Research on the Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Dynamic Prediction of Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency: A Case Study of 24 Counties in the Dabie Mountain Region of China
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overview of the Study Area
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Calculation of Agricultural Carbon Emissions
2.2.2. Super-Efficiency SBM Model with Undesirable Outputs
2.2.3. Standard Deviation Ellipse
2.2.4. Time Series Prediction of BP Neural Network
2.3. Construction of the Indicator System
| Indicator Category | Indicator Name | Content Description | Unit | Carbon Emission Coefficient | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input Indicators | Plastic Film | Amount of agricultural plastic film used | ×104 t | 5.18 kg (CO2)/kg | Institute of Agricultural Resources and Ecological Environment, Nanjing Agricultural University [40] |
| Land | Arable land area | ×104 hm2 | 3.126 kg (CO2)/hm2 | College of Biology and Technology, China Agricultural University | |
| Fertilizer | Total amount of agricultural chemical fertilizer applied | ×104 t | 0.8956 kg (CO2)/kg | Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA [41] | |
| Machinery | Agricultural diesel consumption | ×104 t | 0.5927 kg (CO2)/kg | IPCC | |
| Irrigation | Effective irrigated area of farmland | ×104 hm2 | 20.476 kg (CO2)/hm2 | Li Bo et al. [28] | |
| Pesticide | Pesticide usage | ×104 t | 4.9341 kg (CO2)/kg | Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA | |
| Output Indicators | |||||
| Desired output | Economic output | Total agricultural output value | ×104 CNY | ||
| Undesirable output | Environmental cost | Agricultural carbon emissions | ×104 kg(CO2-eq) |
2.4. Data Sources
3. Results
3.1. Results of Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency Measurement
3.2. Spatio-Temporal Evolution of Agricultural Carbon Emission
3.2.1. Temporal Evolution Characteristics
3.2.2. Spatial Evolution Characteristics
3.3. Analysis of Prediction Results for Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Guo, S.D.; Qian, Y.B.; Zhao, R. Agricultural carbon emission efficiency and convergence analysis in western China: Based on SBM-Undesirable model. Rural Econ. 2018, 80–87. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, W.L.; Zhang, J.X.; Wang, H.L. Characteristics and influencing factors of agricultural carbon emissions in China. Stat. Decis. 2020, 36, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, L.L.; Zhang, J.B.; Tian, Y.; Zhou, X.S. Spatial differentiation characteristics and dependence effect of provincial agricultural carbon productivity in China. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 276–289. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, Y.F.; Wu, W.L.; Meng, F.Q.; Wang, D.P.; Zhang, Z.H. Research progress on the impact of farmland carbon sequestration measures on greenhouse gas emission reduction. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2012, 22, 43–48. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, M.; Song, H.Y. Spatial convergence and differentiation of agricultural carbon emission performance in China: Empirical analysis based on Malmquist-Luenberger index and spatial econometrics. Econ. Geogr. 2015, 35, 142–148+185. [Google Scholar]
- Taghavi, S.; Mendoza, T.; Acero, B., Jr.; Li, T.; Siddiq, S.A.; Yorobe, J., Jr.; Li, Z.; Ali, J. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions of Newly Developed Rice Varieties. Jpn. Agric. Stand. Food 2017, 9, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Johnson, J.M.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Weyers, S.L.; Reicosky, D.C. Agricultural opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 150, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaya, Y. Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emission Control on GNP Growth: Interpretation of Proposed Scenarios IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response STRATEGIES Working Group. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Response Strategies Working Group. 1990. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312468754_Impact_of_carbon_dioxide_emission_control_on_GNP_growth_interpretation_of_proposed_scenarios_IPCC_energy_and_industry_subgroup_response_strategies_working_group (accessed on 15 May 2025).
- Zhou, P.; Ang, B.W.; Han, J.Y. Total factor carbon emission performance: A Malmquist index analysis. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bibi, Z.; Khan, D.; Haq, I. Technical and environmental efficiency of agriculture sector in South Asia: A stochastic frontier analysis approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 23, 9260–9279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández González, P.; Landajo, M.; Presno, M. The driving forces behind changes in CO2 emission levels in EU-27: Differences between member states. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 38, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Gao, Y. Measurement and impact factor analysis of agricultural carbon emission performance in Changjiang Economic Corridor. Alex. Eng. J. 2024, 61, 1123–1132. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, D.; Wang, J. Modelling carbon dioxide emissions from agricultural soils in Canada. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 230, 1040–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garnier, J.; Le Noë, J.; Marescaux, A.; Sanz-Cobena, A.; Lassaletta, L.; Silvestre, M.; Thieu, V.; Billen, G. Long-term changes in greenhouse gas emissions from French agriculture and livestock (1852–2014): From traditional agriculture to conventional intensive systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 1486–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, Q.W.; Zhou, P.; Zhou, D.Q. Dynamic changes, regional differences and influencing factors of carbon dioxide emission performance in China. China Ind. Econ. 2010, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, Y.Y.; Luo, J.L. Carbon emission effect of agricultural production efficiency: Spatial spillover and threshold characteristics. J. Beijing Univ. Aeronaut. Astronaut. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 34, 96–105. [Google Scholar]
- Shang, J.; Yang, B.J. Measurement of carbon sources and sinks in crop farming and dynamic analysis of influencing factors of net carbon sinks: An example from Shandong Province. Reform 2019, 123–134. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, C.Y.; Huang, C.F.; Xu, H. Regional differences and influencing factors of China’s agricultural technical efficiency under environmental regulation: From the perspective of dual constraints of agricultural carbon emissions and agricultural non-point source pollution. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2021, 41, 184–190. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Y.B.; Ma, X.Z.; Shi, Y.J. Analysis of agricultural input-output efficiency and emission reduction potential in Henan Province at the county scale. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2022, 30, 1852–1861. [Google Scholar]
- Hou, Y.; Zhang, H.S.; Yang, S.Z.; Geng, F.Y. Spatio-temporal evolution and influencing factors of agricultural carbon emission efficiency in major grain-producing areas. Xinjiang Agric. Reclam. Econ. 2023, 53–65. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.Y.; Dong, H.Z.; Pang, M. Spatio-temporal evolution characteristics and driving factors of agricultural carbon emission efficiency in the three northeastern provinces of China. Chin. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 15, 86–97. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.W.; Zhang, J.H.; Wu, F.W. Carbon emissions from grain production in China and analysis of emission reduction paths. Stat. Decis. 2018, 34, 168–172. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, H.; Liu, D.; Geng, T.W.; Dong, J.W. Differences in farmers’ agricultural carbon emission efficiency and multi-level influencing factors: A case study of Mizhi County, Shaanxi Province. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2022, 43, 90–100. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Q.L.; Zhao, R.Q.; Zhao, T.; Hu, Y.M.; Zhang, Y.P.; Zhu, R.M. Relationship between agricultural carbon emission efficiency and food security at the county scale. Chin. J. Agric. Resour. Reg. Plan. 2023, 44, 156–169. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, F.; Feng, J.N. Agricultural carbon emission efficiency and its influencing factors in cities of Shaanxi Province. Resour. Ind. 2023, 25, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, Y.; Wang, M.C. Spatio-temporal differences and influencing factors of agricultural carbon emission efficiency in Hubei Province. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2020, 53, 5063–5072. [Google Scholar]
- He, J. Study on the Spatio-Temporal Heterogeneity and Driving Mechanism of Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Master’s Thesis, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Li, B.; Zhang, W.Z.; Yu, J.H. Decomposition of regional differences and influencing factors of China’s agricultural production efficiency under carbon emission constraints. Econ. Geogr. 2016, 36, 150–157. [Google Scholar]
- Guo, H.H.; Liu, X.M. Spatio-temporal evolution of agricultural green total factor productivity in China. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2020, 28, 66–75. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, X.Y.; Wu, J.Y.; Lin, W.H.; Wu, Q.X. Prediction of carbon emissions in Jiangsu Province based on GM(1,1) model. Heilongjiang Sci. 2022, 13, 26–28+32. [Google Scholar]
- He, Y.; Wang, L.G.; Zhu, H.; Song, W.; Zhan, X.Y. Prediction, decoupling effect and driving factors of carbon emissions from tourism industry in the Yangtze River Economic Belt under the “dual carbon” goal. J. Resour. Ecol. 2023, 14, 1329–1343. [Google Scholar]
- Li, B.; Zhang, J.B.; Li, H.P. Spatio-temporal characteristics and decomposition of influencing factors of agricultural carbon emissions in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2011, 21, 80–86. [Google Scholar]
- Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2001, 130, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tone, K. A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2002, 143, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tone, K. Dealing with undesirable outputs in DEA: A slacks-based measure (SBM) approach. In Proceedings of the Presentation at North American Productivity Workshop 2004, Toronto, ON, Canada, 23–25 June 2004; pp. 44–45. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, G. Data Envelopment Analysis Method and MaxDEA Software; Intellectual Property Publ. House: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.H.; Ran, J.X.; Shen, Y.Y.; Han, Z.Z.; Cui, Y.L.; Luo, Y.F. BP neural network agricultural irrigation water prediction model optimized by GA-Adam algorithm. China Rural Water Hydropower 2022, 138–143. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Zhang, J.F.; Gao, Z.H.; Li, T. Application of BP neural network in agricultural water and soil research. Mod. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2021, 134–139. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.Y.; Wang, S.; Zhou, Q. Prediction of agricultural machinery quantity based on BP neural network. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 2015, 37, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, F.L.; Li, L.; Zhang, H.L.; Chen, F. Effects of conservation tillage on net carbon release in farmland ecosystems. Chin. J. Ecol. 2007, 26, 2035–2039. [Google Scholar]
- Zhi, J.; Gao, J.X. Comparative analysis of carbon emissions from food consumption between urban and rural residents in China-. Prog. Geogr. 2009, 28, 429–434. [Google Scholar]
- Hubei Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Hubei Statistical Yearbook 2011–2023 [M/OL]; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2011–2023. Available online: https://tjj.hubei.gov.cn/tjsj/sjkscx/tjnj/qstjnj/index.shtml (accessed on 15 May 2025).
- Hunan Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Hunan Statistical Yearbook 2011–2023 [M/OL]; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2011–2023. Available online: https://tjj.henan.gov.cn/tjfw/tjcbw/tjnj/ (accessed on 24 March 2025).
- Anhui Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Anhui Statistical Yearbook 2011–2023 [M/OL]; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2011–2023. Available online: https://tjj.ah.gov.cn/ssah/qwfbjd/tjnj/index.html (accessed on 5 April 2025).






| Region | Year | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | Average | |
| Guangshan | 1.610 | 1.406 | 0.615 | 0.695 | 0.810 | 0.840 | 1.139 | 0.871 | 0.781 | 1.295 | 1.079 | 1.021 | 0.928 | 1.007 |
| Xinxian | 2.040 | 1.523 | 2.625 | 2.158 | 2.008 | 2.258 | 1.844 | 2.473 | 1.609 | 1.691 | 1.690 | 1.690 | 1.725 | 1.949 |
| Gushi | 0.674 | 0.636 | 0.502 | 0.482 | 0.444 | 0.282 | 0.275 | 0.236 | 0.526 | 0.473 | 0.455 | 0.430 | 0.340 | 0.443 |
| Huaibin | 0.701 | 0.547 | 0.487 | 0.498 | 0.445 | 0.504 | 0.533 | 0.474 | 0.318 | 0.582 | 0.526 | 0.534 | 0.464 | 0.509 |
| Shangcheng | 4.858 | 2.398 | 1.558 | 1.353 | 0.986 | 0.961 | 0.994 | 1.046 | 1.032 | 1.487 | 2.616 | 2.590 | 2.258 | 1.857 |
| Huangchuan | 0.464 | 1.122 | 1.070 | 0.576 | 0.543 | 1.063 | 0.545 | 0.492 | 1.033 | 1.371 | 1.034 | 0.940 | 1.040 | 0.869 |
| Xiaochang | 0.217 | 0.286 | 0.553 | 1.001 | 0.575 | 0.591 | 0.666 | 0.681 | 0.526 | 0.758 | 0.753 | 0.773 | 0.837 | 0.632 |
| Dawu | 0.350 | 0.839 | 1.131 | 1.214 | 1.098 | 1.121 | 1.131 | 1.192 | 1.092 | 0.531 | 0.505 | 0.506 | 0.761 | 0.882 |
| Tuanfeng | 0.322 | 0.400 | 0.420 | 0.443 | 0.400 | 0.421 | 0.610 | 0.424 | 0.506 | 0.402 | 0.400 | 0.411 | 0.462 | 0.432 |
| Hongan | 0.486 | 0.454 | 0.446 | 0.441 | 0.423 | 0.477 | 0.474 | 0.360 | 0.332 | 0.303 | 0.251 | 0.242 | 0.249 | 0.380 |
| Macheng | 0.240 | 0.365 | 0.454 | 0.502 | 0.431 | 0.324 | 0.304 | 0.286 | 0.268 | 0.230 | 0.227 | 0.224 | 0.217 | 0.313 |
| Luotian | 0.797 | 1.742 | 1.349 | 1.123 | 1.102 | 1.232 | 1.296 | 1.368 | 1.132 | 1.343 | 1.348 | 1.361 | 1.346 | 1.272 |
| Yingshan | 3.378 | 3.698 | 2.703 | 2.942 | 2.882 | 4.444 | 1.849 | 1.912 | 2.692 | 1.806 | 1.809 | 1.815 | 1.587 | 2.578 |
| Xishui | 0.428 | 0.194 | 0.256 | 0.301 | 0.444 | 0.402 | 0.621 | 0.506 | 0.227 | 0.201 | 0.204 | 0.208 | 0.272 | 0.328 |
| Qichun | 0.351 | 0.521 | 0.527 | 0.398 | 0.534 | 1.617 | 1.837 | 0.584 | 0.486 | 0.524 | 0.480 | 0.285 | 0.672 | 0.678 |
| Qianshan | 0.350 | 0.246 | 0.331 | 0.572 | 0.346 | 0.415 | 0.548 | 0.529 | 0.477 | 0.498 | 0.575 | 0.235 | 0.497 | 0.432 |
| Taihu | 0.442 | 0.415 | 0.390 | 0.360 | 0.368 | 0.379 | 0.393 | 0.329 | 0.373 | 0.359 | 0.371 | 0.602 | 0.424 | 0.400 |
| Susong | 0.419 | 0.446 | 0.437 | 0.407 | 0.432 | 0.405 | 0.537 | 0.456 | 0.540 | 0.579 | 0.363 | 0.370 | 0.463 | 0.450 |
| Wangjiang | 0.551 | 0.558 | 0.528 | 0.483 | 0.498 | 0.492 | 0.503 | 0.476 | 0.453 | 0.423 | 0.434 | 0.440 | 0.412 | 0.481 |
| Yuexi | 2.040 | 1.211 | 1.033 | 1.069 | 1.198 | 1.261 | 1.205 | 1.233 | 0.609 | 1.000 | 1.008 | 1.021 | 0.805 | 1.130 |
| Jinzhai | 1.342 | 0.547 | 0.484 | 0.456 | 0.389 | 0.413 | 0.469 | 0.418 | 0.559 | 0.456 | 1.120 | 1.123 | 0.721 | 0.654 |
| Yuan | 0.314 | 1.290 | 1.386 | 1.271 | 1.314 | 1.557 | 1.896 | 1.987 | 1.475 | 2.153 | 1.873 | 1.669 | 2.173 | 1.566 |
| Huoshan | 0.818 | 1.477 | 1.262 | 1.198 | 1.116 | 1.194 | 1.292 | 1.359 | 1.140 | 1.643 | 2.105 | 2.136 | 1.926 | 1.436 |
| Shucheng | 0.204 | 0.269 | 0.318 | 0.355 | 0.529 | 0.577 | 0.541 | 0.491 | 0.494 | 0.256 | 0.491 | 0.487 | 0.537 | 0.427 |
| Average | 0.975 | 0.941 | 0.869 | 0.846 | 0.805 | 0.968 | 0.896 | 0.841 | 0.779 | 0.849 | 0.905 | 0.880 | 0.880 | |
| Statistic | 2010 | 2014 | 2018 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | 0.975 | 0.805 | 0.778 | 0.880 |
| Standard Deviation | 1.127 | 0.604 | 0.558 | 0.630 |
| Coefficient of Variation | 1.156 | 0.750 | 0.717 | 0.716 |
| Skewness coefficient | 2.378 | 2.207 | 2.002 | 1.086 |
| Kurtosis coefficient | 5.876 | 5.505 | 5.015 | 0.015 |
| Year | Centroid Longitude (°E) | Centroid Latitude (°N) | Major Axis (km) | Minor Axis (km) | Ellipse Area (10,000 km2) | Azimuth (°) | Shape Index (Minor Axis/Major Axis) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 115.531 | 31.346 | 100.919 | 54.004 | 1.712 | 140.079 | 0.535 |
| 2014 | 115.534 | 31.255 | 70.605 | 105.524 | 2.340 | 125.167 | 1.495 |
| 2018 | 115.547 | 31.286 | 72.139 | 105.821 | 2.398 | 127.622 | 1.467 |
| 2022 | 115.584 | 31.322 | 75.492 | 103.916 | 2.464 | 123.170 | 1.377 |
| County | MAE | MSE | MAPE | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guangshan | 0.016 | 0.000269 | 1.59% | 0.9350 |
| Xinxian | 0.025 | 0.000625 | 1.47% | 0.9620 |
| Gushi | 0.010 | 0.000100 | 2.94% | 0.9715 |
| Huaibin | 0.014 | 0.000196 | 3.02% | 0.9102 |
| Shangcheng | 0.058 | 0.003364 | 2.57% | 0.9085 |
| Huangchuan | 0.020 | 0.000400 | 1.92% | 0.9278 |
| Xiaochang | 0.017 | 0.000289 | 2.03% | 0.9325 |
| Dawu | 0.011 | 0.000121 | 1.45% | 0.9200 |
| Tuanfeng | 0.012 | 0.000144 | 2.60% | 0.9295 |
| Hongan | 0.009 | 0.000081 | 3.61% | 0.9368 |
| Macheng | 0.007 | 0.000049 | 3.23% | 0.9342 |
| Luotian | 0.026 | 0.000676 | 1.94% | 0.9260 |
| Yingshan | 0.027 | 0.000729 | 1.70% | 0.8752 |
| Xishui | 0.012 | 0.000144 | 4.41% | 0.9150 |
| Qichun | 0.012 | 0.000144 | 1.79% | 0.9090 |
| Qianshan | 0.017 | 0.000289 | 3.43% | 0.9285 |
| Taihu | 0.014 | 0.000196 | 3.30% | 0.923 |
| Susong | 0.013 | 0.000169 | 2.81% | 0.9350 |
| Wangjiang | 0.012 | 0.000144 | 2.91% | 0.9620 |
| Yuexi | 0.015 | 0.000225 | 1.86% | 0.9715 |
| Jinzhai | 0.071 | 0.005041 | 0.98% | 0.9102 |
| Yuan | 0.023 | 0.000529 | 1.06% | 0.9085 |
| Huoshan | 0.026 | 0.000676 | 1.35% | 0.9278 |
| Shucheng | 0.017 | 0.000289 | 3.16% | 0.9285 |
| Average | 0.020 | 0.000520 | 2.45% | 0.9230 |
| Region | Year | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | 2027 | 2028 | 2029 | 2030 | |
| Guangshan | 1.145 | 1.134 | 1.126 | 1.137 | 1.127 | 1.132 | 1.134 |
| Xinxian | 2.063 | 2.101 | 2.110 | 2.112 | 2.103 | 2.104 | 2.106 |
| Gushi | 0.473 | 0.628 | 0.464 | 0.487 | 0.615 | 0.478 | 0.487 |
| Huaibin | 0.576 | 0.637 | 0.446 | 0.395 | 0.586 | 0.646 | 0.745 |
| Shangcheng | 1.264 | 0.969 | 0.908 | 1.115 | 1.352 | 1.274 | 1.511 |
| Huangchuan | 1.464 | 1.459 | 1.457 | 1.458 | 1.458 | 1.458 | 1.458 |
| Xiaochang | 0.597 | 0.637 | 0.750 | 0.630 | 0.573 | 0.734 | 0.739 |
| Dawu | 1.196 | 0.771 | 1.088 | 1.339 | 1.039 | 0.986 | 0.937 |
| Tuanfeng | 0.439 | 0.442 | 0.437 | 0.440 | 0.437 | 0.439 | 0.437 |
| Hongan | 0.406 | 0.410 | 0.417 | 0.417 | 0.419 | 0.421 | 0.421 |
| Macheng | 0.375 | 0.462 | 0.504 | 0.363 | 0.283 | 0.298 | 0.319 |
| Luotian | 1.563 | 1.559 | 1.554 | 1.563 | 1.566 | 1.566 | 1.564 |
| Yingshan | 1.449 | 1.391 | 1.207 | 1.195 | 1.045 | 1.064 | 0.980 |
| Xishui | 0.310 | 0.344 | 0.556 | 0.262 | 0.381 | 0.522 | 0.591 |
| Qichun | 0.333 | 0.292 | 0.266 | 0.279 | 0.304 | 0.307 | 0.310 |
| Qianshan | 0.647 | 0.695 | 0.682 | 0.673 | 0.682 | 0.679 | 0.678 |
| Taihu | 0.378 | 0.363 | 0.364 | 0.362 | 0.372 | 0.381 | 0.385 |
| Susong | 0.114 | 0.112 | 0.117 | 0.111 | 0.113 | 0.117 | 0.109 |
| Wangjiang | 0.432 | 0.416 | 0.429 | 0.534 | 0.388 | 0.519 | 0.396 |
| Yuexi | 0.909 | 1.344 | 1.378 | 1.404 | 1.626 | 1.441 | 1.627 |
| Jinzhai | 0.788 | 0.570 | 0.553 | 0.513 | 0.530 | 0.534 | 0.542 |
| Yuan | 1.586 | 1.511 | 1.589 | 1.613 | 1.507 | 1.588 | 1.526 |
| Huoshan | 1.736 | 1.340 | 1.654 | 1.447 | 1.036 | 1.481 | 1.693 |
| Shucheng | 0.143 | 0.494 | 0.606 | 0.405 | 0.641 | 0.342 | 0.592 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Huang, Y.; Zhao, G.; Zhu, K. Research on the Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Dynamic Prediction of Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency: A Case Study of 24 Counties in the Dabie Mountain Region of China. Sustainability 2026, 18, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010122
Huang Y, Zhao G, Zhu K. Research on the Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Dynamic Prediction of Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency: A Case Study of 24 Counties in the Dabie Mountain Region of China. Sustainability. 2026; 18(1):122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010122
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuang, Yuxuan, Guanghui Zhao, and Kexin Zhu. 2026. "Research on the Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Dynamic Prediction of Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency: A Case Study of 24 Counties in the Dabie Mountain Region of China" Sustainability 18, no. 1: 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010122
APA StyleHuang, Y., Zhao, G., & Zhu, K. (2026). Research on the Spatio-Temporal Evolution and Dynamic Prediction of Agricultural Carbon Emission Efficiency: A Case Study of 24 Counties in the Dabie Mountain Region of China. Sustainability, 18(1), 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010122
