Spatial–temporal characteristics and regional differences of the freight transport industry’s carbon emission efficiency in China

被引:0
作者
Xiyang Zhao
Jianwei Wang
Xin Fu
Wenlong Zheng
Xiuping Li
Chao Gao
机构
[1] Chang’an University,School of Economics and Management
[2] Chang’an University,School of Transportation Engineering
来源
Environmental Science and Pollution Research | 2022年 / 29卷
关键词
Freight transport; Carbon emission efficiency; Spatial autocorrelation; Super-efficiency SBM window model; Theil index;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The freight transport industry is an important field in which to achieve the goal of carbon emission reduction within the transportation industry. Analyzing the spatial–temporal characteristics and regional differences in the freight transport industry’s carbon emissions efficiency (CEE) is an essential prerequisite for developing a reasonable regional carbon abatement policy. However, few studies have conducted an in-depth analysis of the freight transport industry’s CEE from the perspective of geographic space. This study combines the super-efficiency slack-based measure (SBM) model and the window analysis model to measure the freight transport industry’s CEE in 31 Chinese provinces from 2008 to 2019. We then introduced a spatial autocorrelation analysis and the Theil index to analyze the spatial–temporal evolution characteristics and regional differences in the freight transport industry’s CEE in China. The results show that (1) the overall level of the freight transport industry’s CEE is low, with an average of 0.534, which showed a weak downward trend during the study period. This indicates that the freight industry’s CEE has not improved, and there is a massive requirement for energy conservation and emission reduction. (2) From 2008 to 2019, CEE gradually shows a spatial distribution pattern of being “low in the west and high in the east,” with a significant, positive spatial correlation (all passed the significance level test at P < 0.01). This indicates that the spatial diffusion and inhibition of the freight transport industry’s CEE in adjacent areas cannot be ignored. (3) The overall differences in the freight transport industry’s CEE show a fluctuating upward trend from 2008 to 2019. The inter-regional differences of the three regions (east, central, and west) are the main contributors of the total differences. Therefore, narrowing inter-regional gaps in CEE is one of the main ways to improve the freight transport industry’s CEE.
引用
收藏
页码:75851 / 75869
页数:18
相关论文
共 146 条
  • [1] Bai C(2020)Analysis of the spatial association network structure of China’s transportation carbon emissions and its driving factors J Environ Manage 253 109765-1917
  • [2] Zhou L(2010)Resource and environment efficiency analysis of provinces in China: a DEA approach based on Shannon’s entropy Energy Policy 38 1909-1097
  • [3] Xia M(2013)Carbon allowance allocation in the transportation industry Energy Policy 63 1091-124
  • [4] Feng C(2018)An SBM-DEA model with parallel computing design for environmental efficiency evaluation in the big data context: a transportation system application Ann Oper Res 270 105-11
  • [5] Bian Y(2014)The evaluation of transportation energy efficiency: an application of three-stage virtual frontier DEA Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 29 1-872
  • [6] Yang F(2017)The approach to realizing the potential of emissions reduction in China: an implication from data envelopment analysis Renew Sustain Energy Rev 71 859-575
  • [7] Chang CC(2018)Analysis of energy efficiency in China’s transportation sector Renew Sustain Energy Rev 94 565-2176
  • [8] Lai TC(2020)Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within China’s road freight transportation industry: moderating role of perceived policy effectiveness J Clean Prod 252 119796-101
  • [9] Chu J-F(2009)Exploring the existence of Kuznets curve in countries’ environmental efficiency using DEA window analysis Ecol Econ 68 2168-219
  • [10] Wu J(2015)Energy consumption and GHG emissions from China’s freight transport sector: scenarios through 2050 Energy Policy 85 94-311