IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i5p585-d1385035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Have Agricultural Land-Use Carbon Emissions in China Peaked? An Analysis Based on Decoupling Theory and Spatial EKC Model

Author

Listed:
  • Haoyue Wu

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Bangwen Ding

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Lu Liu

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

  • Lei Zhou

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

  • Yue Meng

    (College of Business and Tourism, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611830, China)

  • Xiangjiang Zheng

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

Abstract

Assessing the emission-peaking process of agricultural land use provides valuable insights for mitigating global warming. This study calculated agricultural land-use carbon emissions (ALUCEs) in China from 2000 to 2020 and explored the peaking process based on quantitative criteria. Further, we applied the Tapio decoupling index and environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) model to discuss the robustness of the peaking process. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) From 2000 to 2020, China’s average ALUCEs were 368.1 Mt C-eq (1349.7 CO 2 -eq), peaking at 396.9 Mt C-eq (1455.3 Mt CO 2 -eq) in 2015 before plateauing. Emissions from agricultural materials and soil management had entered the declining period, while those from rice cultivation were in the peaking period, those from straw burning were still rising, and those from livestock breeding remained at the plateauing phase. (2) The provinces of Beijing, Tianjin, and nine others saw a decline in ALUCEs, while Hainan, Guizhou, and another nine provinces observed plateauing, and Ningxia, Qinghai, and six other provinces experienced peaking. (3) Decoupling analysis confirmed that emission-peaking states remained stable even with agricultural growth. Instead of an inverted U-shaped relationship, we found an N-shaped relationship between ALUCEs and agricultural GDP. The spatial EKC model indicated that the peaking process had spillover effects between provinces. It is recommended that China accelerate ALUCE mitigation based on the source and phase of emissions, considering the peaking process and magnitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Haoyue Wu & Bangwen Ding & Lu Liu & Lei Zhou & Yue Meng & Xiangjiang Zheng, 2024. "Have Agricultural Land-Use Carbon Emissions in China Peaked? An Analysis Based on Decoupling Theory and Spatial EKC Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:585-:d:1385035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/585/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/585/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jinyu Han & Jiansheng Qu & Dai Wang & Tek Narayan Maraseni, 2023. "Accounting for and Comparison of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions between Crop and Livestock Sectors in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Liudmila Tripolskaja & Asta Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice & Eugenija Baksiene & Almantas Razukas, 2022. "Changes in Organic Carbon in Mineral Topsoil of a Formerly Cultivated Arenosol under Different Land Uses in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Bellassen Valentin & Drut Marion & Antonioli Federico & Brečić Ružica & Donati Michele & Ferrer-Pérez Hugo & Gauvrit Lisa & Hoang Viet & Knutsen Steinnes Kamilla & Lilavanichakul Apichaya & Majewski E, 2021. "The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 113-126, December.
    8. Marian Gil & Mariusz Rudy & Paulina Duma-Kocan & Renata Stanisławczyk & Anna Krajewska & Dariusz Dziki & Waleed H. Hassoon, 2024. "Sustainability of Alternatives to Animal Protein Sources, a Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, September.
    9. Dupoux, Marion, 2019. "The land use change time-accounting failure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Enrico Balugani & Beike Sumfleth & Stefan Majer & Diego Marazza & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "Bridging Modeling and Certification to Evaluate Low-ILUC-Risk Practices for Biobased Materials with a User-Friendly Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Jonathan E. Barnsley & Chanjief Chandrakumar & Carlos Gonzalez-Fischer & Paul E. Eme & Bridget E. P. Bourke & Nick W. Smith & Lakshmi A. Dave & Warren C. McNabb & Harry Clark & David J. Frame & John L, 2021. "Lifetime Climate Impacts of Diet Transitions: A Novel Climate Change Accounting Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Adam C. Castonguay & Stephen Polasky & Matthew H. Holden & Mario Herrero & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Cecile Godde & Jinfeng Chang & James Gerber & G. Bradd Witt & Edward T. Game & Brett A. Bryan & Brendan, 2023. "Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 284-294, March.
    13. Dumas, Patrice & Wirsenius, Stefan & Searchinger, Tim & Andrieu, Nadine & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien, 2022. "Options to achieve net-zero emissions from agriculture and land use changes in Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12385, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. Lei Hua & Rong Ran & Mingjuan Xie & Tingrou Li, 2024. "The capacity of land carbon sinks in poverty-stricken areas in China continues to increase in the process of eradicating extreme poverty: evidence from a study of poverty-stricken counties on the Qing," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17253-17280, July.
    15. Yang Liu & Yang Yang & Zhijie Wang & Shaoshan An, 2022. "Quantifying Water Provision Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Flow in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Adriana Liute & Maria Rosa De Giacomo, 2022. "The environmental performance of UK‐based B Corp companies: An analysis based on the triple bottom line approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 810-827, March.
    17. Fabio G. Santeramo & Monica Delsignore & Enrica Imbert & Mariarosaria Lombardi, 2023. "The Future of the EU Bioenergy Sector: Economic, Environmental, Social, and Legislative Challenges," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 17(1), pages 1-1–52, April.
    18. Ning Geng & Xiaoqing Zheng & Xibing Han & Xiaonan Li, 2024. "Towards Sustainable Development: The Impact of Agricultural Productive Services on China’s Low-Carbon Agricultural Transformation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-25, June.
    19. Yuan Gong & Xin Geng & Ping Wang & Shi Hu & Xunming Wang, 2024. "Impact of Urbanization-Driven Land Use Changes on Runoff in the Upstream Mountainous Basin of Baiyangdian, China: A Multi-Scenario Simulation Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, August.
    20. Bellassen, Valentin & Drut, Marion & Hilal, Mohamed & Bodini, Antonio & Donati, Michele & de Labarre, Matthieu Duboys & Filipović, Jelena & Gauvrit, Lisa & Gil, José M. & Hoang, Viet & Malak-Rawlikows, 2022. "The economic, environmental and social performance of European certified food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:585-:d:1385035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.