4.7 Article

Air pollution and post-COVID-19 work resumption: evidence from China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 29, Issue 12, Pages 17103-17116

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-16813-y

Keywords

Post-COVID-19; Air pollution; Work resumption; Electricity consumption; Coronavirus recovery; China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found no positive correlation between post-COVID-19 work resumption and regional air pollution during China's early recovery period. However, positive correlations were found in specific sub-samples of large industrial enterprises and in the month of April, suggesting that large industrial enterprises may resume work first and the resumption is progressing gradually. Several policy implications are provided, which are essential for the post-pandemic recovery of other countries.
To cope with the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), national or sub-national regions have carried out many powerful anti-pandemic measures such as locking down, which may improve their regional air quality. This paper examines the relation between regional air pollution and work resumption from a novel post-pandemic perspective. Using a unique panel dataset on China's detailed industrial electricity consumption, this paper does not find a positive relation between post-COVID-19 work resumption and regional air pollution during China's early-stage recovery. This result is obtained after controlling for province and date fixed effects, as well as local weather conditions. However, the positive relations are found in a particular sub-sample of large industrial enterprises and a particular sub-sample of April. These findings indicate that large industrial enterprises may recover first, and the resumption is progressing gradually. Finally, several policy implications are provided, which are essentially helpful for other countries' post-pandemic recovery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available