How Technological Innovation Influences Environmental Pollution: Evidence from China

Xin, Duan; Zhi Sheng, Zhang; Jiahui, Sun

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5535310

Complexity

On this page

Abstract Introduction Results Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Understanding Low Carbon Sustainable Development Behaviour and Its Complexity

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 5535310 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5535310

How Technological Innovation Influences Environmental Pollution: Evidence from China

Duan Xin,¹Zhang Zhi Sheng,²and Sun Jiahui³

Academic Editor: Wei Zhang

Received15 Feb 2021

Revised17 Dec 2021

Accepted17 Feb 2022

Published20 Mar 2022

Abstract

Technological innovation has an important impact on environmental pollution. In this paper, first, we analyze the influence mechanism of technological innovation on environmental pollution and then design the index system of technological innovation. Then, we use the entropy method to calculate the technological innovation level of different regions in China based on provincial panel data from 2004 to 2016. Finally, the panel vector autoregression model (PVAR) is adopted, and taking the discharge of sewage, solid waste, and exhaust gas as the research objects, the impact of technological innovation on them is empirically analyzed. The results show that China’s technological innovation level is steadily improving, but there are significant differences in the impact of technological innovation on wastewater, waste gas, and solid waste. Specifically, technological innovation can contribute to an increase in wastewater and solid waste emissions. However, the impact of this technological innovation on them is not equal. Secondly, the impact of technological innovation on exhaust emissions is to inhibit exhaust emissions in the short term and promote exhaust emissions in the long term. Finally, there are clear differences between them in terms of the specific impact of changes in wastewater, solid waste, and exhaust emissions. Changes in wastewater discharges and solid waste generation are largely derived from their own effects, while the role of technological innovation is supportive and insignificant. The change in exhaust emissions is initially influenced by itself, but in the long run, the influence of technological innovation gradually increases and eventually exceeds its own influence. Based on these research results, this paper puts forward corresponding policy suggestions to speed up environmental pollution control.

1. Introduction

A rapid development of the economy is important to increase employment opportunities, improve people’s living standards, and promote social stability. However, during any developmental process, environmental pollution is prone to occur, which has attracted the attention of governments and academics worldwide to avoid a deterioration of the environment. As the largest developing country, China has experienced rapid economic growth since the reform and opening-up policies in 1978. By 2019, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) had reached 14.5 trillion dollars. China’s rapid economic development, however, came at the cost of massive resource input and ecological destruction [1]. According to statistics, the annual economic loss in China due to environmental pollution is approximately 2% to 3% of the GDP [2]. In order to alleviate the environmental pollution caused by economic development, China has made great efforts to develop science and technology in the hope of promoting the transformation and upgrading of economic development through the development of science and technology and ultimately alleviating environmental pollution. Therefore, how the development of technological innovation affects the emission of environmental pollutants has become a topic of general concern.

The Porter hypothesis represents the most prominent research on the relationship between technological innovation and environmental pollution. It states that appropriate environmental regulation can encourage innovative activities and, in turn, improve the productivity of enterprises to offset the costs caused by environmental protection [3]. Since then, much research has involved empirical tests of the Porter hypothesis, which proposes environmental regulation as a way to enhance the innovation ability of enterprises [4–6]. Other studies support the compliance cost theory, which suggests that environmental regulation increases the manufacturer’s production costs, weakening technological advances [7, 8]. Generally, these studies focus on analyzing the impact of environmental regulation on technological innovation, especially those focusing on carbon dioxide emissions. Most of these studies are performed in both dynamic and static aspects [9]. Among these studies, Fan et al. and Kumar and Managi found that technological innovation in developed countries can reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In developing countries, these emissions have increased [10, 11]. Mao et al. analyzed the impact of technological innovation on water pollution intensity and found that technological innovation has different effects on pollution reduction under different levels of water pollution intensity [12]. Wang and Luo analyzed the impact of technological innovation on environmental pollution from the perspective of foreign direct investment (FDI) quantity and quality. The study found that when the FDI level was low, the scientific and technological innovation ability aggravated the degree of environmental pollution, while when the FDI level crossed a higher threshold, the scientific and technological innovation ability improved the environmental quality [13]. In addition, many scholars have paid attention to the dynamic relationship between technological innovation and pollutant emissions [14]. Since environmental pollution often involves multiple media (i.e., air, water, and solid waste), few studies have analyzed the actual impact of technological innovation on different types of environmental pollution. Therefore, we first analyze the influencing mechanisms of technological innovation on environmental pollution, and then, based on the provincial panel data of China, utilize the panel vector autoregressive model (PVAR) model to analyze its impact on wastewater discharge, exhaust emission, and solid waste discharge. This study provides the following contributions: on the one hand, it enriches the available research on the impact of technology on pollution control; on the other hand, as the largest developing country, China’s experience will provide abundant lessons for other developing countries.

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 analyzes the theory behind the influencing mechanisms of technological innovation on environmental pollution. Section 3 illustrates the methods and data sources, followed by the research results in Section 4. Section 5 presents the conclusions, including policy implications.

2. Influence Mechanism of Technological Innovation on Environment Pollution

From Figure 1, we can clearly find how technological innovation affects the emission of environmental pollution. Next, we explain Figure 1 in detail. Based on existing research, technological innovation affects environmental pollution through the following three paths: changing energy consumption, industrial structure, and technology application to environmental governance. Firstly, the industrial structure is not only an important carrier of economic activities but also a factor with an important impact on the ecological environment. It has the dual function of being a resource converter and an environmental regulator [15]. In modern society, compared with primary and tertiary industries, the secondary industry has the greatest impact on environmental pollution. In China, for example, energy consumption is mainly concentrated in the industrial sector, which also produces the most waste gas emissions, wastewater, and residues in the economic sector [16]. Studies have found that technological innovation has an important impact on upgrading the industrial structure and changes in structure in a unified and strict legal market environment, decreasing the intensity of pollutant emissions [17–19] (see Figure 1). Secondly, technological innovation can affect energy consumption efficiency [20]. At present, China’s energy consumption is still dominated by coal and oil, which are significant sources of environmental pollution and are often wasted during consumption [21]. Finally, technological innovation often means that the corresponding scientific and technological achievements can be used to control environmental pollution [22]. For example, Cinderby and Forrester applied a geographic information system (GIS) to control air pollution and found that GIS not only promotes local governance to be more responsible for improving air quality but also strengthens the interactive relationship among local governments, environmental scientists, and the public [23]. Furthermore, the application of technology can facilitate the reporting of environmental damage behavior of enterprises by the public on a real-time basis, thereby strengthening the capacity of government regulation in environmental pollution. Therefore, the application of technological innovations to the field of environmental governance can change the ability to control environmental pollution and ultimately have a profound impact on the sustainability of the environment [24].

3. Model Settings and Data Description

3.1. Design of a Comprehensive Index System of Technological Innovation

The direct manifestation of the level of technological innovation is its effectiveness, which is determined by the environment, inputs, and outputs. Therefore, based on existing research and considering the availability of data [25–27], we selected 15 indicators (the proportion of the economically active population with a junior college degree or above, GDP per capita, the proportion of funding for science and technology in financial funding, the Internet penetration rate, and so on) [28, 29], based on environmental technological innovation (TECINN), investment in TECINN, output of TECINN, and achievements of TECINN to construct an index system for technological innovation (see Table 1).

3.2. Model of Comprehensive Level of Technological Innovation

Firstly, the raw data is standardized to eliminate the impact of different units and dimensions of the index, as follows:where the x_ij represents the sample value, _and represents the maximum and minimum values of the sample data, respectively.

Secondly, the index weight is calculated. There are two different methods for the calculation of index weight, a subjective and objective weighting method. In this paper, the entropy method as the objective weighting method is adopted to calculate the weight of each index, as follows:

Finally, the comprehensive level of technological innovation (U_T) is calculated by the following formula:

3.3. Panel-Data Vector Autoregressive Model

The single-dimensional vector autoregression model (VAR), established by Sims in 1980, was used to describe the impact of variables on a specific variable [30]. However, the VAR model did not support panel data; therefore, Holtz-Eakin, Newey, and Rosen extended it to a panel data structure [31]. Compared with the VAR model, the panel-data vector autoregressive model (PVAR) can lower the requirements for data volume and form and effectively control the estimation bias caused by spatial and individual heterogeneity [32]. To investigate the relationship between technological innovation and environmental pollution, this paper constructs a panel vector autoregressive model (PVAR) for empirical tests, as follows:where the subindexes i refer to the province, t refers to time. Yit is the endogenous variable that changed over time, and region, γ₀ and γ_j indicate the estimated coefficients of the constant term and lagged endogenous variable, respectively; p is the lag period, α_i is a vector of individual effects, which indicates the otherness of the cross-sectional.

β_t is a time effect vector used to explain the temporal characteristics of variables. ε_it is the random disturbance item.

3.4. Variable Selection and Data Sources

We used the entropy method to measure the level of technological innovation in different regions of China, and the discharge status of environmental pollutants is selected from the three indicators of solid waste generation, sulfur dioxide discharge, and wastewater discharge. This study uses a yearly panel dataset of 30 provinces and cities in mainland China, except Tibet, from 2004 to 2016. The data were sourced from China Science and Technology Statistical Yearbook (2005–2017), China Statistical Yearbook (2005–2017), and China Environmental Statistics Yearbook (2005–2017).

4. Results

4.1. Comprehensive Level of Technological Innovation

According to formula (1)–(5), the comprehensive level of technological innovation in China from 2004 to 2016 can be calculated. Table 2 shows the specific comprehensive level. The mean of the comprehensive level of technological innovation in different regions shows the overall trend of technological innovation in China from 2004 to 2016 (Figure 2).

It can be seen from Table 2 and Figure 2 that the level of China’s technological innovation has increased since 2004. In 2004, the average comprehensive level of technological innovation was just 0.13, but after decades of development, this level has reached 0.827 in 2016, which shows that China’s efforts to promote technological progress by increasing the investment and training of personnel have been effective. However, we found significant regional differences in the level of Chinese technological innovation. In 2016, a lower level of technological innovation of 0.6–0.8 is observed in Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Guizhou, Yunnan, Gansu, and Qinghai, the economic level of these areas is also relatively backward. By contrast, Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Guangdong, which are relatively developed regions in China, had a higher level of 0.8. Based on the results in different regions of China, we analyzed the specific impact of technological innovation progress on the emission of environmental pollutants.

4.2. Impact of Technological Innovation on the Emission of Environmental Pollutants

4.2.1. Panel Unit Root Test

Before using the PVAR model to analyze the impact of technological innovation on the emission of wastewater, solid waste, and exhaust gas, unit root testing must be used to test the stability of various variables. For the unit root test of panel data, the Levin, Lin & Chu (LLC test), Im, Pesaran and Shin W-stat (IPS test), AdF-Fisher Chi-Square (ADF test), and PPFisher Chi-Square (PP test) were adopted [33]. The test results are shown in Table 3. According to the results, it can be found that the original data of technological innovation, wastewater, solid waste, and exhaust gas become a stationary sequence after a first-order difference, which shows that they can be tested for cointegration.

4.2.2. Cointegration Test

According to the cointegration test method proposed by Baltagi and Kao and Pedroni [34, 35], this study cointegrated the data of technological innovation at comprehensive level, wastewater discharge, solid waste, and exhaust emissions, and the results are shown in Table 4. According to the results of the cointegration test, there is a cointegration relationship between the comprehensive level of technological innovation and the data on environmental pollution emission (Table 5).

4.2.3. PVAR Model Regression Analysis

The optimal lag order of the model needs to be determined to test the PVAR model [36]. The existing literature is mainly selected by Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Hannan and Quinn information criterion (HQIC) to judge the optimal lag order [37, 38]. The test results are shown in Table 4. According to the order with the most passes of all inspection values as the criterion for determining the optimal lag order, we can find that in technological innovation-wastewater and technological innovation-solid waste, the optimal lag period is 1, while the lag period of technological innovation and exhaust gas is 4.

4.2.4. Impulse Response Analysis

Impulse response analysis can help analyze how technological innovation affects pollutant emissions. This study sets the number of responses to 10 periods and Monte Carlo simulations to 1000 times to analyze the impulse impact of technological innovation on wastewater discharge, solid waste generation, and exhaust gas emissions. The results are shown in Figure 3. In Figure 3, the abscissa represents the lag period, the ordinate represents the degree of impulse response, the two curves at the top and bottom represent the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval, respectively, and the intermediate curve stands for the value of the impulse response.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3(a) shows the response of wastewater discharge to technological innovation. Figure 3(a) shows that after receiving a standard deviation impulse from technological innovation, the wastewater discharge remains with a positive response in the 0th period until reaching a peak in the5th lag phase, eventually, technological innovation has a positive effect that leads to an increase in wastewater discharge. Figure 3(b) indicates that technological innovation has an initial positive impulse on solid waste discharge, which gradually weakens over time. Figure 3(c) shows a negative response of the exhaust gas, but over time, however, in the long term, technological innovation promotes the increase in exhaust emissions. These findings are consistent with the study by Kumar and Managi, who found that technological innovation in developing countries promotes rather than curbs CO₂ emissions [11].

4.2.5. Variance Decomposition

Impulse response analysis cannot be used to evaluate the importance of different impulses to specific variables [33]. Therefore, a variance decomposition is utilized to analyze the contribution of various structural impulses to the fluctuation of environmental pollution. The results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 reflects that in the 1st period, 100% of the explanatory power of the change in wastewater comes from itself, but as time passes, the impact of wastewater discharge on itself gradually decreases, and the impact of technological innovation on wastewater discharge gradually increases. By the 12th period, 97.2% of the change in wastewater discharge can be explained by itself, and the contribution of technological innovation to it reaches 2.8%. Based on the above structure of variance decomposition, it can be concluded that the change of China’s wastewater discharge is mainly affected by itself, and the influence of technological innovation on wastewater discharge is not significant. In the discharge of solid waste, the explanatory power of the change in solid waste is 100% in the 1st period. With the passage of time, the impact of solid waste emissions on its own shows a gradual downward trend, and the impact of technological innovation on it shows a gradually enhancing trend. By the 12th period, 99.6% of the change in solid waste emissions can be explained by itself, and technological innovation contributes 0.4% to solid waste. Similar to the conclusion on wastewater discharge, the change in China’s solid waste discharge is mainly influenced by itself, while technological innovation has little impact on it. In the case of the emission change of exhaust gas, the explanatory power of the change in exhaust gas is 100% in the 1st period. However, with the passage of time, the impact of exhaust gas emissions on itself shows a gradual decrease, while the impact of technological innovation increases. However, it is worth noting that by the 12th period, 33.7% of the variation in exhaust gas can be explained by itself, and 66.3% of this change was attributable to technological innovation. According to the results, China’s exhaust gas emissions are initially affected by itself, but in the long term, they are mainly influenced by technological innovation.

5. Conclusion

5.1. Conclusion and Policy Implications

Based on provincial panel data of China from 2004 to 2016, this study analyzes the impact mechanisms of technological innovation on environmental pollution and then empirically analyzes how China’s technological innovation affects the discharge of wastewater, solid waste, and waste gas. This is the biggest difference between this study and the existing literature, which failed to analyze different pollutant emissions.

In conclusion, the level of technological innovation in China has been rising steadily. However, technology plays a promoting rather than inhibiting role in the discharge of wastewater, solid waste, and waste gas emissions, which is consistent with existing research. For example, Yu and Du found that China’s independent technological innovation activities would accelerate CO₂ emissions, especially when the speed of economic growth slows down [9]. Kumar and Managi indicated that developing countries tend to promote CO₂ emissions while technologically advancing [11]. In addition, Li et al. have found that technological progress in central and western China has increased the discharge of water pollutants [39]. The fundamental reason why technological innovation has promoted the emission of pollutants is that, in the development process, China focused on improving economic effectiveness while ignoring environmental benefits. As a result the environmental costs in China were low, or in some cases, nonexistent. Meanwhile, a lack of environmental awareness has caused pollution. We can expect that with the slowdown of economic growth, technological innovation will further promote the emission of pollutants [9]. We also found that the changes in China’s wastewater discharge and solid waste production are mainly due to their own influence. However, variations in exhaust emissions, in the short term, are mainly influenced by themselves. In the long term, the influence of technological innovation on exhaust emissions gradually amplify and eventually surpass the influence of its own.

We propose that the government should further improve the system and policies for environmental pollution control, which are needed to establish strict discharge standards and protection laws. In addition, China must invest in the development of environmentally friendly technology, even when facing an economic recession. In this case, to achieve the coordinated development of the economy and the environment, it is essential to decrease the negative impact of pollution emissions and promote sustainable economic development.

5.2. Research Limitation and Prospect

In the context of increasingly serious global environmental pollution and the continuous development of technology, this study takes China as an example to empirically analyze the impact of technological innovation on pollutant emissions. A limitation of this study is that we adopted the entropy method and the PAVR model. Future research could use other approaches to analyze the complex relationship between technological innovation and environmental pollutant emissions. In addition, due to the significantly uneven development of economic levels, technological innovation, and energy consumption among different regions in China, it is necessary to further broaden the research objects and data sources in the future to enrich and improve the conclusions of this paper.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

Xin Duan contributed to the methodology and investigation. Zhi Sheng Zhang contributed to modifying and improving the paper. Jiahui Sun contributed to the investigation and formal analysis.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Graduate Education Innovation Grant Program in Central China Normal University (grant no. 2020CXZZ011).

References

R. Gong, Y. Q. Wu, F. W. Chen, and T. H. Yan, “Labor costs, market environment and green technological innovation: evidence from high-pollution firms,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17, p. 5222, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Song, S. Wang, H. Yu, L. Yang, and J. Wu, “To reduce energy consumption and to maintain rapid economic growth: analysis of the condition in China based on expended IPAT model,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 5129–5134, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Porter and C. v. d. Linde, “Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 97–118, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. D. Mohr, “Technical change, external economies, and the Porter hypothesis,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 158–168, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ambec, M. A. Cohen, S. Elgie, and P. Lanoie, “The Porter hypothesis at 20: can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness?” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 2–22, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Lanoie, M. Patry, and R. Lajeunesse, “Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis,” Journal of Productivity Analysis, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 121–128, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. Jaffe, S. R. Peterson, P. R. Portney, and R. N. Stavins, “Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of US manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us?” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 132–163, 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Chintrakarn, “Environmental regulation and U.S. states’ technical inefficiency,” Economics Letters, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 363–365, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yu and Y. Du, “Impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions and emissions trend prediction on “New Normal” economy in China,” Atmospheric Pollution Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 152–161, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Fan, L.-C. Liu, G. Wu, and Y.-M. Wei, “Analyzing impact factors of CO2 emissions using the STIRPAT model,” Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 377–395, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Kumar and S. Managi, “Energy price-induced and exogenous technological change: assessing the economic and environmental outcomes,” Resource and Energy Economics, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 334–353, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Ma, H. Cao, Y. Ma, and S. Wu, “Does technological innovation reduce water pollution intensity in the context of informal environmental regulation?” Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 15, p. e2493, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Wang and Y. Luo, “Has technological innovation capability addressed environmental pollution from the dual perspective of FDI quantity and quality? Evidence from China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 258, Article ID 120941, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhao, Q. Ma, and R. Yang, “Factors influencing CO2 emissions in China’s power industry: Co-integration analysis,” Energy Policy, vol. 57, pp. 89–98, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Yu, “Industrial structure, technological innovation, and total-factor energy efficiency in China,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 8371–8385, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Ouyang, Q. Li, and K. Du, “How does environmental regulation promote technological innovations in the industrial sector? Evidence from Chinese provincial panel data,” Energy Policy, vol. 139, Article ID 111310, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Wang and S. Liu, “Is technological innovation the effective way to achieve the “double dividend” of environmental protection and industrial upgrading?” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 27, no. 15SI, pp. 18541–18556, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Cheng, L. Li, and J. Liu, “Industrial structure, technical progress and carbon intensity in China’s provinces,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 2935–2946, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Wang, H. Jia, T. Xu, and C. Xu, “Manufacturing industrial structure and pollutant emission: an empirical study of China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 197, no. 1, pp. 462–471, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Fisher-Vanden, G. H. Jefferson, M. Jingkui, and X. Jianyi, “Technology development and energy productivity in China,” Energy Economics, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 690–705, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. He, T. Zhuang, and X. Xie, “Energy consumption, economic development and environmental improvement in China,” Energy & Environment, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1345–1357, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. P. J. Mol, “Environmental governance in the information age: the emergence of informational governance,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 497–514, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cinderby and J. Forrester, “Facilitating the local governance of air pollution using GIS for participation,” Applied Geography, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 143–158, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Xu and H. Zhang, “Environmental activism and big data: building green social capital in China,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 8, p. 3386, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Yan and R. Hou, “Evaluation of regional scientific and technological innovation capability and empirical research,” Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 3179–3181, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Wang and J. Tan, “Exploring the coupling and forecasting of financial development, technological innovation, and economic growth,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 163, Article ID 120466, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Wang, Q. Deng, and Y. Zhang, “Research on the coupling and coordinated development of marine technological innovation and marine ecological economic development,” Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 99, no. sp1, p. 419, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Shang, Z. Wang, L. Li, Y. Chen, and P. Li, “A study on the correlation between technology innovation and the new-type urbanization in Shaanxi province,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 135, pp. 266–273, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Jiang, L. Ding, and X. Fang, “Sustainable development of new urbanization from the perspective of coordination: a new complex system of urbanization‒technology innovation and the atmospheric environment,” Atmosphere, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 652, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Sims, “Macroeconomics and reality,” Econometrica, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–48, 1980.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Holtz-Eakin, W. Newey, and H. S. Rosen, “Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data,” Econometrica, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1371–1395, 1988.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Jawadi, S. K. Mallick, and R. M. Sousa, “Fiscal and Monetary Policies in the BRICS:A Panel VAR Approach,” Economic Modelling, vol. 58, pp. 535–542, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Q. Lin and J. P. Zhu, “Energy and Carbon Intensity in China during the Urbanization and Industrialization process: A panel VAR approach,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 168, pp. 780–790, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
B. H. Baltagi and C. Kao, Nonstationary Panels, Cointegration in Panels and Dynamic Panels: A Survey, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 7–51, 2001.
P. Pedroni, “Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the ppp hypothesis,” Department of Economics Working Papers, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 597–625, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Kuang, X. Lu, J. Han, X. Fan, and J. Zuo, “How urbanization influence urban land consumption intensity: evidence from China,” Habitat International, vol. 100, Article ID 102103, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. W. K. Andrews and B. Lu, “Consistent model and moment selection procedures for GMM estimation with application to dynamic panel data models,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 123–164, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. C. Gutierrez, R. C. Souza, and O. T. D. C. Guillén, “Selection of optimal lag length in cointegrated VAR models with weak form of common cyclical features,” Brazilian Review of Econometrics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 59–78, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Li, K. F. See, and J. Chi, “Water resources and water pollution emissions in China’s industrial sector: a green-biased technological progress analysis,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 229, pp. 1412–1426, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Duan Xin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1567

Downloads

820

Citations