| Literature DB >> 36141973 |
Yang Zhou1,2,3, Hankun Wang4, Zuqiang Wang1,2,3, Xiang Dai5.
Abstract
Regionally coordinated green development has been widely documented in China. However, most previous studies have investigated it from the perspective of linearity, while the spatial correlation of green development is nonlinear. Based on 48 cities in Bohai Rim, this study used a social network analysis to measure the spatial network, with an emphasis on the internal structure of regional green development, and analyzed the driving factors of regionally coordinated green development from the perspective of nonlinearity. We found that large cities have formed a "siphon effect" and that the polarization of eco-efficiency has become increasingly serious. There are limited connections, some of which are redundant, in the spatial network of green development, while the stability of the network is strong. Additionally, reducing the differences in environmental regulation approaches among cities can have a positive impact on the spatial correlation and spillover effect of green development, thereby promoting regionally coordinated green development among cities in the Bohai Rim.Entities:
Keywords: environment regulation; regionally coordinated green development; social network analysis; spatial nonlinearity effects
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141973 PMCID: PMC9517154 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811703
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Spatial correlation variables.
| Factor | Variables | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Geographical proximity | Geographic distance matrix (GD) | Geographic distance matrix of city i and city j |
| Level of economic development | Difference matrix of economic development level (ED) | Difference in GDP per capita between city i and city j |
| Technological innovation level | Technological innovation difference matrix (TD) | The difference in the number of patent applications between city i and city j per 10,000 people |
| Urbanization level | Urbanization difference matrix (UD) | Difference in urbanization level between city i and city j |
| Industrial structure level | Industrial structure difference matrix (ID) | The difference in the proportion of tertiary industry structure between city i and city j |
| Environmental regulation level | Environmental regulation difference matrix (EPD) | The difference in the comprehensive utilization rate of general industrial solid waste between city i and city j |
Indicator system for the SBM model.
| Layer | Variables | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Inputs | Land | Construction land for cities |
| Labor | Employment rate | |
| Water | Water consumption | |
| Energy | Liquefied petroleum gas | |
| Electricity consumption | ||
| Capital | Capital stocks | |
| Desirable output | GDP | GDP |
| Undesirable outputs | Wastewater | Industrial wastewater |
| Waste gas | Industrial sulfur dioxide | |
| Dust | Industrial smoke dust |
Figure 1Distribution of eco-efficiency inside Bohai Rim in 2005, 2011, and 2017.
Network features of eco-efficiency.
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Hierarchy | 0 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| Efficiency | 0.76 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.73 | 0.71 |
Centrality analysis on eco-efficiency.
| City | Degree Centrality | Closeness | Betweenness | City | Degree Centrality | Closeness | Betweenness | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Out | In | Out | In | ||||||
| AY | 13 | 3 | 81 | 3.59 | LC | 8 | 8 | 85 | 0.78 |
| BYNE | 3 | 2 | 106 | 0.00 | PJ | 8 | 5 | 90 | 1.13 |
| BT | 12 | 21 | 76 | 29.40 | PY | 8 | 2 | 88 | 1.43 |
| BD | 15 | 18 | 76 | 16.57 | QHD | 11 | 7 | 82 | 5.96 |
| BJ | 11 | 6 | 90 | 4.45 | QD | 13 | 32 | 62 | 70.34 |
| BZ | 4 | 7 | 90 | 0.30 | RZ | 7 | 4 | 89 | 0.71 |
| CZ | 9 | 12 | 82 | 4.06 | SY | 10 | 6 | 84 | 3.74 |
| CY | 12 | 8 | 80 | 7.90 | SJZ | 12 | 16 | 74 | 14.82 |
| CD | 13 | 5 | 81 | 8.18 | TY | 12 | 10 | 80 | 4.32 |
| CF | 15 | 1 | 79 | 10.82 | TS | 12 | 21 | 72 | 30.42 |
| DL | 10 | 14 | 80 | 11.61 | TJ | 12 | 6 | 91 | 4.59 |
| DT | 13 | 5 | 81 | 6.53 | TL | 12 | 2 | 82 | 4.68 |
| DD | 12 | 4 | 82 | 6.70 | WH | 19 | 22 | 65 | 61.89 |
| DZ | 6 | 9 | 84 | 2.12 | WF | 6 | 6 | 95 | 0.30 |
| DY | 13 | 41 | 54 | 146.17 | ULCB | 4 | 3 | 92 | 0.35 |
| ODS | 18 | 33 | 62 | 108.53 | XZ | 10 | 6 | 83 | 2.47 |
| ZX | 9 | 4 | 87 | 1.91 | XT | 12 | 17 | 75 | 17.56 |
| HD | 13 | 15 | 78 | 9.08 | YT | 16 | 28 | 65 | 51.09 |
| HS | 11 | 14 | 78 | 13.02 | YQ | 13 | 2 | 81 | 2.97 |
| HHT | 10 | 16 | 82 | 16.62 | YK | 6 | 5 | 91 | 0.80 |
| HLD | 12 | 8 | 81 | 5.59 | ZZ | 7 | 3 | 89 | 0.71 |
| JN | 12 | 28 | 67 | 45.10 | ZJK | 15 | 6 | 79 | 10.07 |
| JC | 12 | 0 | 82 | 3.01 | CZ | 12 | 2 | 82 | 3.70 |
| LF | 11 | 6 | 82 | 2.82 | ZB | 13 | 28 | 67 | 45.10 |
Cluster analysis for green economic development.
| Plate | City | Number |
|---|---|---|
| Plate one | AY, BYNE, BD, BZ, CZ, CD, DT, DZ, HD, HS, JC, LF, LC, PY, SJZ, ULCB, XZ, XT, YQ, ZJK, CZZ | 21 |
| Plate two | CY, CF, DD, FX, HLD, PJ, QHD, RZ, SY, TL, WF, YK, ZZ | 13 |
| Plate three | BT, BJ, ODS, HHT, TY, TJ | 6 |
| Plate four | DL, DY, JN, QD, TS, WH, YT, ZB | 8 |
Correlations for eco-efficiency between plates in 2017.
| Plate | Reception | Spillover | Expected Internal Relationship Ratio (%) | Actual Internal Relationship Ratio (%) | Plate Feature | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In the Plate | Outside the Plate | In the Plate | Outside the Plate | ||||
| One | 35 | 123 | 35 | 182 | 42.55 | 16.13 | “Net overflow plate” |
| Two | 30 | 33 | 30 | 97 | 25.53 | 23.62 | “Agent plate” |
| Three | 9 | 83 | 9 | 66 | 10.64 | 12.00 | “Two-way overflow plate” |
| Four | 19 | 199 | 19 | 93 | 14.90 | 16.96 | “Main benefit plate” |
Density or image matrix of eco-efficiency in Bohai Rim.
| Plate | Density Matrix | Image Matrix | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| One | Two | Three | Four | One | Two | Three | Four | |
| One | 0.083 | 0.000 | 0.532 | 0.685 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Two | 0.004 | 0.192 | 0.192 | 0.779 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Three | 0.484 | 0.026 | 0.300 | 0.063 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Four | 0.363 | 0.298 | 0.021 | 0.268 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Quadratic assignment procedure analysis.
| Variable | Correlation Analysis | QAP Regression Analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation | Non-Standardized | Standardized | |||||
|
| −0.279 | 0.000 | −0.241 | −0.285 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 |
|
| 0.464 | 0.000 | 0.384 | 0.447 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
|
| 0.202 | 0.000 | −0.005 | −0.005 | 0.460 | 0.540 | 0.460 |
|
| 0.254 | 0.002 | 0.052 | 0.061 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.967 |
|
| 0.001 | 0.000 | −0.022 | −0.026 | 0.158 | 0.842 | 0.158 |
|
| −0.116 | 0.000 | −0.044 | −0.052 | 0.010 | 0.991 | 0.010 |