4.7 Article

The emissions reduction effect and technical progress effect of environmental regulation policy tools

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 191-205

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.105

关键词

Environmental regulation; Emissions reduction; Technical progress; Dynamic spatial panel model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71673145]
  2. Report Project on the Development of Philosophy and Social Sciences of China's Ministry of Education [13JBG004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How to set out the provisions that ensure emissions reduction and technical progress in environmental regulation is very important for both China's future emissions reduction and sustainable development. The paper uses statistical data from 30 Chinese provinces from 1997 to 2014 and empirically tests the effects of different types of environmental policies and regulations on emissions reduction and technical progress by using dynamic spatial panel models. The results of spatial autocorrelation tests show that there are both significant positive global autocorrelation and local spatial agglomeration effects relating to pollutant emissions and technical progress. Dynamic spatial panel models indicate that command and control regulations (CCR) are conducive to emissions reduction, but their effects on technical progress are not significant. Market based regulations (MBR) are conducive to technical progress, but their effects on the reduction of emissions are relatively weak. There is a significant inverted-U relationship between economic development level and carbon emissions, validating the EKC hypothesis in China, but the effects of foreign direct investment on carbon reduction and technical progress are not significant. The paper recommends that China should optimize a combination of environmental regulations so as to achieve the win-win outcome of both emissions reduction and technical progress. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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