4.7 Article

A novel analysis of consumption-based carbon footprints in China: Unpacking the effects of urban settlement and rural-to-urban migration

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.003

关键词

Carbon emission; Greenhouse gas; Life cycle assessment; Migration; Human settlement; Propensity score matching

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of USA (PIRE) [1243535]
  2. Office Of Internatl Science &Engineering
  3. Office Of The Director [1243535] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urbanization in developing countries greatly contributes to growing carbon emissions. Although studies have documented the urbanization effect, the science of consumption-based footprint assessments has yet to unpack various effects during the process of urbanization. Based on household expenditure data, this study innovatively proposes a methodology to conceptually and statistically deconstruct the observed urbanization effects on carbon footprint into selection effects and migration effects, which consist of human settlement effects and purposeful changes of migration (such as income and residential location). Applying propensity score matching and regression on the 2010 China Family Panel Study, we find that the apparent carbon-footprint difference between rural residents and migrants is about 1.5 t CO(2)e per capita. The migration effects account for about 2/3 of the apparent difference and the remaining 1/3 is due to selection effects. Urban settlement effects and the purposeful changes account for 73% and 27% of the migration effects, respectively. Transport sector is the key driver of carbon-footprint growth: it accounts for 60% of the migration effects. We conclude that travel behavior of rural migrants, currently in scarcity in the lite rature, merits further investigation, and policies should emphasize transit-oriented land use and transportation to achieve low-carbon urbanization. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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