Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 32, pp 32096–32111 | Cite as

Agricultural environmental total factor productivity in China under technological heterogeneity: characteristics and determinants

  • Haibin Han
  • Zhangqi Zhong
  • Changcun Wen
  • Huiguo Sun
Research Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

With limited resources, growing environment constraints and downward pressure on the economy, increasing agricultural environmental total factor productivity (AETFP) and its contribution to agricultural growth is significant for transforming agricultural development to make it more resource efficient and environment-friendly. This paper considered technological heterogeneity in different regions of China and measured AETFP in 30 provinces from 1997 to 2015 using the Metafrontier Malmquist-Luenberger (MML) productivity index. Multi-dimensional analysis was made on temporal and spatial characteristics, evolution patterns, and influencing factors of AETFP in China. The results showed that: (1) AETFP increased in the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Five-Year Plan periods, with average annual growth rates of 0.76%, 0.88%, 1.17%, and 0.87%, respectively. (2) The average annual growth rate of AETFP in the eastern, central, and western regions decreased successively. The eastern region generally had played a leading role. The central region had a catch-up effect on environmental production technologies from the eastern region, while the western region lacked the catch-up effect. (3) The dynamic evolution of AETFP had prominent features. For the whole nation, the kernel density curve of AETFP continuously moved to the right. The main peak value continuously decreased and the width of the main peak continuously increased. The internal differences of AETFP in the eastern and western regions exhibited an increasing trend, while the internal differences of AETFP in the central region showed little change. (4) There was an inverted U-shaped relationship between agricultural economic growth and AETFP. Both the disaster rate and planting structure had a negative impact on AETFP with varying degrees of significance. Income gaps between urban and rural areas can partially offset the role of urbanization in promoting the growth of AETFP. The greater the income differences between urban and rural areas, the weaker the role of urbanization in promoting the growth of AETFP. These findings can help the government determine policies to change the agricultural development mode and formulate effective measures to improve AETFP.

Keywords

Technological heterogeneity Agricultural environmental total factor productivity Metafrontier Malmquist-Luenberger productivity index Influencing factors 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 14BTJ014).

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

References

  1. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Battese GE, Rao DSP (2002) Technology gap, efficiency, and a stochastic metafrontier function. Int J Bus Econ 1:87–93Google Scholar
  3. Battese GE, Rao DSP, O'Donnell CJ (2004) A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. J Prod Anal 21:91–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 87:115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond SR (2002) Dynamic panel data models: a guide to micro data methods and practice. Port Econ J 1:141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen PC, Yu MM, Chang CC, Hsu SH (2008) Total factor productivity growth in China's agricultural sector. China Econ Rev 19:580–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi Y, Oh DH, Zhang N (2015) Environmentally sensitive productivity growth and its decompositions in China: a metafrontier Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index approach. Empir Econ 49:1017–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung Y, Heshmati A (2015) Measurement of environmentally sensitive productivity growth in Korean industries. J Clean Prod 104:380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung YH, Färe R, Grosskopf S (1997) Productivity and undesirable outputs: a directional distance function approach. J Environ Manag 51:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du K, Lu H, Yu K (2014) Sources of the potential CO2 emission reduction in China: a nonparametric metafrontier approach. Appl Energy 115:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du J, Wang R, Wang XH (2016) Environmental total factor productivity and agricultural growth: an empirical analysis based on the two stage model of DEA-GML and Tobit. Chin Rural Econ 3:65–81Google Scholar
  12. Fei RL, Lin BQ (2016) Energy efficiency and production technology heterogeneity in China's agricultural sector: a meta-frontier approach. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 109:25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fei RL, Lin BQ (2017) The integrated efficiency of inputs–outputs and energy–CO2 emissions performance of China's agricultural sector. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75:668–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao F (2015) Evolution trend and internal mechanism of regional total factor productivity in Chinese agriculture. J Quant Tech Econ 3–19Google Scholar
  15. Guo P, Qi X, Zhou X, Li W (2018) Total-factor energy efficiency of coal consumption: an empirical analysis of China's energy intensive industries. J Clean Prod 172:2618–2624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Han HB, Zhao LF (2013) Growth and convergence of agricultural total factor productivity in China under environmental regulations. China Popul Resour Environ 23:70–76Google Scholar
  17. Han HB, Zhao LF, Zhang L (2014) The influence of heterogeneous human capital on agricultural environmental total factor productivity: empirical research based on rural panel data. J Central Univ Financ Econ 5:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayami Y (1969) Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. Am J Agric Econ 51:564–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoang VN (2011) Measuring and decomposing changes in agricultural productivity, nitrogen use efficiency and cumulative exergy efficiency. Appl OECD Agric Ecol Model 222:164–175Google Scholar
  20. Juo JC, Lin YH, Chen TC (2015) Productivity change of Taiwanese farmers’ credit unions: a nonparametric metafrontier Malmquist-Luenberger productivity indicator. Cent Eur J Oper Res 23:125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lai SY (2004) Study on non-point sources pollution investigation and evaluation method and its application. The Master Degree Dissertation of Tsing University, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  22. Li GC (2014) The green productivity revolution of agriculture in China from 1978 to 2008. China Econ Quart 13:537–558Google Scholar
  23. Li B, Zhang JB, Li HP (2011) Research on spatial temporal characteristics and affecting factors decomposition of agricultural carbon emission in China. China Popul Resour Environ 21:80–86Google Scholar
  24. Li SW, Li DS, Qiu JJ, Li XC, He X (2013) Is the middle-west less efficient than the east? China Econ Quart 12:777–798Google Scholar
  25. Li W, Wang W, Wang Y, Ali M (2018) Historical growth in total factor carbon productivity of the Chinese industry–a comprehensive analysis. J Clean Prod 170:471–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liang LT (2009) Study on the temporal and spatial evolution of rural ecological environment. The Doctoral Degree Dissertation of Nanjing Agriculture University, NanjingGoogle Scholar
  27. Liang J, Long SB, Economics SO (2015) China's agricultural green total factor productivity growth and its affecting factors. Hua Nan Nong Ye Da Xue Xue Bao 14:1–12Google Scholar
  28. Lin YY, Chen PY, Chen CC (2013) Measuring green productivity of country: a generalized metafrontier Malmquist productivity index approach. Energy 55:340–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maziotis A, Molinos-Senante M, Sala-Garrido R (2017) Assesing the impact of quality of service on the productivity of water industry: a Malmquist-Luenberger approach for England and Wales. Water Resour Manag 31:2407–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MEP (Ministry of Environment Protection)(China) (2015) National Environmental Statistics Bulletin. http://www.mep.gov.cn/gzfw_13107/hjtj/qghjtjgb/201702/t20170223_397419.shtml. Accessed 23 February 2015
  31. Miao Z, Geng Y, Sheng J (2016) Efficient allocation of CO2 emissions in China: a zero sum gains data envelopment model. J Clean Prod 112:4144–4150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munisamy S, Arabi B (2015) Eco-efficiency change in power plants: using a slacks-based measure for the meta-frontier Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index. J Clean Prod 105:218–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nin-Pratt A, Yu B (2010) Getting implicit shadow prices right for the estimation of the Malmquist index: the case of agricultural total factor productivity in developing countries. Agric Econ 41:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oh DH (2010) A metafrontier approach for measuring an environmentally sensitive productivity growth index. Energy Econ 32:146–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oh DH, Lee JD (2010) A metafrontier approach for measuring Malmquist productivity index. Empir Econ 38:46–64Google Scholar
  36. Pan D (2014) Evaluation and determinants of agricultural green productivity in China. Forum Sci Technol China 11:149–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peng L, Su CJ, Sun L, Li P, Fang Y, Liu W, Wang XL (2013) Spatial-temporal evolution pattern of agricultural productivity in northwestern Sichuan plateau. J Mt Sci 10:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rambaldi AN, Rao DSP, Dolan D (2007) Measuring productivity growth performance using metafrontiers with applications to regional productivity growth analysis in a global context, in: O'Donnell, C.J. (Ed.), Australian Meeting of the Econometric Society ESAM07. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp 1–33Google Scholar
  39. Shao Y, Wang S (2016) Productivity growth and environmental efficiency of the nonferrous metals industry: an empirical study of China. J Clean Prod 137:1663–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Song HY (2010) Review and evaluation of agricultural and rural policy during the eleventh five-year plan period. China agriculture Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  41. Song HY (2016) Review and evaluation of agricultural and rural policy during the twelfth five-year plan period. China agriculture Publishing House, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  42. Su QH, Wang QX, Wang DJ, Yan XM (2016) Spatial and temporal variation of energy carbon emissions in Yantai from 2001 to 2011. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 14:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tian Y, Zhang JB (2013) Regional differentiation research on net carbon effect of agricultural production in China. J Nat Resour 28:1298–1309Google Scholar
  44. Tian Y, Zhang JB, Li B (2012) Agricultural carbon emissions in China: calculation, spatial-temporal comparison and decoupling effects. Resour Sci 34:2097–2105Google Scholar
  45. Tian Y, Zhang JB, Wu XR, Li GC (2015) Growth and sources of agricultural productivity in China under carbon emissions constraint. J Arid Land Resour Environ 29:7–12Google Scholar
  46. Tulkens H, Eeckaut PV (1993) Non-parametric efficiency, progress and regress measures for panel data: methodological aspects. Eur J Oper Res 80:474–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang KL, Meng XR, Yang L, Cheng YH (2015) Heterogeneous production technology and regional green total-factor productivity growth—an analysis based on meta-frontier and china's provincial panel data of 2000—2012. Bei Jing Li Gong Da Xue Xue Bao 17:23–31Google Scholar
  48. Wang KL, Meng XR, Yang BC, Cheng YH (2017a) Regional differences and influencing factors of China’s air pollution emission efficiency considering technological heterogeneity. China Popul Resour Environ 27:101–110Google Scholar
  49. Wang HP, Wang ZT, Wang MX (2017b) Spatial spillover effect of FDI on total factor productivity of Chinese agriculture. J Northwest Agric For Univ 17:123–129Google Scholar
  50. Wei WX, Li P, Wang SY, Gao JQ (2017) CO2 emission driving forces and corresponding mitigation strategies under low-carbon economy mode: evidence from China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 15:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ye CS, Hui L (2016) How much does the agricultural pollution affect economic growth performance?—an analysis based on the environmental total factor productivity. China Popul Resour Environ 26:116–125Google Scholar
  52. Yin CB (2017) Environmental efficiency and its determinants in the development of China’s western regions in 2000-2014. Chin J Popul Resour Environ 15:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yin CJ, Li GC, Lu Y (2014) The dynamic evolution mechanism of agricultural total factor productivity growth distribution of China. Stat Inf Forum 29:53–58Google Scholar
  54. Yu C, Shi L, Wang YT, Chang Y, Cheng BD (2016) The eco-efficiency of pulp and paper industry in China: an assessment based on slacks-based measure and Malmquist-Luenberger index. J Clean Prod 127:511–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yu Y, Choi YG, Wei X, Chen Z (2017) Did China’s regional transport industry enjoy better carbon productivity under regulations? J Clean Prod 165:777–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang C, Liu H, Bressers HTA, Buchanan KS (2011) Productivity growth and environmental regulations-accounting for undesirable outputs: analysis of China's thirty provincial regions using the Malmquist-Luenberger index. Ecol Econ 70:2369–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang L, Ran GH, Lan ZS (2015) Growth and decomposition of agricultural total factor productivity in China under carbon emission constraints. Hua Nan Nong Ye Da Xue Xue Bao 14:22–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haibin Han
    • 1
  • Zhangqi Zhong
    • 2
  • Changcun Wen
    • 3
  • Huiguo Sun
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Public AdministrationTianjin University of CommerceTianjinPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of EconomicsZhejiang University of Finance and EconomicsHangzhouChina
  3. 3.Institute of Rural DevelopmentZhejiang Academy of Agricultural SciencesHangzhouChina
  4. 4.Department of Economics and ManagementTianjin Open UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations