Identifying the spatial effects and driving factors of urban PM2.5 pollution in China

Ecological Indicators

Volumn 82, Issue , 2017, Pages 61-75

  Cheng, Zhonghua ^a   Li, Lianshui ^a   Liu, Jun ^a  

^a NANJING UNIVERSITY OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

Air pollution policy; Driving factors; Dynamic spatial panel model; PM2.5; Smog; Spatial spillover effect

Indexed keywords

AIR POLLUTION; COAL INDUSTRY; ECONOMICS; POLLUTION; SMOKE;

DEPENDENT CHARACTERISTICS; DRIVING FACTORS; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; PANEL MODEL; PREVENTION AND CONTROLS; SMOG; SPATIAL AUTOCORRELATIONS; SPILLOVER EFFECTS;

POLLUTION CONTROL;

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; DEVELOPMENT LEVEL; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; PARTICULATE MATTER; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; POLLUTION CONTROL; POLLUTION POLICY; SMOG; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; SPILLOVER EFFECT;

CHINA;

EID: 85021265290     PISSN: 1470160X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.043     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Al-mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., Mohanmed, A.H., Investigating the environmental Kuznets cureve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol. Indic. 48 (2015), 315–323.
2. Anselin, L., Local indicators of spatial association: LISA. Geogr. Anal. 27:2 (1995), 93–115.
3. 2 emissions. Energy Econ. 54:2 (2016), 263–271.
4. Arellano, M., Bond, S., Some tests of specification for panel data: monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 58:2 (1991), 277–297.
5. Blundell, R., Bond, S., Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J. Econ. 87:1 (1998), 115–143.
6. Bove, M.C., Brotto, P., Cassola, F., Cuccia, E., et al. An integrated PM2.5 source apportionment study: positive matrix factorisation vs. the chemical transport model CAMx. Atmos. Environ. 94 (2014), 274–286.
7. 2.5 at urban and urban background sites: chemical characterization and source apportionment. Atmos. Res. 174–175 (2016), 106–119.
8. Cheng, Z.H., The spatial correlation and interaction between manufacturing agglomeration and environmental pollution. Ecol. Indic. 61:2 (2016), 1024–1032.
9. 2.5 at the coastal area in Korea. Sci. Total Environ. 447 (2013), 370–380.
10. 2 emissions: emission pattern and regional disparity. Atmos. Environ. 92 (2014), 280–291.
11. Elhorst, J.P., Dynamic spatial panels: models methods and inferences. J. Geogr. Syst. 14:1 (2012), 5–28.
12. Farhani, S., Mrizak, S., Chaibi, A., Rault, C., The environmental kuznets and sustainability: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 71 (2015), 189–198.
13. 2.5 during Chinese spring festival at Xinxiang, a heavily polluted city in north China: fireworks and health risks. Atmos. Res. 182 (2016), 176–188.
14. Gao, J.J., Tian, H.Z., Cheng, K., Lu, Long., et al. Seasonal and spatial variation of trace elements in multi-size airborne particulate matters of Beijing China: mass concentration, enrichment characteristics, source apportionment, chemical speciation and bioavailability. Atmos. Environ. 99 (2014), 257–265.
15. 2.5 carbonaceous aerosol in Baghdad, Iraq. Atmos. Res. 156 (2016), 80–90.
16. 2.5 concentrations in China: a spatial econometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016), 1443–1453.
17. Hao, Y., Liao, H., Wei, Y.M., Is China's carbon reduction target allocation reasonable? An analysis based on carbon intensity convergence. App. Energy 142:15 (2015), 229–239.
18. Hsu, C.Y., Chiang, H.C., Lin, S.L., Chen, M.J., Lin, T.Y., Chen, Y.C., Elemental characterization and source apportionment of PM10 and PM2.5 in the western coastal area of central Taiwan. Sci. Total Environ. 541 (2016), 1139–1150.
19. Huang, R.-J., Zhang, Y., Bozzetti, C., Ho, K.-F., Cao, J.-J., Han, Y., Daellenbach, K.R., Slowik, J.G., Platt, S.M., Canonaco, F., High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate pollution during haze events in China. Nature 514 (2014), 218–222.
20. Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J. Econ. 115:1 (2003), 53–74.
21. Jacobs, J.P.A.M., Ligthart, J.E., Vrijburg, H., Dynamic Panel Data Models Featuring Endogenous Interaction and Spatially Correlated Errors. International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series 0915. 2009, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
22. Jebli, M.B., Youssef, S.B., The environmental Kuznets curve, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Yunisia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47 (2015), 173–185.
23. Kao, C., Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J. Econ. 90:1 (1999), 1–44.
24. Kukenova, M., Monteiro, J., Spatial Dynamic Panel Model and System GMM: a Monte Carlo Investigation. IRENE Working Papers 09-01. 2009, Irene Institute of Economic Research.
25. LeSage, J.P., Pace, R.K., Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. 2009, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, US, 19–44.
26. Lee, H.J., Gent, J.F., Leaderer, B.P., Koutrakis, P., Spatial and temporal variability of fine particle composition and source types in five cities of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Sci. Total Environ. 409 (2011), 2133–2142.
27. Li, Q., Song, J.P., Wang, E.R., et al. Economic growth and pollutant emissions in China: a spatial econometric analysis. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A 28:2 (2014), 429–442.
28. 2.5 in the Beijing-Tianjin- Hebei region: changes between 2006 and 2013 and relative impacts of emissions and meteorology. Atmos. Environ. 123 (2015), 229–239.
29. Li, T.T., Wang, Y., Zhao, D.T., Environmental Kuznets Curve in China: new evidence from dynamic panel analysis. Energy Policy 91 (2016), 138–147.
30. Liddle, B., Lung, S., Age-structure, urbanization, and climate change in developed countries: revisiting STIRPAT for disaggregated population and consumption-related environmental impacts. Popul. Environ. 31:5 (2010), 317–343.
31. Liddle, B., What are the carbon emissions elasticities for income and population? Bridging STIRPAT and EKC via robust heterogeneous panel estimates. Global Environ. Change 31 (2015), 62–73.
32. Lin, B.Q., Omoju, O.E., Nwakeze, N.M., Okonkwo, J.U., Megbowon, E.T., Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis a sound basis for environmental policy in Africa?. J. Clean. Prod. 133 (2016), 712–724.
33. Lind, J.T., Mehlum, H., With or without U?: The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 72 (2010), 109–118.
34. Liu, Q.Y., Baumgartner, J., Zhang, Y.X., Schauer, J.J., Source apportionment of Beijing air pollution during a severe winter haze event and associated por-inflammatory responses in lung epithelial cells. Atmos. Environ. 126 (2016), 28–35.
35. 2.5 during the non-heating period in Taian, China. Atmos. Res. 170 (2016), 23–33.
36. 2.5 pollution in China. J. Clean. Prod. 139 (2016), 1157–1167.
37. Maddala, G.S., Wu, S., A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 61:S1 (1999), 631–652.
38. Malandrino, M., Casazza, M., Abollino, O., Minero, C., Maurino, V., Size resolved metal distribution in the PM matter of the city of Truin (Italy). Chemosphere 147 (2016), 477–489.
39. Martinez-Zarzoso, I., Benochea-Morancho, A., Morales-Lage, R., The impact of population on CO2 emissions: evidence from European countries. Environ. Resour. Econ. 38 (2007), 497–512.
40. 2.5 emissions: concentrations and apportionments in Detroit and Chicago. Atmos. Environ. 129 (2016), 197–209.
41. 2.5 particles in Salamanca, Guanajuato Mexico: source apportionment with receptor models. Atmos. Res. 107 (2012), 31–41.
42. 2. 5–10 in iron and steel scrap smelting factory environment using PMF, PCFA and UNMIX receptor models. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188 (2016), 574–594.
43. Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., Investigating the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Cambodia. Ecol. Indic. 57 (2015), 324–330.
44. Pesaran, M.H., A simple panel unit root test in the presence of crosssection dependence. J. Appl. Econ. 22 (2007), 265–312.
45. 2.5 source apportionment in Lombardy (Italy): Comparison of receptor and chemistry-transport modelling results. Atmos. Environ. 106 (2015), 56–70.
46. 2 emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecol. Econ. 70:2 (2010), 434–444.
47. 2.5 in Shanghai: implications for characterization of haze pollution and source apportionment. Sci. Total. Environ. 557–558 (2016), 386–394.
48. 2 emissions in emerging economies. Energy Econ. 41 (2014), 147–153.
49. Sasabuchi, S., A test of a multivariate normal mean with composite hypotheses determined by linear inequalities. Biometrika 67 (1980), 429–439.
50. Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F., Anis, O., Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries?. Energy Econ. 51 (2015), 275–287.
51. Shao, S., Li, X., Cao, J.H., Yang, L.L., China's economic policy choices for governing smog pollution based on spatial spillover effects. Econ. Res. 9 (2016), 73–88 (in Chinese).
52. Song, Y., Zhang, Y.H., Xie, S.D., Zeng, L.M., et al. Source apportionment of PM2.5 in Beijing by positive matrix factorization. Atmos. Environ. 40 (2006), 1526–1537.
53. Van Donkelaar, A., Martin, R.V., Brauer, M., Boys, B.L., Use of satellite observations for long-term exposure assessment of global concentrations of fine particular matter. Environ. Health. Per. 123:2 (2015), 135–143.
54. Villalobos, A.M., Barraza, F., Jorquera, H., Schauer, J.J., Chemical speciation and source apportionment of fine particulate matter in Santiago, Chile, 2013. Sci. Total. Environ. 512–513 (2015), 133–142.
55. Vossler, T., Cernikovsky, L., Novak, J., Williams, R., Source apportionment with uncertainty estimates of fine particulate matter in Ostrava, Czech Republic using Positive Matrix Factorization. Atmos. Poll. Res. 7 (2016), 503–512.
56. 2.5 in the bohai rim urban agglomeration. Chemosphere 148 (2016), 148–162.
57. Westerlund, J., Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 69:6 (2007), 709–748.
58. Wu, J.N., Zhang, P., Yi, H.T., Qin, Z., What causes haze pollution? An empirical study of PM2.5 concentrations in Chinese cities. Sustainability 8 (2016), 132–145.
59. Xu, B., Lin, B.Q., Regional differences of pollution emissions in China: contributing factors and mitigation strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016), 1454–1463.
60. Xu, B., Luo, L.Q., Lin, B.Q., A dynamic analysis of air pollution emissions in China: evidence from nonparametric additive regression models. Ecol. Indic. 63 (2016), 346–358.
61. 2.5 around the heating periods of 2013 and 2014 in Beijing: implications for efficient mitigation measures. Atmos. Environ. 124 (2016), 378–386.
62. 2.5 in a background site in the North China Plain. Sci. Total. Environ. 541 (2016), 590–598.
63. 2 emissions?: Evidence from a regional analysis in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58 (2016), 943–951.
64. 2.5 to children in summer and winter: and exposure panel study in Tianjin, China. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 8 (2015), 347–357.
65. Zheng, X.Y., Yu, Y.H., Wang, J., Deng, H.H., Identifying the determinants and spatial nexus of provincial carbon intensity in China: a dynamic spatial panel approach. Reg. Environ. Change 14:4 (2014), 1651–1661.
66. 2.5 concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 134 (2016), 84–95.