| Literature DB >> 36231584 |
Liang Zhao1, Lifei Xu1, Ling Li1, Jing Hu2, Lin Mu3.
Abstract
Inbound tourism has an important impact on regional eco-efficiency. This paper uses the panel data of 31 provincial administrative units in China from 2005 to 2019; uses the improved DEA model to measure the regional ecological efficiency; and uses the panel threshold model to investigate input, output, and efficiency from the perspective of green technology innovation. Then, it explores the heterogeneous effects of inbound tourism on ecological efficiency. This paper finds that cross-border tourism has a positive impact on the ecological efficiency of tourist destinations. However, the degree of influence varies and will be changed with the level of regional green innovation. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) From an overall perspective, inbound tourism has a significant positive effect on ecological efficiency. (2) With the increase in green innovation investment and output, the promotion effect of inbound tourism on regional ecological efficiency first increases and then decreases. (3) The higher the green innovation efficiency, the greater the promotion effect of inbound tourism on ecological efficiency. Therefore, the Chinese government should encourage the development of inbound tourism, adopt greener innovative technologies that are cleaner and more environmentally friendly, and enhance the welfare effect of tourism on green economy.Entities:
Keywords: inbound tourism; regional ecological environment; threshold effect
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231584 PMCID: PMC9565173 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Ecological efficiency input–output variables.
| Criterion Layer | Indicator Layer | Specific Instructions |
|---|---|---|
| Natural resource inputs | Water input | Total urban water consumption/104 cubic meters |
| Energy input | Total urban electricity consumption/104 kWh | |
| Land input | Urban construction land area/square kilometer | |
| Input of economic factors | Labor input | Number of employees in the unit/104 people |
| Capital investment | Fixed asset investment/104 yuan | |
| Economic expected output | Regional GDP | Regional GDP/104 yuan |
| Ecological load | Water pollution | Discharge of industrial wastewater/104 tons |
| Air Pollution | Industrial sulfur dioxide emissions/104 tons |
Figure 1The spatiotemporal evolution pattern of ecological efficiency.
Figure 2Residual distribution diagram.
Benchmark regression results.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.27 *** | 0.31 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.31 *** | 0.36 *** | 0.31 *** |
| (4.08) | (2.82) | (3.98) | (3.29) | (3.49) | (4.08) | |
|
| 0.22 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.19 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.29 *** |
| (4.54) | (3.64) | (4.53) | (3.77) | (3.18) | (3.15) | |
|
| −0.22 *** | −0.22 *** | −0.21 *** | −0.21 *** | −0.17 *** | −0.21 *** |
| (−3.97) | (−4.46) | (−4.55) | (−3.40) | (−3.13) | (−2.83) | |
|
| 1.74 *** | 2.50 *** | 1.87 *** | 2.33 *** | 2.49 *** | 1.70 *** |
| (3.45) | (3.09) | (3.37) | (3.24) | (2.97) | (3.78) | |
|
| 2.25 ** | 2.95 ** | 2.43 * | 2.96 *** | 2.70 * | 2.30 *** |
| (2.32) | (2.22) | (1.97) | (1.93) | (1.77) | (2.74) | |
|
| −0.13 | −0.09 | −0.09 | −0.13 | −0.09 | −0.11 |
| (−0.93) | (−1.22) | (−1.34) | (−0.87) | (−1.30) | (−1.04) | |
|
| 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.10 |
| (0.36) | (0.36) | 0.43 | 0.46 | 0.37 | (0.50) | |
|
| Control | Control | Control | Control | Control | Control |
|
| 1.20 *** | 1.17 *** | 1.06 *** | 1.13 *** | 1.01 *** | 1.09 *** |
| (3.42) | (3.32) | (4.92) | (3.72) | (4.43) | (3.97) | |
|
| 0.6129 | 0.6251 | 0.6293 | 0.6228 | 0.5711 | 0.7014 |
|
| 450 | 450 | 450 | 390 | 415 | 450 |
Note: t values are in parentheses, ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Threshold effect test: From the perspective of green innovation factor input.
| F | 1% Critical | 5% Critical Value | 10% Critical Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-threshold | 3.321 * | 0.093 | 7.706 | 4.932 | 3.249 |
| Double-threshold | 2.359 * | 0.073 | 8.271 | 2.955 | 2.054 |
| Three-thresholds | 9.062 *** | 0.000 | 3.954 | 2.252 | 1.633 |
Note: *** and * indicate significance at the 1% and 10% levels, respectively.
Threshold effect results: From the perspective of green innovation factor input.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.25 *** | 0.27 *** | 0.30 *** | |
| (3.61) | (2.47) | (3.31) | ||
| 0.34 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.35 *** | ||
| (3.79) | (4.08) | (3.74) | ||
| 0.30 *** | 0.28 *** | |||
| (3.08) | (3.22) | |||
| 0.27 *** | ||||
| (2.93) | ||||
|
| 0.19 *** | 0.28 *** | 0.26 *** | |
| (4.88) | (4.64) | (4.66) | ||
|
| −0.17 *** | −0.20 *** | −0.21 *** | |
| (−3.34) | (−4.37) | (−3.29) | ||
|
| 1.58 *** | 2.32 *** | 2.17 *** | |
| (4.41) | (3.07) | (4.37) | ||
|
| 2.65 *** | 3.01 ** | 2.35 ** | |
| (2.29) | (2.59) | (2.27) | ||
|
| −0.09 | −0.12 | −0.09 | |
| (−0.98) | (−1.15) | (−1.15) | ||
|
| 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.10 | |
| (0.53) | (0.50) | (0.37) | ||
|
| Control | Control | Control | |
|
| Control | Control | Control | |
|
| 0.97 *** | 1.10 *** | 0.93 *** | |
| (3.20) | (3.42) | (5.17) | ||
|
| 0.6106 | 0.6202 | 0.6274 | |
|
| 450 | 450 | 450 | |
|
| 0.142 | 0.171 | 0.322 | |
|
| 0.355 | 0.435 | ||
|
| 0.812 | |||
Note: t values are in parentheses, *** and ** indicate significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
Threshold effect test: From the perspective of green innovation factor output.
| F | 1% Critical | 5% Critical | 10% Critical Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-threshold | 27.560 *** | 0.003 | 23.971 | 10.066 | 2.187 |
| Double-threshold | 8.659 *** | 0.000 | 4.728 | 2.791 | 1.936 |
| Three-thresholds | 24.743 *** | 0.007 | 19.746 | 6.338 | 0.059 |
Note: *** indicate significance at the 1% levels.
Threshold effect results: From the perspective of green innovation factor output.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.31 *** | 0.31 *** | 0.36 *** | |
| (3.85) | (2.87) | (3.50) | ||
| 0.28 *** | 0.30 *** | 0.20 *** | ||
| (3.23) | (3.25) | (3.42) | ||
| 0.33 *** | 0.32 *** | |||
| (2.82) | (4.10) | |||
| 0.33 ** | ||||
| (2.46) | ||||
|
| 0.18 *** | 0.23 *** | 0.23 *** | |
| (3.23) | (4.84) | (4.67) | ||
|
| −0.19 *** | −0.14 *** | −0.22 *** | |
| (−4.33) | (−2.93) | (−3.52) | ||
|
| 1.67 *** | 1.90 *** | 2.52 *** | |
| (4.18) | (2.82) | (3.93) | ||
|
| 2.94 ** | 2.08 ** | 2.79 ** | |
| (2.41) | (2.29) | (2.33) | ||
|
| −0.11 | −0.13 | −0.09 | |
| (−1.17) | (−1.14) | (−1.16) | ||
|
| 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.10 | |
| (0.50) | (0.34) | (0.48) | ||
|
| Control | Control | Control | |
|
| Control | Control | Control | |
|
| 1.24 *** | 1.23 *** | 0.87 *** | |
| (4.56) | (4.92) | (3.86) | ||
|
| 0.5629 | 0.5927 | 0.5998 | |
|
| 450 | 450 | 450 | |
|
| 0.468 | 0.468 | 0.261 | |
|
| 0.632 | 0.621 | ||
|
| 0.897 | |||
Note: t values are in parentheses, *** and ** indicate significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.
Threshold effect test: From the perspective of green innovation efficiency.
| F | 1% Critical | 5% Critical Value | 10% Critical Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-threshold | 9.124 *** | 0.000 | 4.329 | 2.367 | 1.717 |
| Double-threshold | 22.719 *** | 0.000 | 17.085 | 3.815 | 0.472 |
| Three-thresholds | 34.704 *** | 0.000 | 19.827 | 13.444 | 9.024 |
Note: *** indicate significance at the 1% levels.
Threshold effect results: From the perspective of green innovation efficiency.
| (1) | (2) | (3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.22 *** | 0.26 ** | 0.22 *** | |
| (3.25) | (2.52) | (4.05) | ||
| 0.42 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.36 *** | ||
| (2.69) | (2.67) | (3.20) | ||
| 0.54 *** | 0.43 *** | |||
| (2.92) | (3.83) | |||
| 0.56 *** | ||||
| (3.15) | ||||
|
| 0.22 *** | 0.19 *** | 0.21 *** | |
| (3.40) | (3.97) | (3.36) | ||
|
| −0.20 *** | −0.19 *** | −0.15 *** | |
| (−2.89) | (−3.19) | (−4.20) | ||
|
| 2.43 *** | 2.40 *** | 2.27 *** | |
| (3.14) | (4.03) | (4.48) | ||
|
| 3.04 ** | 3.07 *** | 3.03 *** | |
| (2.29) | (2.98) | (3.10) | ||
|
| −0.11 | −0.12 | −0.11 | |
| (−1.13) | (−1.21) | (−0.89) | ||
|
| 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.11 | |
| (0.38) | (0.39) | (0.45) | ||
|
| Control | Control | Control | |
|
| Control | Control | Control | |
|
| 1.41 *** | 0.91 *** | 1.08 *** | |
| (4.14) | (4.74) | (3.11) | ||
|
| 0.6710 | 0.6722 | 0.6771 | |
|
| 450 | 450 | 450 | |
|
| 0.277 | 0.336 | 0.351 | |
|
| 0.473 | 0.688 | ||
|
| 0.864 | |||
Note: t values are in parentheses, *** and ** indicate significance at the 1% and 5% levels, respectively.