Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of trade openness on the relationship between agricultural technology inputs and carbon emissions: evidence from a panel threshold model

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of low-carbon agriculture systems has been a global consensus to reduce carbon emissions in the agricultural sector for addressing climate change challenges. This fact brings the need to study the agricultural carbon emissions (ACEs). Studies focusing on calculating the spatiotemporal changes of ACEs and analyzing the main factors for ACE changes have been conducted. The agricultural technology inputs (ATIs) as an important factor to influence ACEs have been identified. The traditional linear model was the commonly used method to study the relationship between ATIs and ACEs, whereas the impact of ATIs on ACEs in different areas might be complex and nonlinear due to the differences in trade openness causing different development levels of agricultural technologies. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effect of trade openness on the relationship between ATIs and ACEs using a panel threshold model and put forward policy implications for the low-carbon agriculture development. The analysis was based on data from a panel of 31 provinces of China during 2003–2018. The results show that ATIs and ACEs increased from 2003 to 2018 and the spatial distribution of ATIs was similar to that of ACEs. The ATIs had a positive effect on ACEs with a significant single-threshold effect from trade openness. When the trade openness was below the threshold (0.1425), the positive effect of ATIs on ACEs was significant (coefficient, 0.117), whereas, when the trade openness was above the threshold (0.1425), the positive effect of ATIs on ACEs significantly decreased (coefficient, 0.062). Furthermore, industrial structure and agricultural economic development were the positive drivers of ACEs, while trade openness, education level of rural workers, R&D funding, and natural disasters had negative relationships with ACEs. The results provide valuable references for understanding ACE drivers and developing low-carbon agriculture with the consideration of ATIs and trade openness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during the current study are presented in this article. Raw data will be also accessible from the author group if requested.

References

  • Ahsan H, Haque ME (2017) Threshold effects of human capital: Schooling and economic growth. Econ Lett 156:48–52

  • Balsalobre-Lorente D, Driha OM, Bekun FV, Osundina OA (2019) Do agricultural activities induce carbon emissions? The BRICS experience. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(24):25218–25234

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BP China (2007) Calculator of carbon emissions. https://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.docategoryId=9011336contented=7025421

  • Cao GL, Zhang XY, Wang YQ, Zheng FC (2008) Estimation of emissions from field burning of crop straw in China. Chin Sci Bull 53(5):784–790

  • Chan K (1993) Consistency and limiting distribution of the least squares estimator of a threshold autogression model. Ann Stat 21(1):520–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Q (2010) Advanced econometrics and Stata. Higher Education Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui H, Zhao T, Shi H (2018) STIRPAT-based driving factor decomposition analysis of agricultural carbon emissions in Hebei. China Pol J Environ Stud 27(4):1449–1461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • del Brío JÁ, Fernandez E, Junquera B (2007) Management and employee involvement in achieving an environmental action-based competitive advantage: an empirical study. Int J Hum Resour Manag 18(4):491–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang J, Lau CKM, Lu Z, Wu W, Zhu L (2019) Natural disasters, climate change, and their impact on inclusive wealth in G20 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(2):1455–1463

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fernando Y, Hor WL (2017) Impacts of energy management practices on energy efficiency and carbon emissions reduction: a survey of Malaysian manufacturing firms. Resour Conserv Recycl 126:62–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrone P, Grilli L (2010) Is there a relationship between public expenditures in energy R&D and carbon emissions per GDP? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy 38(10):5600–5613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han H, Zhong Z, Guo Y, Xi F, Liu S (2018) Coupling and decoupling effects of agricultural carbon emissions in China and their driving factors. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(25):25280–25293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen BE (1999) Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference. J Econom 93(2):345–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou X, Tian J, Song C, Wang J, Zhao J, Zhang X (2019) Emission inventory research of typical agricultural machinery in Beijing. China Atmos Environ 216:116903

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hu XD, Wang JM (2010) Estimation of livestock greenhouse gases discharge in China. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 26(10):247–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang X, Xu X, Wang Q, Zhang L, Gao X, Chen L (2019) Assessment of agricultural carbon emissions and their spatiotemporal changes in China, 1997–2016. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 16:3105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (eds) (Hayama: IGES) (prepared by the National Greenhouse gas Inventories Programme)

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis: working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandiero T, Chitiga M (2006) Trade openness and foreign direct investment in Africa: economics. South African J Econ Manag Sci 9(3):355–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li B, Zhang JB, Li HP (2011) Research on spatial-temporal characteristics and affecting factors decomposition of agricultural carbon emission in China. China Population, Resour Environ 21(8):80–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma YX, Minasny B, Malone BP, Mcbratney AB (2018) Pedology and digital soil mapping (DSM). Eur J Soil Sci 70(2):216–235

  • Markey R, McIvor J (2019) Australian workers’ climate action: constraints and opportunities. Int Union Rights 26(4):10–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohamad RS, Verrastro V, Al Bitar L, Roma R, Moretti M, Al Chami Z (2016) Effect of different agricultural practices on carbon emission and carbon stock in organic and conventional olive systems. Soil Res 54(2):173–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neil F (2006) Exports, growth and threshold effects in Africa. J Dev Stud 42(6):1056–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang JZ, Wang XK, Mu YJ, Ouyang Z, Zhang H, Lu F, Liu W (2011) Nitrous oxide emissions from winter wheat field in the loess plateau. Acta Ecol Sin 31(7):1896–1903

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu WH, Liu JS, Hu CX, Zhao CS, Sun XC, Tan QL (2010) Comparison of nitrous oxide emission from bare soil and planted vegetable soil. Ecol Environ Sci 19(12):2982–2985

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg S (2003) Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. J Manag Stud 40(7):1783–1802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. 2017. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. StataCorp LLC, College Station

  • Su M, Jiang R, Li R (2017) Investigating low-carbon agriculture: case study of China’s Henan Province. Sustainability. 9(12):2295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The IPCC (2014) Fifth assessment report (A5). Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Rossi S, Ferrara A, Fitton N, Smith P (2013) The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ Res Lett 8(1):015009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vleeshouwers LM, Verhagen A (2001) CESAR: a model for carbon emission and sequestration by agricultural land use (no. 36). Plant Research International

  • West TO, Marland G (2002) A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States. Agric Ecosyst Environ 91(1–3):217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woomer PL, Tieszen LL, Tappan G, Touré A, Sall M (2004) Land use change and terrestrial carbon stocks in Senegal. J Arid Environ 59(3):625–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu X, Zhang J, Tian Y, Li P (2014) China’s provincial agricultural carbon emissions: measurement, efficiency change and influencing factors -- based on DEA Malmquist index decomposition method and Tobit model application. Resour Sci 36(01):129–138 (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu H, He Y, Chen R (2017) Performance evaluation and stochastic convergence of agricultural carbon emissions in China: based on SBM undesirable model and panel unit root test. Chin J Eco-Agric 25(9):1381–1391

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong C, Yang D, Xia F, Huo J (2016) Changes in agricultural carbon emissions and factors that influence agricultural carbon emissions based on different stages in Xinjiang. China Scientific reports 6:36912

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, Xu Z, Chen L, Li C (2019a) How does industrial waste gas emission affect health care expenditure in different regions of China: an application of Bayesian Quantile regression. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 16(15):2748

  • Xu X, Huang X, Huang J, Gao X, Chen L (2019b) Spatial-temporal characteristics of agriculture green total factor productivity in China, 19982016: Based on more sophisticated calculations of carbon emissions. Int J Environ Res Public Heal 16:3932

  • Xu X, Zhang L, Chen L, Wei F (2020) Does COVID-2019 have an impact on the purchase intention of commercial long-term care insurance among the elderly in China? Healthcare 8(2):126

  • Zhang YJ, Liu Z, Zhang H, Tan TD (2014) The impact of economic growth, industrial structure and urbanization on carbon emission intensity in China. Nat Hazards (Dordr) 73(2):579–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao DX, Arshad M, Li N, Triantafilis J (2021) Predicting soil physical and chemical properties using vis-NIR in Australian cotton areas. CATENA 196:104938

  • Zhao DX, Li N, Zare E, Wang J, Triantafilis J (2020) Mapping cation exchange capacity using a quasi-3d joint inversion of EM38 and EM31 data Soil Tillage Res 200:104618

  • Zhou X, Zhang M, Zhou M, Zhou M (2017) A comparative study on decoupling relationship and influence factors between China’s regional economic development and industrial energy–related carbon emissions. J Clean Prod 142:783–800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Professor Timothy Kyng and Professor Fei Guo at Macquarie University for their suggestions. This work was supported by the MOE Project of Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences of Research Centre for Economy of Upper Reaches of the Yangtse River (Grant No. CJSYTD201710), and Open subject of Collaborative Innovation Centre for Urban Industries Development in Chengdu-Chongqing Economic Zone (Grant No. KFJJ2019029).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, Chongqing Technology and Business University, Chongqing, 400067, China

    Xiaocang Xu, Na Zhang & Chengjie Liu

  2. Department of Actuarial Studies & Business Analytics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Xiaocang Xu

  3. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Science, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Dongxue Zhao

Authors
  1. Xiaocang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Na Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dongxue Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chengjie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiaocang and Na collected and analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of this paper. Dongxue supervised this project, reviewed results, and edited the manuscript. Chengjie worked for the manuscript review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dongxue Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The locations of material collected here are neither privately owned lands nor protected areas. No specific permits were required for our research.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Nicholas Apergis

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, X., Zhang, N., Zhao, D. et al. The effect of trade openness on the relationship between agricultural technology inputs and carbon emissions: evidence from a panel threshold model. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 9991–10004 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11255-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11255-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation