Submitted:
10 September 2024
Posted:
10 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Impact of Forest Land on Economic Development
2.2. Forest Land and Low-Carbon Economic Development
2.3. Research on EKC
3. Methods and Materials
3.1. EKC Modeling of Carbon Emissions under the Perspective of Forest-Economy Symbiosis
3.2. Variables Interpretation and Data Sources
4. Results
4.1. Tests for the Econometric Analysis
4.2. Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Analysis of Carbon Emissions
4.3. Symbiotic Mechanisms of Economic Growth and Forest Quality
4.4. Robustness Analysis of EKC Model
4.5. Discussion
4.6. Policy Implications
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dudley N, Schlaepfer R, Jackson W, et al. Forest quality: assessing forests at a landscape scale. London: Sterling, VA, Earthscan. 2006.
- Brower L P, Castilleja G, Peralta A, et al.Quantitative changes in Forest quality in a principal overwintering area of the monarch butterfly in Mexico, 1971-1999. Conservation Biology, 2010,16 (2):346-359. [CrossRef]
- Tadesse, T.; Teklay, G.; Mulatu, D. W. Forest benefits and willingness to pay for sustainable forest management. For. Policy Econ.2022, 138, 102721. [CrossRef]
- Ali, A.; Ramakrishnan, S. Financial development and natural resources. Is there a stock market resource curse? Resour. Policy. 2022, 75, 102457. [CrossRef]
- Leonard, A.; Ahsan, A.; Charbonnier, F. The Resource Curse in Renewable Energy: A framework for risk assessment. Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 41, 100841. [CrossRef]
- Culas R J. Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: An institutional perspective. Ecological Economics, 2007 ,61(2): 429-437. [CrossRef]
- Wang S, Liu C, Wilson B. Is China in a later stage of a U-shaped forest resource curve? A re-examination of empirical evidence. Forest Policy & Economics, 2007,10(1): 1-6. [CrossRef]
- Näyhä, A. Transition in the Finnish forest-based sector: Company perspectives on the bioeconomy, circular economy and sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 209, 1294-1306. [CrossRef]
- Chachu, D.O.; Nketiah-Amponsah, E. The Fiscal resource curse: What’s China’s natural resource appetite got to do with it? Int. Rev. Appl. Econ. 2022, 36, 129–146. [CrossRef]
- Ajide, K.B. Is natural resource curse thesis an empirical regularity for economic complexity in Africa? Resour. Policy 2022, 76,102755. [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez, D.S.; Paz, M.J.; Vite, A.M. Industrialization of natural resources as a strategy to avoid the natural resource curse: Case of Chilean copper. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2022, 11, 101133. [CrossRef]
- Grossman G M, Krueger A B. Environmental Impacts of a north American free trade agreement. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 1991, 8 (2): 223-250.
- Caravaggio N. Economic growth and the forest development path: A theoretical reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation. Forest Policy and Economics, 2020, 118: 102259. [CrossRef]
- Turner, J.A.; Buongiorno, J.; Zhu, S. An economic model of international wood supply, forest stock and forest area change. Scand. J. For. Res. 2006, 21, 73–86. [CrossRef]
- Cuaresma, J.C.; Danylo, O.; Fritz, S.; McCallum, I.; Obersteiner, M.; See, L.; Walsh, B. Economic development and forest cover: Evidence from satellite data. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40678. [CrossRef]
- Joshi, P.; Beck, K. Environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation: Evidence using GMM estimation for OECD and non-OECD regions. iForest ,2017, 10, 196–203. [CrossRef]
- Nguyen-Van, P.; Azomahou, T. Nonlinearities and heterogeneity in environmental quality: An empirical analysis of deforestation. J. Dev. Econ. 2007, 84, 291–309. [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez García, V.; Caravaggio, N.; Gaspart, F.; Meyfroidt, P. Long- and Short-Run Forest Dynamics: An Empirical Assessment of Forest Transition, Environmental Kuznets Curve and Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theories. Forests, 2021, 12, 431. [CrossRef]
- Prakash Nepal, Jaana Korhonen, Jeffrey P. Prestemon, Frederick W. Cubbage. Projecting Global and Regional Forest Area under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Using an Updated Environmental Kuznets Curve Model. Forests, 2019, 10, 387. [CrossRef]
- Hao Y, Xu Y, Zhang J. Relationship between forest resources and economic growth: Empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 214: 848–859. [CrossRef]
- Wildberg J, Möhring B. Empirical analysis of the economic effect of tree species diversity based on the results of a forest accountancy data network. Forest Policy and Economics, 2019, 109: 101982. [CrossRef]
- Knoke T, Gosling E, Thom D. Economic losses from natural disturbances in Norway spruce forests——A quantification using Monte-Carlo simulations. Ecological Economics, 2021, 185: 107046. [CrossRef]
- Taye F A, Folkersen M V, Fleming C M. The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 2021, 189: 107145. [CrossRef]
- Amirnejad H, Mehrjo A, Satari Yuzbashkandi S. Economic growth and air quality influences on energy sources depletion, forest sources and health in MENA. Environmental Challenges, 2021, 2: 100011. [CrossRef]
- Gibson J. Forest loss and economic inequality in the solomon islands: Using small-area estimation to link environmental change to welfare outcomes. Ecological Economics, 2018, 148: 66–76. [CrossRef]
- Li Y, Mei B, Linhares-Juvenal T. The economic contribution of the world’s forest sector. Forest Policy and Economics, 2019, 100: 236–253. [CrossRef]
- Razafindratsima O H, Kamoto J F M, Sills E O. Reviewing the evidence on the roles of forests and tree-based systems in poverty dynamics. Forest Policy and Economics, 2021, 131: 102576. [CrossRef]
- Kim J S, Lee T J, Hyun S S. Estimating the economic value of urban forest parks: Focusing on restorative experiences and environmental concerns. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 2021, 20: 100603.
- van Kooten G C, Nijnik M, Bradford K. Can carbon accounting promote economic development in forest-dependent, indigenous communities?. Forest Policy and Economics, 2018,100: 68–74. [CrossRef]
- Viccaro M, Cozzi M, Fanelli L. Spatial modelling approach to evaluate the economic impacts of climate change on forests at a local scale. Ecological Indicators, 2019,106: 105523. [CrossRef]
- Grebner D L, Bettinger P, Siry J P. Introduction to Forestry and Natural Resources. Pittsburgh: Academic Press, 2013.
- Santos A, Carvalho A, Barbosa-Póvoa A. An economic and environmental comparison between forest wood products——Uncoated woodfree paper, natural cork stoppers and particle boards. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 296: 126469.
- Belavenutti P, Chung W, Ager A A. The economic reality of the forest and fuel management deficit on a fire prone western US national forest. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 293: 112825. [CrossRef]
- Kallio A M I, Solberg B, Käär L. Economic impacts of setting reference levels for the forest carbon sinks in the EU on the European forest sector. Forest Policy and Economics, 2018, 92: 193–201.
- Zhang K, Song C, Zhang Y. Natural disasters and economic development drive forest dynamics and transition in China. Forest Policy and Economics, 2017, 76: 56–64. [CrossRef]
- Lin B, Ge J. Does institutional freedom matter for global forest carbon sinks in the face of economic development disparity? China Economic Review, 2021, 65: 101563.
- Lin B, Ge J. Valued forest carbon sinks: How much emissions abatement costs could be reduced in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 224: 455–464. [CrossRef]
- Apergis, N.; Ozturk, I. Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Asian Countries. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 16–22. [CrossRef]
- Alam, M. M.; Murad, M. W.; Noman, A. H. M.; Ozturk, I. Relationships among Carbon Emissions, Economic Growth, Energy Consumption and Population Growth: Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70, 466–479. [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, A.; Zhao, Y.H.; Shahbaz, M.; Bano, S.; Zhang, Z.H.; Wang, S.; Liu, Y. Carbon Emissions, Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: An Aggregate and Disaggregate Analysis of the Indian Economy. Energy Policy 2016, 96, 131–143. [CrossRef]
- Churchill, S.A.; Inekwe, J.; Ivanovski, K.; Smyth, R. The Environmental Kuznets Curve across Australian States and Territories. Energy Econ. 2020, 90, 104869. [CrossRef]
- Galeotti M, Lanza A, Pauli F. Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a robustness exercise. Ecological Economics, 2006 ,57(1): 152-163. [CrossRef]
- Friedl, B.; Getzner, M. Determinants of CO2 Emissions in a Small Open Economy. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 45, 133–148. [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y. Q.; Zhao, T.; Yang, Y. Y. Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emissions in China: A Spatial Panel Data Approach. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 63, 231–239. [CrossRef]
- Shahbaz, M.; Haouas, I.; Hoang, T. H. V. Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation in Vietnam: Is the Environmental Kuznets Curve a Complete Picture? Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2019, 38, 197–218. [CrossRef]
- MartíNez-Zarzoso I, Bengochea-Morancho A. Pooled mean group estimation of an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Economics Letters, 2004,82 (1): 121-126.. [CrossRef]
- Ajmi, A. N.; Hammoudeh, S.; Nguyen, D. K.; Sato, J. R. On the Relationships between CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption and Income: The Importance of Time Variation. Energy Econ. 2015, 49, 629–638. [CrossRef]
- Al-Mulali, U.; Saboori, B.; Ozturk, I. Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 2015, 76, 123–131. [CrossRef]
- Kaika, D.; Zervas, E. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Theory—Part A: Concept, Causes and the CO2 Emissions Case. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 1392–1402. [CrossRef]
- Richmond A K, Kaufmann R K. Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and / or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics. 2006,56(2): 176-189.
- Han, Y. J.; Lu, Y. The Relationship between Economic Growth and Environmental Quality: An Empirical Teston the Environmental Kuznets Curve of CO2. Econ. Theory Bus. Manag. 2009, 3, 5–11.
- He J, Richard P. Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in Canada.Ecological Economics, 2010,69(5): 1083-1093.
- Erdogan, S.; Adedoyin, F. F.; Bekun, F. V.; Sarkodie, S. A. Testing the Transport-induced Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: The Role of Air and Railway Transport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2020, 89, 101935. [CrossRef]
- Caravaggio, N. Economic Growth and the Forest Development Path: A Theoretical Re-assessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102259. [CrossRef]
- Usama, A.M.; Solarin, S.A.; Salahuddin, M. The Prominence of Renewable and Non-renewable Electricity Generation on the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Case Study of Ethiopia. Energy 2020, 211, 118665. [CrossRef]
- Erdogan, S. Analyzing the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: The Role of Disaggregated Transport Infrastructure Investments. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61, 102338. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Chen, X.; Wu, Y.; Shuai, C. Y.; Shen, L. Y. The Environmental Kuznets Curve of CO2 Emissions in the Manufacturing and Construction Industries: A Global Empirical Analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 79, 106303. [CrossRef]
- Xu, B.; Lin, B.Q. Reducing CO2 Emissions in China’s Manufacturing Industry: Evidence from Nonparametric Additive Regression Models. Energy 2016, 101, 161–173. [CrossRef]
- Xu, B.; Lin, B.Q. Assessing CO2 Emissions in China’s Iron and Steel Industry: A Nonparametric Additive Regression Approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 325–337. [CrossRef]
- Hidemichi, F.; Kazuyuki, I.; Andrew, C.; Shigemi, K.; Shunsuke, M. An Analysis of Urban Environmental Kuznets Curve of CO2 Emissions: Empirical Analysis of 276 Global Metropolitan Areas. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 1561–1568.
- Onur, T. A Critical Reading of Environmental Kuznets Curve: CO2 Emissions in a Developing Country. J. Soc. Sci. Sri Lanka Fac. Soc. Sci. Univ. Kelaniya Sri Lanka 2015, 7, 138–147.
- Lv, D.; Wang, R.; Zhang, Y. Sustainability Assessment Based on Integrating EKC with Decoupling: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 655. [CrossRef]
- Rajan Parajuli, Omkar Joshi, Tek Maraseni, Incorporating Forests, Agriculture, and Energy Consumption in the Framework of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Dynamic Panel Data Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2688. [CrossRef]
- Sheng-Yuan Wang, Wan-Ming Chen, Xiao-Lan Wu. Competition Analysis on Industry Populations Based on a Three-Dimensional Lotka–Volterra Model. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2021,2021, 9935127. [CrossRef]
- Wang SY, Chen WM, Wang R, Zhao T, Study on the Coordinated Development of Urbanization and Water Resources Utilization Efficiency in China. Water Supply, 2022, 22 (1): 749-765. [CrossRef]
- Wang, S., Exploring the Sustainability of China’s New Energy Vehicle Development: Fresh Evidence from Population Symbiosis. Sustainability, 2022, 14, 10796. [CrossRef]
- Gu, L.; Gong, Z.; Bu, Y. Forest quality Dynamic Change and Its Driving Factors Accompanied by Forest Transition in China. Forests 2021, 12, 733. [CrossRef]
- Jiangzhou Wu, Yongde Zhong, Jinyang Deng, Assessing and Mapping Forest Landscape Quality in China, Forests 2019, 10, 684. [CrossRef]
- Tan, J.; Su, X.; Wang, R. Exploring the Measurement of Regional Forestry Eco-Efficiency and Influencing Factors in China Based on the Super-Efficient DEA-Tobit Two Stage Model. Forests 2023, 14, 300. [CrossRef]
- Chen, J., Gao, M., Cheng, S., Hou, W., Song, M., Liu, X., Liu, Y., & Shan, Y. County-level CO2 emissions and sequestration in China during 1997–2017. Scientific Data, 2020,7(1), 1–12. [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G. M., Krueger, A. B. Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995, 110(2):353-377.

| Variable | Description | Unit | Mean | SD |
| C | CO2 emissions | ten thousand tons | 342 | 223 |
| G | GDP deflator | billion RMB | 14956 | 11390 |
| F | forestry land output | billion RMB | 114 | 84 |
| Variable | VIF | 1/VIF |
| GDP | 10.81 | 0.092538 |
| GDP2 | 10.81 | 0.092538 |
| Mean VIF | 10.81 | |
| GDP | 12.02 | 0.083214 |
| GDP2 | 11.38 | 0.087845 |
| FOREST | 1.20 | 0.836639 |
| Mean VIF | 8.2 |
| EKC Model | area | chi2 | Prob>chi2 | Fe or Re |
| EKC 1 | Nationwide | 0.65 | 0.4202 | RE |
| North China | 0.52 | 0.4726 | RE | |
| Northeast China | 32.15 | 0.0000 | FE | |
| East China | 0.54 | 0.4600 | RE | |
| Central-South China | 5.04 | 0.0247 | FE | |
| Southwest China | 2.66 | 0.1026 | RE | |
| Northwest China | 19.54 | 0.0000 | FE | |
| EKC 2 | Nationwide | 7.66 | 0.0210 | FE |
| North China | 4.35 | 0.1130 | RE | |
| Northeast China | 34.31 | 0.0000 | FE | |
| East China | 9.13 | 0.0104 | FE | |
| Central-South China | 8.24 | 0.0162 | FE | |
| Southwest China | 21.98 | 0.0000 | FE | |
| Northwest China | 24.86 | 0.0000 | FE |
| Area | α0 | α1 | α2 | shape of EKC |
| North China | 541.206 (2.49)*** |
-8.93×10-4 (-4.386) |
-4.61×10-7 (2.758) |
linear decrease |
| Northeast China | 401.864 (8.36)*** |
-6.40×10-3 (-0.82) |
4.65×10-9 (0.02) |
U shape |
| East China | 91.496 (1.20) |
0.013 (3.58)*** |
3.43×10-8 (0.60) |
linear increase |
| Central-South China | 182.901 (4.49)*** |
5.80×10-3 (1.85)* |
5.51×10-8 (1.32) |
linear increase |
| Southwest China | 161.608 (6.71)*** |
5.27×10-3 (1.58) |
9.88×10-8 (0.85) |
linear increase |
| Northwest China | -465.630 (-7.25)*** |
0.19 (9.24)*** |
-7.20×10-6 (-6.82)*** |
Inverted U shape |
| Nationwide | 106.364 (5.06)*** |
0.019 (8.118)*** |
-1.29×10-7 (-2.71)*** |
Inverted U shape |
| Area | α0 | α1 | α2 | α3 | Shape of EKC |
| North China | 603.879 (3.58)*** |
-0.03 (-1.45) |
7.21×10-7 (0.89) |
1.670 (4.44)*** |
U shape |
| Northeast China | 388.742 (8.16)*** |
-9.69×10-3 (-1.23) |
6.43×10-8 (0.23) |
0.409 (8.16) |
U shape |
| East China | 212.397 (4.74)*** |
-7.32×10-3 (-1.89)* |
2.57×10-7 (4.89)*** |
1.47 (7.86)*** |
U shape |
| Central-South China | 197.158 (4.90)*** |
2.62×10-3 (0.78) |
6.42×10-8 (1.57) |
0.245 (2.21)** |
linear increase |
| Southwest China | 158.288 (6.69)*** |
6.34×10-3 (1.54) |
3.50×10-8 (0.33) |
7.951×10-3 (0.08) |
linear increase |
| Northwest China | -457.382 (-7.06)*** |
0.191 (9.28)*** |
-7.03×10-6 (-6.58)*** |
-0.811 (-1.00) |
Inverted U shape |
| Nationwide | 116.919 (5.41)*** |
0.022 (8.93)*** |
-1.821×10-7 (-3.69)*** |
-0.358 (-3.36)*** |
Inverted U shape |
| Cycle | North China | Northeast China | East China | Central-South China | South- west China |
North- west China |
G1 | Forestry GDP |
| 1 | 426.1 | 310.3 | 355.4 | 237.1 | 225.4 | 725.3 | 10000 | 30.0 |
| 2 | 423.0 | 308.1 | 360.5 | 238.5 | 227.5 | 739.0 | 10300 | 30.9 |
| 3 | 419.9 | 305.9 | 365.8 | 240.0 | 229.7 | 751.9 | 10609 | 31.8 |
| 4 | 416.9 | 303.7 | 371.3 | 241.5 | 232.0 | 763.7 | 10927 | 32.8 |
| 5 | 413.9 | 301.4 | 377.0 | 243.1 | 234.3 | 774.4 | 11255 | 33.8 |
| 6 | 411.1 | 299.0 | 382.9 | 244.7 | 236.8 | 783.9 | 11593 | 34.8 |
| 7 | 408.3 | 296.6 | 389.1 | 246.4 | 239.3 | 791.9 | 11941 | 35.8 |
| 8 | 405.6 | 294.1 | 395.5 | 248.1 | 241.8 | 798.4 | 12299 | 36.9 |
| 9 | 403.0 | 291.6 | 402.2 | 250.0 | 244.5 | 803.2 | 12668 | 38.0 |
| 10 | 400.6 | 289.0 | 409.2 | 251.9 | 247.3 | 806.2 | 13048 | 39.1 |
| 11 | 398.3 | 286.3 | 416.5 | 253.8 | 250.1 | 807.1 | 13439 | 40.3 |
| 12 | 396.1 | 283.6 | 424.0 | 255.9 | 253.1 | 805.8 | 13842 | 41.5 |
| 13 | 394.1 | 280.9 | 431.9 | 258.0 | 256.1 | 802.1 | 14258 | 42.8 |
| 14 | 392.4 | 278.1 | 440.1 | 260.3 | 259.3 | 795.7 | 14685 | 44.1 |
| 15 | 390.8 | 275.2 | 448.6 | 262.6 | 262.6 | 786.4 | 15126 | 45.4 |
| 16 | 389.5 | 272.2 | 457.5 | 265.0 | 265.9 | 774.1 | 15580 | 46.7 |
| 17 | 388.5 | 269.2 | 466.8 | 267.5 | 269.4 | 758.3 | 16047 | 48.1 |
| 18 | 387.8 | 266.2 | 476.5 | 270.1 | 273.0 | 738.8 | 16528 | 49.6 |
| 19 | 387.4 | 263.0 | 486.6 | 272.9 | 276.8 | 715.4 | 17024 | 51.1 |
| 20 | 387.4 | 259.8 | 497.1 | 275.7 | 280.6 | 687.6 | 17535 | 52.6 |
| Area | θ1 | γ1 | β12 | θ2 | γ2 | β21 | Symbiotic Mechanism |
| North China | 0.033 (1.177) |
-9.567×10-7 (-0.475) |
-1.424×10-4 (-0.705) |
-0.022 (-0.381) |
-7.792×10-4 (-1.558)* |
9.529×10-6 (2.057)** |
Commensalism |
| Northeast China | 0.125 (1.923)* |
4.945×10-7 (0.152) |
-0.001 (-2.631)** |
0.052 (0.501) |
-7.883×10-4 (-1.159) |
3.574×10-6 (0.678) |
Commensalism |
| East China | 0.043 (2.374)** |
-6.314×10-7 (-1.735)* |
7.404×10-6 (0.096) |
0.160 (3.269)*** |
-4.576×10-4 (-2.728)*** |
-2.274 (-2.347)** |
Commensalism |
| Central-South China | 0.037 (3.561)*** |
-1.812×10-7 (-0.651) |
-2.902×10-5 (-0.497) |
0.015 (0.480) |
1.369×10-5 (0.100) |
5.686×10-7 (1.081) |
Commensalism |
| Southwest China | 0.071 (4.255)*** |
-1.790×10-6 (-1.701)* |
-1.520×10-5 (-0.196) |
0.232 (3.897)*** |
-8.393×10-4 (-3.577)*** |
-3.029×10-8 (-0.012) |
Competition |
| Northwest China | 0.053 (3.075)*** |
6.666×10-6 (1.678)* |
-0.001 (-2.286)** |
0.067 (1.493)* |
-0.006 (-3.374)*** |
3.166×10-5 (2.884)*** |
Commensalism |
| Nationwide | 0.023 (4.182)*** |
-2.041×10-7 (-1.341) |
3.053×10-5 (1.082) |
0.047 (3.104)*** |
-1.179×10-4 (-1.803)* |
3.300×10-7 (0.906) |
Synergy |
| Cycle | GDP (G1) | Forestry GDP | Carbon emission (Ct) | ||||
| Basic Model | 2 times the carbon emission inhibition coefficient | 4 times the carbon emission inhibition coefficient | 2 times the forestry proportion | 2 times the forestry proportion and 4 times the carbon emission inhibition coefficient | |||
| 1 | 10000.0 | 30.0 | 308.0 | 279.0 | 221.1 | 297.2 | 178.2 |
| 2 | 10228.7 | 31.4 | 311.6 | 281.3 | 220.7 | 300.4 | 175.7 |
| 3 | 10462.6 | 32.9 | 315.4 | 283.7 | 220.2 | 303.6 | 173.1 |
| 4 | 10701.9 | 34.5 | 319.2 | 286.0 | 219.6 | 306.8 | 170.2 |
| 5 | 10946.6 | 36.1 | 323.0 | 288.3 | 218.8 | 310.1 | 167.1 |
| 6 | 11196.9 | 37.8 | 326.9 | 290.5 | 217.8 | 313.4 | 163.7 |
| 7 | 11452.9 | 39.6 | 330.8 | 292.8 | 216.7 | 316.7 | 160.0 |
| 8 | 11714.8 | 41.4 | 334.8 | 295.0 | 215.4 | 320.0 | 156.1 |
| 9 | 11982.7 | 43.3 | 338.9 | 297.2 | 213.9 | 323.4 | 151.8 |
| 10 | 12256.8 | 45.4 | 343.0 | 299.4 | 212.2 | 326.7 | 147.2 |
| 11 | 12537.2 | 47.5 | 347.1 | 301.5 | 210.3 | 330.1 | 142.3 |
| 12 | 12824.2 | 49.7 | 351.3 | 303.6 | 208.1 | 333.5 | 137.0 |
| 13 | 13117.8 | 52.0 | 355.6 | 305.6 | 205.8 | 337.0 | 131.4 |
| 14 | 13418.3 | 54.3 | 359.9 | 307.6 | 203.2 | 340.4 | 125.3 |
| 15 | 13725.8 | 56.8 | 364.2 | 309.6 | 200.3 | 343.9 | 118.9 |
| 16 | 14040.5 | 59.4 | 368.6 | 311.5 | 197.1 | 347.4 | 112.1 |
| 17 | 14362.7 | 62.1 | 373.1 | 313.3 | 193.7 | 350.9 | 104.8 |
| 18 | 14692.5 | 64.9 | 377.6 | 315.1 | 190.0 | 354.4 | 97.0 |
| 19 | 15030.1 | 67.8 | 382.2 | 316.8 | 185.9 | 357.9 | 88.8 |
| 20 | 15375.8 | 70.8 | 386.8 | 318.4 | 181.5 | 361.4 | 80.1 |
| Area | α0 | α1 | α2 | α3 | Shape of EKC |
| North China | 164.919 (2.132)** |
-33.787 (-2.048)** |
1.770 (2.014)** |
0.488 (6.532)*** |
U shape |
| Northeast China | 30.175 (1.238) |
-6.151 (-1.162) |
0.374 (1.314) |
0.085 (0.731) |
U shape |
| East China | 22.531 (2.206)** |
-4.450 (-2.177)** |
0.272 (2.667)*** |
0.124 (5.961)*** |
U shape |
| Central-South China | -19.056 (-16.663)*** |
4.551 (17.956)*** |
-0.196 (-14.233)*** |
-0.165 (-5.465)*** |
Inverted U shape |
| Southwest China | 55.652 (7.354)*** |
-11.261 (-6.883)*** |
0.619(7.039)*** | 0.163 (5.081)*** |
U shape |
| Northwest China | -22.869 (-3.088)*** |
6.211 (3.523)*** |
-0.351 (-3.479)*** |
0.288 (1.346) |
Inverted U shape |
| Nationwide | -3.671 (-1.730)* |
1.368 (2.904)*** |
-0.041 (-1.596)* |
0.027 (1.087) |
Inverted U shape |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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/).