4.7 Article

The efficiency evaluation and the spatiotemporal differences of CO2 emissions in China's construction industry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 426, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139205

关键词

CO 2 emission efficiency; Spatiotemporal differences; Super-efficiency SBM-DEA model; GML index; Construction industry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Under the promotion of China's double carbon policy, China's construction industry is facing pressure to reduce CO2 emissions. Evaluating the CO2 emissions efficiency in China's construction industry is crucial for promoting China's high-quality green development. The study found that the overall CO2 emissions efficiency of China's construction industry is increasing.
Under the promotion of China's double carbon policy, China's construction industry (CI) is facing the pressure for CO2 emissions (CE) reduction. In order to promote China's high-quality green development, CO2 emissions efficiency (CEE) evaluation in China's CI was crucial. Based on the super-efficiency slacks-based measure-data envelopment analysis (SBM-DEA) model, the Global Malmquist-Luenberger (GML) index, the global and local Moran index in spatial autocorrelation, 11 indicators of CI were selected to evaluate CEE and the spatiotemporal differences of CEE in China's CI 31 provinces from 2000 to 2020 were analyzed. The results indicated the CEE was on the rise on the whole. The average annual CEE of Hainan, Heilongjiang, Tianjin, Shanghai and Xizang was bigger than 1. The CEE of Sichuan, Gansu and Guizhou was around 0.5. The order of CE of CI in China from high to low Was South China, North China, Northeast China, Central China, East China, Northwest China and Southwest China. The GML index increased by 6.25% annually, the average annual TC increased by 11.68%, and the average annual EC increased by 5.21%. The overall CEE of China's CI showed a positive correlation between 2010 and 2015, but the spatial agglomeration was weak.

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