Measurement and Spatial–Temporal Characteristics of Agricultural Carbon Emission in China: An Internal Structural Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. The Calculation of China’s Agricultural Carbon Emissions
2.2. Kernel Density Function Approach
2.3. Data Source
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Spatial–temporal Evolution Characteristics of Agricultural Carbon Emissions in China
3.2. Dynamic Evolution Characteristics of Agricultural Carbon Emission Structure in China
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- In terms of time, China’s total agricultural carbon emissions showed a trend of a gradual “ladder”, with it fluctuating in an upward trend, and the growth rate was gradually slowing. In terms of space, inter-provincial heterogeneity was significant, and the differences between the factors were expanding. The average annual amount of agricultural carbon emissions and the carbon emissions of each carbon source in the major grain producing areas were significantly higher than those in the major grain sales areas and the production–sales balance areas, and those in the major grain sales areas were lower than they were in the other two kinds of areas. The carbon emission intensities of the three major grain functional areas which were ranked from high to low were the production–sales balance areas (5.49 tons/ten thousand yuan), the major grain producing areas (3.94 tons/ten thousand yuan), and the major grain marketing areas (2.74 tons/ten thousand yuan).
- (2)
- From the perspective of the carbon emission structure, agricultural greenhouse gases mainly come from carbon emissions that are produced by livestock and poultry, which is followed by rice planting and agricultural energy. The proportion of the carbon emissions that were caused by straw burning changed slightly, showing a downward trend in general. The carbon emissions from agricultural materials and soil accounted for a small proportion of total amount of agricultural carbon emissions. The proportion of carbon emissions that were caused by agricultural materials increased (1991–2014), and then decreased (2014–2019), and the proportion of carbon emissions that were caused by soil showed an increasing trend.
- (3)
- From the perspective of the internal dynamic evolution, the evolution of the kernel density curve of agricultural energy and soil was similar, showing that the center of the curve continued to shift to the right. The peak value decreased rapidly, and the peak width expands continuously. The center of the density function of agricultural materials shifted to the right, but there was a ‘right and then left’ pattern in this. The peak value decreased, and the peak width expanded. The density function center of livestock and poultry fluctuated in 2001. The density center function of straw burning gradually shifted left, and the peak width increased. The proportion of the carbon emissions of the six major carbon sources showed a convergence trend, and there was a right tail phenomenon. The kernel density curves of rice planting, livestock and poultry, agricultural energy, and straw burning were basically composed of two peaks of “one main and one small” peak, while the peak of the agricultural material density function evolved from “one main and one small” peak to a single peak pattern, and the function of the soil evolved from a double peak to a single peak during the evolution process.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. Emissions due to agriculture. Global, Regional and Country Trends 2000–2018; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; IPCC: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Leila, F.; Reza, M.; Safdar, H. Agricultural energy demand modeling in Iran: Approaching to a more sustainable situation. Energy Rep. 2018, 4, 260–265. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Z.; Mi, S. Research on agricultural carbon footprint—Taking Zhejiang Province as an example. Issues Agric. Econ. 2011, 32, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
- Li, B.; Zhang, J.; Li, P. Spatial-Temporal characteristics and influencing factors of agricultural carbon emissions in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2011, 21, 80–86. [Google Scholar]
- Xiong, C.; Yang, D.; Xia, F.; Huo, J. Changes in agricultural carbon emissions and factors that influence agricultural carbon emissions based on different stages in Xinjiang, China. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Liu, H.; Wen, S.; Zhang, Z. Agricultural production agglomeration and total factor carbon productivity: Based on NDDF-MML index analysis. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2022, 14, 709–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, N. One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Nature 2012, 31, 10–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, S.; Lin, Y.; Niu, K. Green transformation of agriculture driven by low carbon: Characteristics of agricultural carbon emissions and its reduction path in China. Reform 2021, 5, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
- AGFEP. 2021 China and Global Food Policy Report; AGFEP: Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, R.; Jiang, Z. Study on Ecological Compensation Standard of Low Carbon Agricultural Production. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2018, 32, 63–70. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, L. Spatial-Temporal Differentiation of Agricultural Carbon Productivity in China: Mechanism and Empirical Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.; Yu, Y.; Luan, S. Empirical study on the decomposition of carbon emission factors in agricultural energy consumption. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Environmental Science and Material Application (ESMA), Xi’an, China, 15–16 December 2018; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 252, pp. 15–16. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Ge, Z.; Han, S.; Xing, L.; Zhu, M.; Zhang, J.; Liu, J. Impacts of agricultural industrial agglomeration on China’s agricultural energy efficiency: A spatial econometrics analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, A.; Ma, H.; Ahmad, M.; Irfan, M.; Traore, O.; Chandio, A. Towards environmental Sustainability: Devolving the influence of carbon dioxide emission to population growth, climate change, Forestry, livestock and crops production in Pakistan. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 107460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Zhang, J.; He, Y. Research on Spatial-Temporal characteristics and driving factor of agricultural carbon emissions in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 1393–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, X.; Zhang, J.; You, L. Marginal abatement cost of agricultural carbon emissions in China: 1993-2015. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 10, 558–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, H.; Chen, M.; Fang, R.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Q. Spatial-temporal characteristics of carbon emissions from land use change in Yellow River Delta region, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 136, 108623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrero, M.; Henderson, B.; Havlik, P.; Thornton, P.; Conant, R.; Smith, P.; Wirsenius, S.; Hristov, A.; Gerber, P.; Gill, M.; et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shi, R.; Irfan, M.; Liu, G.; Yang, X.; Su, X. Analysis of the impact of livestock structure on carbon emissions of animal husbandry: A sustainable way to improving public health and green environment. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 835210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Da Silva, M.; Lisbôa, A.; Hoffmann, R.; Da Cunha Kemerich, P.; de Borba, W.; Fernandes, G.; de Souza, É. Greenhouse gas emissions of rice straw-to-methanol chain in Southern Brazil. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Xu, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Gao, X.; Chen, L. Assessment of agricultural carbon emissions and their spatiotemporal changes in China, 1997-2016. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, G.; Liao, M.; Jiang, J. Research on agricultural carbon emissions and regional carbon emissions reduction strategies in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Q.; Zhang, Y. Decoupling and decomposition analysis of agricultural carbon emissions: Evidence from Heilongjiang province, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norse, D. Low carbon agriculture: Objectives and policy pathways. Environ. Dev. 2012, 1, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Yang, L. Spatial pattern of China’s agricultural carbon emission performance. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X. Study on the Impact of Agricultural Trade Opening on China’s Agricultural Carbon Emission Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H.; Wang, X.; Bin, P. Agriculture carbon-emission reduction and changing factors behind agricultural eco-efficiency growth in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 334, 130193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Pang, J.; Chen, X.; Lu, Z. Carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from the agricultural sector of China’s main grain-producing areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 665, 1017–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cui, Y.; Khan, S.; Deng, Y.; Zhao, M. Spatiotemporal heterogeneity, convergence and its impact factors: Perspective of carbon emission intensity and carbon emission per capita considering carbon sink effect. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 92, 106699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stefan, F.; Robert, B.; Petr, H.; Hugo, V.; Mario, H.; Aline, M.; Tomoko, H.; Jared, C.; Shaun, R.; Michael, O. Structural change as a key component for agricultural non-CO2 mitigation efforts. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1060. [Google Scholar]
Agricultural Carbon Source | Indicator | Data Sources |
---|---|---|
Agricultural materials | Fertilizers, pesticides, agricultural film usage | “China Agricultural Statistics (1949–2019)”; Database of the National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China; |
Rice planting | Early, middle and late rice planting area | “Compilation of Agricultural Statistics for 30 Years of Reform and Opening-up”; Database of the National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China |
Livestock and poultry | Annual output of various livestock and poultry | “China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Yearbook”; “China Agricultural Statistics”; “China Agricultural Yearbook”; |
Agricultural energy | Year-end inventory of various livestock and poultry | Regional energy balance sheet of “China Energy Statistical Yearbook” |
Straw burning | Agricultural sector consumption by fuel species | “Compilation of Agricultural Statistics for 30 Years of Reform and Opening-up”; Database of the National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China |
Soil | Nitrogen fertilizer, production of various crops, annual output and year-end inventory of various livestock and poultry | “China Agricultural Yearbook”; “Compilation of Agricultural Statistics for 30 Years of Reform and Opening-up”; Database of the National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China; “China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Yearbook”; “China Agricultural Statistics”. |
Agricultural Carbon Source | Gross | Carbon Intensity | Rank | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area | Agricultural Material | Rice Cultivation | Livestock and Poultry | AgriculturalEnergy | Straw Burning | Soil | ||||
Major Grain Producing Areas | Jiangxi | 163.48 | 3223.12 | 1776.21 | 362.62 | 946.73 | 147.99 | 6620.15 | 6.05 | 29 |
Hunan | 262.18 | 3631.34 | 3316.52 | 841.08 | 2370.69 | 199.44 | 10,621.24 | 5.50 | 28 | |
Anhui | 326.64 | 2703.12 | 1973.06 | 473.61 | 2438.07 | 400.42 | 8314.92 | 5.09 | 25 | |
Hubei | 334.21 | 2898.90 | 2211.15 | 802.67 | 1147.47 | 269.19 | 7663.59 | 4.46 | 21 | |
Inner Mongolia | 149.20 | 24.65 | 2615.01 | 764.75 | 366.84 | 112.89 | 4033.35 | 4.23 | 19 | |
Heilongjiang | 207.64 | 526.57 | 1771.58 | 1102.90 | 1344.14 | 195.93 | 5148.77 | 4.21 | 18 | |
Sichuan | 280.12 | 1594.37 | 5303.43 | 540.24 | 1263.27 | 180.94 | 9162.38 | 4.20 | 17 | |
Jiangsu | 366.81 | 3272.61 | 1484.25 | 1146.58 | 2063.69 | 338.30 | 8672.24 | 3.75 | 15 | |
Jilin | 177.45 | 97.02 | 1545.69 | 370.62 | 815.55 | 279.95 | 3286.28 | 3.35 | 14 | |
Henan | 568.12 | 270.53 | 4812.65 | 1096.91 | 2593.06 | 420.17 | 9761.44 | 3.25 | 12 | |
Shandong | 581.21 | 78.20 | 4000.58 | 1681.34 | 1872.09 | 409.44 | 8622.87 | 2.56 | 6 | |
Hebei | 336.88 | 44.47 | 2970.64 | 1580.30 | 771.95 | 210.62 | 5914.86 | 2.51 | 5 | |
Liaoning | 184.67 | 138.44 | 1702.71 | 580.42 | 442.18 | 150.05 | 3198.47 | 2.07 | 1 | |
Major Grain Sales Areas | Guangdong | 255.03 | 2170.27 | 2086.64 | 929.91 | 865.80 | 321.70 | 6629.35 | 3.08 | 10 |
Shanghai | 26.26 | 204.73 | 172.53 | 152.61 | 78.32 | 12.75 | 647.20 | 3.00 | 9 | |
Zhejiang | 133.98 | 1344.87 | 766.13 | 952.81 | 495.45 | 74.35 | 3767.58 | 2.95 | 8 | |
Hainan | 48.54 | 236.48 | 432.15 | 187.69 | 91.79 | 88.51 | 1085.16 | 2.86 | 7 | |
Tianjin | 23.37 | 10.04 | 219.82 | 249.90 | 50.25 | 13.86 | 567.24 | 2.51 | 4 | |
Beijing | 20.73 | 3.27 | 216.74 | 270.24 | 26.12 | 12.05 | 549.16 | 2.48 | 3 | |
Fujian | 149.11 | 1007.97 | 898.18 | 403.40 | 237.64 | 158.71 | 2855.01 | 2.34 | 2 | |
Production-Sales Balance Areas | Qinghai | 9.06 | 0.00 | 1386.68 | 37.26 | 9.03 | 6.36 | 1448.39 | 15.26 | 30 |
Shanxi | 113.57 | 0.64 | 894.66 | 859.49 | 570.86 | 79.35 | 2518.57 | 5.28 | 27 | |
Ningxia | 31.76 | 14.96 | 344.45 | 175.20 | 80.29 | 22.04 | 668.69 | 5.18 | 26 | |
Gansu | 129.77 | 1.07 | 1548.28 | 553.01 | 151.12 | 44.69 | 2427.95 | 4.92 | 24 | |
Guangxi | 213.87 | 1960.53 | 2546.08 | 327.93 | 638.39 | 443.69 | 6130.49 | 4.88 | 23 | |
Guizhou | 92.59 | 145.70 | 1979.87 | 401.58 | 66.48 | 81.60 | 2767.82 | 4.78 | 22 | |
Yunnan | 188.25 | 189.64 | 2960.96 | 343.41 | 635.15 | 147.11 | 4464.51 | 4.27 | 20 | |
Xinjiang | 202.95 | 22.03 | 1895.41 | 915.93 | 170.09 | 71.96 | 3278.36 | 3.87 | 16 | |
Chong Qing | 81.04 | 399.99 | 906.25 | 378.79 | 189.22 | 56.24 | 2011.53 | 3.33 | 13 | |
Shaanxi | 164.70 | 46.25 | 1041.92 | 438.66 | 326.52 | 128.35 | 2146.39 | 3.09 | 11 | |
Major Grain Producing Areas | 302.97 | 1423.33 | 2729.50 | 872.62 | 1418.13 | 255.03 | 7001.58 | 3.94 | ||
Major Grain Sales Areas | 93.86 | 711.09 | 684.60 | 449.51 | 263.62 | 97.42 | 2300.10 | 2.74 | ||
Production-Sales Balance Areas | 122.76 | 278.08 | 1550.46 | 443.12 | 283.72 | 108.14 | 2786.27 | 5.49 | ||
Whole Nation | 194.11 | 875.39 | 1859.34 | 630.73 | 770.61 | 169.29 | 4499.47 | 4.18 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wen, S.; Hu, Y.; Liu, H. Measurement and Spatial–Temporal Characteristics of Agricultural Carbon Emission in China: An Internal Structural Perspective. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111749
Wen S, Hu Y, Liu H. Measurement and Spatial–Temporal Characteristics of Agricultural Carbon Emission in China: An Internal Structural Perspective. Agriculture. 2022; 12(11):1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111749
Chicago/Turabian StyleWen, Shibin, Yuxiang Hu, and Hongman Liu. 2022. "Measurement and Spatial–Temporal Characteristics of Agricultural Carbon Emission in China: An Internal Structural Perspective" Agriculture 12, no. 11: 1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12111749