4.7 Article

Does haze pollution damage urban innovation? Empirical evidence from China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 13, 页码 16334-16349

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-11874-x

关键词

China; Crisis-driven effect; Haze pollution; Public awareness; Urban innovation

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [QCDC-2020-21]
  2. Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Foundation for Postgraduate Innovation [CXJJ-2019-434, CXJJ-2019-428]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The haze pollution in China has both positive and negative effects on urban innovation, stimulating innovation while also weakening the city's technological innovation ability. Public awareness of the environment is enhanced by haze pollution, prompting the government to increase investment in science and technology.
The continuous outbreak of haze pollution attracted full attention and became one of the most severe environmental problems in China. Based on the panel data of 266 prefecture-level cities from 2000 to 2016, this paper investigates the effects of haze pollution on China's urban innovation. Results show that (1) haze pollution does not damage urban innovation but forms a crisis-driven effect to stimulate it. (2) Haze pollution enhances the public's environmental awareness, which induces the government to invest more in science and technology, and finally forces the improvement of urban innovation. (3) Haze pollution causes the loss of human capital and leading to a decrease in the number of people who engaged in scientific research, which weakens the city's technological innovation ability. (4) The crisis-driven effect caused by haze pollution boosts the improvement of technological innovation in eastern cities, large cities, and northern cities. This study enriches the evidence on the relationship between haze pollution and urban innovation, which is significant for local governments to formulate green development and innovation-driven strategies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据