Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Rural Carbon Emissions in Ecologically Fragile Energy Areas—Taking Ejin Horo Banner in Inner Mongolia as an Example
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Sources and Processing
2.3. Carbon Sources Identification
2.4. Carbon Emissions Accounting
3. Results
3.1. Rural Carbon Emissions Accounting
3.2. Structure and Causes Analysis of Rural Carbon Emissions
3.3. Correlation Analysis of Influencing Factors of Rural Carbon Emissions
3.4. Regression Analysis of Carbon Emissions from Production and Life
3.5. Formation Mechanism of Rural Carbon Emissions
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The average household and per capita carbon emissions in Ejin Horo Banner are 31.58 t/h and 11.16 t/p out of the total 7041.548 t. In the total composition of carbon emissions, the main sources of rural carbon emissions are, remarkably, from energy consumption and livestock and poultry breeding, which account for 63.89% and 22.72%, respectively, which shows that the rural regional systems of Ejin Horo Banner are highly dependent on energy, especially high energy-consuming sources of fossil energy that account for 41% of energy consumption.
- (2)
- In the family attributes in villages of Ejin Horo Banner, the two factors mostly correlated with total carbon emissions are age and income level, whose correlation coefficients are –0.522 and 0.500, whereas the factor least correlated with total carbon emissions is education level, whose correlation coefficient is −0.218. Energy consumption has a strong correlation with total carbon emissions, with the largest correlation coefficient of 0.804 for coal and the minimum correlation coefficient of 0.550 for gasoline, indicating that the rural residents have a huge demand and consumption of coal; this is also related to the easy availability of regional coal resources. In agricultural input, the factors that correlate with carbon emissions from the strongest to the weakest are chemical fertilizer, pesticide, tillage, and irrigation, with the correlation coefficients of 0.734, 0.663, 0.663, and 0.657, respectively; in livestock production, the factors that correlate with carbon emissions from the strongest to the weakest are cattle, sheep, and pigs, with the correlation coefficients of 0.724, 0.720, and 0.604, respectively; and in household life, the factors of daily diet consumption have a strong correlation with carbon emissions, among which the highest is liquor consumption at 0.784, and the lowest is wastewater treatment at 0.442.
- (3)
- After multiple stepwise regression analysis of carbon emissions factors in rural regional systems, it was found that five factors in energy consumption have significant predictive power, namely coal (0.541), diesel (0.559), electricity (0.379), gasoline (0.163), and fuelwood (0.024). Seven factors in agricultural inputs have significant predictive power for agricultural inputs, namely cattle (0.680), sheep (0.584), fertilizers (0.138), pigs (0.045), plastic film (0.005), poultry (0.004), and pesticides (0.003). Nine factors in family life have significant predictive power, namely grain (0.499), liquor (0.464), meat consumption (0.267), beer (0.089), clothing purchase (0.067), electric vehicle travel (0.031), garbage (0.024), disposable chopsticks (0.015), and laundry powder (0.014).
- (4)
- The characteristics and mechanism of carbon emissions in the rural regional system are affected by many factors, such as family, energy, agricultural and animal husbandry, and life; thus, the carbon emissions have the typical characteristics of the rural regional system. Family composition is the fundamental driving force of carbon emissions in rural regional systems, and agricultural and animal husbandry production, energy utilization, and family life are also the factors that influence carbon emissions in rural regional systems of energy development zones. Altering the existing production and lifestyles through scientific and technological innovation is an important way to adjust the existing carbon emissions in rural regional systems.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ge, Q.; Fang, X. Analysis of the Factors and Countermeasures for Scientifically Coping with of Climate Change. J. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2010, 25, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEA. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Overview, 2017th ed.; IEA: Paris, France, 2017.
- Davis, S.J.; Caldeira, K. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5687–5692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Friedlingstein, P.; Andrew, R.M.; Rogelj, J.; Peters, G.P.; Canadell, J.G.; Knutti, R.; Luderer, G.; Raupach, M.R.; Schaeffer, M.; Van Vuuren, D.P. Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. J. Nat. Geosci. 2014, 7, 709–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, B.C.; Zigova, K. Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 17521–17526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhang, H.; Li, S. Carbon emissions’ spatial-temporal heterogeneity and identification from rural energy consumption in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 304, 114286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zen, I.S.; Al-Amin, A.Q.; Alam, M.M.; Doberstein, B. Magnitudes of households’ carbon footprint in Iskandar Malaysia: Policy implications for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nematchoua, M.K.; Sadeghi, M.; Reiter, S. Strategies and scenarios to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emission in the urban, rural and sustainable neighbourhoods. J. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 72, 103053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yrjälä, K.; Ramakrishnan, M.; Salo, E. Agricultural waste streams as resource in circular economy for biochar production towards carbon neutrality. J. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2022, 26, 100339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashayeri, M.S.; Khaledian, M.R.; Kavoosi-Kalashami, M.; Rezaei, M. Evaluation of energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions in rice cultivation in Guilan province, northern Iran. J. Paddy Water Environ. 2020, 18, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- No, J.L.; Erb, K.H.; Matej, S.; Magerl, A.; Gingrich, S. Socio-ecological drivers of long-term ecosystem carbon stock trend: An assessment with the LUCCA model of the French case. J. Anthropocene 2021, 33, 100275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Liu, S.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Y. Agriculture and animal husbandry increased carbon footprint on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau during past three decades. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, X.W.; Zhanli, S.U.N.; Müller, D. Driving factors of direct greenhouse gas emissions from China’s pig industry from 1976 to 2016. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menghistu, H.T.; Zenebe Abraha, A.; Mawcha, G.T.; Tesfay, G.; Mersha, T.T.; Redda, Y.T. Greenhouse gas emission and mitigation potential from livestock production in the drylands of Northern Ethiopia. J. Carbon Manag. 2021, 12, 289–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Y.; Gao, C.; Yan, Z.; Zong, R.; Ma, Y.; Li, Q. Effects of planting systems and straw mulching on carbon emissions and winter wheat grain yield in the North China Plain. J. Exp. Agric. 2018, 54, 520–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kusumawati, S.A. The Dynamic of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission and Land Coverage on Intercropping System on Oil Palm Replanting Area. J. Oil Palm Res. 2020, 32, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adame, M.F.; Brown, C.J.; Bejarano, M.; Herrera-Silveira, J.A.; Ezcurra, P.; Kauffman, J.B.; Birdsey, R. The undervalued contribution of mangrove protection in Mexico to carbon emission targets. J. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, 12445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wijitkosum, S.; Jiwnok, P. Elemental composition of biochar obtained from agricultural waste for soil amendment and carbon sequestration. J. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, L.G.; Kirk, G.J.D.; Jones, P.J.; Williams, A.G. The greenhouse gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales to organic methods. J. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rosa, L.; Rulli, M.C.; Ali, S.; Chiarelli, D.D.; D’Odorico, P. Energy implications of the 21st century agrarian transition. J. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- People’s Government of Ejin Horo Banner. Flag Sentiment. Available online: http://www.yjhl.gov.cn/qiqing/ (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Song, Y. Urban Ecology; East China Normal University Press: Shanghai, China, 2000; pp. 150–190. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. National Energy Saving and Emission Reduction Manual. Available online: https://www.most.gov.cn/ztzl/jqjnjp/qmjnjpsc/qmjnjpsc-ml.htm (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Wei, J.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Zhang, L.; Feng, Q. Maturity of residents’ low-carbon consumption and information intervention policy. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Provincial Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidelines. Available online: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/7ae95325f111f18583d05a67.html (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Nayeb, H.; Mirabi, M.; Motiee, H.; Alighardashi, A.; Khoshgard, A. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from Iran’s domestic wastewater sector and modeling the emission scenarios by 2030. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zib, L., III; Byrne, D.M.; Marston, L.T.; Chini, C.M. Operational carbon footprint of the US water and wastewater sector’s energy consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 321, 128815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, Y.; Huang, Q.; Guan, D.; Hubacek, K. China CO2 emission accounts 2016–2017. J. Sci. Data 2020, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Technical Guide for Rural Domestic Sewage Treatment in North China. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201101/t20110107_201895.html (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Zhou, X.; Yu, J.; Li, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, D.; Wu, D.; Chen, W. Spatial correlation among cultivated land intensive use and carbon emission efficiency: A case study in the Yellow River Basin, China. J. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 43341–43360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Doğan, H.G.; Saçlı, Y. Contribution of Livestock to Co2 Emission in D-8 (Developing-8) Countries: An Empirical Analyse of Panel Data. J. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 12909–12919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Development and Reform Commission of the People’s Republic of China. 2015 China Regional Power Grid Baseline Emission Factor. Available online: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/14d695c683c4bb4cf6ecd16b.html (accessed on 10 August 2021).
- Mahalik, M.K.; Mallick, H.; Padhan, H. Do educational levels influence the environmental quality? The role of renewable and non-renewable energy demand in selected BRICS countries with a new policy perspective. J. Renew. Energy 2021, 164, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rural Regional System | Carbon Source Name |
---|---|
Family population | Demographic attribute |
Living consumption | Food, Meat, Clothing, Smoking, Beer, Liquor, Washing powder, Plastic bags, Disposable chopsticks, Trip distance, Waste, Wastewater |
Agricultural and animal husbandry production | Fertilizers, Plastic film, Pesticides, Tillage, Irrigation, Non-dairy cow, Mule/donkey, Pig, Sheep, Poultry |
Energy consumption | Coal, Gasoline, Diesel fuel, LPG, Electricity, fuelwood |
Index | Formula | Variable Explanation |
---|---|---|
Population carbon emissions | C = P × 0.9 | C is carbon emissions, P is the number of the family population, and 0.9 kg is carbon emissions per person per day. |
Traditional energy carbon emissions | C = F × q | C is carbon emissions, F is energy consumption, and q is carbon emissions coefficient. |
Clean energy carbon emissions | C = NCV × EF | C is power carbon emissions coefficient, NCV is power low heating value, and EF is power baseline factor. |
Household carbon emissions | C = N × q | C is carbon emissions, N is indirect carbon emissions usage, and q is carbon emissions coefficient. |
Agricultural carbon emissions | C = Q × q | C is carbon emissions, Q is agricultural input, and q is carbon emissions coefficient. |
Livestock and poultry Breeding carbon emissions | C = M × q | C is carbon emissions, M is the quantity of livestock and poultry breeding, and q is the carbon emissions coefficient (CH4 and N2O are converted into carbon emissions, and the GWP coefficients are 21 and 310, respectively). |
Transport carbon emissions | C = K × q | C is carbon emissions, K is the energy consumption of vehicles, and q is the carbon emissions coefficient of vehicles. |
Waste carbon emissions | ECO2 = å(IW × CCW × FCF × EF × 44/12) | ECO2 refers to the carbon emissions from waste incineration; IW is the amount of waste; CCW refers to the proportion of carbon content; FCF refers to the proportion of mineral carbon in total carbon of waste; EF is combustion efficiency; and 44/12 is the conversion coefficient between carbon and carbon dioxide. |
Wastewater carbon emissions | ECO2 = W × EF × CE | ECO2 refers to carbon emissions from rural domestic sewage; W is the amount of rural sewage; EF is the power consumption coefficient of sewage treatment, referring to the regional power baseline factor; and CE is the power consumption per cubic meter, and this research takes the average value of 0.3 KWh/m3 from its general value range of 0.2–0.4 KWh/m3. |
Name of Village | Energy Carbon Emissions (t) | Biomass Energy (t) | Household Life (t) | Agricultural Production (t) | Livestock and Poultry Farming (t) | Transportation (t) | Wastewater (t) | Total Amount (t) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chagan Chaidamu | 166.73 | 9.67 | 7.75 | 5.83 | 52.35 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 242.85 |
Quanhechang | 199.46 | 6.86 | 9.6 | 8.19 | 34.24 | 0.19 | 0.47 | 259.01 |
Huyagetu | 146.56 | 8.23 | 7.11 | 10.86 | 152 | 0 | 1.12 | 325.88 |
Xinmiao | 110.91 | 0 | 7.77 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.27 | 119.09 |
Manlai | 198.67 | 0 | 8.69 | 0.05 | 4.86 | 0 | 0.3 | 212.57 |
Naoerhao | 258.08 | 7.54 | 7.12 | 7.51 | 73.66 | 0.39 | 0.19 | 354.49 |
Hongqinghe | 125.39 | 14.05 | 8.27 | 10.45 | 57.51 | 0 | 0.2 | 215.87 |
Baolin | 191.48 | 20.4 | 7.8 | 10.07 | 101.96 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 331.99 |
Naringhiri | 309.29 | 9.26 | 9.19 | 8.92 | 139.78 | 0.1 | 0.24 | 476.78 |
Qigengou | 178.09 | 25.23 | 8.68 | 6.91 | 103.77 | 0.04 | 0.2 | 322.92 |
Fengjiaqu | 196.94 | 19.54 | 10.83 | 14.22 | 101.12 | 0 | 0.24 | 342.89 |
Muhuaobao | 150.97 | 18.51 | 8.91 | 12.27 | 29.52 | 0 | 0.32 | 220.5 |
Taige Hilli | 183.09 | 18.17 | 10.8 | 18.03 | 69.19 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 299.61 |
Gaole Temple | 165.8 | 14.4 | 7.65 | 6.63 | 39.21 | 0.03 | 0.27 | 233.99 |
Maleqing Haolai | 200.39 | 10.63 | 6.13 | 5.04 | 23.72 | 0 | 0.2 | 246.11 |
Huanggaishili | 175.13 | 24 | 8.9 | 13.13 | 51.44 | 0.11 | 0.23 | 272.94 |
Harimhur | 216.39 | 8.74 | 8.98 | 2.6 | 21.18 | 0.23 | 0.28 | 258.4 |
Baga Qaidam | 241.89 | 30.51 | 14.21 | 31.26 | 176.33 | 0 | 0.77 | 494.97 |
Taige Gacha | 234.37 | 17.14 | 13.3 | 65.85 | 144.67 | 0.14 | 0.32 | 475.79 |
Shuhao | 245.32 | 19.2 | 6.46 | 8.65 | 59.33 | 0 | 0.21 | 339.17 |
Chagannur | 416.32 | 14.74 | 12.87 | 7.29 | 76.17 | 0 | 0.27 | 527.66 |
Yellow Tolgoi | 188.64 | 12 | 9.27 | 9.68 | 40.82 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 260.78 |
Project | Carbon Emissions (t) |
---|---|
Resident | 207.28 |
Energy consumption | 4499.94 |
Biomass | 308.79 |
Family life | 200.29 |
Agricultural Production | 263.44 |
Livestock and poultry farming | 1552.87 |
Transportation | 1.81 |
Wastewater | 7.128 |
Total carbon emissions | 7041.548 |
Household average | 31.58 |
Per capita | 11.16 |
Carbon Emissions Type | Factors | Correlation Coefficient |
---|---|---|
Total carbon emissions | Age | −0.522 ** |
Monthly household income | 0.500 ** | |
Housing area | 0.462 ** | |
Family population | 0.420 ** | |
Education level | −0.218 ** | |
Energy carbon emissions | Coal | 0.804 ** |
Diesel fuel | 0.745 ** | |
Electricity | 0.627 ** | |
Gasoline | 0.550 ** | |
Agriculture and animal husbandry carbon emissions | Fertilizer | 0.734 ** |
Pesticide | 0.657 ** | |
Tillage | 0.663 ** | |
Irrigation | 0.663 ** | |
Cattle | 0.724 ** | |
Sheep | 0.720 ** | |
Pig | 0.604 ** | |
Household carbon emissions | Liquor | 0.784 ** |
Meat | 0.772 ** | |
Food | 0.760 ** | |
Clothing | 0.486 * | |
Washing powder | 0.467 * | |
Wastewater | 0.442 * |
Stepwise Regression | R | R2 | DR2 | F | Net F Value | B | β | Deviatoric | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Energy consumption | Intercept | 0.919 | |||||||
Coal | 0.692 a | 0.478 | 0.476 | 202.632 *** | 202.632 *** | 0.002 | 0.541 | 0.978 | |
Diesel | 0.894 b | 0.799 | 0.798 | 438.247 *** | 352.018 *** | 0.003 | 0.559 | 0.981 | |
Electricity | 0.981 c | 0.963 | 0.963 | 1908.809 *** | 973.887 *** | 0.004 | 0.379 | 0.956 | |
Gasoline | 0.994 d | 0.987 | 0.987 | 4205.551 *** | 409.677 *** | 0.003 | 0.163 | 0.817 | |
Fuelwood | 0.994 e | 0.988 | 0.988 | 3511.932 *** | 10.422 * | 0 | 0.024 | 0.214 | |
Agricultural inputs | Intercept | 0.007 | |||||||
Cattle | 0.753 a | 0.568 | 0.566 | 290.211 *** | 290.211 *** | 1.724 | 0.68 | 1 | |
Sheep | 0.991 b | 0.981 | 0.981 | 5741.360 *** | 4839.164 *** | 0.215 | 0.584 | 1 | |
Fertilizers | 0.999 c | 0.998 | 0.998 | 39,292.599 *** | 2001.107 *** | 0.001 | 0.138 | 0.995 | |
Pigs | 1.000 d | 1 | 1 | 471,584.664 *** | 3280.451 *** | 0.153 | 0.045 | 0.974 | |
Plastic film | 1.000 e | 1 | 1 | 461,585.814 *** | 49.717 *** | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.451 | |
Poultry | 1.000 f | 1 | 1 | 453,806.404 *** | 40.008 *** | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.353 | |
Pesticides | 1.000 g | 1 | 1 | 401,343.694 *** | 7.867 * | 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.188 | |
Household life | Intercept | 0.004 | |||||||
Food | 0.833 a | 0.693 | 0.692 | 497.107 *** | 497.107 *** | 0.001 | 0.499 | 0.985 | |
Liquor | 0.955 b | 0.913 | 0.912 | 1147.415 *** | 552.214 *** | 0.002 | 0.464 | 0.987 | |
Meat consumption | 0.990 c | 0.98 | 0.98 | 3555.843 *** | 730.326 *** | 0.002 | 0.267 | 0.956 | |
Beer | 0.994 d | 0.989 | 0.988 | 4723.898 *** | 165.760 *** | 0 | 0.089 | 0.779 | |
Clothing purchase | 0.997 e | 0.993 | 0.993 | 6294.893 *** | 143.806 *** | 0.006 | 0.067 | 0.642 | |
Electric vehicle Travel | 0.997 f | 0.994 | 0.994 | 6135.152 *** | 37.366 *** | 0 | 0.031 | 0.393 | |
Garbage | 0.997 g | 0.995 | 0.995 | 5770.097 *** | 21.781 *** | 0 | 0.024 | 0.295 | |
Disposable Chopsticks | 0.998 h | 0.995 | 0.995 | 5349.551 *** | 13.674 *** | 0 | 0.015 | 0.197 | |
Laundry powder | 0.998 i | 0.995 | 0.995 | 4855.156 *** | 5.452 * | 0.001 | 0.014 | 0.158 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, J.; Xue, D.; Wang, M.; Yan, W. Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Rural Carbon Emissions in Ecologically Fragile Energy Areas—Taking Ejin Horo Banner in Inner Mongolia as an Example. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127126
Wang J, Xue D, Wang M, Yan W. Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Rural Carbon Emissions in Ecologically Fragile Energy Areas—Taking Ejin Horo Banner in Inner Mongolia as an Example. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127126
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Jian, Dongqian Xue, Meng Wang, and Weibin Yan. 2022. "Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Rural Carbon Emissions in Ecologically Fragile Energy Areas—Taking Ejin Horo Banner in Inner Mongolia as an Example" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127126
APA StyleWang, J., Xue, D., Wang, M., & Yan, W. (2022). Influencing Factors and Mechanism of Rural Carbon Emissions in Ecologically Fragile Energy Areas—Taking Ejin Horo Banner in Inner Mongolia as an Example. Sustainability, 14(12), 7126. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127126