Abstract
The existing literature finds that mandatory environmental regulation (MER) can significantly reduce environmental pollution. However, much less is known about how the implementation of MER affects green development efficiency (GDE). Based on the Air Pollution Control Action Plan which was enforced in 2013 in China’s most developed regions as an exogenous shock, we find that first, MER has a significant negative effect on the improvement of GDE by reducing regional scale efficiency. Second, MER mainly reduces the GDE of cities with stronger regulation intensities and with larger economic volumes. Third, MER also has a negative impact on regional green total factor productivity by changing technical progress. We suggest that when implementing MER, governments should enhance regional and global cooperation, promote green technology, and use comprehensive policy tools to stimulate firms’ green innovation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Keeping a high level of green development efficiency (GDE) is essential for economic growth (Goodland 1995; Su and Zhang 2020) and for achieving low-carbon economy, which is also the target of Glasgow Climate Pact and Paris Agreement (COP26 2021; Dwivedi et al. 2022). As the world’s largest developing country, how to effectively enhance GDE and reduce air pollution is a major challenge for China. Among China’s 500 major cities in 2012, less than 1% met the excellent air quality standards. In 2021, there are still 35.7% of China’s 338 prefecture-level cities suffering from severe air pollution.Footnote 1 Like the actions taken by many developing countries, China mainly reduces air pollution through mandatory environmental regulation (MER) (Liu et al. 2021). In 2013, Chinese central government initiated an MER called Air Pollution Control Action Plan (APCAP), which seeks to reduce air pollution in China’s three major city agglomerations: Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River Delta. These three areas account for only 6.44% of China’s total land area while possessing more than 44% of the total population. Moreover, these areas contribute approximately 40% of Chinese GDP, which have been the most economically developed regions in China.Footnote 2
The existing studies have shown that APCAP can significantly reduce the emissions of major pollutants, improve ambient air quality, and reduce mortality caused by air pollution (Geng et al. 2019; Feng et al. 2019; Maji et al. 2020). However, less is known about how such policies affect the GDE of cities. In this paper, we apply the implementation of APCAP as an exogenous shock and empirically test the impact of MER on GDE. Based on the difference-in-differences (DID) analysis, we find that firstly, the implementation of APCAP significantly reduces GDE in Chinese key prevention and control cities. Secondly, the change of scale efficiency (SE) is the main reason that results in the decrease of GDE; thirdly, the higher the target of reducing air pollution in cities with greater economic volume, the larger the negative effects of APCAP on GDE. Fourthly, the implementation of APCAP reduces GTFP by affecting the pure technology efficiency (PTE). The research framework of this paper is shown in Fig. 1.
The contributions of this paper include three aspects: First, we identify the causal relationship between MER and GDE. Second, based on the super-efficiency SBM model with undesired outputs, we reveal the mechanisms behind the relationship between MER and GDE. Third, we further show how the implementation of MER affects GTFP, which is helpful for policymakers to take measures to promote sustainable development and reduce environmental pollution. The remainder of this paper is as follows: part I compares the relevant literature and clarifies the theoretical mechanism, part III introduces methods and data, part IV is empirical results and discussions, and part V summarizes the research conclusions and policy recommendations.
Literature review and theoretical analysis
The impact of environmental regulation on GDE
The existing studies have shown that GDE is an important indicator of regional green development (Yang et al. 2022). However, whether and how environmental regulation can affect GDE is still under debate. While some papers show that environmental regulation will reduce regional GDE (Gray 1987; Xie et al. 2017), others point out that environmental regulation can stimulate firms’ technological innovation, which will lead to the increase of GDE (Porter and Van 1995; Peng et al. 2021). Furthermore, some researchers indicate that environmental regulation will reduce firms’ innovative inputs in the short term, and lead to a decrease of firm productivity. However, environmental regulation may also promote GDE in the long term (Su and Zhang 2020; Wang 2020). Some studies argue that the impact of environmental regulation on GDE depends on the types of regulation (Ge et al. 2020; Gao et al. 2022).
Compared with these papers, in this study, we try to empirically test the relationship between MER and GDE based on the latest data in the context of China’s environmental policies.
The impact of environmental regulation on environmental quality
GDE is closely related to regional environmental quality. Existing studies find that environmental regulation may affect environmental quality by changing the emission of industrial pollution and energy efficiency, which also have a close relationship with GDE (Xiong and Wang 2020; Shahzad et al. 2021; Khan et al.2019). Wang and Li (2021) discover that environmental regulation in China significantly reduce local PM2.5. Neves et al. (2020) shows that environmental regulation in EU countries can reduce the emission of CO2. However, some studies figure out that environmental regulation does not improve environmental quality. For example, Zhang et al. (2021) point out that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental regulation and CO2 emission. Zhang et al. (2019) find that environmental quality in China deteriorates after the implementation of environmental regulations. Environmental regulation may also affect environmental quality through foreign direct investment, technological innovation, green investment, and industrial structure upgrading (Fahad et al. 2022; Shao et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2021a).
In this study, we try to assess the impact of MER on GDE more comprehensively by introducing GDE as a key dependent variable.
The nonlinear relationship between environmental regulation and GDE
The effects of environmental regulations on GDE reveal the nonlinear relationship between environmental protection and economic development, which is characterized by environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). Since Grossman and Krueger (1993) proposed the idea of EKC, many studies have tested the EKC hypothesis (Isik et al. 2022, 2021; Ongan et al. 2022, 2020; Adebayo 2022; Sharif et al. 2020a; Suki et al. 2020; Chien et al. 2021; Aziz et al. 2020; Isik et al. 2019a; Ahmad et al. 2021a). Research mainly shows that economic growth has a non-linear relationship with environmental quality through technological innovation, renewable energy consumption, increased globalization, and other institutional factors (Adebayo et al. 2022a, b, c; Adebayo and Kirikkaleli 2021; Batool et al. 2019; Godil et al. 2021; Awosusi et al. 2022; Isik et al. 2017; Ali et al. 2021; Amin et al. 2022; Sharif et al. 2019).
In this study, we further analyze the nonlinear relationship between MER and GDE. We argue that the implementation of MER may hinder GDE and thus delay the arrival of the inflection point of the EKC.
Comments on research literature
Our study is different from the existing research in the following ways. First, unlike existing studies that mainly focus on the impact of environmental regulations on GDP, we pay more attention to the effects of environmental regulation on GDE. Second, while existing studies mainly consider the environmental regulations related to market-oriented policies such as carbon emissions trading systems, we focus on MER, which is seldom considered by previous studies. Finally, unlike existing studies that mainly consider the impact of green regulation on economic efficiency, we further examine the dynamic effects of MER on green efficiency by considering GTFP.
APCAP may impact GDE through both scale effect and technology effect. From the perspective of scale effect, local governments may shut down or relocate highly polluting firms under MER (Wu et al. 2017), leading to the overall decrease of output scale in local areas. Furthermore, because polluting firms may increase investment related to environmental protection such as updating equipment, hiring high-skilled workers, and purchasing green technologies (Wang and Yuan 2018), the overall cost may increase while output will decrease in the short term (Simpson and Bradford 1996). From the perspective of technology effects, because firms affected by MER may increase their investment in green technologies and spending on R&D, in the long term, the GDE may increase. Theoretically, the direction of the influence of MER on GDE is not clear. These mechanisms are presented graphically in the first part of Fig. 1.
Research design and data
Methodology
Identifying the causal relationship between APCAP and GDE is challenging because of the endogenous problems. First, the estimation may be biased by time-varying omitted variables related to regional economic development and air pollution. Second, since the selection of cities is non-random, the unobservable factors associated with the selection criteria may also lead to inaccurate results. DID analysis, which is widely used in studies related to project evaluation and is helpful to evaluate the outcome of policy by comparing the result between the treatment group and the control group (Bertrand et al. 2004), can help to solve the endogenous problem mentioned above. In this paper, we use the implementation of APCAP as a quasi-natural experiment to assess the net effects by comparing the differences between the time periods before and after the implementation of the policy, and by comparing the differences between the treatment group (key prevention and control cities in three areas) and the control group (cities not in these areas) as well.
Specifically, the DID model constructed in this paper is shown in Eq. (1):
where \({\mathrm{GDE}}_{it}\) denotes the level of GDE in city \(i\) in year \(t\). \({\mathrm{Policy}}_{it}\) is a policy dummy, which equals 1 if city \(i\) is in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei area, Yangtze River Delta, or Pearl River Delta, and otherwise 0. \({\mathrm{Time}}_{it}\) is a time dummy which equals 1 if \(t\)<2013 and otherwise 0. \({\mathrm{X}}_{it}\) is a vector of control variables at the city level, including GDP per capita, total financial institution loan, foreign investment, and population size. \(\upbeta\) is the coefficient of our interest, which measures the average changes of the level of GDE in treatment cities compared with control cities after the implementation of the APCAP. \({\upmu }_{i}\) and \({\upnu }_{t}\) are a city and year fixed effect, respectively. \({\upvarepsilon }_{it}\) is an error term.
The measure of GDE
The core-dependent variable is GDE. We use non-radial, non-angle, and super-efficient SBM method with undesired outputs to measure GDE (Tone 2002). We also decompose the value of GDE into PTE and scale technical efficiency (SE).Footnote 3 Specifically, we use capital, labor, and energy as input indicators. The measure of city-level capital is based on the perpetual inventory method: \({K}_{it}={I}_{it}+\left(1-\updelta \right){K}_{it-1}\), where \({K}_{it}\) is the value of capital stock in city \(i\) in year \(t\). \({I}_{it}\) is the total capital formation in the year. \(\updelta\) is depreciation rate which is set as 9.6%. The number of employees in a city is denoted as labor input. The value of energy for each city is measured based on the provincial energy consumption weighted by the ratio of city-level GDP to provincial GDP. The desired output is real GDP, and the undesired output is the average value of industrial wastewater, sulfur dioxide, and soot emissions. The input and output indicators are shown in Fig. 2.
In Fig. 3, we visualize the distribution of GDE in each city in 2008 and 2017, respectively.
Data
We construct panel data with 283 prefecture-cities in China from 2008 to 2017. Because China underwent intensive administrative redistricting from 2000 to 2008, and the global financial crisis in 2008 brought a big impact on China’s economic growth, in this study, we take 2008 as the starting year. Moreover, because the data of regional capital is not available after 2017, which is essential to measure GDE, we only consider the data before 2017. The data in this study is mainly from China Statistical Yearbook and China Urban Statistical Yearbook from 2009 to 2018. We also collect data from local statistical yearbooks, local government work reports, and official websites of local governments. The results of descriptive statistics of main variables are shown in Table 1.
In our sample, 13 cities are in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, 41 in Yangtze River Delta, and 9 in Pearl River Delta.Footnote 4 The distribution of cities in these three areas is shown in Fig. 4.
To examine the relationship between MER and GDE, we first plot the average values of GDE of key prevention and control cities and other cities. The results in Fig. 5 show that the GDE of the two types of cities are parallel before 2013. After the implementation of APCAP in 2013, the GDE of cities in three areas does not continue to increase compared with that of other cities. The results in this graph show that the implementation of APCAP in 2013 has negative effects on regional GDE. Next, we apply DID method to religiously identify the causal relationship between MER and GDE.
Findings and discussions
Basic results
The quantitative results based on model (1) are shown in Table 2. The results in column (1) show that the implementation of APCAP negatively impacts the level of GDE in key prevention and control cities. Specifically, compared with other cities, the level of cities’ GDE in three areas decreases by 2.6%, which implies that APCAP hinders the improvement of GDE. These results also echo the studies of Wang and Yuan (2018), Peng et al. (2020), and Ren and Ji (2021), which find the negative relationship between environmental regulation and economic growth. Columns (2) and (3) represent the effects of APCAP on PTE and SE, respectively. The results show that MER significantly reduces the SE of cities in the three areas but does not have effects on PTE (Zou and Zhang 2022). The results based on the SBM model in columns (4)–(6) are much the same, which further indicates the robustness of our basic results.
As for control variables, there is a significantly negative relationship between economic growth and GDE, which implies the contradiction between economic development and environmental protection. The relation between financial development and GDE is not significant, which indicates that the function of financial growth to promote green production is not obvious in China (Zhang et al. 2022). The relationship between FDI and GDE is also insignificant, showing the offsetting results of “pollution halo” (Ritika 2013) and”pollution paradise” (Ayamba et al. 2019). The number of city population has a significantly negative effect on GDE, which shows that population growth in China may increase the consumption of energy and resource, and lead to the decrease of green efficiency (York et al. 2003).
Parallel trend test
The using of DID method requires that the levels of GDE in key prevention and control cities and other cities do not differ systematically before the implementation of APCAP. We take 2012 as the benchmark year and construct nine dummies for each year: 4 years before and 5 years after the implementation of the APCAP. Then we construct interaction terms between these dummies and treatment group dummies, respectively. The coefficients of these interactions are presented visually in Fig. 6 at 95% confidence intervals. The results show that the coefficients of the interactive terms before 2013 are not significantly different from zero, which proves the fulfillment of the parallel hypothesis. After 2013, the estimated coefficients show a negative jump and remain significantly at the 95% level, which further indicates that the GDE of key prevention and control cities is negatively affected by APCAP.
Heterogeneous analysis
According to APCAP, by the end of 2017, the concentration of PM2.5 in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River Delta must decrease by 25%, 20%, and 15%, respectively. In this section, we further consider the heterogeneous effects of APCAP on GDE. The results in columns (1)–(3) of Table 3 illustrate that the estimated coefficients are only negatively significant when considering the cities in Yangtze River Delta. The potential explanation is that cities in Yangtze River Delta are affected by a higher intensity of environmental regulation compared with that in Pearl River Delta. Moreover, cities in Yangtze River Delta also have a larger amount of economic volume compared with that in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. The results in Table 3 imply that APCAP mainly has negative impact on GDE in cities with stronger regulation intensities and with larger economic volumes. The coefficients in columns (4)–(6) of Table 3 are estimated based on SBM model, and the coefficients are much the same.
Further analysis
In this section, we explore the impact of APCAP on GTFP, which is measured by the super-efficient SBM-ML (MI) model. We also decompose MI into technical efficiency change (EC) and technical progress change (TC), respectively. The estimation results in column (1) of Table 4 show that APCAP has significantly negative effects on GTFP. The results in columns (2)–(3) show that APCAP also has negative effects on TC. These findings reflect that although MER may inhibit regional technical improvement, such negative effects are gradually decreasing over time. The results in columns (4)–(6) are based on the SBM-ML model, which is also consistent with the previous estimations.
Conclusions
Improving green efficiency is crucial for sustainable development and has been receiving more and more attention globally in recent years (Zakari et al. 2022; Hassan et al. 2022). At the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Summit, 193 member states signed the 2030 Agenda and established 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), of which the number of goals related to green development (SDG6, SDG7, SDG13, SDG14, SDG15) accounts for around 30% of the total number of goals (Costanza et al. 2016; Fang 2022). As one of the important measures to improve clean production and sustainable development, Chinese government issued its first comprehensive policy to improve air quality in 2013. In this study, we empirically investigate the causal relationship between APCAP and the level of GDE. We find that first, MER has a significant negative effect on the improvement of GDE by reducing regional scale efficiency. Second, MER mainly reduces the GDE of cities with stronger regulation intensities and with larger economic volumes. Third, MER also has a negative impact on regional GTFP by changing technical progress.
This study has crucial policy implications related to green and sustainable development: Although mandatory environmental policy can control environmental pollution effectively, it may not promote the GDE. Therefore, compared with MER, other policy tools such as levying the environmental tax, offering green subsidies, and constructing emissions trading systems should also be considered supplementary measures by policymakers to enhance the level of GDE. Second, governments should promote local GTFP by stimulating firms to improve green technologies. Third, to promote sustainable development, the cooperation between local governments and across countries ought to be strengthened.
In the future, this study can be expanded from the following aspects. First, it is necessary to consider the spatial spillover effects of the impact of MER on GDE. New methods such as spatial information (SDID-SDM) can be used to identify the spillover effect of environmental regulation on GDE (Wang et al. 2021b; Huang and Chen 2022). Second, the external validity of the findings in this paper needs to be tested by considering other emerging economy countries. Third, the relationship between MER and GDE can be further tested in the context of the current situation when economic uncertainty is raising, and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic around the world is still in progress (Isik et al. 2019b; Sharif et al. 2020b; Ahmad et al. 2021b; Irfan et al. 2022).
Data availability
The data and materials presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
Bulletin on the state of China’s Ecological Environment (2021), Ministry of Ecology and Environment.
Report on Integration of urban agglomerations in China (2019), China Development Research Foundation.
Comprehensive technical efficiency of urban green development is measured under the condition of constant return to scale (CRS). Pure technical efficiency (PTE) is measured under the condition of variable return to scale (VRS), which refers to the production efficiency affected by technological and managerial factors. Scale efficiency (SE) reflects the difference between the actual scale and the optimal production scale.
The cities in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region are Beijing, Tianjin, Baoding, Langfang, Tangshan, Shijiazhuang, Handan, Qinhuangdao, Zhangjiakou, Chengde, Cangzhou, Xingtai, and Hengshui in Hebei province.
The cities in Yangtze River Delta are Shanghai and all the cities in Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui provinces.
The cities in Pearl River Delta are Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Foshan, Dongguan, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, Jiangmen, Zhaoqing, and Huizhou.
References
Adebayo TS (2022) Environmental consequences of fossil fuel in Spain amidst renewable energy consumption: a new insights from the wavelet-based Granger causality approach. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2054877
Adebayo TS, Kirikkaleli D (2021) Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: application of wavelet tools. Environ Dev Sustain 23(11):16057–16082
Adebayo TS, Akadiri SS, Adedapo AT, Usman N (2022a) Does interaction between technological innovation and natural resource rent impact environmental degradation in newly industrialized countries? New evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(2):3162–3169
Adebayo TS, Oladipupo SD, Adeshola I, Rjoub H (2022b) Wavelet analysis of impact of renewable energy consumption and technological innovation on CO2 emissions: evidence from Portugal. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(16):23887–23904
Adebayo TS, Oladipupo SD, Kirikkaleli D, Adeshola I (2022c) Asymmetric nexus between technological innovation and environmental degradation in Sweden: an aggregated and disaggregated analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(24):36547–36564
Ahmad M, Akhtar N, Jabeen G, Irfan M, Anser MK, Wu HT et al (2021a) Intention-based critical factors affecting willingness to adopt novel coronavirus prevention in Pakistan: implications for future pandemics. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(11):6167
Ahmad M, Jabeen G, Irfan M, Isik C, Rehman A (2021b) Do inward foreign direct investment and economic development improve local environmental quality: aggregation bias puzzle. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(26):34676–34696
Ali S, Yan Q, Hussain MS, Irfan M, Ahmad M, Razzaq A et al (2021) Evaluating green technology strategies for the sustainable development of solar power projects: eevidence from Pakistan. Sustainability 13(23):12997
Amin S, Mehmood W, Sharif A (2022) Blessing or curse: the role of diversity matters in stimulating or relegating environmental sustainability – a global perspective via renewable and nonrenewable energy. Renew Energy 189:927–937
Awosusi AA, Adebayo TS, Kirikkaleli D, Altuntas M (2022) Role of technological innovation and globalization in BRICS economies: policy towards environmental sustainability. Int J Sust Dev World. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2059032
Ayamba EC, Haibo C, Musah AA, Ruth A, Osei-Agyemang A (2019) An empirical model on the impact of foreign direct investment on China’s environmental pollution: analysis based on simultaneous equations. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(16):16239–16248
Aziz N, Sharif A, Raza A, Rong K (2020) Revisiting the role of forestry, agriculture and renewable energy in testing environment Kuznets curve in Pakistan: evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(9):10115–10128
Batool R, Sharif A, Islam T, Zaman K, Shoukry AM, Sherkawy MA et al (2019) Green is clean: the role of ICT in resource management. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(24):25341–25358
Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Q J Econ 119(1):249–275
Chien F, Ajaz T, Andlib Z, Chau KY, Sharif A (2021) The role of technology innovation, renewable energy and globalization in reducing environmental degradation in Pakistan: a step towards sustainable environment. Renew Energy 177:308–317
COP26 (2021) COP26 goals. Available at: https://ukcop26.org/cop26-goals/. Accessed 15 July 2022
Costanza R, Daly L, Fioramonti L, Giovannini E, Kubiszewski I, Mortensen LF et al (2016) Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN sustainable development goals. Ecol Econ 130:350–355
Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Kar AK, Baabdullah AM, Grover P, Abbas R et al (2022) Climate change and cop26: are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action. Int J Inf Manage 63:102456
Fahad S, Bai D, Liu L, Baloch ZA (2022) Heterogeneous impacts of environmental regulation on foreign direct investment: do environmental regulation affect FDI decisions? Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(4):5092–5104
Fang K (2022) Moving away from sustainability. Nat Sustain 5(1):5–6
Feng YY, Ning M, Lei Y, Sun YM, Liu W, Wang JN (2019) Defending blue sky in China: effectiveness of the “Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan” on air quality improvements from 2013 to 2017. J Environ Manage 252:109603
Gao D, Li G, Li Y, Gao KX (2022) Does FDI improve green total factor energy efficiency under heterogeneous environmental regulation? Evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(17):25665–25678
Ge T, Qiu W, Li JY, Hao XL (2020) The impact of environmental regulation efficiency loss on inclusive growth: evidence from China. J Environ Manage 268:110700
Geng GN, Xiao QY, Zheng YX, Tong D, Zhang YX, Zhang XY, Zhang Q, He KB, Liu Y (2019) Impact of China’s Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan on PM (2.5) chemical composition over eastern China. Sci China Earth Sci. 62(12):1872–1884
Godil DI, Yu Z, Sharif A, Usman R, Khan SAR (2021) Investigate the role of technology innovation and renewable energy in reducing transport sector co2 emission in China: a path toward sustainable development. Sustain Dev 29(4):694–707
Goodland R (1995) The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26(1):1–24
Gray WB (1987) The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA and the productivity slowdown. Am Econ Rev 77:998–1006
Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1993) Environment impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. In: Garber PM (ed) The Mexican-US Free Trade Agreement. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–10
Hassan T, Song H, Khan Y, Kirikkaleli D (2022) Energy efficiency a source of low carbon energy sources? evidence from 16 high-income oecd economies. Energy 243:123063
Huang DW, Chen G (2022) Can the carbon emissions trading system improve the green total factor productivity of the pilot cities?-A spatial difference-in-differences econometric analysis in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(3):1209
Irfan M, Salem S, Ahmad M, Acevedo-Duque A, Abbasi KR, Ahmad F et al (2022) Interventions for the current COVID-19 pandemic: frontline workers’ intention to use personal protective equipment. Front Public Health 9:793642
Isik C, Kasimati E, Ongan S (2017) Analyzing the causalities between economic growth, financial development, international trade, tourism expenditure and/ on the co2 emissions in Greece. Energy Sourc Part B Econ Plan Policy 12(7):665–673
Isik C, Ongan S, Bulut U, Karakaya S, Irfan M, Alvarado R et al (2022) Reinvestigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by a composite model constructed on the Armey curve hypothesis with government spending for the US states. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(11):16472–16483
Isik C, Ongan S, Ozdemir D (2019a) Testing the EKC hypothesis for ten US states: an application of heterogeneous panel estimation method. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(11):10846–10853
Isik C, Ongan S, Ozdemir D, Ahmad M, Irfan M, Alvarado R et al (2021) The increases and decreases of the environment Kuznets curve (EKC) for 8 OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(22):28535–28543
Isik C, Sirakaya-Turk E, Ongan S (2019b) Testing the efficacy of the economic policy uncertainty index on tourism demand in USMCA: theory and evidence. Tour Econ 26(8):1344–1357
Khan SAR, Sharif A, Golpira H, Kumar A (2019) A green ideology in Asian emerging economies: from environmental policy and sustainable development. Sustain Dev 27(6):1063–1075
Liu ZY, Xue WB, Ni XF, Qi ZL, Zhang QY, Wang JN (2021) Fund gap to high air quality in China: a cost evaluation for PM 2.5 abatement based on the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan. J Clean Prod 319:128715
Maji KJ, Li VOK, Lam JCK (2020) Effects of China’s current Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan on Air Pollution Patterns, Health Risks and Mortalities in Beijing 2014–2018. Chemosphere 260:127572
Neves SA, Marques AC, Patrício M (2020) Determinants of CO2 emissions in European union countries: does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution? Econ Anal Policy 68:114–125
Ongan S, Isik C, Bulut U, Karakaya S, Alvarado R, Irfan M et al (2022) Retesting the EKC hypothesis through transmission of the Armey curve model: an alternative composite model approach with theory and policy implications for NAFTA countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(31):46587–46599
Ongan S, Isik C, Ozdemir D (2020) Economic growth and environmental degradation: evidence from the US case environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis with application of decomposition. J Environ Econ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2020.1756419
Peng JC, Xiao JZ, Zhang L, Wang T (2020) The impact of China’s’Atmosphere Ten Articles’ policy on total factor productivity of energy exploitation: empirical evidence using synthetic control methods. Resour Policy 65:101544
Peng JY, Xie R, Ma CB, Fu Y (2021) Market-based environmental regulation and total factor productivity: evidence from Chinese enterprises. Econ Model 95:394–407
Porter ME, Van DLC (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9(4):97–118
Ren WH, Ji JY (2021) How do environmental regulation and technological innovation affect the sustainable development of marine economy: new evidence from china’s coastal provinces and cities. Mar Policy 128:104468
Ritika ND (2013) FDI in Indian retail sector: opportunities and challenges. Innov J Bus Manag 2(5):165–181
Shahzad U, Radulescu M, Rahim S, Isik C, Yousaf Z, Ionescu SA (2021) Does environmental-related policy instruments and technologies facilitate renewable energy generation? Exploring the contextual evidence from the developed economies. Energies 14(3):690
Shao S, Hu Z, Cao J, Yang L, Guan D (2020) Environmental regulation and enterprise innovation: a review. Bus Strategy Environ 29(3):1465–1478
Sharif A, Afshan S, Chrea S, Amel A, Khan S (2020a) The role of tourism, transportation and globalization in testing environmental kuznets curve in Malaysia: new insights from quantile ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(20):25494–25509
Sharif A, Raza SA, Ozturk I, Afshan S (2019) The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: a global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renew Energy 133:685–691
Sharif A, Aloui C, Yarovaya L (2020b) COVID-19 pandemic, oil prices, stock market, geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty nexus in the US economy: fresh evidence from the wavelet-based approach. Int Rev Financ Anal 70:101496
Simpson RD, Bradford RL (1996) III. Taxing variable cost: environmental regulation as industrial policy. J Environ Econ Manage 30:282–300
Su S, Zhang F (2020) Modeling the role of environmental regulations in regional green economy efficiency of China: empirical evidence from super efficiency DEA-Tobit model. J Environ Manage 261(1):110227
Suki NM, Sharif A, Afshan S, Suki NM (2020) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia: the role of globalization in sustainable environment. J Clean Prod 264:121669
Tone K (2002) A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 143(1):32–41
Wang HP, Li JX (2021) Dual effects of environmental regulation on PM2.5 pollution: evidence from 280 cities in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(34):47213–47226
Wang LH, Wang Z, Ma YT (2021a) Heterogeneous environmental regulation and industrial structure upgrading: evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(9):13369–13385
Wang Q, Yuan BL (2018) Air pollution control intensity and ecological total-factor energy efficiency: the moderating effect of ownership structure. J Clean Prod 186:373–387
Wang R (2020) The influence of environmental regulation on the efficiency of China’s regional green economy based on the GMM model. Pol J Environ Stud 29(3):2395–2402
Wang SS, Chen G, Han X (2021b) An analysis of the impact of the emissions trading system on the green total factor productivity based on the spatial difference-in-differences approach: the case of China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(17):9040
Wang ZH, Wang N, Hu XQ, Wang HP (2022) Threshold effects of environmental regulation types on green investment by heavily polluting enterprises. Environ Sci Eur 34(1):26
Wu HY, Guo HX, Zhang B, Bu ML (2017) Westward movement of new polluting firms in China: pollution reduction mandates and location choice. J Comp Econ 45(1):119–138
Xie RH, Yuan YJ, Huang JJ (2017) different types of environmental regulations and heterogeneous influence on “green” productivity: evidence from China. Ecol Econ 132:104–112
Xiong B, Wang RM (2020) Effect of environmental regulation on industrial solid waste pollution in China: from the perspective of formal environmental regulation and informal environmental regulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(21):7798
Yang YP, Wu D, Xu M, Yang MT, Zou WJ (2022) Capital misallocation, technological innovation, and green development efficiency: empirical analysis based on china provincial panel data. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20364-1
York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 46(3):351–365
Zakari A, Khan I, Tan D, Alvarado R, Dagar V (2022) Energy efficiency and sustainable development goals (sdgs). Energy 239:122365
Zhang JJ, Li FQ, Ding XH (2022) Will green finance promote green development: based on the threshold effect of R&D investment. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20161-w
Zhang KK, Xu DY, Li SR (2019) The impact of environmental regulation on environmental pollution in China: an empirical study based on the synergistic effect of industrial agglomeration. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(25):25775–25788
Zhang L, Wang QY, Zhang M (2021) Environmental regulation and co2 emissions: based on strategic interaction of environmental governance. Ecol Complex 45:100893
Zou H, Zhang YJ (2022) Does environmental regulatory system drive the green development of China’s pollution-intensive industries? J Clean Prod 330:129832
Funding
This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China (No. 20FJY051).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Lei Zhan conceived and designed the study and analyzed the results. Ping Guo provided the data and wrote the paper. Guoqin Pan provided the data, wrote the paper, and analyzed the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflicting interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Arshian Sharif
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhan, L., Guo, P. & Pan, G. The effect of mandatory environmental regulation on green development efficiency: evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 9782–9792 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22815-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22815-1