Regional differences of agricultural total factor carbon efficiency in China

被引:0
|
作者
Huang, Xiuquan [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Tao [2 ]
Wang, Xi [2 ]
Zheng, Jiansong [2 ]
Xu, Guoli [2 ]
Wu, Xiaoshan [2 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ Chinese Med, Sch Elderly Care Serv & Management, Nanjing, Peoples R China
[2] Macao Polytech Univ, Fac Humanities & Social Sci, Macau, Peoples R China
来源
关键词
TOTAL FACTOR PRODUCTIVITY; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; EMISSION PERFORMANCE; INDUSTRIAL-STRUCTURE; UNDESIRABLE OUTPUTS; LAND-USE; DEA; SEQUESTRATION; CONSTRUCTION;
D O I
10.1057/s41599-024-03296-8
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
China's agriculture has struggled over the past century to produce more food to feed the country's expanding population while also contending with high-intensity pollution. In order to support China's transition to low-carbon agriculture more efficiently, it is important to improve the efficiency of agricultural carbon emissions. This study employs the biennial weight modified Russell model to investigate China's agricultural total factor carbon efficiency (ATFCE) during 1999-2018 and its differences between the three agricultural functional zones (AFZs), including the grain-producing zone (GPZ), the grain balance zone (GBZ), and the main grain-selling zone (GSZ). The study found that the ATFCE in China was 0.761, a high value. GSZ (0.9865) had the highest ATFCE, followed by GBZ (0.7201) and GPZ (0.6666). ATFCE in China fell by approximately 25%, from 0.825 in 1999 to 0.6983 in 2018. Further, the provinces with the highest ATFCE included Tibet (0.9997), Hainan (0.9981), Shanghai (0.997), Beijing (0.9937), and Jiangsu (0.9924). Provinces with the lowest ATFCEs included Hubei (0.4743), Yunnan (0.4645), Hunan (0.441), Anhui (0.4295), Heilongjiang (0.4130), and Jiangxi (0.3354). In addition, the difference in ATFCE within the whole of China, GPZ, and GBZ generally widened during 1999-2018. There was a rise in all three inequalities between the three AFZs. The difference between GPZ and GBZ was the greatest among the three interregional differences. Finally, the difference between subregions was the largest source of the total difference (43.66%), followed by the difference within subregions (30.04%) and the intensity of transvariation (25.94%).
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Regional differences and dynamic evolution of China’s agricultural carbon emission efficiency
    X. Zhang
    X. Zhou
    K. Liao
    [J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 2023, 20 : 4307 - 4324
  • [2] Regional differences and dynamic evolution of China's agricultural carbon emission efficiency
    Zhang, X.
    Zhou, X.
    Liao, K.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2023, 20 (04) : 4307 - 4324
  • [3] Total-Factor Energy Efficiency and Its Driving Factors in China's Agricultural Sector: An Empirical Analysis of the Regional Differences
    Liu, Jianxu
    Liu, Shutong
    Cui, Jiande
    Kang, Xuefei
    Lin, Qing
    Osathanunkul, Rossarin
    Dong, Changrui
    [J]. AGRONOMY-BASEL, 2023, 13 (09):
  • [4] Analysis of regional differences and dynamic mechanisms of agricultural carbon emission efficiency in China's seven agricultural regions
    Xiaodan Zhang
    Kaicheng Liao
    Xianghong Zhou
    [J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022, 29 : 38258 - 38284
  • [5] Analysis of regional differences and dynamic mechanisms of agricultural carbon emission efficiency in China's seven agricultural regions
    Zhang, Xiaodan
    Liao, Kaicheng
    Zhou, Xianghong
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2022, 29 (25) : 38258 - 38284
  • [6] On the regional differences in agricultural water use efficiency in China and their convergence
    Geng, Xiaoyuan
    [J]. International Journal of Design and Nature and Ecodynamics, 2020, 15 (02): : 189 - 196
  • [7] Regional differences and dynamic evolution of agricultural water resources utilization efficiency in China
    Zeng, Qian
    Cao, Shuya
    Jiayi, H. E.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (09):
  • [8] Research on China's Carbon Emission Efficiency and Its Regional Differences
    Zhao, Xiaochun
    Xu, Huixin
    Sun, Qun
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (15)
  • [9] Impact of carbon trading on agricultural green total factor productivity in China
    Yu, Daisong
    Liu, Linxin
    Gao, Shanhong
    Yuan, Shiyu
    Shen, Qianling
    Chen, Haipeng
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2022, 367
  • [10] Analysis of regional differences and spatial spillover effects of agricultural carbon emissions in China
    Su, Lijuan
    Wang, Yatao
    Yu, Fangfang
    [J]. HELIYON, 2023, 9 (06)