“Resource Conservation” or “Environmental Friendliness”: How do Urban Clusters Affect Total-Factor Ecological Performance in China?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Hypothesis
2.1. Literature Review
2.1.1. The Economic Effect of Urban Clusters
2.1.2. Related Research on Ecological Performance
2.2. Research Hypothesis
2.2.1. Resource Conservation or Environmental Friendliness?
2.2.2. Transmission Channels for Urban Clusters on Regional Ecological Performance
3. Methodology
3.1. EM-DEA Model for Measuring UTEP and Its Decomposition Index
3.2. The Empirical Strategy
3.2.1. The Impact of Urban Clusters on Resource Conservation and Environmental Friendliness
3.2.2. Assessing the Industrial Structure Restructuring Effect of Urban Clusters
3.2.3. Assessing the Technological Innovation and Diffusion Effects of Urban Clusters
4. Data description and Variable Definitions
4.1. Data and Input–Output Variables Used for UTEP and Its Decomposition Index
4.2. Data and Variable Used for Econometric Model
4.2.1. Measuring the Urban Clustering Degree
4.2.2. Measuring the Industrial Structure Index
4.2.3. Other Explanatory Variables
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Comparing the UTEP between Low-Cluster Cities and High-Cluster Cities
5.2. Basic Regression Results
5.3. Industrial Structure Restructuring Effect
5.4. Technology Innovation and Diffusion Effect
6. Heterogeneity Analysis
6.1. The Estimated Results of Region Grouping
6.2. The Estimated Results of Period Grouping
7. Conclusions and Implications
7.1. Conclusions
7.2. Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Top 25 | Bottom 25 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cities | UTEP | UTRESP | UTENVP | Cities | UTEP | UTRESP | UTENVP |
Foshan | 0.879 | 0.460 | 0.419 | Yuncheng | 0.149 | 0.137 | 0.012 |
Zhongshan | 0.844 | 0.451 | 0.393 | Huainan | 0.149 | 0.130 | 0.019 |
Changde | 0.803 | 0.462 | 0.341 | Xuchang | 0.148 | 0.127 | 0.021 |
Dongguan | 0.799 | 0.412 | 0.387 | Benxi | 0.148 | 0.106 | 0.041 |
Erdos | 0.766 | 0.447 | 0.319 | Hechi | 0.147 | 0.140 | 0.007 |
Yuxi | 0.765 | 0.456 | 0.309 | Yichun | 0.147 | 0.097 | 0.050 |
Changsha | 0.700 | 0.403 | 0.297 | Hengyang | 0.146 | 0.110 | 0.037 |
Shenzheng | 0.636 | 0.377 | 0.259 | Shangrao | 0.146 | 0.124 | 0.022 |
Daqing | 0.602 | 0.321 | 0.281 | Baise | 0.146 | 0.124 | 0.022 |
Sanya | 0.594 | 0.388 | 0.206 | Liaoyang | 0.145 | 0.100 | 0.045 |
Dongying | 0.586 | 0.375 | 0.211 | Zhumadian | 0.140 | 0.122 | 0.018 |
Guangzhou | 0.553 | 0.375 | 0.178 | Huangshi | 0.138 | 0.122 | 0.016 |
Beijing | 0.546 | 0.339 | 0.207 | Anqing | 0.136 | 0.109 | 0.027 |
Hohhot | 0.537 | 0.331 | 0.206 | Jiayuguan | 0.135 | 0.064 | 0.072 |
Tianjin | 0.501 | 0.337 | 0.164 | Qitaihe | 0.133 | 0.107 | 0.026 |
Putian | 0.471 | 0.360 | 0.111 | Jixi | 0.129 | 0.094 | 0.035 |
Qingyang | 0.463 | 0.325 | 0.138 | Zhoukou | 0.126 | 0.113 | 0.013 |
Haikou | 0.460 | 0.265 | 0.196 | Hehe | 0.124 | 0.106 | 0.018 |
Maoming | 0.459 | 0.324 | 0.135 | Kaifeng | 0.122 | 0.101 | 0.021 |
Suozhou | 0.438 | 0.297 | 0.141 | Mudanjiang | 0.113 | 0.083 | 0.030 |
Ziyang | 0.437 | 0.333 | 0.104 | Hegang | 0.111 | 0.089 | 0.022 |
Qingdiao | 0.432 | 0.350 | 0.082 | Wuzhong | 0.106 | 0.087 | 0.019 |
Shangluo | 0.430 | 0.314 | 0.116 | Xingtai | 0.103 | 0.098 | 0.005 |
Shengyang | 0.420 | 0.315 | 0.105 | Fuxing | 0.103 | 0.084 | 0.019 |
Karamay | 0.416 | 0.261 | 0.155 | Jiaozuo | 0.078 | 0.071 | 0.008 |
Mean | 0.581 | 0.363 | 0.218 | Mean | 0.131 | 0.106 | 0.025 |
Percent(%) | 62.48 | 37.52 | Percent(%) | 80.92 | 19.08 |
Appendix B
UTRESP | UTENVP | UTEP | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
Sys-GMM | Two-Way | Sys-GMM | Two-Way | Sys-GMM | Two-Way | |
lnIC | −0.033 ** | 0.416 *** | 0.164 *** | 1.062 *** | 0.345 *** | 0.544 *** |
(−1.98) | (8.38) | (3.12) | (6.21) | (3.21) | (8.57) | |
(lnIC)2 | −0.006 *** | −0.011 *** | 0.020 *** | 0.059 *** | 0.004 | 0.004 |
(−2.89) | (−3.84) | (2.73) | (6.21) | (0.64) | (1.03) | |
lnTECH | 0.223 *** | 0.301 *** | 0.170 *** | 0.335 *** | 0.324 *** | 0.318 *** |
(12.28) | (31.83) | (4.02) | (10.28) | (15.72) | (26.28) | |
lnIND | −0.034 | 0.052 * | −0.064 | 0.068 | −0.168 ** | 0.076 ** |
(−0.96) | (1.91) | (−0.53) | (0.72) | (−2.50) | (2.17) | |
lnER | −0.004 | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.018 | −0.000 | 0.004 |
(−0.81) | (0.09) | (−0.06) | (1.24) | (−0.05) | (0.75) | |
lnPERGDP | 0.300 *** | 0.259 *** | 1.008 *** | 1.208 *** | 0.321 *** | 0.415 *** |
(11.05) | (16.02) | (12.19) | (21.69) | (6.55) | (20.05) | |
L.lnUTRESP | 0.378 *** | |||||
(8.28) | ||||||
L.lnUTENVP | 0.342 *** | |||||
(7.48) | ||||||
L.lnUTEP | 0.258 *** | |||||
(5.38) | ||||||
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
R2 | 0.487 | 0.328 | 0.455 | |||
F | 135.548 | 174.705 | 79.388 | 89.770 | 52.686 | 154.049 |
Hanse | 0.262 | 0.364 | 0.323 | |||
AR(2) | 0.841 | 0.627 | 0.506 | |||
Observations | 3336 | 3614 | 3336 | 3614 | 3336 | 3614 |
Appendix C
Industrial Structure Supererogation | Industrial Structure Rationalization | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INDSUP | UTRESP | UTENVP | INDRAT | UTRESP | UTENVP | |||||
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) |
lnIC | 0.214 *** | 0.026 *** | 0.017 ** | 1.347 ** | 0.035 * | 0.413 *** | 0.026 *** | 0.025 *** | 1.732 *** | 0.036 ** |
(3.84) | (3.00) | (2.04) | (2.14) | (1.66) | (2.72) | (3.00) | (2.91) | (2.81) | (2.20) | |
lnINDSUP | −0.040 | 0.157 * | ||||||||
(−1.32) | (1.97) | |||||||||
lnINDRAT | −0.015 | 0.052 ** | ||||||||
(−1.34) | (2.24) | |||||||||
L.lnUTRESP | 0.450 *** | 0.414 *** | 0.450 *** | 0.466 *** | ||||||
(11.95) | (12.47) | (11.95) | (12.93) | |||||||
L.lnUTENVP | 0.337 *** | 0.439 *** | 0.355 *** | 0.551 *** | ||||||
(8.47) | (11.86) | (8.66) | (10.93) | |||||||
Control var. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
F | 95.621 | 84.813 | 68.313 | 37.812 | 103.593 | 14.938 | 84.813 | 92.975 | 40.043 | 68.202 |
Hanse | 0.103 | 0.228 | 0.039 | 0.408 | 0.187 | 0.303 | 0.228 | 0.358 | 0.344 | 0.357 |
AR(2) | 0.363 | 0.885 | 0.921 | 0.686 | 0.390 | 0.821 | 0.885 | 0.774 | 0.610 | 0.257 |
Appendix D
TECH | UTRESP | UTENVP | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | |
Variables | Full | Ic ≤ 50% | Ic > 50% | Full | Ic ≤ 50% | Ic > 50% | Full | Ic ≤ 50% | Ic > 50% |
lnIC | 0.046 ** | 0.000 | 0.089 ** | 0.223 *** | 0.180 * | 0.292 *** | −0.198 ** | 2.399 * | 0.355 |
(2.33) | (0.01) | (2.58) | (3.02) | (1.72) | (2.81) | (−2.10) | (1.81) | (0.70) | |
lnTECH | 0.349 *** | 0.466 *** | 0.363 *** | 0.534 *** | −0.439 | 1.056 *** | |||
(7.26) | (4.26) | (7.51) | (3.56) | (−0.74) | (4.92) | ||||
lnIC×lnTECH | 0.010 | 0.029 | 0.017 | 0.076 ** | −0.101 | 0.177 *** | |||
(0.92) | (1.59) | (1.16) | (2.47) | (−1.41) | (2.77) | ||||
L.lnTECH | 0.519 *** | 0.460 *** | 0.601 *** | ||||||
(9.77) | (6.67) | (10.08) | |||||||
L.lnUTRESP | 0.318 *** | 0.308 *** | 0.315 *** | ||||||
(7.23) | (5.94) | (5.83) | |||||||
L.lnUTENVP | 0.362 *** | 0.351 *** | 0.321 *** | ||||||
(7.84) | (5.17) | (5.53) | |||||||
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
F | 30.698 | 12.915 | 33.030 | 58.840 | 42.745 | 28.251 | 72.558 | 19.848 | 27.081 |
Hanse | 0.180 | 0.813 | 0.766 | 0.134 | 0.170 | 0.614 | 0.159 | 0.069 | 0.235 |
AR(2) | 0.051 | 0.151 | 0.150 | 0.602 | 0.064 | 0.930 | 0.640 | 0.675 | 0.877 |
Observations | 3336 | 1668 | 1668 | 3336 | 1668 | 1668 | 3336 | 1668 | 1668 |
References
- Liu, Y.; Wang, S.; Qiao, Z.; Wang, Y.; Ding, Y.; Miao, C. Estimating the dynamic effects of socioeconomic development on industrial SO2 emissions in Chinese cities using a DPSIR causal framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 150, 104450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Xiang, W.; Zhao, J. Urban ecology in China: Historical developments and future directions. Landscape Urban. Plan. 2014, 125, 222–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, M.; Shen, L.; Tam, V.W.; Liu, Z.; Shu, T.; Luo, W. A load-carrier perspective examination on the change of ecological environment carrying capacity during urbanization process in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, X. Urbanization path and city scale in China: An economic analysis. Econ. Res. J. 2010, 45, 20–32. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; Zhang, X. The path selection for high quality development of China’s small towns in post-industrialization period. China Industr. Econ. 2019, 37, 62–80. [Google Scholar]
- The Economist. China Is Trying to Turn Itself into a Country of 19 Super-Regionsm. 2018. Available online: https://www.economist.com/china/2018/06/23/china-is-trying-to-turn-itself-into-a-country-of-19-super-regions (accessed on 23 June 2018).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Eco-efficient Leadership for Improved Economic and Environmental Performance; WBCSD: Conches-Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.; Su, B.; Zhou, P.; Chiu, C. Measuring total-factor CO2 emission performance and technology gaps using a non-radial directional distance function: A modified approach. Energ. Econ. 2016, 56, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakouri, R.; Salahi, M.; Kordrostami, S. Stochastic p-robust approach to two-stage network DEA model. Quantit. Fin. Econ. 2019, 3, 315–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battese, G.E.; Rao, D.P.; O’Donnell, C.J. A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. J. Prod. Anal. 2004, 21, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 143, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pastor, J.T.; Lovell, C.K. A global Malmquist productivity index. Econ. Lett. 2005, 88, 266–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, G.; Baležentis, T.; Sun, C.; Xu, S. Source control or end-of-pipe control: Mitigating air pollution at the regional level from the perspective of the Total Factor Productivity change decomposition. Energ. Policy 2019, 129, 1227–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, Y.H.; Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. J. Environ. Manage. 1997, 51, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, J.; Gao, M.; Sun, Y. Research on the measurement and path of urban agglomeration growth effect. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yuan, Q. Do urban clusters promote the development of cities? J. World Econ. 2016, 39, 99–123. [Google Scholar]
- Li, P.; Wang, C.; Zhang, X. Did city cluster development help improve labor productivity in China? J. Asia Pac. Econ. 2017, 22, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Wang, J.; Szmedra, P. Economic efficiency and its influencing factors on urban agglomeration—An analysis based on China’s top 10 urban agglomerations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zheng, S.; Du, R. How does urban agglomeration integration promote entrepreneurship in China? Evidence from regional human capital spillovers and market integration. Cities 2020, 97, 102529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, F.; Zhang, H.; Hu, Y.; Duncan, A.A. Growth of green total factor productivity and its determinants of cities in China: A spatial econometric approach. Emerg. Mark. Fin. Tr. 2017, 53, 2123–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Li, K. A comparative analysis on energy-saving and emissions-reduction performance of three urban agglomerations in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 953–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borck, R.; Pflüger, M. Green cities? Urbanization, trade, and the environment. J. Reg. Sci. 2018, 59, 743–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xie, H.; Chen, Q.; Lu, F.; Wu, Q.; Wang, W. Spatial-temporal disparities, saving potential and influential factors of industrial land use efficiency: A case study in urban agglomeration in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River. Land Use Policy 2018, 75, 518–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.; Feng, Q.; Wang, X.; Fu, H.; Jiang, W.; Chen, B. Spatial association and effect evaluation of CO2 emission in the Chengdu-Chongqing urban agglomeration: Quantitative evidence from social network analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Y.; Li, L.; Yu, Y. Do urban agglomerations outperform non-agglomerations? A new perspective on exploring the eco-efficiency of Yangtze River Economic Belt in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 1056–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Li, L.; Yu, Y. Does urban cluster promote the increase of urban eco-efficiency? Evidence from Chinese cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 957–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Y.; Deng, X.; Jiang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Z. Exploring the relationship between urbanization and urban eco-efficiency: Evidence from prefecture-level cities in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1487–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y.; Shao, T.; Lai, H.; Shen, M.; Li, Y. Total-factor eco-efficiency and its influencing factors in the Yangtze River delta urban agglomeration, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2019, 16, 3814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beltrán-Esteve, M.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Picazo-Tadeo, A.J.; Reig-Martínez, E. A metafrontier directional distance function approach to assessing eco-efficiency. J. Prod. Anal. 2014, 41, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Peng, C.; Li, Y. Do neighboring prefectures matter in promoting eco-efficiency? Empirical evidence from China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2018, 144, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Donnell, C.J.; Rao, D.S.P.; Battese, G.E. Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empir. Econ. 2008, 34, 231–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Choi, Y. Total-factor carbon emission performance of fossil fuel power plants in China: A metafrontier non-radial Malmquist index analysis. Energ. Econ. 2013, 40, 549–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, P.; Ang, B.W.; Wang, H. Energy and CO2 emission performance in electricity generation: A non-radial directional distance function approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 221, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wursthorn, S.; Poganietz, W.; Schebek, L. Economic-environmental monitoring indicators for European countries: A disaggregated sector-based approach for monitoring eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, W.; Winter, M.; Kara, S.; Herrmann, C. Eco-efficiency of manufacturing processes: A grinding case. CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 2012, 61, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adjei Kwakwa, P.; Alhassan, H.; Aboagye, S. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in a financial development and natural resource extraction context: Evidence from Tunisia. Quantit. Fin. Econ. 2018, 2, 981–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.; Xia, Y. Industrial agglomeration and environmental pollution: Evidence from China under New Urbanization. Energ. Environ.-UK 2019, 30, 1010–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krugman, P. Increasing Return and Economic Geography. J. Polit. Econ. 1991, 99, 483–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glaeser, E.L.; Kahn, M.E. The greenness of cities: Carbon dioxide emissions and urban development. J. Urban. Econ. 2010, 67, 404–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boix, R.; Trullén, J. Knowledge, networks of cities and growth in regional urban systems. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2007, 86, 551–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fang, C.; Zhou, C.; Gu, C.; Chen, L.; Li, S. A proposal for the theoretical analysis of the interactive coupled effects between urbanization and the eco-environment in mega-urban agglomerations. J. Geogr. Sci. 2017, 27, 1431–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G.M.; Krueger, A.B. Economic growth and the environment. Q. J. Econ. 1995, 110, 353–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brakman, S.; van Marrewijk, C. Reflections on cluster policies. Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2013, 6, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, Z.; Liao, G.; Albitar, K. Does corporate environmental responsibility engagement affect firm value? The mediating role of corporate innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 29, 1045–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Zhu, Y.; Du, K. The impact of industrial agglomeration on industrial pollutant emission: Evidence from China under New Normal. Clean. Technol. Environ. 2017, 19, 2327–2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhoef, E.T.; Nijkamp, P. Externalities in urban sustainability: Environmental versus localization-type agglomeration externalities in a general spatial equilibrium model of a single-sector monocentric industrial city. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 40, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, K.; Wang, D. The Interaction and Spatial Spillover between Agglomeration and Pollution. China Industr. Econ. 2014, 70–82. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, M.; Feng, H. Agglomeration and emission reduction: An empirical study on the impact of urban size gap on industrial pollution intensity. J. World Econ. 2014, 34, 86–114. [Google Scholar]
- Glaeser, E.; Goodman, J.C. Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. Bus. Econ. 2011, 46, 185–186. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Panne, G. Agglomeration externalities: Marshall versus Jacobs. J. Evol. Econ. 2004, 14, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandt, L.; Rawski, T.G. China’s Great Economic Transformation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, Q.; Zeng, J.-X. The optimization of industrial structure of urban agglomeration from the perspective of spatial interaction: Case study of Wuhan Urban Agglomeration. Econ. Geogr. 2013, 33, 102–108. [Google Scholar]
- Jalil, A.; Feridun, M. The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: A cointegration analysis. Energ. Econ. 2011, 33, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonietti, R.; Cainelli, G. The role of spatial agglomeration in a structural model of innovation, productivity and export: A firm-level analysis. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2011, 46, 577–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speldekamp, D.; Knoben, J.; Saka-Helmhout, A. Clusters and firm-level innovation: A configurational analysis of agglomeration, network and institutional advantages in European aerospace. Res. Policy 2020, 49, 103921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biggiero, L.; Sammarra, A. Does geographical proximity enhance knowledge exchange? The case of the aerospace industrial cluster of Centre Italy. Int. J. Technol. Trans. Commercializ. 2010, 9, 283–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breschi, S.; Lenzi, C. Co-invention networks and inventive productivity in US cities. J. Urban. Econ. 2016, 92, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, W.; Koster, H.R.A.; van Oort, F. Co-agglomeration of knowledge-intensive business services and multinational enterprises. J. Econ. Geogr. 2013, 14, 443–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, X.; Wu, Z.; Zheng, H.; Li, M.; Tan, T. How urban agglomeration improve the emission efficiency? A spatial econometric analysis of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 260, 110061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertinelli, L.; Black, D. Urbanization and growth. J. Urban. Econ. 2004, 56, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timmer, M.P.; Los, B. Localized innovation and productivity growth in Asia: An intertemporal DEA approach. J. Prod. Anal. 2005, 23, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Q.; Zhang, C.; Cai, W. Factor substitution and energy productivity fluctuation in China: A parametric decomposition analysis. Energ. Policy 2017, 109, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Du, K. The energy effect of factor market distortion in China. Econ. Res. J. 2013, 48, 125–136. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Lin, B. Green economy performance and green productivity growth in China’s cities: Measures and policy implication. Sustainability 2016, 8, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edwards, J.R.; Lambert, L.S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Meth. 2007, 12, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Young, A. Gold into base metals: Productivity growth in the People’s Republic of China during the reform period. J. Polit. Econ. 2002, 111, 1220–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiang, J. The Estimation of Chinese Cities’ Fixed Capital Stock. Master’s Thesis, Hunan University, Changsha, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Portnov, B.; Erell, E.; Bivand, R.; Nilsen, A. Investigating the effect of clustering of the urban field on sustainable growth of centrally located and peripheral towns. Int. J. Popul. Geogr. 2000, 6, 133–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portnov, B.A.; Schwartz, M. Urban clusters as growth foci. J. Reg. Sci. 2009, 49, 287–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danison, E.F. Why growth rates differ: Post-war experience in nine western countries. Wash. Brook. Inst. 1967, 1, 967. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, B. Economic growth effects of industrial restructuring and productivity Improvement—Analysis of dynamic spatial panel model with Chinese City Data. China Industr. Econ. 2015, 33, 83–98. [Google Scholar]
- Dean, J.; Lovely, M. China’s Growing Role in World Trade. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010; pp. 429–469. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, M.A. Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: Examining the linkages. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 48, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahbaz, M.; Nasreen, S.; Abbas, F.; Anis, O. Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high, middle and low-income countries? Energ. Econ. 2015, 51, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Kahn, M.E.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Z. The consequences of spatially differentiated water pollution regulation in China. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2018, 88, 468–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadorsky, P. Do urbanization and industrialization affect energy intensity in developing countries? Energ. Econ. 2013, 37, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.; Golley, J. “green” productivity growth in China’s industrial economy. Energ. Econ. 2014, 44, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arellano, M.; Bover, O. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J. Econom. 1995, 68, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Category | Variables | Data and Description |
---|---|---|
total factor inputs | Labor(L) | We use total employment at year-end as the labor input. |
Capital(K) | The “perpetual inventory method” is adopted to calculate the capital stock. We converted all the fixed asset investment data to 2004 prices using price indices for investment in fixed assets by region. | |
Land resources(B) | We use the urban built-up area as the land resources input [27]. | |
water resources (W) | We subtract the domestic water consumption from the total water supply to get the water input. | |
Energy (E) | As the energy consumption data is not available at the city level, we use industrial electricity consumption as a proxy indicator for its high correlation with energy consumption [64]. | |
Desirable output | GDP(U) | To account for the price effect on economic data, we converted it to 2004 prices. |
Undesirable output | Waste water(D) | We use industrial wastewater emission as waste water. |
Waste gas (S) | Considering the issue of statistical caliber, we use industrial sulfur dioxide emission as waste gas. |
Variables | Obs. | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Urban total-factor ecological performance (UTEP) | 3614 | 0.260 | 0.154 | 0.053 | 0.999 |
Urban total-factor resource performance (UTRESP) | 3614 | 0.201 | 0.090 | 0.034 | 0.500 |
Urban total-factor environmental performance (UTEVNP) | 3614 | 0.059 | 0.080 | 0.001 | 0.500 |
Urban clusters (IC) | 3614 | 0.378 | 1.257 | 0.000 | 12.672 |
Technological level (TECH) | 3614 | 0.109 | 0.100 | 0.004 | 1.649 |
Industrial structure (IND) | 3614 | 0.424 | 0.110 | 0.086 | 0.802 |
Foreign direct investment (FDI) | 3614 | 0.173 | 0.182 | 0.000 | 0.919 |
Environmental regulation (ER) | 3614 | 0.454 | 0.272 | 0.000 | 0.994 |
Economic development (PERGDP) | 3614 | 0.108 | 0.049 | 0.021 | 0.521 |
Industrial structure supererogation (INDSUP) | 3614 | 0.952 | 0.541 | 0.094 | 4.819 |
Industrial structure rationalization (INDRAT) | 3614 | 0.451 | 2.205 | 0.005 | 67.284 |
UTRESP | UTENVP | UTEP | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
System-GMM | Two-Way | System-GMM | Two-Way | System-GMM | Two-Way | |
lnIC | −0.033 ** | 0.405 *** | 0.163 *** | 1.049 *** | 0.339 *** | 0.533 *** |
(−2.02) | (8.16) | (3.12) | (6.13) | (3.16) | (8.39) | |
(lnIC)2 | −0.006 *** | −0.011 *** | 0.019 ** | 0.058 *** | 0.003 | 0.003 |
(−2.80) | (−4.12) | (2.46) | (6.11) | (0.46) | (0.81) | |
lnTECH | 0.223 *** | 0.301 *** | 0.173 *** | 0.335 *** | 0.323 *** | 0.318 *** |
(12.28) | (31.89) | (4.22) | (10.27) | (15.75) | (26.30) | |
lnIND | −0.039 | 0.041 | −0.022 | 0.055 | −0.175 ** | 0.064 * |
(−1.04) | (1.48) | (−0.18) | (0.59) | (−2.59) | (1.83) | |
lnFDI | 0.004 | 0.026 *** | −0.038 * | 0.029 | 0.017 | 0.027 *** |
(0.59) | (4.40) | (−1.79) | (1.39) | (1.38) | (3.46) | |
lnER | −0.004 | 0.001 | −0.001 | 0.018 | −0.000 | 0.004 |
(−0.82) | (0.18) | (−0.07) | (1.27) | (−0.03) | (0.82) | |
lnPERGDP | 0.299 *** | 0.261 *** | 1.013 *** | 1.210 *** | 0.320 *** | 0.417 *** |
(11.10) | (16.15) | (12.08) | (21.71) | (6.54) | (20.15) | |
L.lnUTRESP | 0.376 *** | |||||
(8.22) | ||||||
L.lnUTENVP | 0.343 *** | |||||
(7.39) | ||||||
L.lnUTEP | 0.254 *** | |||||
(5.29) | ||||||
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
R2 | 0.490 | 0.328 | 0.457 | |||
F | 131.066 | 167.443 | 81.637 | 85.171 | 50.658 | 147.056 |
Hanse | 0.257 | 0.326 | 0.312 | |||
AR(2) | 0.832 | 0.640 | 0.496 | |||
Observations | 3336 | 3614 | 3336 | 3614 | 3336 | 3614 |
INDSUP | UTRESP | UTENVP | INDRAT | UTRESP | UTENVP | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) |
lnIC | 0.216 ** | 0.022 *** | 0.016 * | 0.056 ** | 0.053 ** | 0.440 *** | 0.022 *** | 0.023 *** | 0.048 * | 0.045 * |
(2.45) | (2.65) | (1.80) | (2.26) | (2.15) | (2.78) | (2.65) | (2.93) | (1.83) | (1.87) | |
lnINDSUP | −0.028 | 0.146 * | ||||||||
(−0.98) | (1.89) | |||||||||
lnINDRAT | −0.013 | 0.064 ** | ||||||||
(−1.34) | (2.46) | |||||||||
L.lnUTRESP | 0.484 *** | 0.425 *** | 0.484 *** | 0.485 *** | ||||||
(12.74) | (13.21) | (12.74) | (13.07) | |||||||
L.lnUTENVP | 0.441 *** | 0.433 *** | 0.420 *** | 0.416 *** | ||||||
(11.58) | (11.35) | (12.12) | (11.68) | |||||||
Control variable | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
F | 63.808 | 86.328 | 67.409 | 87.774 | 85.838 | 13.701 | 86.328 | 88.272 | 44.779 | 43.660 |
Hanse | 0.180 | 0.145 | 0.102 | 0.315 | 0.303 | 0.326 | 0.145 | 0.260 | 0.396 | 0.363 |
AR(2) | 0.354 | 0.806 | 0.964 | 0.411 | 0.424 | 0.887 | 0.806 | 0.741 | 0.448 | 0.484 |
Variables | TECH | UTRESP | UTENVP | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | |
Full | Ic ≤ 50% | Ic > 50% | Full | Ic ≤ 50% | Ic > 50% | Full | Ic ≤ 50% | Ic > 50% | |
lnIC | 0.049 ** | 0.006 | 0.109 *** | 0.224 *** | 0.187 * | 0.305 *** | −0.189 ** | 2.366 * | 0.342 |
(2.31) | (0.12) | (3.11) | (3.03) | (1.78) | (2.90) | (−2.05) | (1.79) | (0.67) | |
lnTECH | 0.343 *** | 0.459 *** | 0.360 *** | 0.535 *** | −0.408 | 1.062 *** | |||
(7.10) | (4.14) | (7.53) | (3.72) | (−0.67) | (4.93) | ||||
LnIC × lnTECH | 0.009 | 0.028 | 0.016 | 0.077 *** | −0.096 | 0.178 *** | |||
(0.82) | (1.51) | (1.14) | (2.60) | (−1.28) | (2.76) | ||||
L.lnTECH | 0.520 *** | 0.459 *** | 0.597 *** | ||||||
(9.82) | (6.80) | (10.18) | |||||||
L.lnUTRESP | 0.315 *** | 0.302 *** | 0.310 *** | ||||||
(7.11) | (5.74) | (5.63) | |||||||
L.lnUTENVP | 0.361 *** | 0.356 *** | 0.320 *** | ||||||
(7.76) | (5.27) | (5.52) | |||||||
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
F | 28.898 | 13.032 | 30.209 | 57.786 | 41.484 | 26.398 | 71.639 | 18.467 | 25.536 |
Hanse | 0.168 | 0.812 | 0.756 | 0.113 | 0.172 | 0.409 | 0.169 | 0.065 | 0.230 |
AR(2) | 0.051 | 0.148 | 0.152 | 0.576 | 0.056 | 0.941 | 0.664 | 0.679 | 0.872 |
Observations | 3336 | 1668 | 1668 | 3336 | 1668 | 1668 | 3336 | 1668 | 1668 |
East | Central | West | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
UTRESP | UTENVP | UTRESP | UTENVP | UTRESP | UTENVP | |
Lnic | 0.011 ** | 0.052 ** | 0.009 * | 0.025 | −0.005 | 0.049 |
(1.96) | (2.19) | (1.70) | (1.53) | (−0.71) | (1.40) | |
L.Lnutresp | 0.501 *** | 0.444 *** | 0.378 *** | |||
(7.14) | (5.23) | (3.24) | ||||
L.Lnutenvp | 0.355 *** | 0.351 *** | 0.264 *** | |||
(5.46) | (5.19) | (3.18) | ||||
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
F | 78.118 | 37.154 | 170.784 | 44.631 | 56.468 | 13.337 |
Hanse | 0.251 | 0.798 | 0.338 | 0.307 | 0.324 | 0.779 |
AR(2) | 0.914 | 0.929 | 0.946 | 0.486 | 0.523 | 0.136 |
Observations | 1380 | 1380 | 1308 | 1308 | 648 | 648 |
UTRESP | UTENVP | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) |
2004–2009 | 2010–2016 | 2004–2009 | 2010–2016 | |
lnIC | −0.049 | 0.056 ** | 0.025 | 0.671 *** |
(−1.35) | (2.59) | (1.64) | (4.55) | |
L.lnUTRESP | 0.386 *** | 0.420 *** | ||
(5.07) | (6.89) | |||
L.lnUTENVP | 0.371 *** | 0.272 *** | ||
(5.24) | (5.77) | |||
Control variables | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Time effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
City effect | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
F | 71.942 | 100.518 | 47.219 | 33.398 |
Hanse | 0.202 | 0.242 | 0.898 | 0.181 |
AR(2) | 0.724 | 0.628 | 0.387 | 0.506 |
Observations | 1390 | 1946 | 1390 | 1946 |
© 2020 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, P.; Xie, R.; Lu, M. “Resource Conservation” or “Environmental Friendliness”: How do Urban Clusters Affect Total-Factor Ecological Performance in China? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4361. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124361
Chen P, Xie R, Lu M. “Resource Conservation” or “Environmental Friendliness”: How do Urban Clusters Affect Total-Factor Ecological Performance in China? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(12):4361. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124361
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Peirong, Ruhe Xie, and Mingxuan Lu. 2020. "“Resource Conservation” or “Environmental Friendliness”: How do Urban Clusters Affect Total-Factor Ecological Performance in China?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 12: 4361. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124361