From Ecological Function to Economic Value: Forest Carbon Sinks and Regional Sustainable Growth in China
Abstract
1. Introduction
- (1)
- It develops a nonlinear analytical framework that explains how ecological assets—such as FCS—can be transformed into economic capital, adding new insights to the literature on forest carbon economics and green growth.
- (2)
- It offers the first systematic empirical verification and quantitative identification of the inverted-U-shaped relationship between FCS and economic growth—estimating both its magnitude and structural turning point—and thereby converts a long-standing theoretical expectation into measurable evidence.
- (3)
- It shows how institutional conditions influence the economic value of FCS, providing practical guidance for improving China’s carbon market mechanisms, advancing ecological product valuation, and designing region-specific forest management strategies.
2. Theoretical Mechanism Analysis
2.1. Nonlinear Economic Effects of FCS
2.2. Regional Heterogeneity and Absorptive Capacity
2.3. Institutional Thresholds and Stage-Dependent Marginal Effects
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Model Settings
- (1)
- Static Panel Fixed-Effects Model:
- Phase 1:
- Phase 2:
- (2)
- Dynamic System Generalized Method of Moments Model:
- (3)
- Panel Threshold Model:
3.2. Variables Selection
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Core Independent Variable
3.2.3. Threshold Variable
- (1)
- (2)
- The degree of government intervention (Gov) [58], measured by the proportion of government fiscal expenditure relative to GDP, reflects the strength of the government’s role in resource allocation and economic regulation.
- (3)
- The level of industrial structure upgrading (Isu) [59] describes the modernization process of a city’s economic structure, often using the proportion of the secondary and tertiary industries in GDP as an indicator, with higher values indicating a more rational industrial structure.
3.2.4. Control Variables
3.3. Data Sources and Processing
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. FCS Evolution
4.2. Descriptive Statistics
4.3. Benchmark Regression Results
4.3.1. Static Fixed-Effects Regression Analysis
4.3.2. Instrumental-Variable Fixed-Effects Regression: Endogeneity Tests and Directional Correction
4.3.3. Dynamic Effects Identified by the System GMM Model
4.4. Robustness Testing
4.4.1. Exclusion of Municipalities
4.4.2. Shortening the Sample Years
4.5. Threshold Regression
4.5.1. Threshold Value Verification
4.5.2. Threshold Effect Test
- (1)
- The two threshold values for Isu are 0.8466 and 1.2015, with confidence intervals of [0.8404, 0.8484] and [1.1727, 1.2052], respectively. Both intervals are very narrow, indicating high precision and stability in the estimation of the threshold values. This indicates that the marginal effect of FCS on economic growth changes in stages as the level of industrial structure improves. For example, carbon sink tea garden products in Bijie, Guizhou, command a premium of 15%–20% and have obtained an exemption from the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) certification, resulting in significant brand value enhancement for the region.
- (2)
- The two threshold values for Urban are 0.4510 and 0.5631, with 95% confidence intervals of [0.4494, 0.4520] and [0.5610, 0.5649], respectively. Cities at different stages of urbanization may face distinct land-use structures, population densities, and infrastructure levels in carbon sink development, leading to changes in the mechanisms linking carbon sinks and growth. For example, during the transformation of state-owned forest areas in northeast China, carbon sink management training increased re-employment rates to 82%, enhancing human capital and reducing transformation costs.
- (3)
- The two threshold values for the degree of Gov are 0.1197 and 0.1938, with confidence intervals of [0.1180, 0.1203] and [0.1919, 0.1947], respectively, both of which are highly significant. This indicates that when government expenditure ratios are at different levels, differences in policy orientation and resource allocation efficiency moderate the direction and intensity of FCS’ impact on economic growth. For example, Ganzhou, Jiangxi Province, issued 1 billion yuan in green bonds using expected carbon sink revenues, leveraging seven times the amount of social capital into ecological infrastructure, demonstrating the multiplier effect of green finance. In the national key ecological function zone transfer payments, Yunnan receives over 7 billion yuan in fiscal transfer payments annually, with 30% linked to carbon sink performance.
| Threshold Variables | Threshold Value | Estimated Value | Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Isu | Double-threshold | 0.8466; 1.2015 | [0.8404, 0.8484] |
| [1.1727, 1.2052] | |||
| Urban | Double-threshold | 0.4510; 0.5631 | [0.4494, 0.4520] |
| [0.5610, 0.5649] | |||
| Gov | Double-threshold | 0.1197; 0.1938 | [0.1180, 0.1203] |
| [0.1919, 0.1947] |
4.5.3. Threshold Estimation Results
- (1)
- Industrial structure as a threshold variable
- (2)
- Urbanization rate as a threshold variable
- (3)
- The degree of government intervention as a threshold variable
4.6. Heterogeneity Analysis
4.6.1. Key Cities and Non-Key Cities
4.6.2. Provincial Capital Cities and Provincial Non-Capital Cities
5. Discussion
6. Research Conclusions and Policy Recommendations
6.1. Research Conclusions
6.2. Countermeasures and Recommendations
- (1)
- Implement targeted policies by region to enhance the quality of carbon sink development in central and western regions. These regions possess abundant forest resources and should further improve ecological compensation systems and carbon trading mechanisms to guide the conversion of ecological capital into development capital. Particularly before the point of diminishing marginal returns, efforts should be made to enhance the integration of green finance and ecological industries to prevent ecological stagnation or resource misallocation.
- (2)
- Improve the efficiency of carbon sink utilization in eastern regions to achieve high-quality green transformation and enhanced efficiency. Eastern cities can leverage technological innovation, industrial upgrading, and green finance to establish a high-quality carbon sink development model, redefine the value of ecological resources, and drive the evolution of FCS toward integration with ecological services and carbon finance. In the long term, eastern regions may also explore the broader carbon value chain—such as promoting timber-based construction materials—to extend the economic benefits of forest resources through material substitution pathways.
- (3)
- Strengthen foundational capacity-building to enhance the coupling capacity between carbon sinks and structural conditions. By optimizing industrial structure, improving the quality of urbanization, and perfecting the government support system, the compatibility between FCS policy tools and regional economic structure can be enhanced, thereby unlocking growth potential under threshold effects.
- (4)
- Provide targeted support to unlock the carbon sink potential of small and medium-sized cities. Considering that non-central cities are more sensitive to FCS, regional coordination, targeted support for ecological projects, and fiscal transfers should be utilized to accelerate their green development capacity building, enabling them to play a foundational supporting role in the national dual-carbon strategy.
6.3. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| FCS | forest carbon sinks |
| System GMM | system generalized method of moments model |
| CCER | China Certified Voluntary Emission Reduction |
| SDGs | United Nations Sustainable Development Goals |
| RESDC | Resource and Environment Science Data Center |
| NDVI | normalized difference vegetation index |
| GDP | gross domestic product |
| ETS | emissions-trading system |
| RSS | residual sum of squares |
| MSE | mean squared error |
| TPDC | National Tibetan Plateau Data Center |
| CBAM | EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism |
Appendix A. Construction and Uncertainty of FCS Measure
- (1)
- Field-plot surveys and biomass estimates.
- (2)
- Remote sensing inversion and modeling.
- (3)
- Spatial and temporal expansion.
Appendix B. Impact Diagnosis (DFBETA Statistic)
| Variables | N | Threshold 2/sqrt(N) | High-Influence Observations | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnCT | 3345 | 0.0346 | 174 | 5.14 |
| lnCT2 | 3345 | 0.0346 | 184 | 5.43 |
| Variables | (1) | (2) |
|---|---|---|
| lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| lnCT | −0.103 *** | −0.118 *** |
| (−3.27) | (−4.14) | |
| lnCT2 | 0.038 *** | 0.041 *** |
| (4.38) | (5.19) | |
| Tec | 6.377 *** | |
| (7.31) | ||
| Edu | 0.263 | |
| (1.04) | ||
| Constant | 18.580 *** | 18.216 *** |
| (312.69) | (239.41) | |
| Observations | 3161 | 3161 |
| R-squared | 0.983 | 0.985 |
| City FE | YES | YES |
| Province FE | YES | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES |
| Cluster City | YES | YES |
Appendix C. Sensitivity of System GMM Estimates to Instrument Restrictions
| Specification | Lag Structure | Collapse | Estimator | Instruments | Hansen p-Value | β2 (lnCT2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (Main) | Lag (2–3) | Yes | Two-step | 12 | 0.908 | −0.064 * |
| Sensitivity 1 | Lag (2–3) | Yes | One-step | 12 | 0 | −0.009 |
| Sensitivity 2 | Lag (2–2) | Yes | One-step | 9 | 0 | −0.015 |
| No controls (dropped) | Lag (2–3) | Yes | Two-step | 12 | 0 | unstable |
Appendix D. Spatial Spillover Effect Testing—Spatial Durbin Model Results and Effect Decomposition
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Effect | Spatial Lag (Wx) | Spatial Dependence | Error Variance | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | |
| lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| lnCT | −0.061 | 0.018 | −0.060 | 0.001 | −0.059 | ||
| (−1.42) | (1.23) | (−0.98) | (0.02) | (−0.63) | |||
| lnCT2 | −0.000 | −0.022 *** | 0.130 *** | 0.101 *** | 0.231 *** | ||
| (−0.02) | (−6.35) | (7.22) | (7.83) | (8.24) | |||
| Tec | −0.112 | −2.701 *** | 15.854 *** | 12.338 *** | 28.192 *** | ||
| (−0.16) | (−9.97) | (10.39) | (8.72) | (10.82) | |||
| Edu | 0.390 | 0.436 *** | −2.819 *** | −2.492 *** | −5.311 *** | ||
| (1.26) | (5.01) | (−6.42) | (−7.00) | (−7.83) | |||
| rho | 0.297 *** | ||||||
| (4725.48) | |||||||
| sigma2_e | 0.017 *** | ||||||
| (14.37) | |||||||
| Observations | 2676 | 2676 | 2676 | 2676 | 2676 | 2676 | 2676 |
| R-squared | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Number of city codes | 223 | 223 | 223 | 223 | 223 | 223 | 223 |
References
- Gomez-Echeverri, L. Climate and Development: Enhancing Impact through Stronger Linkages in the Implementation of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2018, 376, 20160444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrea, V. Mediterranean Forest Policy beyond the Paris Climate Agreement. Land Use Policy 2022, 112, 105797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calvin, K.; Dasgupta, D.; Krinner, G.; Mukherji, A.; Thorne, P.W.; Trisos, C.; Romero, J.; Aldunce, P.; Barrett, K.; Blanco, G.; et al. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 35–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Ge, J. Valued Forest Carbon Sinks: How Much Emissions Abatement Costs Could Be Reduced in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, S.; Ding, L.; Xiong, Z.; Spicer, R.A.; Farnsworth, A.; Valdes, P.J.; Wang, C.; Cai, F.; Wang, H.; Sun, Y.; et al. A Distinctive Eocene Asian Monsoon and Modern Biodiversity Resulted from the Rise of Eastern Tibet. Sci. Bull. 2022, 67, 2245–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, K.; Zou, G.; Hu, H. Forest Carbon Sequestration Functions and Mitigation Strategies for Global Climate Change. In Forest Science—Advances Towards Sustainable Development and Climate Resilience; Shukla, G., Chandra Sarkar, B., Ahmad Wani, Z., Bhat, J.A., Chakravarty, S., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2025; ISBN 978-1-83634-713-2. [Google Scholar]
- Levasseur, A.; Lesage, P.; Margni, M.; Samson, R. Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013, 17, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pittau, F.; Krause, F.; Lumia, G.; Habert, G. Fast-Growing Bio-Based Materials as an Opportunity for Storing Carbon in Exterior Walls. Build. Environ. 2018, 129, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, C.M.T.; Radeloff, V.C. Global Mitigation Potential of Carbon Stored in Harvested Wood Products. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 14526–14531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di, Z.; Wang, Y.; Chang, C.; Song, H.; Lu, X.; Cheng, F. Synergistic Gas–Slag Scheme to Mitigate CO2 Emissions from the Steel Industry. Nat. Sustain. 2025, 8, 763–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, A.K.; Solberg, B. Environmental and Economic Impacts of Substitution between Wood Products and Alternative Materials: A Review of Micro-Level Analyses from Norway and Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathre, R.; Gustavsson, L. Using Wood Products to Mitigate Climate Change: External Costs and Structural Change. Appl. Energy 2009, 86, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sathre, R.; O’Connor, J. Meta-Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Displacement Factors of Wood Product Substitution. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, E.T.; Brown, M.T. Environmental Accounting of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services for the US National Forest System. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 691–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, R.; Bian, W.; Fan, H.; Guan, J. Analysis on the Evolution of Provincial Forest Carbon Sequestration Efficiency in China. Issues Econ 2021, 41, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, M.; Ye, S.; Zhang, L.; Wu, P.; Huang, N.; Bai, Y.; Ruan, J.; He, Z.; Li, M.; Chen, S.; et al. Gridded Forest Carbon Sinks and Carbon Removal Projections from 2020 to 2060 in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 392, 126617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- China Launches Domestic Offset Market to Align with National ETS Goals|International Carbon Action Partnership. Available online: https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/news/china-launches-domestic-offset-market-align-national-ets-goals (accessed on 2 July 2025).
- Hou, G.; Delang, C.O.; Lu, X.; Olschewski, R. Valuing Carbon Sequestration to Finance Afforestation Projects in China. Forests 2019, 10, 754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Z.; Liu, S.; Li, H.; Liang, J.; Liu, W.; Piao, S.; Tian, H.; Zhou, G.; Lu, C.; You, W.; et al. Maximizing Carbon Sequestration Potential in Chinese Forests through Optimal Management. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.; Huang, Y. Are Forest Carbon Sequestration Projects Helpful in Reducing Poverty? For. Econ. Issues 2019, 39, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, R.; Zhou, F. Study of Kuznets Inverted U-Shaped Relation between Forest Carbon Sink and Economic Growth. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. 2012, 32, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Fang, L.; Jing, P. Analysis of Broad Leaved Forest Carbon Sinks Changes and Forest Economics and Management in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 12922–12931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, W.; Xu, L.; Li, M.; Li, O.J.; He, N. Imbalance of Inter-Provincial Forest Carbon Sequestration Rate from 2010 to 2060 in China and Its Regulation Strategy. J. Geogr. Sci. 2023, 33, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Wang, L.; Song, Z. Valuation Method for Carbon Asset of Forest Carbon Sink. Stat. Decis. 2024, 40, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hurmekoski, E.; Jonsson, R.; Korhonen, J.; Jänis, J.; Mäkinen, M.; Leskinen, P.; Hetemäki, L. Diversification of the Forest Industries: Role of New Wood-Based Products. Can. J. For. Res. 2018, 48, 1417–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, B. Forest Carbon Sink Resource Asset Evaluation with Case Study of Fujian Province in China. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2022, 7391473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Shi, K.; Hu, M. Measurement of Forest Carbon Sink Efficiency and Its Influencing Factors Empirical Evidence from China. Forests 2022, 13, 1909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Ye, F.; Li, Y.; Chang, C.-T. How Will the Chinese Certified Emission Reduction Scheme Save Cost for the National Carbon Trading System? J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, L.; Wang, M.; Huang, D.; Lu, Y. The Current Development and Outlook of China Certified Emission Reduction Trading Scheme. Chin. J. Urban Environ. Stud. 2024, 12, 2450015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Kuhn, L.; Zeng, W.; Glauben, T. Who Benefits from Payments for Ecosystem Services? Policy Lessons from a Forest Carbon Sink Program in China. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 214, 107976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, W.-Y.; Li, Z.; Lu, K.; Chang, S.J. Optimal Eco-Compensation for Forest-Based Carbon Sequestration Programs: A Case Study of Larch Carbon Sink Plantations in Gansu, Northwest China. Forests 2022, 13, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, S.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y. China’s Forest Carbon Sinks and Mitigation Potential from Carbon Sequestration Trading Perspective. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 148, 110054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregor, K.; Knoke, T.; Krause, A.; Reyer, C.P.O.; Lindeskog, M.; Papastefanou, P.; Smith, B.; Lansø, A.; Rammig, A. Trade-Offs for Climate-Smart Forestry in Europe Under Uncertain Future Climate. Earths Future 2022, 10, e2022EF002796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svobodová, H.; Hlaváčková, P. Forest as a Source of Renewable Material to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Buildings. J. For. Sci. 2023, 69, 451–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Feng, X.; Fu, B.; Ma, H.; Zohner, C.M.; Crowther, T.W.; Huang, Y.; Wu, X.; Wei, F. Maps with 1 km Resolution Reveal Increases in above- and Belowground Forest Biomass Carbon Pools in China over the Past 20 Years. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2023, 15, 897–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, D.; Zhao, M.; Wang, K. Do Impoverished Regions Benefit from Climate Change Mitigation Measures? Evidence from the Forest Carbon Sink Project in China. Clim. Policy 2025, 25, 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, C.; Wang, B.; Chen, J. Forest Carbon Sink in China: Linked Drivers and Long Short-Term Memory Network-Based Prediction. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 359, 132085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Ge, J. Carbon Sinks and Output of China’s Forestry Sector: An Ecological Economic Development Perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 1169–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Ren, Y.; Hong, Y.; Glauben, T. Does Forest Farm Carbon Sink Projects Affect Agricultural Development? Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 335, 117500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Ge, J. Does Institutional Freedom Matter for Global Forest Carbon Sinks in the Face of Economic Development Disparity? China Econ. Rev. 2021, 65, 101563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engle, R.F.; Granger, C.W.J. Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica 1987, 55, 251–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Houghton, R.A.; Fang, J.; Kauppi, P.E.; Keith, H.; Kurz, W.A.; Ito, A.; Lewis, S.L.; et al. The Enduring World Forest Carbon Sink. Nature 2024, 631, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, H.; Tang, M.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y. Construction of Forest Carbon Sequestration Trading Model--Take Shaanxi as an Example. J. Northwest AF Univ. Sci. Ed. 2019, 19, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, H.; Fu, X.; Wang, L.; Xiao, W. Analysis on the contribution of forest carbon sink in Jiangxi Province under different management levels. South China For. Sci. 2022, 50, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, L.; Hu, H.; Liu, T.; Ma, C. Ecological Security Pattern Construction for Carbon Sink Capacity Enhancement: The Case of Chengdu Metropolitan Area. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogarth, N.J.; Belcher, B.; Campbell, B.; Stacey, N. The Role of Forest-Related Income in Household Economies and Rural Livelihoods in the Border-Region of Southern China. World Dev. 2013, 43, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, D.; Ben, M.; Bo, S.; Yali, W. Dependence of the Poor on Forest Resources: Evidence from China. Small-Scale For. 2017, 16, 487–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Z.; Dayananda, B.; Du, H.; Zhou, G.; Wang, G. Assessing Carbon Sequestration Potential in State-Owned Plantation Forests in China and Exploring Feasibility for Carbon Offset Projects. Forests 2024, 15, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsukada, N.; Matsumoto, M. Forest Carbon Accounting to Leverage Mitigation Actions: Implications for the Paris Agreement Based on the Analysis of Countries’ Decision under the Kyoto Protocol. J. For. Res. 2024, 29, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.; Yue, C.; Piao, S. Future forestation in China should aim to align the temporal service window of the forest carbon sink with the “carbon neutrality” strategy. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2023, 53, 3010–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.; Peng, R.; Liao, W. Does Collective Forest Tenure Reform Improve Forest Carbon Sequestration Efficiency and Rural Household Income in China? Forests 2025, 16, 551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arellano, M.; Bond, S. Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1991, 58, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roodman, D. How to Do Xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata. Stata J. Promot. Commun. Stat. Stata 2009, 9, 86–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Liu, C. Corporate Strategic Greenwashing under ESG Disclosure Uncertainty: Financing Incentives and Nonlinear Effects. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 394, 127473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hansen, B.E. Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference. J. Econom. 1999, 93, 345–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kocoglu, M.; Nghiem, X.-H.; Barak, D.; Bruna, K.; Jahanger, A. Can Forests Realize the Carbon Neutrality Dream? Evidence from a Global Sample. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 366, 121827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, Q.; Zaw, Z.; Yang, J.; Yang, R.; Li, Z.; Hauer, R.J.; Li, H.; Fan, Z.; Lu, H.; Sterck, F. Urbanization Associated with Greater Tree Growth Declines in Urban than in Rural Forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 2025, 104, 128599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wild, T.; Baptista, M.; Wilker, J.; Kanai, J.M.; Giusti, M.; Henderson, H.; Rotbart, D.; Espinel, J.-D.A.; Hernández-Garcia, J.; Thomasz, O.; et al. Valuation of Urban Nature-Based Solutions in Latin American and European Cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 91, 128162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ling, S.; Jin, S.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Feng, Y. Transportation Infrastructure Upgrading and Green Development Efficiency: Empirical Analysis with Double Machine Learning Method. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 358, 120922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obuobi, B.; Tang, D.; Awuah, F.; Nketiah, E.; Adu-Gyamfi, G. Utilizing Ant Forest Technology to Foster Sustainable Behaviors: A Novel Approach towards Environmental Conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 359, 121038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gai, J.; Feng, L.; Wang, W.; Lu, S. The Analysis of Forest Carbon Sequestration Value and Peasant Household Forestry Income Growth. Issues For. Econ. 2010, 30, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Chang, Q. The Role of Urban Parks in Affecting Health Outcomes and the Differences between Vulnerable Groups: Evidence from the Central City of Beijing. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 89, 128110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LeSage, J.P.; Pace, R.K. Spatial Econometric Models. In Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis; Fischer, M.M., Getis, A., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 355–376. ISBN 978-3-642-03646-0. [Google Scholar]



| Mechanism | Expected Effect | Typical Empirical Strategy | Remaining Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Natural capital accumulation | Nonlinear (inverted-U) | Fixed-Effects model/instrumental variable fixed-effects model/dynamic panel GMM | Dynamic adjustment often ignored |
| Green-industrial linkage | Positive, region-dependent | Subsample/interaction terms | Regional absorptive capacity |
| Institutional mediation | Threshold-dependent | Panel threshold models | Institutional boundary conditions |
| Ecological crowding-out | Negative at high levels | Quadratic terms | Long-run causal identification |
| Variables | N | Mean | Sd | Min | Max | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnGDP | 3386 | 16.584 | 0.936 | 14.624 | 19.110 | 0.375 | 3.009 |
| lnCT | 3386 | 2.122 | 1.263 | −2.410 | 3.964 | −0.996 | 3.226 |
| lnCT2 | 3386 | 6.090 | 4.150 | 0.005 | 13.478 | −0.061 | 1.555 |
| Urban | 3386 | 0.550 | 0.149 | 0.252 | 0.936 | 0.415 | 2.786 |
| Gov | 3386 | 0.201 | 0.101 | 0.075 | 0.6 | 1.854 | 7.353 |
| Isu | 3386 | 1.027 | 0.560 | 0.305 | 3.5 | 2.038 | 8.461 |
| Variables | (1) | (2) |
|---|---|---|
| lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| lnCT | −0.102 *** | −0.105 *** |
| (−3.13) | (−3.09) | |
| lnCT2 | 0.044 *** | 0.0 *** |
| (4.12) | (4.00) | |
| Tec | 6.572 *** | |
| (7.33) | ||
| Edu | 0.535 * | |
| (1.76) | ||
| Constant | 16.538 *** | 16.345 *** |
| (244.94) | (204.70) | |
| Observations | 3337 | 3337 |
| R-squared | 0.977 | 0.979 |
| City FE | YES | YES |
| Province FE | YES | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES |
| Cluster City | YES | YES |
| Panel A. Instrumental Variable Fixed-Effects Estimation | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variables | (1) | (2) |
| lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| L.lnCT | −0.046 | −0.092 |
| (−0.20) | (−0.42) | |
| L.lnCT2 | 0.273 *** | 0.268 *** |
| (3.01) | (3.10) | |
| Tec | 5.942 *** | |
| (6.96) | ||
| Edu | 0.599 * | |
| (1.74) | ||
| Kleibergen–Paap rk LM statistic (p-value) | 14.810 (0.000) | 14.620 (0.000) |
| Cragg–Donald Wald F statistic | 7.253 | 7.159 |
| Kleibergen–Paap rk Wald F statistic | 17.293 | 17.113 |
| Stock–Yogo critical value (10%) | 7.03 | 7.03 |
| Weak instrumental variable test | No | No |
| Observations | 3050 | 3050 |
| City FE | YES | YES |
| Province FE | YES | YES |
| Year FE | YES | YES |
| Cluster City | YES | YES |
| Panel B. Durbin–Wu–Hausman test of endogeneity (The Durbin–Wu–Hausman tests are conducted using the same set of control variables, fixed effects, and sample as in Panel A) | ||
| Durbin–Wu–Hausman F statistic (p-value) | 4.55 | 4.35 |
| (0.011) | (0.014) | |
| Variables | Nationwide | Eastern Region | Central Region | Western Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| L.lnGDP | 0.925 *** | 0.751 *** | 1.019 *** | 0.981 *** |
| (10.46) | (5.43) | (5.87) | (8.95) | |
| L.lnCT | 0.236 ** | −0.008 | 0.103 | 0.159 |
| (2.00) | (−0.04) | (1.64) | (1.05) | |
| L.lnCT2 | −0.064 * | −0.020 | −0.010 | −0.064 * |
| (−1.66) | (−0.66) | (−0.16) | (−1.67) | |
| Tec | 0.914 | 14.118 | −2.437 | 6.365 |
| (0.17) | (1.27) | (−0.30) | (0.54) | |
| Edu | −1.750 * | −4.429 ** | −0.301 | −0.269 |
| (−1.88) | (−2.02) | (−0.19) | (−0.10) | |
| Constant | 1.501 | 4.934 * | −0.296 | 0.470 |
| (0.98) | (1.80) | (−0.09) | (0.23) | |
| Observations | 3013 | 1077 | 1050 | 886 |
| Number of city codes | 286 | 101 | 100 | 85 |
| Arellano–Bond test for AR (1) | 0.000 | 0.040 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Arellano–Bond test for AR (2) | 0.106 | 0.217 | 0.647 | 0.422 |
| Sargan test | 0.700 | 0.997 | 0.170 | 0.673 |
| Hansen test | 0.908 | 0.997 | 0.249 | 0.908 |
| Sample Region | β1 (lnCT) | β2 (lnCT2) | Turning Point (lnCT*) | p-Value | 95% CI (Lower) | 95% CI (Upper) | SD of lnCT | ΔlnGDP (1 SD Increase) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nationwide | 0.236 | −0.064 | 1.84 | 0.070 | −0.1235 | 3.1767 | 1.263 | 0.196 | Inverted U-shape |
| Eastern Region | −0.008 | −0.020 | - | - | - | - | - | - | No statistically meaningful interior turning point |
| Central Region | 0.103 | −0.010 | - | - | - | - | - | - | Beyond sample range |
| Western Region | 0.159 | −0.064 | 1.24 | 0.001 | 1.4909 | 3.0938 | 1.222 | 0.099 | Emerging diminishing returns |
| Variables | Nationwide | Eastern Region | Central Region | Western Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| L.lnGDP | 0.919 *** | 0.769 *** | 1.019 *** | 0.984 *** |
| (10.67) | (6.30) | (5.87) | (9.11) | |
| L.lnCT | 0.217 * | 0.004 | 0.103 | 0.160 |
| (1.87) | (0.03) | (1.64) | (1.08) | |
| L.lnCT2 | −0.059 | −0.018 | −0.010 | −0.064 * |
| (−1.55) | (−0.62) | (−0.16) | (−1.69) | |
| Tec | 1.526 | 12.118 | −2.437 | 6.191 |
| (0.29) | (1.37) | (−0.30) | (0.53) | |
| Edu | −1.802 ** | −4.329 ** | −0.301 | −0.270 |
| (−2.03) | (−2.17) | (−0.19) | (−0.10) | |
| Constant | 1.618 | 4.623 * | −0.296 | 0.423 |
| (1.09) | (1.90) | (−0.09) | (0.21) | |
| Observations | 2970 | 1045 | 1050 | 875 |
| Number of cities | 282 | 98 | 100 | 84 |
| Arellano–Bond test for AR (1) | 0.000 | 0.020 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Arellano–Bond test for AR (2) | 0.092 | 0.189 | 0.647 | 0.433 |
| Sargan test | 0.717 | 0.912 | 0.170 | 0.268 |
| Hansen test | 0.910 | 0.931 | 0.249 | 0.297 |
| Variables | Nationwide | Eastern Region | Central Region | Western Region |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| L.lnGDP | 0.807 *** | 0.843 *** | 0.901 *** | 0.923 *** |
| (2.85) | (10.65) | (4.62) | (16.55) | |
| L.lnCT | 0.340 | 0.015 | 0.036 | 0.059 |
| (1.61) | (0.05) | (0.16) | (1.48) | |
| L.lnCT2 | −0.103 * | −0.024 | −0.018 | −0.037 * |
| (−1.76) | (−0.30) | (−0.25) | (−1.76) | |
| Tec | 10.645 | 9.626 ** | 1.816 | 12.457 |
| (0.53) | (1.98) | (0.20) | (1.20) | |
| Edu | −0.835 | −0.422 | −0.100 | 1.423 * |
| (−0.39) | (−0.67) | (−0.07) | (1.81) | |
| Constant | 3.153 | 2.694 * | 1.730 | 1.097 |
| (0.69) | (1.88) | (0.54) | (1.19) | |
| Observations | 2182 | 783 | 762 | 637 |
| Number of cities | 283 | 101 | 100 | 82 |
| Arellano–Bond test for AR (1) | 0.147 | 0.004 | 0.240 | 0.063 |
| Arellano–Bond test for AR (2) | 0.796 | 0.294 | 0.696 | 0.548 |
| Sargan test | 0.052 | 0.320 | 0.009 | 0.322 |
| Hansen test | 0.202 | 0.361 | 0.018 | 0.380 |
| Variables | Threshold | RSS | MSE | F-Stat | p-Value | Crit (10%) | Crit (5%) | Crit (1%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isu | Single-threshold | 145.7056 | 0.0518 | 397.67 | 0.000 | 11.025 | 13.017 | 16.611 |
| Double-threshold | 141.3425 | 0.0503 | 86.77 | 0.000 | 11.732 | 13.892 | 20.034 | |
| Triple-threshold | 138.9173 | 0.0494 | 49.07 | 0.723 | 78.968 | 86.155 | 100.320 | |
| Urban | Single-threshold | 148.4633 | 0.0486 | 500.01 | 0.000 | 14.074 | 15.940 | 20.505 |
| Double-threshold | 136.8168 | 0.0448 | 259.97 | 0.000 | 14.552 | 17.201 | 21.048 | |
| Triple-threshold | 131.5678 | 0.0431 | 121.84 | 0.750 | 164.621 | 172.872 | 185.952 | |
| Gov | Single-threshold | 162.5017 | 0.0532 | 192.98 | 0.000 | 13.901 | 17.245 | 21.966 |
| Double-threshold | 158.4783 | 0.0519 | 77.53 | 0.000 | 12.878 | 14.264 | 21.116 | |
| Triple-threshold | 155.9460 | 0.0511 | 49.59 | 0.610 | 76.613 | 83.926 | 97.359 |
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial Structure | Urbanization Rate | The Degree of Government Intervention | |
| lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| 0b._cat#c.lnCT | 0.144 *** | 0.003 | 0.286 *** |
| (3.65) | (0.08) | (6.90) | |
| 1._cat#c.lnCT | 0.200 *** | 0.118 *** | 0.359 *** |
| (5.14) | (3.34) | (8.80) | |
| 2._cat#c.lnCT | 0.266 *** | 0.239 *** | 0.395 *** |
| (6.88) | (6.93) | (9.87) | |
| 3._cat#c.lnCT | 0.340 *** | 0.357 *** | 0.426 *** |
| (8.95) | (10.46) | (10.78) | |
| Constant | 16.062 *** | 16.072 *** | 15.755 *** |
| (196.49) | (220.42) | (187.19) | |
| Observations | 3102 | 3345 | 3345 |
| R-squared | 0.238 | 0.316 | 0.074 |
| Number of cities | 294 | 294 | 294 |
| Variables | Key Cities or Not? | Capital Cities or Not? | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | lnGDP | |
| L.lnGDP | 0.216 | 0.860 *** | 0.938 *** | 1.010 *** |
| (0.35) | (6.01) | (28.36) | (78.35) | |
| L.lnCT | −0.018 | −0.085 | 0.211 | 0.023 |
| (−0.01) | (−0.82) | (0.81) | (0.56) | |
| L.lnCT2 | 0.131 | 1.198 | −0.316 | −0.188 |
| (0.01) | (0.92) | (−0.43) | (−1.56) | |
| Tec | 20.774 | −14.034 | 3.039 | −0.135 |
| (1.19) | (−0.51) | (1.09) | (−0.12) | |
| Edu | −6.814 | −3.995 * | −0.056 | 0.037 |
| (−0.75) | (−1.78) | (−0.08) | (0.17) | |
| Constant | 14.574 | 1.911 | 4.448 | −0.287 |
| (1.24) | (0.65) | (1.15) | (−0.49) | |
| Observations | 203 | 2810 | 276 | 2737 |
| Number of cities | 19 | 267 | 26 | 260 |
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. |
© 2025 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.
Share and Cite
Zhang, X.; Li, S.; Liu, P.; Na, S. From Ecological Function to Economic Value: Forest Carbon Sinks and Regional Sustainable Growth in China. Forests 2026, 17, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17010025
Zhang X, Li S, Liu P, Na S. From Ecological Function to Economic Value: Forest Carbon Sinks and Regional Sustainable Growth in China. Forests. 2026; 17(1):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17010025
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Xin, Shun Li, Peng Liu, and Sanggyun Na. 2026. "From Ecological Function to Economic Value: Forest Carbon Sinks and Regional Sustainable Growth in China" Forests 17, no. 1: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17010025
APA StyleZhang, X., Li, S., Liu, P., & Na, S. (2026). From Ecological Function to Economic Value: Forest Carbon Sinks and Regional Sustainable Growth in China. Forests, 17(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/f17010025

