Next Article in Journal
Fire Risk Assessment of Subway Stations Based on Combination Weighting of Game Theory and TOPSIS Method
Next Article in Special Issue
A Study of the Spatial Structure and Regional Interaction of Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity in China Based on SNA and VAR Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Chemical Recycling of a Textile Blend from Polyester and Viscose, Part I: Process Description, Characterization, and Utilization of the Recycled Cellulose
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urbanization, Economic Development, and Ecological Environment: Evidence from Provincial Panel Data in China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Environmental Regulation on the Green Total Factor Productivity of Dairy Farming: Evidence from China

1
College of Economics and Management, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China
2
College of Economics and Management, Suihua University, Suihua 152001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(12), 7274; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127274
Submission received: 18 April 2022 / Revised: 9 June 2022 / Accepted: 10 June 2022 / Published: 14 June 2022

Abstract

:
Environmental regulation is essential to promote green and sustainable development in dairy farming. Nevertheless, limited studies have focused on the impact of environmental regulation on the green total factor productivity (GTFP) of dairy farming. This study measures the GTFP of dairy farming in 27 provinces in China during 2009–2020 using the Slack Based Measure (SBM) model and the Malmquist–Luenberger (ML) productivity index. In addition, random effects and threshold regression models are used to measure the impact of environmental regulations on the GTFP of dairy farming. The results demonstrate the fluctuating growth of the GTFP of dairy farming and that technical efficiency is the primary driver of the GTFP growth. The annual growth rate of GTFP is the highest in large-scale dairy farming (3.27%), followed by medium-scale dairy farming (2.73%) and small-scale dairy farming (1.98%). Furthermore, environmental regulation positively affects the GTFP and has a threshold effect on the GTFP, with the urban–rural income gap as the threshold variable in medium-scale dairy farming and small-scale dairy farming. The impact on the GTFP can be significantly negative if the urban–rural income gap crosses the threshold value. Overall, this study provides some policy recommendations for attaining green and sustainable dairy farming development in China.

1. Introduction

Since the United Nations Development Programme proposed the concept of “Green Development” in 2002, the realization of green development and sustainable development has become a shared aspiration around the globe [1]. Green development is considered the primary way to attain economic development and environmental protection [2]. As the world’s largest developing country, severe conflict exists between economic growth and environmental protection in China [3,4]. Thus, the Chinese government has elevated “Green Development” as a national strategy at the Fifth Plenary Session of the 18th Party Central Committee and integrated it into its long-term development plan. The 19th National Congress report emphasized promoting green development and consolidating the prevention of agricultural surface source pollution [5].
China is a mainly dairy-consumption and dairy-farming country. According to data from China Dairy Industry Statistics, the consumption of milk per capita in China increased from 4.28 to 13 kg/year from 2000 to 2020, about three times as much as in 2000. Driven by the increment in dairy consumption demand, dairy cattle breeding maintained a high growth trend in China. The dairy cattle stock rapidly increased from 4.89 to 10.43 million, and the growth rate was as high as 113.29%. However, the development of dairy farming resulted in severe environmental problems in China [6]. The National Pollution Source Census Bulletin reported livestock farming as the primary source of agricultural pollution in China. As large ruminants are involved in livestock farming, dairy cattle add significantly higher manure and greenhouse gas emissions than other livestock and poultry animals, causing severe environmental pollution [7]. The growing environmental pollution is in stark contrast with China’s growing market for dairy farming. The “Opinions on Promoting the Revitalization of the Dairy Industry to Safeguard Dairy Quality and Safety” promulgated by the State Council in 2018 established the principle of green development of the dairy industry while recommending the synergistic development of dairy production and ecology. Enhancing the green total factor productivity (GTFP) of dairy farming has become the primary goal for the green development of China’s dairy industry. Achieving the goal depends on the necessary environmental regulations, which can reduce environmental pollution and improve the efficiency of resources’ comprehensive utilization. However, the impact of environmental regulations on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming is still unclear.
Researchers have increasingly focused on the incongruity between dairy farming and the ecological environment [8,9,10,11]. Reconciling the relationship between the dairy farming industry and environmental pollution has become an enormous challenge for the dairy industry [12]. Guided by the concept of green and high-quality development, the Chinese government implemented a series of environmental regulations to mitigate the conflict between dairy farming development and environmental pollution [13]. As one of the most effective means to address environmental pollution problems, environmental regulation has been extensively used in agriculture pollution control [14,15]. Environmental regulation denotes the policies and coercive instruments developed by the government to decrease pollutant emissions [16], which are specifically categorized into two types of instruments: formal environmental regulation and informal environmental regulation [17]. In addition, some studies claimed that implementing appropriate environmental regulations could promote green technology adoption and technological innovation, resulting in green production and sustainable development in recent years [18,19,20]. Lu et al. [21] found that environmental regulation could improve the adoption of green technology by farmers. Mbanyele et al. [22] applied the difference in the difference model to test the impact of environmental regulation on technological innovation and found that environmental regulation substantially promoted innovation productivity. The measurement of environmental regulation normally uses indicators such as investment in pollution control or the number of environmental policies to assess the intensity of environmental regulation [23,24]. Furthermore, some studies demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between environmental regulation and environmental pollution [25,26]. When the intensity of environmental regulation exceeds a certain threshold, the impact of environmental regulation on environmental pollution reduction is not satisfactory. Environmental regulations are not only an effective measure to address environmental pollution problems and promote green development but also an essential factor affecting the green total factor productivity. Previously, environmental regulations have been used widely in multiple fields with remarkable results [27,28,29].
Extensive research has been conducted on the total factor productivity and the impact of inputs on output [30,31,32,33,34]. The total factor productivity of dairy farming has been measured recently [35,36]. For example, McCormack et al. [37] found, relative to 2010, the total factor productivity of Irish dairy farms had increased by almost 18%. Balezentis et al. [38] found the total factor productivity of Lithuanian dairy farms grew at an average annual rate of 2%, with technical change and scale components being the main driver of the growth. Nevertheless, the traditional total factor productivity overlooks the environmental pollution due to production in the calculation process. Conversely, the green total factor productivity is measured based on environmental pollution, aligning more with green and high-quality development [39,40]. Green total factor productivity is defined as the total factor input–output efficiency, which takes pollution emissions into account [41]. Improving the green total factor productivity is the way to attain sustainable economic development [42,43]. Wang et al. [44] measured China’s agricultural GTFP between 2004 and 2016, reporting that the average annual growth rate of the GTFP of Chinese agriculture reached 3.1% and varied regionally. Ding et al. [45] demonstrated that China’s industrial GTFP exhibited an inverted “U”-shaped trend. Moreover, studies primarily focused on the issue of the total factor productivity of dairy farming and revealed that the total factor productivity of dairy farming closely correlated with factors such as farming inputs, farming technology, and farmers’ education [46,47]. The total factor productivity of dairy farming has been improved under technological progress [48]. However, the current literature on the GTFP of dairy farming is scarce and does not create a systematic theoretical framework.
To date, several studies have demonstrated that environmental regulation is an essential factor affecting the green total factor productivity, but the direction of the impact of environmental regulation on the green total factor productivity is not uniform [49,50]. One view is that implementing environmental regulations could promote green total factor productivity [51]; this is because apt environmental regulations can stimulate technological innovation and further expand the production capacity while decreasing the input costs of combating environmental pollution, thereby increasing the green total factor productivity. In addition, when producers are limited by the constraints of environmental regulations, they will adopt cleaner production technologies in order to reduce pollution emissions, which will also optimize the allocation of production factors and promote the green total factor productivity [52]. This view is supported by some recent studies. For example, Xu et al. [49] measured provincial GTFP in China with the Slack Based Measure-Malmquist–Luenberger model and found that environmental regulation influenced GTFP positively. Fan et al. [53] found that environmental regulation indirectly promoted GTFP by enhancing green technological innovation levels. Another view is that environmental regulations would decrease the green total factor productivity, as implementing strict environmental regulations would lead to extra costs for pollution control. Thus, the investment in production is reduced, and the cost of complying with environmental regulations is higher than the benefit from technological innovation, thereby arguing that environmental regulations inhibit the increase in the green total factor productivity. Several of the latest studies confirm this view. For example, Li et al. [54] found that strict environmental regulation would inhibit the growth of GTFP. Li et al. [28] found that the impact of environmental regulation on GTFP was negative when the economic development level reached a medium level. The existing literature has primarily focused on the impact of environmental regulations on environmental pollution and green total factor productivity (Table 1); it has not yet reached a consistent conclusion. The studies mentioned above provide an essential contribution to elucidating the correlation between environmental regulations and green total factor productivity.
What is the green total factor productivity level of dairy farming in China? Does environmental regulation affect the green total factor productivity of Chinese dairy farming? These questions are not explored in the current literature. Based on the data on Chinese dairy farming between 2009 and 2020, this study uses the Slack Based Measure-Malmquist–Luenberger (SBM-ML) model to measure the green total factor productivity of small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming. Furthermore, this study empirically examines the impact of environmental regulations on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. Finally, using the urban–rural income gap as the threshold variable, this study investigates the nonlinear relationship between environmental regulations and the green total factor productivity of dairy farming.
Compared with previous studies, the possible innovations of this paper are as follows: Firstly, previous studies on dairy farming have focused on the total factor productivity and overlooked the impact of environmental pollution, and fewer studies have addressed the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. Meanwhile, the existing studies have not disintegrated the green total factor productivity of dairy farming and have not yet investigated the role of technological progress and technical efficiency in the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. To fill this research gap, we apply the SBM-ML model to measure the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. In addition, the effect of technological progress and technical efficiency on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming is further analyzed. Secondly, little research has been conducted on the nonlinear relationship between environmental regulations and the green total factor productivity of dairy farming, and the impact of environmental regulations on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming remains unclear. Different from the previous studies, the threshold effect model is applied to explore the nonlinear effect of environmental regulations on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming.
The subsequent section of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the model specification, data sources, and descriptive statistics of the variables used in the paper. Section 3 shows the results and further discussion. According to the analysis above, the conclusions and policy recommendations are drawn in Section 4.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. SBM-ML Model

Previous studies mainly used stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) and data envelopment analysis (DEA) to measure the green total factor productivity [42,43]. However, the SFA method might have issues in parameter-setting, and the DEA method is highly prone to errors owing to different radial and angular choices. To solve this problem, a nonradial and nonangular Slack Based Measure (SBM) model, which introduced slack variables into the function for efficiency measurement, is developed by Tone et al. [61]. For measuring the GTFP of dairy farming, pollutants need to be taken into account as an undesirable output; SBM model is therefore used in this study. We constructed the SBM model in the manner described by Zhou et al. [62]. Assuming that dairy farming requires M inputs while producing S1 consensual outputs and S2 nonconsensual outputs, the SBM model can be presented as follows:
p * = min 1 1 M i = 1 M S m x x m 0 1 + 1 S 1 + S 2 ( r = 1 S 1 S r g y r 0 g + k = 1 S 2 S k b b k 0 b )
s . t . { j = 1 J λ j t Y r j t S r g = y r j t , r = 1 , , S 1 ; j = 1 J λ j t b k j t + S k b = b b j t , K = 1 , , S 2 ; j = 1 J λ j t X m j t + S m x = x m j t , m = 1 , , M ; j = 1 J λ j t = 1 , λ j t 0 , S k b 0 , S r g 0 , S m x 0 , j = 1 , , J ;
where p* denotes the efficiency evaluation indicator; Smx means input excess; Srg denotes the desired output deficiency; Skb signifies undesirable output redundancy; λjt means the weight vector; and p* represents ∈ (0, 1). The SBM model applies to the green total factor productivity measurement in a fixed time horizon and cannot reflect the dynamic evolution of the GTFP. To better reflect the dynamic evolution characteristics of the GTFP of dairy farming, the SBM-ML model, which combined the nonradial and nonangular SBM model with the directional distance function containing undesirable outputs, is applied for measurement [63,64]. We drew on the idea of Chung et al. [65], combining the directional distance function with the Malmquist index to construct the Malmquist–Luenberger index (ML). The equation can be presented as follows:
M L t t + 1 = { 1 + D 0 t ( x i i , t , y i i , t , b i i , t ; y i i , t , b i i , t ) 1 + D 0 t ( x i i , t + 1 , y i i , t + 1 , b i i , t + 1 ; y i i , t + 1 , b i i , t + 1 ) × 1 + D 0 t + 1 ( x i i , t , y i i , t , b i i , t ; y i i , t , b i i , t ) 1 + D 0 t + 1 ( x i i , t + 1 , y i i , t + 1 , b i i , t + 1 ; y i i , t + 1 , b i i , t + 1 ) } 1 2 = M L T C t t + 1 × M L T E t t + 1
where the ML index denotes the growth rate of the GTFP of dairy farming, which is categorized into the technical progress index (MLTC) and technical efficiency index (MLTE). If ML > 1, it indicates an improvement in the GFTP of dairy farming. As the ML index denotes the GTFP growth rate, we assumed that the GTFP of dairy farming in 2008 is one, then the GTFP of dairy farming in 2009 is one multiplied by the ML index in 2009, and so on.

2.2. Empirical Model

The green total factor productivity is largely affected by environmental regulation. To assess the impact of environmental regulation on the GTFP of dairy farming, we used the GTFP measured in the SBM-ML model as the explained variable and environmental regulation as the core explanatory variable. Drawing on Zhang et al. [66], we applied the level of economic development, farming technology, level of education, market demand, urban–rural income gap, and production structure as control variables. The model is constructed as follows:
ln G T F P = α + β 1 ln E R i t + β 2 ln E C O i t + β 3 ln F T i t + β 4 ln E D U i t + β 5 ln M D i t + β 6 ln G A P i t + β 7 ln P S i t + μ i + ν t + ε i t
where GTFP denotes the explained variable for the GTFP of dairy farming and ER denotes the core explanatory variable for environmental regulation. The control variables ECO, FT, EDU, MD, GAP, and PS signify the level of economic development, farming technology, level of education, market demand, urban–rural income gap, and production structure, respectively; i denotes the province; t denotes the year; α and β represent parameters to be estimated; μ and ν represent individual fixed effects and time fixed effects, respectively; and ε represents the random disturbance term.
Furthermore, some studies demonstrated that environmental regulation and green total factor productivity might be nonlinear, with threshold effects on other variables [67]. Thus, we used a threshold effect model for estimation. The primary view is that environmental regulation could stimulate the development of technological innovation [68] and attain the GTFP [69]. Nevertheless, the effects of technological innovation showed significant differences under the impact of different income disparities [70], resulting in a possible inconsistent effect of environmental regulation on the GTFP. Chinese dairy farms are mostly located in rural areas, far from urban areas. When the income gap between urban and rural areas is large, the original dairy farming technical labor and capital investment in rural areas would rapidly shift to urban areas, further decreasing the technological innovation capacity of dairy farming, and dairy farmers will disregard the environmental pollution problems stemming from the farming process [71]. Even if environmental regulations are implemented, it will be challenging to promote innovation and development of green farming technologies, hindering the improvement of the GTFP of dairy farming. Considering this, we took the urban–rural income gap as the threshold-dependent variable and drew on Hansen [72] to construct the following threshold effect model:
ln G T F P = α + α 1 ln E R i t × I ( ln G A P i t γ 1 ) + α 2 ln E R i t × I ( γ 1 < ln G A P i t γ 2 ) + α 3 ln E R i t × I ( ln G A P i t > γ 2 ) + β X i t + μ i + ν t + ε i t
where GAP denotes the threshold variable, representing the urban–rural income gap, measured by the ratio of urban per-capita disposable income to rural per-capita net income; γ1 and γ2 denote the two threshold values; I denotes the indicative function, taking the value of 0 or 1; X denotes the control variable; and other variables have the same meaning as Equation (4).

2.3. Data and Variables

2.3.1. Data Sources

Based on the data accessibility, we selected the panel data of 27 provinces in China from 2009 to 2020 as the sample. All data were obtained from the National Compilation of Information on Costs and Benefits of Agricultural Products, the Handbook of Source Production and Discharge Coefficients of Animal and Poultry Farming, the China Statistical Yearbook, the China Rural Statistical Yearbook, and the China Environmental Yearbook. To ensure data continuity, we used the linear interpolation method and the mean value method to fill in the missing values. Thus, small-, medium-, and large- dairy farming data were transformed into balanced panel data.

2.3.2. Variables

(1)
Input and Output Variables
The SBM-ML model requires the setting of input variables, desired output variables, and undesirable output variables for dairy farming, which are set out below:
Input variables: The total input of dairy farming, which can be categorized into labor input and capital input, while the former is the labor cost of dairy farming, the latter includes direct costs, such as feed, water, and fuel power costs in dairy farming, as well as indirect costs such as fixed asset inputs and insurance costs. The costs are deflated by the price index to eliminate the effect of price factors. Desired output variable: Production of milk. Undesirable output variable: The sum of pollutants from dairy farming.
(2)
Explanatory and Control Variables
To estimate the impact of environmental regulation on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming, the explanatory variables, explanatory variables, and control variables should be set as follows:
Explained variable: The green total factor productivity of dairy farming. Based on the SBM-ML model, the green total factor productivity of dairy farming in China was derived. Explanatory variable: Environmental regulation, expressed as the share of investment in environmental pollution control in the region’s GDP. Control variables: The level of economic development, farming technology, level of education, market demand, urban–rural income gap, and production structure were selected as control variables. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Green Total Factor Productivity of Dairy Farming in China

Table 3 shows the green total factor productivity index of dairy farming in China. The average annual growth rates of the GTFP of small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming between 2009 and 2020 were 1.98%, 2.73%, and 3.27%, respectively. The GTFP of dairy farming demonstrated a positive correlation with the degree of the farming scale. The technical progress index (MLTC) and technical efficiency index (MLTE) of small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming were both >1, suggesting that the GTFP of small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming was driven by both technological progress and technical efficiency improvement.
Generally, the GTFP of medium- and small-scale dairy farming showed an “M” type trend. Before 2008, a large number of farmers were involved in the dairy farming industry. Dairy farmers mainly included free-range households, accounting for >70%. The scale and environmental standardization level of dairy farming were low. After the melamine dairy contamination incident in 2008, China’s dairy farming industry was severely affected, with dairy farmers’ enthusiasm for production severely dampening and the number of free-range dairy farmers plummeting. Consequently, the GTFP index for medium- and small-scale dairy farming only reached 0.9413 and 0.9341 in 2009, respectively, which decreased by 5.87% and 6.59% compared with the previous year. The Chinese government started focusing on augmenting quality control of the dairy industry while introducing policies and regulations such as the “Regulations on Supervision and Management of Dairy Quality and Safety” and the “Outline of the Plan for Rectification and Revitalization of the Dairy Industry”. After a long adjustment period, the GTFP of medium- and small-scale dairy farming started exhibiting a positive growth trend in 2011. Along with the withdrawal of a large number of free-range dairy farmers, a severe shortage of raw milk supply occurred in several Chinese provinces in 2013, forcing dairy farmers to increase their production capacity rapidly and disrupting the process of green production in dairy farming. Therefore, there was a decline in the GTFP of medium- and small-scale dairy farming between 2013 and 2014. After optimal adjustment of the farming structure, the GTFP of medium- and small-scale dairy farming increased from 2014 to 2016. With the import of dairy products in China surging in 2016, the dairy farming industry was hit by the dual impact of import squeeze and weak domestic demand, leading to dairy farming losses of >50%. The GTFP of medium- and small-scale dairy farming declined marginally in 2016 and maintained a stable growth trend after 2016.
The large-scale dairy farming GTFP index was similar to small- and medium-scale dairy farming, although it was less affected by unexpected events and generally showed a stable growth trend because large-scale dairy farms are more mature in farming technology and epidemic prevention conditions and are relatively more resilient to dairy farming risks. In 2018, the Chinese government proposed a dairy revitalization policy to support the development of dairy farming, under which the growth rate of the GTFP of small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming reached 15.67%, 13.42%, and 18.23% from 2019 to 2020, respectively, with the highest growth level in the past decade.
Table 4 shows the GTFP of dairy farming in 27 provinces in China during 2009–2020. Among the small-scale dairy farming, Henan province had the fastest average annual growth rate of the GTFP of dairy farming, reaching 3.74%, with technical efficiency improvement contributing 2.67% and technological progress contributing 1.43%. The province with the lowest growth rate of the GTFP of dairy farming was Hebei province. The MLTC index in Hebei province was <1, suggesting technological regression, thereby inhibiting the improvement of the GTFP of small-scale dairy farming. Compared with small-scale dairy farming, the GTFP of most medium- and large-scale dairy farms was higher; this is because medium- and large-scale dairy farms are equipped with more advanced green farming techniques and pollution-prevention technologies, and are therefore more likely to attain technological progress and increase the GTFP.
Since 2009, China’s Ministry of Agriculture has identified 13 regions, such as Heilongjiang province, Henan province, and Shanghai City, as advantageous areas for dairy farming. Table 3 shows that the GTFP indexes in these regions are relatively high overall. Of note, the GTFP indexes are also high in some provinces in nonadvantageous areas, mainly because the GTFP of dairy farming is not only affected by national dairy policies and regional distribution but also by the level of economic development and environmental regulation policies in each region, which might also contribute to the dairy GTFP.

3.2. Environmental Regulation on Green Total Factor Productivity of Dairy Farming in China

3.2.1. Unit Root Test

The panel data might have a pseudoregression problem; thus, we conducted unit root tests on each variable before constructing the model. The panel unit root tests can be divided into the tests for the same unit root and different unit roots. We used the LLC and IPS tests for unit root tests based on the data characteristics. Table 5 shows the test results. All the variables passed the LLC and IPS tests with at least a 10% significance level, suggesting the stability of the data selected in this study.

3.2.2. Panel Regression Results and Analysis

The panel data model was used to estimate the impact of environmental regulation on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. The fitting models of the panel data were mainly fixed- and random-effects models and the Hausman test was used to determine which model was more appropriate. Table 6 shows the empirical results. The Hausman test showed that the model cannot reject the null hypothesis, suggesting that the random-effect model was better than the fixed-effect model. Thus, we used the random-effect model as the benchmark regression model.
Regarding the core explanatory variables, the regression coefficients of environmental regulations in small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming were 0.0350, 0.0664, and 0.0842, respectively, which was significant at the 10% level at least, suggesting that environmental regulations exerted a positive impact on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. The GTFP of large-scale dairy farming was mostly affected by environmental regulations, while the impact on medium- and small-scale dairy farming was relatively small; this could be explained by the fact that large-scale dairy farmers have a larger dairy farming scale than small- and medium-scale dairy farmers. Thus, the response of dairy farmers to environmental regulations was also more pronounced. In addition, large-scale dairy farmers have more advanced farming techniques and farming experiences. Under environmental regulation, large-scale dairy farmers prefer adjusting the farming structure while adopting green and efficient farming techniques to enhance the dairy farming production efficiency. Furthermore, the pollution emissions from dairy farming would be reduced, while the efficiency of dairy farming would be improved, resulting in a higher GTFP of dairy farming.
Regarding the control variables, the regression coefficients of economic development levels in small- and medium-scale dairy farming were 0.1785 and 0.1382, respectively. The improvement of economic development level stimulated dairy farming technology development and innovation, contributing to the efficient and green development of dairy farming. The regression coefficients of farming technology in all three scales were positive. The improvement of farming technology helped farmers optimize the allocation of breeding resources, save breeding input costs, and decrease pollution emissions. In addition, the coefficient of the level of education and market demand was significantly positive in medium- and large-scale dairy farming, suggesting that the enhancement of education and increased market demand could improve the GTFP. Nevertheless, the level of education and market demand coefficients were not significant in small-scale dairy farming; perhaps, compared with medium- and large-scale dairy farmers, small-scale dairy farming is mainly constrained by factors such as capital and technology shortage rather than the educational experience of breeders. Meanwhile, small-scale dairy farmers were slower to respond to changes in market demand and adjust their production decisions, making it challenging to significantly improve the farming effect in the short term. The regression coefficient of the urban–rural income gap was negative. The widening income gap might discourage farmers from producing and lead to the loss of dairy farming labor in rural areas, disrupting the market order and stability of the dairy farming industry. The regression coefficient of production structure in large-scale dairy farming was 0.0116, significant at the 10% level, suggesting that the GTFP was higher in the region where dairy farming was the primary industry; the likely reason is that if the share of dairy farming in the GDP is high, the dairy farming industry will be valued. Hence, the policy supporting the dairy farming industry will likely be strengthened in that region. Furthermore, the large-scale dairy farmers will be subject to more significant policy benefits than small- and medium-scale dairy farmers.

3.3. Threshold Effect of Environmental Regulation on the Green Total Factor Productivity of Dairy Farming in China

3.3.1. Threshold Effect Test

To test the nonlinear impact of environmental regulation on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming, we conducted a self-sampling (Bootstrap) test, which used the urban–rural income gap as the threshold variable to test whether a threshold effect of environmental regulation existed on the GTFP. Table 7 shows the test results of the threshold effect.
With the urban–rural income gap as the threshold variable, a double threshold occurs in small-scale dairy farming. The F-values of the single and double threshold passed the significance test at the 5% level. In medium-scale dairy farming, we observed a single threshold effect of environmental regulation on the GTFP of dairy farming based on the urban–rural income gap. However, the threshold effect in large-scale dairy farming was not significant. Hence, environmental regulation exerted a nonlinear effect on the GTFP of small- and medium-scale dairy farming owing to the change in the urban–rural income gap.

3.3.2. Threshold Estimates and Confidence Intervals

Based on the threshold effect, the threshold values and confidence intervals (CI) were measured (Table 8). The double threshold values of 0.7999 and 0.9040 in small-scale dairy farming were located within the CI of (0.7878, 0.8025) and (0.8830, 0.9044), respectively. In medium-scale dairy farming, the single threshold value of 1.3484 was located within the CI of (1.2698, 1.3563).

3.3.3. Threshold Model Regression Results and Analysis

The regressions were estimated separately for small- and medium-scale dairy farming using the urban–rural income gap as the threshold variable. Table 9 shows the estimated results. The impact of environmental regulations on the GTFP of dairy farming varied with the changes in the urban–rural income gap. In small-scale dairy farming, the impact of environmental regulation on the GTFP of dairy farming was positive when the urban–rural income gap was below the first threshold (0.7999). When the urban–rural income gap was between the first threshold value (0.7999) and the second threshold value (0.9040), the impact of environmental regulation on the GTFP changed from positive to negative. When the urban–rural income gap was greater than the second threshold (0.9040), the impact of environmental regulation on the GTFP of dairy farming became positive again, but the result was not significant. In medium-scale dairy farming, the impact of environmental regulation on the GTFP of dairy farming changed from positive to negative when the urban–rural income gap exceeded 1.3484, suggesting that the impact of environmental regulation on the GTFP of dairy farming was not a simple linear relationship and that a threshold effect existed based on the urban–rural income gap. Environmental regulation positively affected the GTFP of dairy farming only when the urban–rural income gap was within a reasonable degree.

3.4. Robustness Tests

To test the robustness of the regression results, we reran the random effect model by substituting the core explanatory variable. The core explanatory variable “environmental regulation” was substituted by the number of environmental protection regulations in each region. In addition, the impact of environmental regulations on the GTFP was retested. Table 10 shows the regression results. The results show that environmental regulations exerted a significant positive impact on the GTFP, proving the robustness of the previous empirical results.
To confirm the effectiveness of empirical results, this paper compares the results of this study with previous studies, as shown in Table 11. Previous studies have mainly focused on the green total factor productivity of the Chinese laying hens industry, agricultural industry, and so on. We found that some previous results are similar to this paper’s results.

4. Conclusions

Based on panel data from 27 provinces in China from 2009 to 2020, this study applies the SBM-ML model to measure the green total factor productivity of dairy farming and further analyzes the impact of environmental regulations on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) the GTFP of dairy farming in China exhibited a fluctuating upward trend from 2009 to 2020, and technical efficiency is the main driving factor of GTFP growth; (2) environmental regulations positively affect the GFTP of dairy farming in China. In addition, a threshold effect exists between environmental regulations and GTFP based on the urban–rural income gap in small- and medium-scale dairy farming. These findings provide the necessary evidence for improving GTFP in dairy farming. In the future, the government may adjust the intensity of environmental regulations to increase dairy farming efficiency and reduce environmental pollution at the same time.
This study proposes the following policy recommendations: First, the Chinese government should fully promote technological innovation in dairy farming and support farming technology research. The results of the SBM-ML model suggest that the technological progress index of the green total factor productivity of dairy farming is low. Thus, green technology in dairy farming warrants urgent improvement. The government should provide subsidies for green technology innovation in dairy farming and encourage the diffusion of green farming technologies, eventually leading dairy farmers to realize the manure resource utilization and promote the green and efficient development of dairy farming. Second, environmental regulators should implement differentiated environmental regulation policies based on the actual situation of dairy farms. The empirical results demonstrate that the impact of environmental regulation on dairy farms varies by scale. The regulators should implement differential pollution emission standards for dairy farms based on the scales and pollution emissions of dairy farming while ensuring that the intensity of environmental regulations is reasonable. Third, the government must protect dairy farmers’ income stability and augment the farming technology training for dairy farmers. Environmental regulation will exert a negative impact on the green total factor productivity as the urban–rural income gap widens. Thus, the government must stabilize milk prices and provide subsidies for dairy farming, while also encouraging dairy enterprises to execute the industrial layout in rural areas to drive the economic development of dairy farming regions. Besides, the empirical results demonstrate that factors such as breeding technology and level of education exert a positive impact on the green total factor productivity of dairy farming. Accordingly, the Chinese government should provide guidance services on green technologies for dairy farming and conduct technology training on ecological dairy farming. Furthermore, farmers must enhance environmental awareness to attain green and sustainable dairy farming.
This paper provides direct evidence that the environmental regulation makes a great contribution to improving the GTFP of dairy farming in China. However, some limitations exist in this paper. We measure the GTFP of dairy farming in China from 2009 to 2020. As part of the data in 2021 has not been published, it is difficult to obtain the latest data on dairy farming in China. We will continue to collect the data for measurement and analysis in the future. In addition, environmental regulations are composed of command-and-control environmental regulations and market-incentive environmental regulations, whose impact on GTFP in dairy farming is not explored in this paper. Future research should evaluate the impact of command-and-control environmental regulations or market-incentive environmental regulations on GTFP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Methodology, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Software, L.C. (Lihang Cui); Validation, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Formal Analysis, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Resources, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Data Curation, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Writing—Original Draft Preparation, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Writing—Review and Editing, C.L. (Chenyang Liu); Funding Acquisition, C.L. (Cuixia Li). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 71673042, 71640017), Propaganda Department of CCCPC (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China) “The Four Kinds of ‘The First Batch’” Talent Foundation (grant number 201801), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant number 2016M591507), and Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation (grant number LH2021G002).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jia, S.S.; Qiu, Y.S.; Yang, C.Y. Sustainable development goals, financial inclusion, and grain security efficiency. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Adam, Z. Green Development–Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World; Routledge: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  3. Xing, L.; Xue, M.G.; Hu, M.S. Dynamic simulation and assessment of the coupling coordination degree of the economy-resource-environment system: Case of Wuhan City in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 230, 474–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Yang, X.D.; Wang, J.L.; Caona, J.H.; Renna, S.Y.; Ran, Q.Y.; Wu, H.T. The spatial spillover effect of urban sprawl and fiscal decentralization on air pollution: Evidence from 269 cities in China. Empir. Econ. 2021, 11, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. The State Council of China. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/ (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  6. Qian, Y.; Song, K.H.; Hu, T.; Ying, T.Y. Environmental status of livestock and poultry sectors in China under current transformation stage. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622, 702–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhu, Z.; Dong, H.; Zhou, Z. Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from a dairy cattle barn with a daily manure collection system. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 1959–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Braghieri, A.; Pacelli, C.; Bragaglio, A.; Sabia, E.; Napolitano, F. The Hidden Costs of Livestock Environmental Sustainability: The Case of Podolian Cattle. In The Sustainability of Agro-Food and Natural Resource Systems in the Mediterranean Basin; Vastola, A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 47–56. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sabia, E.; Napolitano, F.; Claps, S.; Rosa, G.D.; Braghieri, A.; Pacelli, C. Dairy buffalo life cycle assessment as affected by heifer rearing system. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 192, 647–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rotz, A.; Stout, R.; Leytem, A.; Feyereisen, G.; Waldrip, H.; Thoma, G.; Holly, M.; Bjorneberg, D.; Baker, J.; Vadas, P.; et al. Environmental assessment of United States dairy farms. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 315, 128153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brizga, J.; Kurppa, S.; Heusala, H. Environmental impacts of milking cows in Latvia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rotz, C.A.; Stout, R.C.; Holly, M.A.; Kleinman, P.J.A. Regional environmental assessment of dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 3275–3288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. He, S.; Li, M.; Fu, T.; Bao, W.; Liu, M.; Xie, G. An overview of current situation and prospects on livestock excrement management policies in China. J. China Agric. Univ. 2020, 25, 22–37. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  14. Du, S.C.; Liu, J.; Fu, Z.T. The impact of village rules and formal environmental regulations on farmers’ cleaner production behavior: New evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sneeringer, S.E. Effects of environmental regulation on economic activity and pollution in commercial agriculture. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2009, 9, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhao, X.M.; Liu, C.J.; Yang, M. The effects of environmental regulation on China’s total factor productivity: An empirical study of carbon-intensive industries. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 179, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kathuria, V. Informal regulation of pollution in a developing country: Evidence from India. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 403–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xie, Z.Y.; Qu, L.; Lin, R.H.; Guo, Q.T. Relationships between fluctuations of environmental regulation, technological innovation, and economic growth: A multinational perspective. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 4, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Peng, H.; Shen, N.; Ying, H.Q.; Wang, Q.W. Can environmental regulation directly promote green innovation behavior?--based on situation of industrial agglomeration. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 314, 128044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shi, X.Y.; Xu, Y.Z. Evaluation of China’s pilot low-carbon city program: A perspective of industrial carbon emission efficiency. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2022, 13, 101446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lu, Y.; Tan, Y.F.; Wang, H.M. Impact of environmental regulation on green technology adoption by farmers microscopic investigation evidence from pig breeding in China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 885933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mbanyele, W.; Wang, F.R. Environmental regulation and technological innovation: Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 12890–12910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Qin, M.; Sun, M.X.; Li, J. Impact of environmental regulation policy on ecological efficiency in four major urban agglomerations in eastern China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 130, 108002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cole, M.A.; Elliott, R.J. Do environmental regulations cost jobs? An industry-level analysis of the UK. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2007, 7, 128044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, Y.; Luo, N.; Wu, S. Non-linear effects of environmental regulation on environmental pollution. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2019, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen, X.; Chen, Z.G. Can China’s environmental regulations effectively reduce pollution emissions? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Wang, L.; Yan, Y. Environmental regulation intensity, carbon footprint and green total factor productivity of manufacturing industries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, X.F.; Xu, C.; Cheng, B.D.; Duan, J.Y.; Li, Y.M. Does environmental regulation improve the green total factor productivity of Chinese cities? A threshold effect analysis based on the economic development level. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, C.Y.; Xin, L.; Li, J.Y. Environmental regulation and manufacturing carbon emissions in China: A new perspective on local government competition. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1, 18041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Plastina, A.; Lence, S.H. A parametric estimation of total factor productivity and its components in U.S. agriculture. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2018, 100, 1091–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Villoria, N. Consequences of agricultural total factor productivity growth for the sustainability of global farming: Accounting for direct and indirect land use effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 125002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Wang, Y.Q.; Shi, X.Y. Analysis on efficiency and influencing factors of new soybean producing farms. Agronomy 2020, 10, 568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, S.; Yang, C.Y.; Li, Z.H. Spatio-temporal evolution characteristics and spatial interaction spillover effects of new-urbanization and green land utilization efficiency. Land 2021, 10, 1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, C.Y.; Li, T.H.; Albitar, K. Does energy efficiency affect ambient pm2.5? The moderating role of energy investment. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 11080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Keizer, T.H.; Emvalomatis, G. Differences in TFP growth among groups of dairy farms in the Netherlands. NJAS-Wagen. J. Life Sci. 2014, 70, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Fabio, A.M.; Roberto, F.; Pietro, P. Technical efficiency and total factor productivity changes in European dairy farm sectors. Agr. Food Econ. 2017, 5, 17. [Google Scholar]
  37. McCormack, M.; Thorne, F.; Hanrahan, K. Measuring total factor productivity on Irish dairy farms: A Fisher index approach using farm-level data. Irish. J. Agric. Food Res. 2020, 59, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Balezentis, T.; Sun, K. Measurement of technical inefficiency and total factor productivity growth: A semiparametric stochastic input distance frontier approach and the case of Lithuanian dairy farms. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 285, 1174–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yang, L.; Ouyang, H.; Fang, K.N.; Ye, L.L.; Zhang, J. Evaluation of regional environmental efficiencies in China based on super-efficiency-DEA. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 51, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, X.D.; Wang, W.L.; Wu, H.T.; Wang, J.L.; Ran, Q.Y.; Ren, S.Y. The impact of the new energy demonstration city policy on the green total factor productivity of resource-based cities: Empirical evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 10, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Elsadig, M. Green TFP intensity impact on sustainable East Asian productivity growth. Econ. Anal. Policy 2012, 42, 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tao, F.; Zhang, H.; Hu, Y.; Duncan, A.A. Growth of green total factor productivity and its determinants of cities in China: A spatial econometric approach. Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2017, 53, 2123–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhao, S.K.; Cao, Y.Q.; Feng, C.; Guo, K.; Zhang, J.N. How do heterogeneous R&D investments affect China’s green productivity: Revisiting the Porter hypothesis. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 825, 154090. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, Y.F.; Xie, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, C.Y.; Yu, K. Does FDI promote or inhibit the high-quality development of agriculture in China? An agricultural GTFP perspective. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Ding, L.L.; Wu, M.L.; Jiao, Z.; Nie, Y.Y. The positive role of trade openness in industrial green total factor productivity-provincial evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 6538–6551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Oluseyi, O.K.; Erin, S.; Aurelia, S.; Paul, C. Unpacking total factor productivity on dairy farms using empirical evidence. Agriculture 2022, 12, 225. [Google Scholar]
  47. Víctor, H.M.; Boris, E.B.-U. Total factor productivity change in dairy farming: Empirical evidence from southern Chile. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 8356–8364. [Google Scholar]
  48. Eric, N.; Boris, E.B.-U.; Víctor, E.C. Climatic effects and total factor productivity: Econometric evidence for Wisconsin dairy farms. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2020, 47, 1276–1301. [Google Scholar]
  49. Xu, X.F.; Cui, Y.J.; Zhong, Y.D. Impact of environmental regulation and FDI on green total factor productivity: Evidence from China. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2021, 20, 177–184. [Google Scholar]
  50. Junxia, H.; Luxia, W.; Decai, T. Research on green total factor productivity of Yangtze river economic belt based on environmental regulation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12242. [Google Scholar]
  51. Song, M.L.; Peng, L.C.; Shang, Y.P.; Zhao, X. Green technology progress and total factor productivity of resource-based enterprises: A perspective of technical compensation of environmental regulation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 174, 121276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hamamoto, M. Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries. Resour. Energy Econ. 2006, 28, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fan, M.; Yang, P.; Li, Q. Impact of environmental regulation on green total factor productivity: A new perspective of green technological innovation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 4, 195762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, J.; Tang, D.C.; Tenkorang, A.P.; Shi, Z.R. Research on environmental regulation and green total factor productivity in Yangtze River Delta: From the perspective of financial development. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Huang, Q.H.; Liu, M. Trade openness and green total factor productivity: Testing the role of environment regulation based on dynamic panel threshold model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 9, 01825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Li, B.; Wu, S.S. Effects of local and civil environmental regulation on green total factor productivity in China: A spatial Durbin econometric analysis. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 153, 342–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gong, M.Q.; You, Z.; Wang, L.T.; Cheng, J.H. Environmental regulation, trade comparative advantage, and the manufacturing industry’s green transformation and upgrading. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Li, H.; He, F.; Deng, G.J. How does environmental regulation promote technological innovation and green development? New evidence from China. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2020, 29, 689–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. He, Q.; Han, Y.W.; Wang, L. The impact of environmental regulation on green total factor productivity: An empirical analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, 0259356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zou, H.; Zhang, Y.J. Does environmental regulatory system drive the green development of China’s pollution-intensive industries? J. Clean Prod. 2022, 330, 129832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tone, K.; Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 130, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Zhou, P.F.; Shen, Y.; Li, A.M. Can the integration of agriculture and tourism promote high-quality agricultural development: An empirical test based on provincial panel data. Macroecon. Res. 2021, 10, 117–130. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  63. Ma, T.; Cao, X. FDI, technological progress, and green total factor energy productivity: Evidence from 281 prefecture cities in China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 5, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, Y.; Chen, Y. Development of an SBM-ML model for the measurement of green total factor productivity: The case of pearl river delta urban agglomeration. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 2021, 145, 111131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chung, Y.H.; Färe, R.; Grosskopf, S. Productivity and undesirable outputs: A directional distance function approach. J. Environ. Manag. 1997, 51, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Zhang, J.; Lu, G.; Skitmore, M.; Ballesteros-Perez, P. A critical review of the current research mainstreams and the influencing factors of green total factor productivity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 35392–35405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lei, X.B.; Wu, S.S. Nonlinear effects of governmental and civil environmental regulation on green total factor productivity in China. Adv. Meteorol. 2019, 1, 8351512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Porter, M.E.; Linde, C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Lee, C.C.; Zeng, M.L.; Wang, C.S. Environmental regulation, innovation capability, and green total factor productivity: New evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 3, 39384–39399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Vona, F.; Patriarca, F. Income inequality and the development of environmental technologies. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2201–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Boyce, J.K. Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecol. Econ. 1994, 11, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Hansen, B.E. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference. J. Econ. 1999, 93, 345–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Huang, X.; Feng, C.; Qin, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, T. Measuring China’s agricultural green total factor productivity and its drivers during 1998–2019. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 829, 154477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, J.; Li, J.; Sun, Z.; Zhong, S. Measurement of green total factor productivity on Chinese laying hens: From the perspective of regional differences. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, 0255739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Liang, Z.; Chiu, Y.-h.; Li, X.; Guo, Q.; Yun, Y. Study on the effect of environmental regulation on the green total factor productivity of logistics industry from the perspective of low carbon. Sustainability 2020, 12, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Li, X.F.; Cheng, B.D.; Hong, Q.L.; Xu, C. Can a win-win situation of economy and environment be achieved in cities by the government’s environmental regulations? Sustainability 2021, 13, 5829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. A brief summary of the recent literature.
Table 1. A brief summary of the recent literature.
ReferencePeriodStudy ObjectExplanatory VariablesOutcome VariablesMethodsMain Conclusions
Liu, Y., et al. (2005) [25]2004–2016ChinaEREPSpatial autoregressive modelAn inverted U-shaped curve relationship exists between ER and EP
Chen, X., et al. (2021) [26]2006–2017ChinaEREPPVAR modelER has a nonlinear effect on EP
Xu, X.F., et al. (2021) [49]2006–2017ChinaERGTFPSBM-ML modelER influences GTFP positively
Junxia, H., et al. (2021) [50]2009–2018Yangtze River Economic Belt of ChinaERGTFPSBM-ML modelER has no significant impact on GTFP
Huang, Q.H., et al. (2021) [55]2006–2018110 Chinese citiesERGTFPSBM-ML modelER has a nonlinear regulatory effect on GTFP
Fan, M., et al. (2022) [53]2004–2018269 Chinese citiesERGTFPEpsilon-based measure modelER indirectly promotes GTFP by enhancing the green technological innovation level
Li, J., et al. (2021) [54]2003–201941 Chinese citiesERGTFPSystem generalized method of moments model and GML indexToo strict ER will inhibit the growth of GTFP
Li, B., et al. (2017) [56]2003–2013273 Chinese citiesERGTFPSpatial Durbin model and ML indexCivil ER has positive effects in promoting GTFP
Gong, M.Q., et al. (2020) [57]2005–2017China’s 27 manufacturing industriesERGTFPSBM-ML modelThe impact of ER on the GTFP is first positive and then negative
Li, H., et al. (2020) [58]2005–2015China’s 35 industriesERGTFPThreshold model and SBM-ML modelER can promote GTFP by increasing market concentration
He, Q., et al. (2021) [59]2005–2018China’s 30 provincesERGTFPSBM-ML modelThere is a nonlinear relationship between ER and GTFP
Zou, H., et al. (2022) [60]2005–2017China’s pollution-intensive industriesERGTFPSBM-ML modelThe effect of ER on GTFP is an inverted U-shaped curve
Note: The abbreviation “ER” means environmental regulation, “EP” means environmental pollution, “GTFP” means green total factor productivity, PVAR model refers to panel vector autoregressive model, ML index is Malmquist–Luenberger index, GML index is Global Malmquist–Luenberger index, SBM-ML model refers to Slack Based Measure-Malmquist–Luenberger model.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables.
VariableVariable DescriptionMeanMinimumMaximum
Environmental Regulation (ER)The amount of investment in environmental pollution control as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (unit: percentage)1.51030.30004.5700
Level of economic development (ECO)The Gross Domestic Product of each province (unit: one billion yuan)2354.6422 108.127011,076.0940
Farming Technology (FT)The value of output generated per cow (unit: yuan)25,218.412610,480.410061,880.9300
Level of education (EDU)Average education years 7.83666.11889.8380
Market Demand (MD)Population density (unit: numbers of people per square kilometer)469.63024.70663949.5556
Urban–rural income gap (GAP)The ratio of urban per capita disposable income to rural per capita net income2.69901.84514.2809
Production Structure (PS)The proportion of the value of dairy products to Gross Domestic Product0.00380.00010.0227
Table 3. The green total factor productivity index for dairy farming in China during 2009–2020.
Table 3. The green total factor productivity index for dairy farming in China during 2009–2020.
YearSmall ScaleMedium ScaleLarge Scale
GTFPMLTCMLTEGTFPMLTCMLTEGTFPMLTCMLTE
2008–20090.93410.85301.09670.94130.97300.97280.96900.93161.0410
2009–20100.95180.96750.98360.93570.77331.21420.96910.91621.0601
2010–20110.97120.94011.03280.97991.04630.93501.00860.99561.0206
2011–20121.06371.06540.99851.07301.02081.05151.05441.06030.9950
2012–20131.04340.99601.04781.09331.12980.96701.04661.12130.9338
2013–20140.97781.00350.97310.96870.97031.00000.99601.00600.9896
2014–20151.01621.01241.00381.03771.12440.92381.00910.95031.0626
2015–20161.01981.01721.00281.04271.01111.03121.01540.97891.0373
2016–20170.99950.97511.02540.97370.90881.07340.99690.97881.0189
2017–20181.03191.0840.95251.02041.02740.99251.05641.06150.9966
2018–20191.07121.02681.04311.12761.10491.02091.08861.11790.9747
2019–20201.15671.13141.02301.13421.10681.02221.18231.2423 0.9514
Average value1.01981.00601.01531.02731.01641.01701.03271.03001.0068
Table 4. Decomposition of the green total factor productivity of dairy farming of 27 provinces in China.
Table 4. Decomposition of the green total factor productivity of dairy farming of 27 provinces in China.
ProvinceSmall ScaleProvinceMedium ScaleProvinceLarge Scale
GTFPMLTCMLTEGTFPMLTCMLTEGTFPMLTCMLTE
Hebei0.97620.9762 1.0000Sichuan0.97871.00250.9748Yunnan0.98521.02860.9590
Jilin0.99791.01340.9871Yunnan0.98591.01560.9723Qinghai1.01181.02420.9943
Shandong1.01231.00281.0097Inner Mongolia1.00631.01650.9924Liaoning1.01291.02870.9886
Inner Mongolia1.01680.99811.0208Fujian1.01171.01411.0043Sichuan1.01451.02890.9865
Yunnan1.02281.00901.0097Jilin1.01321.01721.0057Gansu1.01881.02690.9939
Fujian1.02361.01721.0110Zhejiang1.02281.01901.0084Anhui1.02031.02131.0041
Hunan1.02371.00331.0208Tianjin1.02381.00411.0358Zhejiang1.02571.03270.9964
Heilongjiang1.02680.99711.0348Shanxi1.02521.01621.0172Beijing1.02641.01111.0237
Shanxi1.02711.01551.0133Jiangsu1.02780.99481.0457Fujian1.02931.01631.0191
Guangxi1.02881.00481.0246Liaoning1.02781.01921.0123Guangdong1.03061.03850.9966
Ningxia1.03141.00811.0246Guangxi1.02801.01681.0243Tianjin1.03381.02191.0166
Liaoning1.03221.01881.0157Hunan1.02831.01641.0152Xinjiang1.03671.03571.0009
Henan1.03741.01431.0267Guizhou1.02881.01931.0183Heilongjiang1.03921.03081.0110
Beijing1.03011.00501.0118Shanghai1.04061.02941.0130
Ningxia1.03321.01781.0208Henan1.04361.03331.0148
Chongqing1.03321.01571.0157Guizhou1.04661.02971.0216
Gansu1.03331.01391.0334Shanxi1.04851.03891.0103
Shaanxi1.03781.01691.0211Jiangsu1.05791.03381.0320
Henan1.03841.01651.0253Shandong1.06511.05971.0127
Heilongjiang1.03901.01611.0261Inner Mongolia1.06631.03081.0404
Shanghai1.04801.01611.0451
Anhui1.05191.01751.0531
Xinjiang1.07571.07081.0128
Table 5. Unit root test results.
Table 5. Unit root test results.
VariableSmall ScaleMedium ScaleLarge Scale
LLC TestIPS TestingLLC TestIPS TestingLLC TestIPS Testing
lnGTFP−4.6411 ***−2.3057 **−7.2319 ***−3.8423 ***1.6493 *−0.7086 *
lnER−4.9516 ***−2.1903 **−7.6816 ***−2.7856 ***−7.4204 ***−2.4366 ***
lnECO3.0431 ***5.1655 ***2.4129 **5.7309 ***1.9303 *4.8050 *
lnFT0.5485 *1.2684 *−0.5081 **0.5789 *−2.1857 **−0.9583 *
lnEDU−1.3535 *−0.4240 **−3.6483 ***−1.6394 *−4.0583 ***−1.8966 **
lnMD7.1275 *6.2738 ***4.0843 *3.3320 **−0.4741 *0.7127 *
lnGAP−2.0363 **0.7120 **−6.6500 ***−0.6591 **−6.1326 ***−2.5925 ***
lnPS−0.2778 **0.6072 *−2.3829 **−0.3882 ***−0.6119 **1.5103 *
Note: *, **, and *** mean significance at the levels of 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
Table 6. Panel regression results.
Table 6. Panel regression results.
VariableSmall ScaleMedium ScaleLarge Scale
FEREFEREFERE
lnER0.04170.0350 *0.0929 ***0.0664 **0.0876 ***0.0842 ***
(0.0382)(0.0365)(0.0368)(0.0332)(0.0325)(0.0292)
lnECO0.1845 **0.1785 ***0.2283 ***0.1382 **0.03120.0016
(0.0851)(0.0638)(0.0937)(0.0570)(0.0842)(0.0520)
lnFT0.0697 *0.0462 *0.0512 *0.1053 ***0.1964 ***0.1970 ***
(0.0711)(0.0644)(0.0675)(0.0622)(0.0564)(0.0512)
lnEDU0.4772 *0.56151.3783 ***1.2440 ***0.4986 *0.2529 *
(0.4782)(0.4484)(0.4084)(0.3471)(0.3699)(0.3184)
lnMD0.14670.09310.4959 **0.0569 *0.1329 *0.0072 *
(0.3543)(0.0781)(0.2580)(0.0371)(0.2307)(0.0337)
lnGAP−0.6834 ***−0.5736 ***−0.2772 **−0.2994 **−0.4931 ***−0.5226 ***
(0.1399)(0.1224)(0.1429)(0.1247)(0.1416)(0.1246)
lnPS0.0645 *0.02010.02760.0088−0.02780.0116 *
(0.0389)(0.0295)(0.0384)(0.0251)(0.0376)(0.0262)
Cons.3.18261.0863−2.9100 *−0.38902.23362.8357 ***
(2.3500)(1.3189)(1.6936)(1.0903)(1.5950)(0.9899)
Hausman testchi2 = 5.28chi2 = 7.69chi2 = 4.30
p = 0.7273p = 0.4645p = 0.8289
Note: *, **, and *** mean significance at the levels of 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
Table 7. Threshold effect test.
Table 7. Threshold effect test.
Dairy FarmingNumber of ThresholdsF-Valuep-Value Threshold Values
10%5%1%
Small scaleSingle23.410.032715.951420.284428.2546
Double14.020.068012.257715.474921.3220
Triple5.170.680013.756419.534734.5539
Medium scaleSingle17.970.093317.442421.067926.6982
Double8.070.376714.103118.843929.8340
Large scaleSingle9.350.330015.364519.103931.7692
Table 8. Threshold estimates and confidence intervals.
Table 8. Threshold estimates and confidence intervals.
Dairy FarmingNumber of ThresholdsThresholdLower Confidence LimitUpper Confidence Limit
Small scaleSingle0.79990.78780.8025
Double0.90400.88300.9044
Medium scaleSingle1.34841.26981.3563
Table 9. Threshold model regression results.
Table 9. Threshold model regression results.
VariableSmall ScaleVariableMedium Scale
Coefficientp-ValueCoefficientp-Value
lnER (lnGAP ≤ 0.7999)0.0253 *0.0620lnER (lnGAP ≤ 1.3484)0.0705 *0.0940
lnER (0.7999 < lnGAP ≤ 0.9040)−0.2147 ***0.0000lnER (1.3484 < lnGAP)−0.4751 ***0.0010
lnER (0.9040 < lnGAP)0.07590.7800
lnECO0.2338 ***0.0050lnECO0.2297 **0.0140
lnFT0.0739 ***0.0090lnFT−0.02030.7630
lnEDU0.61320.1860lnEDU1.5383 ***0.0000
lnMD0.12340.7220lnMD0.4332 *0.0910
lnPS0.03980.3070lnPS−0.0249 0.5120
Cons.1.78700.4370Cons.−3.1067 *0.0640
R20.8137 R20.9263
Note: *, **, and *** mean significance at the levels of 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
Table 10. Robustness tests.
Table 10. Robustness tests.
VariableSmall ScaleMedium ScaleLarge Scale
lnER0.0525 *0.1086 ***0.0304 *
(0.0422)(0.0300)(0.0266)
lnECO0.1818 ***0.1831 ***0.0365
(0.0639)(0.0582)(0.0536)
lnFT0.0205 *−0.01310.1920 ***
(0.0697)(0.0657)(0.0532)
lnEDU0.52221.0463 ***0.0020 *
(0.4491)(0.3483)(0.3289)
lnMD0.09640.0952 **0.0362 *
(0.0793)(0.0389)(0.0351)
lnGAP−0.5113 ***−0.2017 *−0.5461 ***
(0.1323)(0.1248)(0.1269)
lnPS0.03330.0235−0.0226
(0.0304)(0.0256)(0.0277)
Cons.0.8318−0.79042.2312 **
(1.3460)(1.0705)(0.9855)
R20.83280.68950.6055
Note: *, **, and *** mean significance at the levels of 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.
Table 11. Comparison of previous results and our results.
Table 11. Comparison of previous results and our results.
ReferencePrevious ResultsOur Results
Huang, X., et al. (2022) [73]The mean value of agricultural green total factor productivity growth in China is 0.0296.The average annual growth rates of the GTFP of small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming is 1.98%, 2.73%, and 3.27%, respectively.
Li, J., et al. (2021) [74]The value of green total factor productivity on Chinese laying hens in Zhejiang province and Jiangsu province is 1.00958 and 1.00397, respectively.The value of green total factor productivity on medium-scale dairy farming in Zhejiang province and Jiangsu province is 1.0228 and 1.0278, respectively.
Liang, Z., et al. (2020) [75]The technical progress index and technical efficiency index of the GTFP in the logistics industry is 1.0167 and 0.9911, respectively.The technical progress index and technical efficiency index of the GTFP in large-scale dairy farming is 1.0300 and 1.0068, respectively.
Li, X.F., et al. (2021) [76]The impact coefficient of environmental regulations on GTFP is 0.391.The regression coefficients of environmental regulations on GTFP in small-, medium-, and large-scale dairy farming were 0.0350, 0.0664, and 0.0842, respectively.
Li, X.F., et al. (2021) [28]When per capita GDP is low (GDP ≤ 12,873), the coefficient of environmental regulation on GTFP is 0.238. When per capita GDP is at a medium level (12,873 < GDP ≤ 55,447), the coefficient of environmental regulation on GTFP is −0.025.In small-scale dairy farming, the coefficient of environmental regulation on the GTFP is 0.0253 when the urban–rural income gap is below the first threshold (0.7999). When the urban–rural income gap is between the first threshold value (0.7999) and the second threshold value (0.9040), the coefficient of environmental regulation on the GTFP is −0.2147.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, C.; Cui, L.; Li, C. Impact of Environmental Regulation on the Green Total Factor Productivity of Dairy Farming: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7274. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127274

AMA Style

Liu C, Cui L, Li C. Impact of Environmental Regulation on the Green Total Factor Productivity of Dairy Farming: Evidence from China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7274. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127274

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Chenyang, Lihang Cui, and Cuixia Li. 2022. "Impact of Environmental Regulation on the Green Total Factor Productivity of Dairy Farming: Evidence from China" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7274. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127274

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop