Next Article in Journal
Accomplishing Sustainability in Manufacturing System for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) through Lean Implementation
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on the Decoupling Relationship and Rebound Effect between Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions in Central China
Previous Article in Journal
Making Hospitals Sustainable: Towards Greener, Fairer and More Prosperous Services
Previous Article in Special Issue
Carbon Emissions in the Yellow River Basin: Analysis of Spatiotemporal Evolution Characteristics and Influencing Factors Based on a Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) Decomposition Method
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on China’s Carbon Emission Efficiency and Its Regional Differences

School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9731; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159731
Submission received: 7 June 2022 / Revised: 4 August 2022 / Accepted: 4 August 2022 / Published: 8 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Public Policy and Green Governance)

Abstract

:
With the development of China’s economy, China is emitting more and more carbon. At the same time, it has also exposed the problem of carbon emission efficiency differences caused by the unbalanced development of resources and economy among regions. Based on the carbon emission panel data of provinces and cities in China from 2009 to 2018, this paper studies carbon emission efficiency and regional differences by constructing a three-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) model that eliminates the influence of environmental factors and random factors. The research shows that: (1) Carbon emission efficiency in China is spatially distributed; carbon emission efficiency in the western region is generally lower than that in the eastern region. (2) China’s carbon emission efficiency is not entirely synchronized with economic development; carbon emission efficiency in some underdeveloped western regions has reached the forefront of China, and some developed regions in the east are in the middle position. (3) China’s carbon emission efficiency is restricted by scale efficiency; many regions in China have high pure technical efficiency, but due to low scale efficiency, overall efficiency is low. (4) Overall, China’s carbon emission efficiency is currently on the rise, but the rising rate is relatively slow, and there is still plenty of room for improvement.

1. Introduction

In recent years, with the melting of Arctic glaciers, rising sea, and global warming, climate-related environmental problems have become increasingly severe, and the primary factor that leads to such drastic climate change is the increase of carbon dioxide emissions. The international community has already begun to pay attention to carbon dioxide emissions. The Paris deal was born in 2016, and a total of 196 countries signed the agreement, which promised global temperature would rise below 2 °C by the end of the century by reducing the emission of carbon dioxide [1]. How to reduce carbon emissions and improve carbon efficiency has become a problem that human society needs to face. Since 2006, China has become the world’s largest carbon dioxide country; emission of carbon dioxide has become a severe threat to human health and nature [2,3]. In response to the concerns of carbon dioxide emission, on 7 October 2021, the Chinese government issued an opinion on the pollution control battle, proposing that by 2025, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP (gross domestic product) should be reduced by 18%, compared to 2020.
Based on the above background, ”low-carbon” and “emission reduction” have become hot topics in academic research. An increasing number of scholars have begun to estimate the amount of carbon dioxide emissions [4,5], its influencing factors [6,7,8], strength [9,10], and efficiency [11]. As an essential part of environmental performance evaluation, carbon emission efficiency is the focus of many scholars who study the environment, and it can effectively measure carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP [12]. A large number of studies have shown that economic development can lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions [13,14,15]. Therefore, governments and academia are committed to exploring the influencing factors of carbon emission efficiency to find measures that can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and improve carbon emission efficiency. Currently, the research on carbon emission efficiency can be divided into two categories. The first category is single-element indicators. Mielnik and Goldemberg first used carbon emissions per unit of energy consumption to evaluate the carbon emission performance of developing countries [16]. Yamaji et al. defined the ratio of total CO2 emissions to GDP as carbon dioxide production, in order to study the level of carbon emissions in Japan [17]. Since then, other single-factor indicators have gradually emerged, including fossil energy consumption [18], CO2 emissions per capita [19], energy structure [20], and energy intensity [21]. The second category is the total factor. Zhang et al. studied the change and decomposition of dynamic CO2 emission performance in China from 2002 to 2010, and found the total factor carbon performance of the transportation industry decreased by 32.8%, due to technological decline [22]. Chen and Golley used CO2 emissions as unexpected output directly into production technology to estimate the change in the ”green” total factor productivity (GTFP) growth pattern of 38 industrial sectors, from 1980–2010 [23]. In addition, a large number of scholars have studied carbon dioxide emission rates from spatial scales, such as Nassar R et al., who discussed the temporal and spatial distribution of carbon emission efficiency by collecting carbon dioxide emission data of fossil fuels in various countries around the world; thus setting off a wave of research on the characteristics of carbon emission efficiency on the space scale in the academic community [24]. Uddin and Smirnov analyzed the geographical and spatial distribution of carbon dioxide emissions by observing satellite data, and studied the impact and structural nature of regional, specific sector emissions in the total carbon budget [25]. Yu Z calculated the carbon emissions generated by energy consumption in China’s provinces, further calculated carbon emission efficiency, and also studied the spatial distribution pattern of China’s carbon emission efficiency [26]. Different from others’ research on the overall distribution of carbon emissions in China, Chen X et al. refined their research scope to carbon dioxide produced by the transportation industry, and investigated the spatial change of carbon dioxide emissions in East China [27]. Wang B and Liu F et al. analyzed the driving factors of carbon dioxide emissions in the allocation of industrial resources in various provinces of China, from the spatial perspective, and found that improving the distribution of industrial resources can reduce carbon dioxide emissions [28,29]. In terms of research methods, in order to strengthen the detailed research on the single factor and total factor of carbon emission efficiency, scholars began to widely use DEA as a research tool [30]. Iram et al. used DEA to explore the role of energy efficiency in carbon dioxide emissions, and the results showed that there is a strong link between energy efficiency and carbon emissions [31]. Wang et al. used DEA to estimate carbon emission efficiency and emission reduction potential of Chinese provinces, from 2003 to 2016. The research results showed that there is a negative correlation between resource richness and carbon emission efficiency; the richer the resources, the lower the emission efficiency [32]. Ke et al. used the DEA method to assess regional energy and emission efficiency in 30 major cities in China, from 2006 to 2010, and found the highest in coastal cities [33]. Zhang and Choi studied the dynamic changes in CO2 emission performance of fossil fuel power plants, from 2005 to 2010, and the results showed that CO2 emissions improved by 0.38% over the sample period [34].
It can be seen that some scholars have explored single factors related to economic development, energy consumption, and urban population size [35]. Some scholars have combined them to examine the performance of whole factor carbon emissions, while adding spatial elements and DEA methods to explore carbon dioxide, which makes research on carbon emissions more and more diverse. Although many scholars have explored the influencing factors of carbon emission efficiency from different angles, there are few studies on the regional impact of carbon emission efficiency, and most of these use the traditional DEA method for research, which is prone to be disturbed by random factors. Therefore, first, this paper adopts the three-stage DEA method excluding other factors, and studies carbon emission efficiency from the perspective of total factors. Second, according to the traditional regional classification, China is divided into eastern, central, and western regions, in order to more accurately examine the differences in carbon emission efficiency among China’s inter-provincial regions. Finally, relevant policy recommendations are put forward based on the research conclusions, so as to provide support for China to achieve carbon peak faster.

2. Methodology

2.1. Introduction to the Research Methods

2.1.1. The First Stage of DEA

DEA was first proposed by Chames et al., then revised by Banker et al. and offered a more rigorous model, which decomposes technical efficiency into pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency, to solve the effectiveness of scale compensation under variable conditions [36,37]. The traditional DEA model (namely the BCC model) can be used to obtain the input difference value or output difference value. Referring to research on carbon emission efficiency by domestic and foreign scholars, the input-oriented BCC model is constructed as follows:
min θ λ = [ θ ( e t s + e t s + ) ] k = 1 n λ i y r k s + = y o k k = 1 n λ i y r k + s = θ x o k k = 1 n λ k = 1 λ k 0 ; s + 0 ; s 0
In Formula (1), i = 1, 2, ..., x; k = 1, 2, ..., n; r = 1, 2, ..., y. While n is the number of decision units, x and y are the number of input and output variables, respectively,   y i k (i = 1, 2, ..., x) is the i-th input element of the k-th decision unit, y r k (r = 1, 2, ..., y) is the r-th output element of the k-th decision unit, θ is the effective value of the decision unit. If θ = 1, and s+ = s = 0, the decision unit DEA is valid; if θ = 1, and s+ ≠ 0 or s 0, it is weak DEA. And if θ < 1, the decision unit is not a DEA and is valid.

2.1.2. The Second Stage of DEA

Carbon emission efficiency is disturbed by internal factors, external factors, and random factors. The random factors refer to an error phenomenon that may occur randomly in the process of formula calculation, and in the process of data collection. It includes: statistical errors of data; omitted variables in regression models; some subjective and spontaneous behaviors of people in calculation; imperfect forms of established mathematical model; combined errors between economic variables; and combined errors in measurement, etc. [38]. Therefore, the stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) model is constructed to decompose the relaxation variable into a function containing three independent variables: environmental factors; random factors; and management factors, to remove these influencing factors and readjust the data for easy calculation [39,40]. Its expression is as follows:
S n i = f n ( Z i ; β n ) + V n i + U n i
In Formula (2), n = 1, 2, …, N, N represents n inputs; i = 1, 2, …, I, I represents i decision units. Sni is the relaxation variable of the i-th decision unit on the n-th input. The difference between the ideal input and the actual input; fn(Zi;βn) is used to represent the influence of environmental factors on Sni. Usually, take fn(Zi;βn) = Ziβn, the Zi is the environmental variable of the observed k-dimension, the βn is the parameter vector corresponding to the environment variable; Vni + Uni is known as the common error term ε i; The Vni reflects the random error, which is normally distributed, namely, Uni N (0, σ2vn). The Uni reflects the inefficiency of the management, with a truncated normal distribution, namely, Uni N (μu, σ2un), generally speaking μu = 0, Uni > 0. The Vni and Uni are not associated with the independent. Estimates of the βn, and equal parameters are then calculated by maximum likelihood estimation. Then Vni is calculated i according to the above parameters.
X n i = X n i + [ max ( Z i β n ) Z i β n ] + [ max ( V n i V n i ) ] n = 1 , 2 , ... , N ; i = n = 1 , 2 , ... , I
In Formula (3), X*ni is the new input value of the original input Xni adjusted after homogenization, the first middle bracket adjusts the influence of environmental factors, max(Ziβn) represents the is in the worst, environmental condition, and other decision units are adjusted on their basis. If the effect is good, increase more input; if the effect is poor, increase less input, so that all decision units are adjusted to the same environmental level. The adjustment in the second middle bracket is the random error factor, on the same principle, giving all decision units the same conditions.

2.1.3. The Third Stage of DEA

The DEA in the third stage and the DEA model used in the first stage adopt the input-oriented DEA-BCC model. The difference is that the relative efficiency of each decision unit is calculated similarly by substituting the environmental factors and random factors X n i * into the DEA-BCC model in the first stage, to obtain a more accurate value.

2.2. Data Description

2.2.1. Introduction of Related Variables

The input variables selected in this paper are the size of population, capital stock, and energy consumption, which are associated with economic variables. Hao C et al. proved that the rapid growth of the total population can promote the increase of carbon emissions, through research on the carbon emissions of the BRICS countries; the growth of the population and the economic benefits can affect the carbon emissions efficiency to a certain extent [41]. Therefore, this paper selects the size of population as a secondary variable in the selection of input indicators, and uses the total population at the end of the year to represent the size of population [41]. The capital stock is expressed by the industrial energy investment of each region. The use of industrial energy investment can most directly reflect the economic input of carbon emissions of each region [42]. Xu et al. proposed that energy consumption and industrial production emissions should be given priority by studying the composition of carbon emissions [43], so the total energy consumption of each region is selected as the energy consumption. Among the output variables, GDP and carbon emissions are chosen, among which GDP, as an output variable, occupies the mainstream position in current academic research on carbon emission efficiency. For example, Zhu J believed that carbon emission efficiency is related to carbon emission and economy, and GDP, as the best variable to measure the economy, should be regarded as an output variable; therefore, this paper takes it as expected outputs [44]. Zhang W et al. believed that carbon emissions are the accompaniment of economic development, with the development of the economy, the rise of industry and energy industry inevitably bringing a large amount of carbon emissions [45]. Therefore, this paper uses carbon emissions as an output variable, accordingly.
The calculation of carbon emissions is based on the United Nations Intergovernmental Special Committee on Climate (IPCC) carbon emission coefficient, and collects the provinces and cities of coal, coke, crude oil, natural gas, and another eight kinds of energy consumption. Due to the carbon emission coefficient of resources such as water, wind and light energy being 0, which does not produce carbon emissions, they are excluded from the calculation. This paper uses the carbon emission coefficient method to calculate carbon emission, and the estimation formula is as follows:
Q c o 2 = E × K
In Formula (4), E represents energy sources in different types, and its unit is standard coal/ton. K is the carbon emission factor of various energy sources, as revised in 2019. In addition, this paper takes the level of economic development, national consumption, and scientific and technological progress as environmental variables. The changes in these environmental variables affect the efficiency of carbon emissions to a certain extent. The level of economic development is expressed by per capita GDP. If people’s living standards improve, they will have more money to consume items that release carbon dioxide, such as cars, air-conditioning, etc. In other words, the increase in per capital GDP will increase carbon dioxide emissions; carbon emission efficiency is an output indicator, which is composed of the ratio of unit GDP to carbon dioxide emissions. National consumption uses the total amount of social consumer goods in various regions, which most intuitively shows the consumption capacity. In the process of consumption, people will inevitably consume energy consuming goods. The increase in per capital household consumption can indirectly lead to a rise in carbon emissions [46]. Therefore, if people’s total social consumption is more significant, carbon emissions in this region will increase accordingly; the increase of carbon emissions will increase the local environmental pressure, and then reduce the efficiency of carbon emissions. Technological innovation can effectively reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions from the source by improving the efficiency of energy utilization, to enhance the efficiency of carbon emissions [47]. Therefore, this paper selects the number of valid patents in each region this year, as an indicator of scientific and technological progress. Based on this, the scientific index system is constructed (see Table 1).

2.2.2. Data Source

The data in this paper are from China Statistical Yearbook, China Energy Statistical Yearbook [48], China Environmental Statistical Yearbook [49] and China Science and Technology Statistical Yearbook [50]. The period is from 2009 to 2018. In this period, China has just passed the financial crisis, which was in a period of rapid economic development. Due to the lack of data in Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and the Tibet region, we selected 30 provinces and cities outside of those four regions. For convenient comparison, this paper divides the 30 province and cities into eastern, central, and western regions.

3. Results

3.1. The First Stage of the Traditional DEA Analysis

In the first stage, original data on the input and output of carbon emissions from 30 provinces and cities were collected, and MaxDEA 5.2 (It was created by Mr. Cheng Gang of China.) was used to build a DEA-BCC model for calculation. The average efficiency of carbon emissions, from 2009 to 2018, is shown in Table 2. The 30 provinces and cities were divided into eastern region, central region and western region, and their carbon emission efficiency are shown in Figure 1.
From the results of Table 2, without considering the influence of external environmental factors and other random factors, the overall carbon emission efficiency of China over the years has been relatively stable; but the carbon emission efficiency gap is noticeable, and needs controlling in the future. The results show that from 2009 to 2018, the average carbon emission efficiency of 30 provinces and cities was 0.843, the average pure technical efficiency was 0.875, and the average value of scale efficiency was 0.949. The average annual carbon emission efficiency is 16 percentage points different from that of the highest, among the 30 provinces and cities; the average yearly pure technical efficiency is 13 percentage points further; and the scale efficiency is increased by 6 percentage points. There is much room for improvement in these regions. By comprehensively analyzing the carbon emission efficiency of the two stages, this paper divided 30 provinces and cities into three regions: high, medium, and low, according to their efficiency. At the same time, in this study, the carbon emission efficiency is in the field of 0–1. Therefore, 0.6 and 0.9 are taken as the dividing points: the carbon emission efficiency of 0~0.6 is the low-efficiency area; the carbon emission efficiency of 0.6 to 0.9 is the medium efficiency area; and the carbon emission efficiency of 0.9~1 is the high-efficiency area. It can be seen from Table 2, that the 11 provinces with high carbon emission efficiency levels are: Beijing, Tianjin, Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Shandong, Hainan, Shaanxi, and Ningxia. There are 18 provinces with medium efficiency, including: Hebei, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Zhejiang, Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi, Hunan, Hubei, Henan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, Gansu, and Xinjiang. Only Qinghai province is in the low-efficiency area. The results show that carbon emission efficiency is not entirely synchronized with economic development; carbon emission efficiency of backward provinces is not necessarily low, and carbon emission efficiency of developed provinces is not necessarily high. It can be seen that although carbon emission efficiency is primarily linked to the economy, it is not entirely dependent on the economy. It is affected by other factors, such as population [51], terrain [52], policies [53], and scientific and technological levels [54], which can impact carbon emission efficiency to some extent.
As shown in Figure 1, there are significant differences in carbon emission efficiency among the eastern region, central region, and western region, from 2009 to 2018. The average carbon emission efficiencies in the eastern region, central region, and western region are 0.941, 0.841, and 0.738, respectively. The reason lies in the relatively developed economy and mature concept of environmental protection in eastern coastal areas. The local governments attach more importance to environmental protection, and invest more in it [55]. Since the reform and opening up in Western China, energy-consuming industries have dominated the region. In addition, in recent years, many factories in central and eastern regions have been relocated to the western region, resulting in increased environmental pressure and low carbon emission efficiency. In addition, it can be seen from Figure 1, that from 2010 to 2016 the average carbon efficiency was relatively stable and slow to change. In addition to the central region, eastern and western regions were vaguely declining. Until 2017, national carbon efficiency improved rapidly. This may be due to the Chinese release of a series of policies, such as the 13th Five-Year Plan for National Environmental Protection Standards, and the Regulations on the Implementation of the Environmental Protection Tax Law, which helped to improve the efficiency of fossil energy utilization, increased the production of renewable energy, and increased investment in environmental pollution protection. It is worth noting that carbon emission efficiency of the central region was consistent with the whole country. Therefore, it can be considered that, to some extent, the internal management level of carbon emission efficiency in the central region is roughly equivalent to the internal management level of national carbon emissions.
In addition, because of resource endowments and different economic development, carbon emission efficiency among different provinces and cities are also inevitably disturbed by the environment, and other random factors [56]. The areas with better geographical location and economic conditions have higher carbon emission efficiency. In contrast, areas with poor geographical environment, weak economic development and foreign investment, have lower carbon emission efficiency. The results of Table 2, therefore, cannot truly reflect the level of carbon emission efficiency in China. It is necessary to make adjustments and calculations to obtain more accurate and reliable results.

3.2. The Second Stage of the SFA Analysis

Taking the labor force, capital stock, and energy consumption of 30 provinces and cities in China from 2009 to 2018 as dependent variables, and external environmental variables, we established the SFA regression analysis model. Through R language software, the relaxation variable values of the three input variables in the first stage were regressed and analyzed, by using the maximum likelihood method. The results are in Table 3.
It can be seen from Table 3 that, in addition to per capita GDP, the total retail sales of consumer goods, and the number of valid patents, are significantly related to the population, energy consumption, and the slack in energy-industry investment, which shows that the level of per capita GDP has no effect on the improvement of carbon emission efficiency. However, the one-sided error tests, for final LR (likelihood) all passed the 1% test, so all environmental variables should be considered when correcting for input outputs. According to the analysis of Table 3, it can be seen that the economic development level, national consumption, and scientific and technological progress selected in this paper have positive or negative effects on input variables. Therefore, this paper adjusted the input variables such as labor force, capital stock, and energy consumption in 30 provinces and cities in China from 2009 to 2018, to removing the environmental factors and random factors that affect the results. The adjusted variable results are in Table 4.

3.3. Empirical Results of DEA after Adjustment in the Third Stage

In this paper, input variables such as population, energy consumption, and industrial energy investment, which are affected by environmental factors and random factors, were removed and reintroduced into the traditional DEA-BCC model, used in the first stage. MaxDEA software was used to calculate the carbon emission efficiency of 30 provinces and cities in China from 2009 to 2018. Compared with the efficiency value of the original data directly in the first stage, the carbon emission efficiency value obtained in the third stage has been eliminated from environmental factors, and other random factors. It more truly reflects the real carbon emission efficiency of all provinces and cities in China. The following are the changes in efficiency values in the third stage (see Figure 2), and the comparison of average efficiency values in the first and third stages (see Table 5).
As shown in Figure 2, the more realistic real value of carbon emission efficiency is obtained by excluded the influence of internal, external, and random factors after processing raw data. It is found that although the first stage is affected by various factors, only preliminary data can be obtained from the traditional DEA model. Compared with average carbon emission efficiency in the third stage, carbon emission efficiency in the whole country has little change; carbon emission efficiency in the east is still the highest, reaching 0.877, the middle reaches 0.808, and it is still the lowest in the west, with an average carbon emission efficiency of 0.617. By comprehensively comparing the first stage and the third stage, it can be found that China’s carbon emission efficiency is spatially distributed as a whole. The carbon emission efficiency of Eastern China is significantly higher than that of Western China. With the increase of years, the carbon emission efficiency of Eastern China is gradually opening up the gap with that of Western China. Akbar et al. also showed that although the east region is more densely populated, more developed in industry and commerce, and had more carbon emissions than the central and west regions, the eastern region of China has significantly higher carbon emission efficiency than central and western regions, because of its higher scientific, technological, and informatization levels [57].
As can be seen from Table 5, excluded the influence of environmental impact factors, and other random factors, the carbon emission efficiency of the third stage is significantly different from the first stage. The carbon emission efficiency of Inner Mongolia is still at the forefront of China, while other provinces and cities have changed. Among them, Beijing’s carbon emission efficiency has decreased from 1.000 to 0.959, mainly caused by the decline in the scale and efficiency of Beijing. As a megacity, Beijing has many enterprises and factories, and it must formulate related carbon emission supervision policies to control the carbon emissions of enterprises [58]. Hainan’s carbon emission efficiency dropped the most, from 0.975 to 0.361. In addition, the carbon emission efficiency of Liaoning, Jiangsu, Shandong, and Guangdong ranks first in China. The provinces with rising carbon emission efficiency include Hebei, Shanxi, Liaoning, Zhejiang, Shan, Henan, Hunan, Guangdong, and Sichuan. It shows that the carbon emission efficiency of these provinces, in the first stage, is disturbed by external factors. The provinces with reduced carbon emission efficiency include Beijing, Tianjin, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Shanghai, Anhui, Fujian, Jiangxi, Guangxi, Hainan, Chongqing, Guizhou, Yunnan, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, and Xinjiang. This indicates that the previous high efficiency of these provinces is related to certain external influence factors, rather than the actual situation.
Based on the data excluding random factors and environmental factors in the third stage, the carbon emission efficiency values of 0.9 and 0.6 are set as critical points. The 30 provinces and cities are classified according to carbon emission efficiency: carbon emission efficiency is greater than 0.9 in areas of high efficiency; with medium efficiency between 0.6 and 0.9; and in those below 0.6 they are low efficiency areas (see Table 6).
From Table 6, it can be seen that several provinces in high-efficiency areas have high pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency, so that the overall comprehensive carbon emission efficiency is not low. Economic development in most provinces is in good shape; a few economically underdeveloped areas, such as Inner Mongolia, have maintained high carbon emission efficiency. That is because since the 21st century, the rapid economic growth of Inner Mongolia has laid a solid foundation for the improvement of local carbon emission efficiency [59]. Tianjin and Xinjiang are reduced from being original high-efficiency areas to medium efficiency areas. In Tianjin, in recent years, economic growth is slowing down, but energy consumption remains large. Large resource consumption is not supported by a matching economy, which leads to the decline of scale efficiency and affects overall carbon emission efficiency. The low carbon emission efficiency of Xinjiang is because Xinjiang develops its economy mainly by mining coal resources and simple processing of products, with a large proportion of secondary industry and insufficient investment in science and technology. The low-efficiency areas are Hainan, Gansu, Yunnan, Chongqing, Qinghai, and Ningxia. Most of these are underdeveloped areas, but their technical efficiency are high, which shows that these regions pay more attention to the development of science and technology, but their overall carbon efficiencies are affected by efficiency of scale.

4. Conclusions and Suggestions

4.1. Conclusions

This paper studied the carbon emission efficiency of 30 provinces and cities in China, from 2009 to 2018. The significance of this paper is the introduction of three stages of the DEA method to calculate regional carbon emission efficiency, while analyzing the influencing factors of carbon emission efficiency in different regions of China. Our conclusions are as follows: (1) There is a significant difference between the first stage and the third stage of carbon efficiency; carbon emission efficiency of most regions in the third stage decreased by about 10%, compared with carbon emission efficiency in the first stage. Hainan, with the largest decline, decreased from 0.975 to 0.361, but the carbon emission efficiency of a few regions has increased by about 5%. (2) China’s carbon emission efficiency is not completely synchronized with economic development; carbon emission efficiency of some underdeveloped regions has reached more than 0.9, while carbon emission efficiency of some provinces in eastern and central regions are far lower than carbon emission efficiency in some underdeveloped regions. (3) China’s carbon emission efficiency is constrained by scale efficiency; when scale efficiency decreases by 10%, its carbon emission efficiency also decreases by 5–10%. (4) On the whole, China’s carbon emission efficiency shows an upward trend, but the speed is relatively slow, so there is still much room for improvement.

4.2. Suggestions

Based on the research findings of this paper, the following suggestions are put forward: (1) Establish a carbon emission efficiency monitoring system network, which can control carbon emissions below the peak, and restrain carbon emissions. Relying on internet technology, establish a carbon emission efficiency monitoring network covering the whole country, detecting carbon emission efficiency in real-time. (2) Expand the channels of talent introduction and increase investment in technology. Technological innovation is an essential driving force of carbon emission reduction. Talent introduction and improvement of carbon emission technical efficiency can help to improve overall carbon emission efficiency [60]. (3) Local governments should make breakthroughs in the previously established emission reduction system. On the one hand, increasing the price of industrial energy, encouraging consumers to use clean energy and new energy that does not produce carbon dioxide emissions, then establishing a low-carbon environmental incentive mechanism in production and consumption. On the other hand, controlling the use of industrial energy and carbon dioxide products, strengthening the publicity of low-carbon environmental protection, and making people aware of the harm of carbon dioxide to preserve the environment, so that people can consciously protect the environment and reduce daily carbon dioxide emissions. It also needs to promote carbon taxes, limit carbon emissions, develop carbon trading licensing mechanisms, limit unscrupulous carbon dioxide emissions, and strictly regulate them [61].

Author Contributions

X.Z. and H.X. drafted the manuscript. Q.S. conceptualized and designed the study. X.Z. contributed to materials and analysis. Q.S. contributed to theories, and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in China Energy Statistical Yearbook. https://navi.cnki.net/knavi/yearbooks/YCXME/detail (accessed on 6 June 2022), China Environmental Statistical Yearbook. https://navi.cnki.net/knavi/yearbooks/YHJSD/detail (accessed on 6 June 2022), and China Science and Technology Statistical Yearbook. https://navi.cnki.net/knavi/yearbooks/YBVCX/detail (accessed on 6 June 2022). reference numbers are [48,49,50].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. The Paris Agreement. Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement (accessed on 22 April 2016).
  2. Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Yuan, J.; Baninla, Y.; Zhang, S.; Stenseth, N.C. Drivers of change in China’s energy-related CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Sueyoshi, T.; Yuan, Y.; Goto, M. A literature study for DEA applied to energy and environment. Energy Econ. 2017, 62, 104–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chien, F.; Anwar, A.; Hsu, C.C.; Sharif, A.; Razzaq, A.; Sinha, A. The role of information and communication technology in encountering environmental degradation: Proposing an SDG framework for the BRICS countries. Technol. Soc. 2021, 65, 101587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kirikkaleli, D.; Adebayo, T.S. Do public-private partnerships in energy and renewable energy consumption matter for consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions in India? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 30139–30152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Liu, D.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y. China’s agricultural green total factor productivity based on carbon emission: An analysis of evolution trend and influencing factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wilberforce, T.; Olabi, A.G.; Sayed, E.T.; Elsaid, K.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Progress in carbon capture technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 761, 143203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jiang, R.; Wu, P.; Wu, C. Driving Factors behind Energy-Related Carbon Emissions in the US Road Transport Sector: A Decomposition Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, L.; Yang, D.; Meng, Q.; Zhao, Y.; He, L. Effects of supercritical carbon dioxide under different conditions on mechanical properties and energy evolution of coal. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energy Geo-Resour. 2022, 8, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, H.; Lin, Q.; Zhang, C.; Yu, X.; Cheng, Z.; Li, G.; Hu, Q.; Ren, X.; Zhang, Q.; Liu, J.; et al. Carbon dioxide electroreduction on single-atom nickel decorated carbon membranes with industry compatible current densities. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Jiao, X.; Zheng, K.; Liang, L.; Li, X.; Sun, Y.; Xie, Y. Fundamentals and challenges of ultrathin 2D photocatalysts in boosting CO2 photoreduction. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2020, 49, 6592–6604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Modise, R.K.; Mpofu, K.; Adenuga, O.T. Energy and Carbon Emission Efficiency Prediction: Applications in Future Transport Manufacturing. Energies 2021, 14, 8466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Qiang, W.; Fza, B. Does increasing investment in research and development promote economic growth decoupling from carbon emission growth? An empirical analysis of BRICS countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 252, 119853. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sun, Y.; Kamran, H.W.; Razzaq, A.; Qadri, F.S.; Suksatan, W. Dynamic and causality linkages from transportation services and tourism development to economic growth and carbon emissions: New insights from Quantile ARDL approach. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2021, 00, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kirikkaleli, D.; Güngr, H.; Adebayo, T.S. Consumption-based carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in Chile. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 31, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mielnik, O.; Goldemberg, J. Communication The evolution of the “carbonization index” in developing countries. Energy Policy 1999, 27, 307–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yamaji, K.; Matsuhashi, R.; Nagata, Y.; Kaya, Y. A study on economic measures for CO2 reduction in Japan. Energy Policy 1993, 21, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, J.; Xie, Q.; Shahbaz, M.; Song, M.; Li, L. Impact of bilateral trade on fossil energy consumption in BRICS: An extended decomposition analysis. Econ. Model. 2022, 106, 105698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lin, Y.; Huang, J.; Li, M.; Lin, R. Does lower regional density result in less CO2 emission per capita? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 29887–29903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ji, Q.; Zhang, D. How much does financial development contribute to renewable energy growth and upgrading of energy structure in China? Energy Policy 2019, 128, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wurlod, J.-D.; Noailly, J. The impact of green innovation on energy intensity: An empirical analysis for 14 industrial sectors in OECD countries. Energy Econ. 2018, 71, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Ning, Z.A.; Peng, Z.B.; Cck, A. Total-factor carbon emission performance of the Chinese transportation industry: A bootstrapped non-radial Malmquist index analysis—ScienceDirect. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 584–593. [Google Scholar]
  23. Chen, S.; Golley, J. ‘Green’ productivity growth in China’s industrial economy. Energy Econ. 2014, 44, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nassar, R.; Napier-Linton, L.; Gurney, K.R.; Andres, R.J.; Oda, T.; Vogel, F.R.; Deng, F. Improving the temporal and spatial distribution of CO2 emissions from global fossil fuel emission data sets. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 917–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Uddin, M.S.; Smirnov, O. Spatial Distribution of the Annual Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in the Contiguous USA and Their Controlling Factors. Environ. Modeling Assess. 2022, 27, 57–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yu, Z. Measurement of carbon emission efficiency of China’s energy consumption and its spatial distribution pattern. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 546, 022050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, X.; Zhao, Q.; Huang, F.; Qiu, R.; Lin, Y.; Zhang, L.; Hu, X. Understanding spatial variation in the driving pattern of carbon dioxide emissions from taxi sector in great Eastern China: Evidence from an analysis of geographically weighted regression. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2020, 22, 979–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, F.; Tang, L.; Liao, K.; Ruan, L.; Liu, P. Spatial Distribution and Regional Difference of Carbon Emissions Efficiency of Industrial Energy in China. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 19419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, B.; Yu, M.; Zhu, Y.; Bao, P. Unveiling the driving factors of carbon emissions from industrial resource allocation in China: A spatial econometric perspective. Energy Policy 2021, 158, 112557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, Y.; Hou, W.; Zhu, W.; Li, F.; Liang, L. Provincial carbon emission performance analysis in China based on a Malmquist data envelopment analysis approach with fixed-sum undesirable outputs. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021, 304, 233–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Iram, R.; Zhang, J.; Erdogan, S.; Abbas, Q.; Mohsin, M. Economics of energy and environmental efficiency: Evidence from OECD countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 3858–3870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, K.; Wu, M.; Sun, Y.; Shi, X.; Sun, A.; Zhang, P. Resource abundance, industrial structure, and regional carbon emissions efficiency in China. Resour. Policy 2019, 60, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, K.; Wei, Y.-M. China’s regional industrial energy efficiency and carbon emissions abatement costs. Appl. Energy 2014, 130, 617–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, C. Total-factor carbon emission performance of fossil fuel power plants in China: A metafrontier non-radial Malmquist index analysis. Energy Econ. 2013, 40, 549–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, S.; Zhou, C.; Wang, Z.; Feng, K.; Hubacek, K. The characteristics and drivers of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) distribution in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1800–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Banker, R.D.; Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data development analysis. Manag. Sci. 1984, 30, 1078–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, C.; Tang, R.; Guo, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liu, X. Research on the Structure of Carbon Emission Efficiency and Influencing Factors in the Yangtze River Delta Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Minviel, J.J.; Sipiläinen, T. A dynamic stochastic frontier approach with persistent and transient inefficiency and unobserved heterogeneity. Agric. Econ. 2021, 52, 575–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jin, S.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Xu, Y. Bayesian piecewise stochastic frontier model to estimate initial public offering pricing efficiency under issuance policy reforms. Appl. Stoch. Models Bus. Ind. 2021, 37, 545–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hao, C.; Evelyn, A.; Ahakwa, I.; Musah, M.; Salakpi, A.; Alfred, M.; Atingabili, S. Does energy consumption, economic growth, urbanization, and population growth influence carbon emissions in the BRICS? Evidence from panel models robust to cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 37598–37616. [Google Scholar]
  42. He, Y.; Fu, F.; Liao, N. Exploring the path of carbon emissions reduction in China’s industrial sector through energy efficiency enhancement induced by R&D investment. Energy 2021, 225, 120208. [Google Scholar]
  43. Xu, Q.; Dong, Y.X.; Yang, R. Urbanization impact on carbon emissions in the Pearl River Delta region: Kuznets curve relationships. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhu, J. Analysis of carbon emission efficiency based on DEA model. J. Discret. Math. Sci. Cryptogr. 2018, 21, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, D.; Jz, B. Digital economy and carbon emission performance: Evidence at China’s city level. Energy Policy 2022, 165, 112927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ooi, J.Y.; Wolfenden, L.; Sutherland, R.A. Systematic Review of the Recent Consumption Levels of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in Children and Adolescents from the World Health Organization Regions with High Dietary–Related Burden of Disease. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 2022, 34, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Zhang, Y.J.; Sun, Y.F.; Huang, J. Energy efficiency, carbon emission performance, and technologygaps: Evidence from CDM project investment. Energy Policy 2018, 115, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. China Energy Statistical Yearbook. Available online: https://navi.cnki.net/knavi/yearbooks/YCXME/detail (accessed on 6 June 2022).
  49. China Environmental Statistical Yearbook. Available online: https://navi.cnki.net/knavi/yearbooks/YHJSD/detail (accessed on 6 June 2022).
  50. China Science and Technology Statistical Yearbook. Available online: https://navi.cnki.net/knavi/yearbooks/YBVCX/detail (accessed on 6 June 2022).
  51. Pan, C.; Wang, H.; Guo, H.; Pan, H. How Do the Population Structure Changes of China Affect Carbon Emissions? An Empirical Study Based on Ridge Regression Analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Feng, Y.; Lu, C.C.; Lin, I.F.; Lin, J.Y. Dynamic assessment of agro-industrial sector efficiency and productivity changes among G20 nations. Energy Environ. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fu, Y.; He, C.; Luo, L. Does the low-carbon city policy make a difference? Empirical evidence of the pilot scheme in China with DEA and PSM-DID. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 122, 107238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xie, Z.; Wu, R.; Wang, S. How technological progress affects the carbon emission efficiency? Evidence from national panel quantile regression. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 307, 127133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Luo, Y. Will infrastructure construction cause environmental pollution in China? IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 450, 012109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Zhou, Y.; Liu, W.; Lv, X.; Cheng, X.; Shen, M. Investigating interior driving factors and cross-industrial linkages of carbon emission efficiency in China’s construction industry: Based on Super-SBM DEA and GVAR model. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Akbar, U.; Li, Q.L.; Akmal, M.A.; Shakib, M.; Iqbal, W. Nexus between agro-ecological efficiency and carbon emission transfer: Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 18995–19007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Hu, Y.J.; Li, X.Y.; Tang, B.J. Assessing the operational performance and maturity of the carbon trading pilot program: The case study of Beijing’s carbon market. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 1263–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kusadokoro, M.; Chitose, A. The Impact of Road Infrastructure Development on Economic Growth and Urban-Rural Income Inequality in Inner Mongolia, China. Jpn. J. Agric. Econ. 2022, 24, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  60. Abid, A.; Mehmood, U.; Tariq, S.; Haq, Z.U. The effect of technological innovation, FDI, and financial development on CO2 emission: Evidence from the G8 countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 11654–11662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fu, Y.; Huang, G.; Liu, L.; Zhai, M.A. factorial CGE model for analyzing the impacts of stepped carbon tax on Chinese economy and carbon emission. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 759, 143512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The change of carbon emission efficiency, from 2009 to 2018, in the first stage.
Figure 1. The change of carbon emission efficiency, from 2009 to 2018, in the first stage.
Sustainability 14 09731 g001
Figure 2. The third stage is the mean change of carbon emission efficiency from 2009 to 2018.
Figure 2. The third stage is the mean change of carbon emission efficiency from 2009 to 2018.
Sustainability 14 09731 g002
Table 1. Index system of carbon emission efficiency.
Table 1. Index system of carbon emission efficiency.
Level 1 IndicatorsSecondary IndicatorsLevel 3 Indicators
Input indexesSize of population Total population at the end of the year (/10,000)
Stock of capital Industrial energy investment (/RMB 100 million)
Energy use Total regional energy consumption (/Million tons)
Output indexesCarbon emissionCarbon emissions from each region (/Ton)
GDPTotal GDP (/100 million yuan)
External environment variables Economic development Per capita GDP (/Ten thousand yuan)
National consumptionTotal social consumer goods (/100 million yuan)
Scientific and technological Patent valid (/Piece)
Table 2. Average carbon emission efficiency from 2009 to 2018.
Table 2. Average carbon emission efficiency from 2009 to 2018.
AreaCarbon Emission EfficiencyPure Technical EfficiencyScale EfficiencyAreaCarbon Emission EfficiencyPure Technical EfficiencyScale Efficiency
Beijing1.0001.0001.000Henan0.7750.8130.923
Tianjin0.9920.9980.990Hubei0.7610.7650.953
Hebei0.8390.8580.975Hunan0.6930.7080.934
Shanxi0.9850.9980.987Guangdong0.8571.0000.846
Nei Monggol1.0001.0001.000Guangxi0.7150.7200.946
Liaoning0.9921.0001.000Hainan 0.9751.0000.983
Jilin0.8770.8780.980Chongqing0.6960.6750.974
Heilongjiang0.8210.8340.964Sichuan0.6160.6190.928
Shanghai0.9921.0001.000Guizhou0.7380.7560.947
Jiangsu 0.9861.0000.988Yunnan0.6080.6090.944
Zhejiang0.8910.9160.969Shaanxi0.9610.9670.986
Anhui0.8340.9050.912Gansu0.7140.7120.971
Fujian0.8650.8690.972Qinghai0.5241.0000.477
Jiangxi0.8190.8380.955Ningxia0.9991.0000.997
Shandong0.9651.0000.973Xinjiang0.8070.8210.991
Average Carbon emission efficiency: 0.843Pure technical efficiency: 0.875Scale efficiency: 0.949
Table 3. Results of the regression analysis of the 30 provinces and cities from 2009 to 2018.
Table 3. Results of the regression analysis of the 30 provinces and cities from 2009 to 2018.
PopulationCoefficientStandard ErrorT-Ratiop-Value
Cow distance item−944 158 −6 0
per capita GDP4 20 0 1
Total retail sales of consumer goods0 05 0
Number of valid patents0 0 −3 0
sigmasq34,900,000 13,490,000 0
gamma10 524 0
Log- likelihood function−2190
LR test of the one-sided error716
One-sided likelihood ratio test for p-values0
Energy ConsumptionCoefficientStandard ErrorT-Ratiop-Value
Cow distance item−17,000 417 −4 0
per capita GDP92 56 2 0
Total retail sales of consumer goods0 0 40
Number of valid patents00 −2 0
Sigmasq79,600,000 17,960,000 0
Gamma1 058 0
Log -likelihood function−26,000
LR test of the one-sided error229
One-sided likelihood ratio test for p-values0.000
Energy Industry InvestmentCoefficientStandard ErrorT-Ratiop-Value
Cow distance item−177 50 −4 0
per capita GDP11 720
Total retail sales of consumer goods0 0 3 0
Number of valid patents0 0−2 0
Sigmasq868,000 1 841,000 0
Gamma1 0 31 0
Log- likelihood function−1974
LR test of the one-sided error143
One-sided likelihood ratio test for p-values0
Table 4. Data adjusted for raw data by SFA method (take 2018 as an example).
Table 4. Data adjusted for raw data by SFA method (take 2018 as an example).
AreaPopulationEnergy ConsumptionInvestment Amount in Industrial Energy SourcesAreaPopulationEnergy ConsumptionInvestment Amount in Industrial Energy Sources
Beijing3480 11,6001184 Henan10,10025,000 2320
Tianjin2870 12,000 1220Hubei6600 19,2001520
Hebei8300 33,900 2550Hunan7660 18,300 1444
Shanxi4890 24,600 1950 Guangdong12,20037,6002320
NeiMonggol3680 27,300 2770Guangxi5990 14,3001400
Liaoning531026,500 1510 Hainan2330 6710 886
Jilin3820 11,1001280 Chongqing4260 12,0001090
Heilongjiang4810 14,800 1360 Sichuan9030 22,100 19,601
Shanghai3570 15,600907Guizhou4890 13,7001230
Jiangsu885035,600 2310Yunnan5960 14,8001320
Zhejiang668024,7001700Shaanxi4980 17,100 2190
Anhui734017,200 1670Gansu3950 11,7001080
Fujian4910 16,4001520Qinghai20408901190
Jiangxi5792 13,100 1290 Ningxia212011,7001330
Shandong10,70044,400 4100Xinjiang3820 21,200 1970
Table 5. The first stage efficiency and the third stage efficiency are used for comparison.
Table 5. The first stage efficiency and the third stage efficiency are used for comparison.
The First StageThe Third Stage
AreaCarbon Emission EfficiencyPure Technical EfficiencyScale EfficiencyAreaCarbon Emission EfficiencyPure Technical EfficiencyScale Efficiency
Beijing1.0001.0001.000Beijing0.9591.0000.959
Tianjin0.9920.9980.990Tianjin0.7471.0000.747
Hebei0.8390.8590.976Hebei0.8830.9090.972
Shanxi0.9850.9980.987Shanxi0.9930.9980.995
Nei Monggol1.0001.0001.000Nei Monggol1.0001.0001.000
Liaoning0.9921.0001.000Liaoning1.0001.0001.000
Jilin0.8770.8780.980Jilin0.7130.9570.745
Heilongjiang0.8210.8340.964Heilongjiang0.7610.9290.818
Shanghai0.9921.0001.000Shanghai0.9281.0000.928
Jiangsu0.9861.0000.988Jiangsu1.0001.0001.000
Zhejiang0.8910.9130.969Zhejiang0.9130.9520.959
Anhui 0.8340.9050.912Anhui 0.8000.9570.837
Fujian0.8650.8690.972Fujian0.8170.9460.864
Jiangxi0.8190.8380.955Jiangxi0.6690.9390.711
Shandong0.9651.0000.973Shandong1.0001.0001.000
Henan0.7750.8140.923Henan0.8520.9180.929
Hubei0.7610.7650.953Hubei0.9580.8990.844
Hunan0.6930.7080.934Hunan0.7280.8570.848
Guangdong0.8571.0000.846Guangdong1.0001.0001.000
Guangxi 0.7150.7200.946Guangxi 0.6340.8760.723
Hainan0.9751.0000.983Hainan0.3611.0000.361
Chongqing0.6960.6750.974Chongqing0.5920.8750.677
Sichuan0.6160.6190.928Sichuan0.6690.7550.887
Guizhou0.7390.7560.947Guizhou0.6250.8920.700
Yunnan0.6080.6090.944Yunnan0.5780.8010.720
Shaanxi0.9610.9670.986Shaanxi0.9030.9790.922
Gansu0.7140.7120.971Gansu0.5690.8830.645
Qinghai0.5241.0000.477Qinghai0.2471.0000.247
Ningxia0.9991.0000.997Ningxia0.5881.0000.588
Xinjiang0.8070.8210.991Xinjiang0.7640.8950.855
Average value0.8430.8750.949Average value0.7750.9410.816
Table 6. Classification of carbon emission efficiency values in Phase III.
Table 6. Classification of carbon emission efficiency values in Phase III.
High Efficiency AreaBeijingShanxiNei MonggolLiaoning
ShaanxiHubeiZhejiangShandong
ShanghaiGuangdongJiangsu
Medium Efficiency AreaTianjinHebeiJilinHenan
JiangxiGuangxiSichuanGuizhou
HeilongjiangXinjiangAnhuiHunan
Low Efficiency AreaHainanChongqingYunnanGansu
QinghaiNingxia
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, X.; Xu, H.; Sun, Q. Research on China’s Carbon Emission Efficiency and Its Regional Differences. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9731. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159731

AMA Style

Zhao X, Xu H, Sun Q. Research on China’s Carbon Emission Efficiency and Its Regional Differences. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9731. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159731

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Xiaochun, Huixin Xu, and Qun Sun. 2022. "Research on China’s Carbon Emission Efficiency and Its Regional Differences" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9731. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159731

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