Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Spatiotemporal variations of cultivated land use efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt based on carbon emission constraints
Luo Xiang (1978-), Associate Professor, specialized in regional economics and development of economics. E-mail: philiplaw@163.com |
Received date: 2019-04-25
Accepted date: 2019-12-29
Online published: 2020-06-25
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China(71947071)
National Natural Science Foundation of China(71904151)
National Natural Science Foundation of China(71774066)
Hong Kong Research Grant Council(ECS27604016)
Financially Supported by Self-Determined Research Funds of CCNU from the Colleges’ Basic Research and Operation of MOE(CCNU19TD004)
Copyright
In this study, the carbon emissions (CEs) from cultivated land (CL) were included as an undesirable output in the utilization efficiency of such land. A slack-based model was used to calculate the CL use efficiency (CLUE) for 11 provinces and cities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) from 2007 to 2016, and then a kernel density estimation map was drawn to analyze the spatiotemporal variations of CLUE. The Tobit model was also employed to analyze the factors affecting the CLUE. The results show the following. 1) In the YREB, the CEs from CL showed a rising and then a slowly decreasing trend. In this paper, we calculate CEs by carbon emission factors and major carbon sources, and the CEs from CL in the YREB totaled 25.2354 million tons in 2007. By 2014, the value had increased gradually to 28.4400 million tons, and by 2016 it had declined to 27.8922 million tons, suggesting that the carbon-emission reduction measures of the government had an impact. 2) The CLUE of various provinces and cities in the YREB showed an upward trend in the time dimension, while for the spatial dimension, the kernel density was high in the east and low in the west, and the areas with high kernel density were mainly located in the Yangtze River Delta. 3) The per capita gross domestic product, the primary industrial output, and the number of agricultural technicians per 10,000 people had positive effects on the CLUE. The CL area per capita and the electrical power per hectare for agricultural machinery had significant negative impacts on CLUE. In addition, every 1% increase in the number of agricultural technicians increased the CLUE by 0.057%.
LUO Xiang , AO Xinhe , ZHANG Zuo , WAN Qing , LIU Xingjian . Spatiotemporal variations of cultivated land use efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt based on carbon emission constraints[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020 , 30(4) : 535 -552 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-020-1741-8
Figure 1 Geographical location of the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) |
Table 1 Carbon emission (CE) coefficients of major carbon sources arising from cultivated land use (CLU) |
Source | Coefficient | Unit | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Tillage | 312.6 | kg/km2 | Wu et al., 2007 |
Machinery | 0.18 | kg/kW | West et al., 2002 |
Fertilizers | 0.8956 | kg/kg | West et al., 2002 |
Pesticides | 4.9341 | kg/kg | Post et al., 2000 |
Plastic sheets | 5.18 | kg/kg | Li et al., 2011 |
Irrigation | 25 | kg/hm2 | Li et al., 2011 |
Table 2 Indicators and data sources |
Indicators | Data sources | |
---|---|---|
Input | I1 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) |
I2 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) | |
I3 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) | |
I4 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) | |
I5 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) | |
I6 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) | |
I7 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) | |
Output | O1 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) |
O2 | China Rural Statistical Yearbook (2008-2017) | |
O3 | $E=\sum{{{E}_{i}}}=\sum{{{T}_{i}}\cdot {{\delta }_{i}}}$, where Ti and δi are the values of each carbon source and the CE coefficient, respectively. | |
Influencing factors | PC | Land Survey Results Sharing Application Service Platform |
PG | Statistical yearbooks of the provinces and cities in the YREB from 2008 to 2017 | |
PP | Statistical yearbooks of the provinces and cities in the YREB from 2008 to 2017 | |
MP | Statistical yearbooks of the provinces and cities in the YREB from 2008 to 2017 | |
AT | EPS data platform | |
PI | China Environmental Protection Database |
Table 3 CEs from CLU in the Yangtze River Economic Belt |
Regions | Year | Average | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | ||
Shanghai | 28.29 | 28.55 | 26.09 | 25.63 | 25.11 | 23.36 | 22.82 | 22.02 | 20.98 | 19.60 | 24.24 |
Jiangsu | 408.22 | 408.29 | 415.04 | 414.50 | 412.49 | 409.01 | 405.91 | 404.10 | 396.96 | 389.90 | 406.44 |
Zhejiang | 145.38 | 147.53 | 149.13 | 148.23 | 149.11 | 150.71 | 151.63 | 147.96 | 145.89 | 139.67 | 147.52 |
Anhui | 374.26 | 379.77 | 386.80 | 398.38 | 410.56 | 416.34 | 425.00 | 426.57 | 423.85 | 410.36 | 405.19 |
Jiangxi | 189.09 | 195.18 | 199.31 | 206.38 | 207.07 | 209.46 | 209.83 | 209.38 | 210.11 | 207.22 | 204.30 |
Hubei | 373.63 | 401.05 | 413.84 | 425.33 | 429.67 | 429.97 | 422.50 | 420.44 | 406.07 | 397.02 | 411.95 |
Hunan | 295.49 | 301.53 | 311.39 | 318.65 | 325.22 | 335.36 | 337.70 | 337.73 | 336.21 | 334.77 | 323.40 |
Chongqing | 103.84 | 108.08 | 113.40 | 114.42 | 119.03 | 119.84 | 120.78 | 121.96 | 122.94 | 121.38 | 116.57 |
Sichuan | 304.20 | 310.62 | 319.02 | 321.84 | 328.94 | 332.38 | 330.97 | 331.29 | 331.91 | 331.06 | 324.23 |
Yunnan | 201.27 | 216.21 | 222.93 | 238.92 | 257.23 | 274.89 | 285.33 | 296.04 | 302.46 | 307.35 | 260.26 |
Huizhou | 99.88 | 109.56 | 112.01 | 107.26 | 117.48 | 122.94 | 122.89 | 127.33 | 130.09 | 130.90 | 118.03 |
Total | 2523.54 | 2606.35 | 2668.97 | 2719.56 | 2781.90 | 2824.26 | 2835.34 | 2844.84 | 2827.47 | 2789.22 | 2742.14 |
Figure 2 Spatiotemporal variations of cultivated CEs in the Yangtze River Economic Belt |
Table 4 CLUE for each province or city of the Yangtze River Economic Belt in specific years |
Region | 2007 | 2010 | 2013 | 2016 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCR | SBM | CCR | SBM | CCR | SBM | CCR | SBM | |
Shanghai | 0.9135 | 0.6728 | 0.9844 | 0.8853 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Jiangsu | 1 | 1 | 0.9822 | 0.7922 | 0.9986 | 0.9338 | 1 | 1 |
Zhejiang | 0.6957 | 0.4185 | 0.7997 | 0.5749 | 0.9321 | 0.7798 | 1 | 1 |
Anhui | 0.9006 | 0.5860 | 0.9113 | 0.6419 | 0.8974 | 0.6633 | 0.9527 | 0.7483 |
Jiangxi | 1 | 1 | 0.9653 | 0.7987 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Hubei | 0.8922 | 0.5689 | 0.9017 | 0.5717 | 0.9576 | 0.7586 | 1 | 1 |
Hunan | 0.9487 | 0.7318 | 0.9482 | 0.7720 | 0.9401 | 0.7738 | 1 | 1 |
Chongqing | 0.9905 | 0.9267 | 0.9824 | 0.9087 | 0.9974 | 0.9319 | 1 | 1 |
Sichuan | 1 | 1 | 0.9701 | 0.8881 | 0.9784 | 0.9371 | 1 | 1 |
Yunnan | 0.7185 | 0.4993 | 0.6519 | 0.4753 | 0.7441 | 0.5431 | 0.7821 | 0.5461 |
Huizhou | 1 | 1 | 0.9819 | 0.8595 | 0.8672 | 0.7141 | 1 | 1 |
Figure 3 Kernel density map of CLU efficiency (CLUE) in the Yangtze River Economic Belt |
Table 5 Regression results of CLUE using the Tobit model |
Variables | Coefficient | Std. Err. | Z | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
PC | -0.0004409 | 0.0001838 | -2.4 | 0.016 |
PG | 3.14E-06 | 1.08E-06 | 2.9 | 0.004 |
PP | 0.0000704 | 0.0000279 | 2.52 | 0.012 |
MP | -0.0208301 | 0.0070656 | -2.95 | 0.003 |
AT | 0.0573215 | 0.0258476 | 2.22 | 0.027 |
PI | -1.16E-06 | 0.0000392 | -0.03 | 0.976 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
[42] |
|
[43] |
|
[44] |
|
[45] |
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
|
[48] |
|
[49] |
|
[50] |
|
[51] |
|
[52] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |