4.7 Article

Assessing Spatial Heterogeneity of Factor Interactions on PM2.5 Concentrations in Chinese Cities

期刊

REMOTE SENSING
卷 13, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs13245079

关键词

PM2; 5 concentrations; spatial heterogeneity; multi-scale geographically weighted regression; geographical detector model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By employing a multi-scale geographically weighted regression model and a geographical detector model, this study found significant spatial heterogeneity in the interactions between driving factors of PM2.5, with uncertainty existing between natural factors and socioeconomic factors, while interactions between socioeconomic factors in subregions were consistent with those in the whole region.
The identification of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations and its driving factors are crucial for air pollution prevention and control. The factors that influence PM2.5 in different regions exhibit significant spatial heterogeneity. Current research has quantified the spatial heterogeneity of single factors but fails to discuss the interactions between factors. In this study, we first divided the study area into subregions based on the spatial heterogeneity of factors in a multi-scale geographically weighted regression model. We then investigated the interactions between different factors in the subregions using the geographical detector model. The results indicate that there was significant spatial heterogeneity in the interactions between the driving factors of PM2.5. The interactions between natural factors have significant uncertainty, as do those between the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and socioeconomic factors. The interactions between socioeconomic factors in the subregions were consistent with those in the whole region. Our findings are expected to deepen the understanding of the mechanisms at play among the aforementioned drivers and aid policymakers in adopting unique governance strategies across different regions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据