. (2021) [ | Super-SBM | Water, land, energy, capital, labor | Economic well-being, social well-being, environmental well-being and pollution |
| Wang R. and Feng Y. (2020) [ | Super-SBM | Water, land, energy, environmental pollution | HDI |
| Bian J. et al. (2020) [ | Super-SBM | Water, energy, capital, labor | HDI, environmental pollution |
Ecological well-being performance measurement index system.
| Category | Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Tertiary Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input | Natural resource | Water | Per capita water consumption |
| Land | Per capita urban construction land | ||
| Energy | Energy consumption per 10,000 yuan output value | ||
| Non-natural Resource | labor | Employed persons | |
| Capital | Per capita investment in fixed assets | ||
| Output | Economic well-being | Income | Per capita gross regional product |
| Social well-being | Education | Expected years of education | |
| Health | Physicians per 1000 people | ||
| Ecological well-being | Park | Per capita parks, green areas | |
| Green | The green coverage rate of built-up area |
Green transformation performance measurement indicator system.
| Target Layer | Criteria Layer | Index Layer | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmentally friendly trend | Environmental governance | Comprehensive utilization rate of industrial solids | + |
| Centralized sewage treatment rate | + | ||
| Harmless disposal rate of domestic waste | + | ||
| Pollutant emissions | Industrial sewage discharge per 10,000 yuan of emissions | − | |
| Industrial SO2 per 10,000 yuan of output value | − | ||
| Industrial soot emissions per ten thousand yuan of output | − | ||
| People’s livelihood improvement trend | Employment improvement | Registered unemployed persons in urban areas | + |
| Average wage of employed employees | + | ||
| Residents lives | Per capita household deposit savings | + | |
| Total retail sales of consumer goods per capita | + | ||
| Economic transformation trend | Technological development | R&D expenditures | + |
| Ratio of science and technology expenditure to fiscal expenditure | + | ||
| Number of green patent applications per 10,000 people | + |
Full name of variables.
|
|
|
| EFT | Environmentally friendly trend |
| PIT | People’s livelihood improvement trend |
| ETT | Economic transformation trend |
| ISW | Comprehensive rate of industrial solid waste utilization |
| ST | Centralized sewage treatment rate |
| DW | Harmless disposal rate of domestic waste |
| SD | Industrial sewage discharge emissions |
| SO2 | Industrial SO2 |
| IS | Industrial soot emissions |
| UP | Registered unemployed persons in urban areas |
| EW | Average wage of employed employees |
| HS | Per capita household deposit savings |
| CS | Total retail sales of consumer goods per capita |
| RD | R&D expenditures |
| SC | Ratio of science and technology expenditure to fiscal expenditure |
| GP | Green patents |
Figure 3(a) Average EWP 2012–2019; (b) Classification of EWP 2012–2019.
Figure 4(a) Average GTI, FFT, PLT, ETT 2012–2019; (b) Classification of GTI 2012–2019.
Figure 5Theil index and regional contribution rate 2012–2019.
Global Moran’s I of ecological well-being performance.
| Year | Moran’s I | Year | Moran’s I |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 0.177 *** | 2016 | 0.164 ** |
| 2013 | 0.134 ** | 2017 | 0.145 ** |
| 2014 | 0.134 ** | 2018 | −0.067 |
| 2015 | 0.058 * | 2019 | −0.014 |
Note: ***, **, * means that the statistics are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Figure 6(a) 2012 LISA clustering chart; (b) 2014 LISA clustering chart (c) 2016 LISA clustering chart; (d) 2019 LISA clustering chart.
Regression analysis results of the effect of GTI on EWP.
| Variable | OSL | SEM | SLM | SDM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFT | 0.498 *** | 0.489 *** | 0.479 *** | 0.474 *** |
| PIT | 0.230 * | 0.144 | 0.178 | 0.073 |
| ETT | −0.023 | 0.010 | −0.001 | 0.071 |
| W × EFT | 0.022 | |||
| W × PIT | 0.618 *** | |||
| W × ETT | −0.179 | |||
| ρ | 0.146 *** | 0.093 * | ||
| λ | 0.143 *** | |||
|
| 0.058 | 0.057 | 0.060 | 0.083 |
| Wald spatial lag | 7.13 *** | |||
| LR spatial lag | 13.09 *** | |||
| Wald spatial error | 14.43 *** | |||
| LR spatial error | 14.45 *** | |||
| Hausman test | 15.54 ** |
Note: ***, **, * means that the statistics are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Regression results of the internal structure of the impact of GTI on EWP.
| Variable | OSL | SEM | SLM | SDM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISW | 1.580 *** | 1.589 *** | 1.534 *** | 1.277 *** |
| ST | −0.863 | 3.608 ** | 3.390 * | 3.448 * |
| DW | 0.445 *** | 0.463 *** | 0.465 *** | 0.565 *** |
| SD | −0.354 | −0.499 * | −0.467 * | −0.285 |
| SO2 | 0.172 | −0.129 | −0.154 | −0.149 |
| IS | −9.568 *** | −20.597 *** | −20.057 *** | −16.868 *** |
| UP | −0.345 | −0.397 | −0.412 | −0.366 |
| EW | 0.511 ** | 0.665 ** | 0.625 ** | 0.495 |
| HS | 2.070 *** | 1.474 ** | 1.488 ** | 1.726 *** |
| CS | −1.030 ** | −0.653 | −0.682 | −0.823 * |
| RD | 0.323 ** | 0.324 ** | 0.331 ** | 0.317 ** |
| SC | −0.272 | −0.136 | −0.140 | −0.152 |
| GP | 0.832 | 4.251 * | 4.041 * | 3.371 |
| W × ISW | 0.514 | |||
| W × ST | 7.538 ** | |||
| W × DW | −0.158 | |||
| W × SD | 0.010 | |||
| W × SO2 | 0.133 | |||
| W × IS | −6.200 | |||
| W × UP | 0.013 | |||
| W × EW | 0.689 | |||
| W × HS | −0.800 | |||
| W × CS | 0.667 | |||
| W × RD | −0.101 | |||
| W × SC | 1.115 ** | |||
| W × GP | 15,468 *** | |||
| ρ | 0.054 | −0.045 | ||
| λ | −0.001 | |||
|
| 0.142 | 0.115 | 0.115 | 0.075 |
| Wald spatial lag | 27.69 *** | |||
| LR spatial lag | 29.16 *** | |||
| Wald spatial error | 30.60 *** | |||
| LR spatial error | 30.36 *** | |||
| Hausman test | 30.99 ** |
Note: ***, **, * means that the statistics are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Decomposition results from spatial effects.
| Variable | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISW | 1.280 *** | 0.457 | 1.737 ** |
| ST | 3.298 * | 6.960 ** | 10.259 *** |
| DW | 0.581 *** | −0.174 | 0.406 |
| SD | −0.289 | 0.063 | −0.226 |
| SO2 | −0.149 | 0.103 | −0.046 |
| IS | −16.595 *** | −5.308 | −21.903 ** |
| UP | −0.366 | 0.029 | −0.337 |
| EW | 0.477 | 0.640 | 1.117 *** |
| HS | 1.794 *** | −0.830 | 0.964 |
| CS | −0.851 * | 0.676 | −0.175 |
| RD | 0.371 ** | −0.112 | 0.205 |
| SC | −0.154 | 1.078 ** | 0.924 |
| GP | 3.097 | 14.981 *** | 18.079 *** |
Note: ***, **, * means that the statistics are significant at the levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively.