Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10236-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Measurement of China’s green GDP and its dynamic variation based

on industrial perspective
Feng Wang 1 & Ruiqi Wang 1 & Junyao Wang 2

Received: 21 April 2020 / Accepted: 20 July 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Over the previous two decades, Chinese economic development presented a rapid growth. However, with continuous industri-
alization and urbanization, China is confronted with great challenges of energy security and environmental issues. These
problems are closely related to the current accounting method of economic growth to a certain extent. In order to meet these
challenges, it is imperative to establish a green accounting system of economic growth and measure China’s green GDP and its
changing trend based on the industrial perspective. Using the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) and
industry data, this paper estimates China’s green GDP and green value added by industry sectors in 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012,
2015, and 2017. The results reveal the following: First, the ratio of green GDP to traditional GDP gradually increases from 89.85
to 95.83% during 2005–2017, which means that the negative externalities of economic growth of the resource and environment
are gradually weakened. Second, the difference between traditional GDP and green GDP during 2005–2017 is about 6.96%, with
the carbon emissions accounting for 70.71% of environmental impact. Third, due to more than 80% of the environmental impact
coming from three sectors: manufacturing (49.99%), electricity industry (22.63%), and other services (11.37%), these three
sectors should be key sectors for energy conservation and emission reduction; fourth, the green GDP of the mining, electricity
industries, and manufacturing accounts for the lowest proportion of GDP, which means that the development patterns of these
three industries in recent years should be adjusted and optimized step by step.

Keywords Green GDP . Dynamic variations . Industry . Environmental pollution cost . Resource depletion cost . SEEA

Introduction environmental and resource issues. In 2017, China’s carbon

emissions accounted for about 27% of global carbon emis-
China, since reform and opening-up, has made remarkable sions. Facing international pressure, China promises to peak
achievements in the field of economic development. carbon emissions around 2030, which means that the environ-
However, China’s growth model characterized by high input, mental resource constraints China’s economic development
high energy consumption, and high pollution has led to severe faces will be increasingly intensified. Meanwhile, according
to the Report on Chinese Industrialization (Huang and Li
Responsible editor: Eyup Dogan 2012), China is expected to achieve industrialization by
2020, which means that China is also facing the pressure of
* Ruiqi Wang increasing energy demand brought about by industrialization.
wangruiqi1994@stu.xjtu.edu.cn Under double pressure, China urgently needs to transform
economic growth mode and achieve green growth to promote
Feng Wang
ecological civilization construction. A systematic green eco-
wangfeng123@xjtu.edu.cn
nomic growth accounting system is the prerequisite for green
Junyao Wang development. Based on the industry data, we calculate
575945815@qq.com
China’s green GDP in 2005–2017, which can not only fill
1
School of Economics and Finance, Xi’an Jiaotong University,
research gap but also evaluate the situation of China's green
Xi’an 710061, China economic development objectively.
2
Xi’an Qujiang Culture Finance Holding Co. Ltd., Xi’an 710061,
Since the 1980s, with the acceptance of sustainable devel-
China opment by most countries, there has been a gradual surfacing

of disadvantages of GDP. For one thing, with the increase of
economic growth, various countries gradually gave consider-
ation to improving the growth quality rather than growth
quantity. GDP cannot accurately reflect the quality of eco-
nomic development, especially the loss of resources and en-
vironment; therefore, the accounting with GDP has certain
limitations; for another, GDP accounting can easily lead to
the “only GDP theory” development mode, which cannot pro-
mote the green development, but may increase the loss of
resources and environment. Considering the above problems
in GDP accounting, some international organizations and
economists believe that it is urgent and necessary to introduce
resource and environmental factors into the current national
economic accounting system. So the theoretical system of
green GDP accounting emerges as the times require.
China also began the green GDP accounting since 2004. In
August 2006, China issued the first China Green National
Accounting Study Report (State Environmental Protection
Administration and National Bureau of Statistics 2006).
However, this report did not involve the calculation of natural
resource losses and ecological damage. If these issues are
taken into account, the proportion of environmental loss in
GDP will increase (Ang 2004). As a result, China’s green
GDP accounting system should be investigated further.
In a nutshell, green GDP is the total amount of real national
wealth that is determined by deducting the cost of economic
loss caused by environmental pollution, degradation of natural
resources, low education, out of control of the population, and
poor management from the traditional GDP (Xu 2015).
Generally, green GDP accounting mainly includes two parts:
the accounting system and accounting method.
Since the 1970s, researchers have been focusing on quantitative
methods for various environmental costs, such as “ecological foot-
print” proposed by Rees (1992) and “Eco-Service Indicator
System” (ESI) designed by Constanza et al. (1997). Since then,
some scholars have conducted in-depth studies on the “ecological
footprint” and ESI (Destek et al. 2018; Udemba 2020a, b). Among
them, according to Udemba et al. (2020), ecological footprint
(EFP) is frequently chosen as an indicator to the environment
because of its richness in measuring the environmental perfor-
mance. In 1993, according to the existing research and the eco-
nomic situation, the United Nations integrated the environmental
system into the traditional economic accounting system and pub-
lished it in the form of the System of Environmental Economic
Accounting (SEEA) (United Nations 1995). Although different
institutions and organizations have improved the green GDP
accounting system, the research on green GDP has been
centering on the SEEA after 2000. Kunanuntakij et al. (2017)
developed a green GDP model for Thailand from 1990 to 2020
based on SEEA and EIO-LCA method. La Notte and Dalmazzone
(2018) explored the evolution of Supply and Use Tables within the
System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts-
Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA EEA) and tested
Environ Sci Pollut Res
sustainability assessment and causality nexus of water purification
service. Although there have been many technical difficulties in
green GDP accounting so far, such as the rationality, comprehen-
siveness, and data collection of accounting accounts, by contrast,
the SEEA is the only green national economic accounting system
recognized by international authoritative institutions. Currently, the
SEEA is revised to the SEEA-2012 version (UN 2012). The com-
pilation method of this system has been used by more than 20
countries and regions and has been widely recognized in the aca-
demic circles, so we use the SEEA to assess China’s green GDP.
After the accounting system construction, further re-
searches on measuring green GDP are desired. There are
two paths associated with green GDP measurement: The first
one is to adjust the results of existing national economic value
accounting on the basis of the real economic system and ob-
tain the “GDP adjusted by environmental cost”, that is, tradi-
tional GDP minus the cost of environmental pollution and
resource depletion. The second one is to fictitiously construct
an environmentally friendly economy on the premise of main-
taining a constant environmental level, thereby linking GDP
value with a different economy. The second method was
adopted by Yang and Cai (2000). The essential differences
exist between the above two accounting paths: the former is
to remain the real economic system unchanged and adjust the
traditional GDP by environmental cost; the latter is to main-
tain the current accounting method unchanged and try to re-
store the real economic system to the “green economy” state
through simulation technology. Since the latter method re-
quires precise conditions of technical simulation, complex
mathematical derivation, and other preconditions, it is not on-
ly difficult to operate but also to compare the estimated results
with the real level of national economic development. As a
result, the first one is adopted in this study.
The exploration in green GDP has entered the peak period
since the 1990s. The measurement of China’s green GDP
starts later than in other countries. Lei (1998) took the lead
in designing the resource-economic accounting input-output
table and then made a thorough study on the accounting of
green GDP in 1998. However, there are still some deficiencies
in existing studies. Firstly, although extensive research has
been carried out on the perspective of provinces cities
(Zhang et al. 2010; Lin et al. 2011; Jia and Yu 2013; Shen
et al. 2017), no single study existed that focuses on the per-
spective of the industry. This is mainly because provincial
data is more available than industry data. With the improve-
ment of industry data, the calculation of the green GDP is
feasible on the perspective of the industry. Secondly, the
existing studies on green GDP are not systematic and compre-
hensive. For the convenience of research, some studies only
consider the cost of carbon emissions when calculating envi-
ronmental costs, or only consider the interaction among car-
bon emissions, energy consumption, and economy separately
(Dogan 2014). Udemba 2019, 2020a, b; Udemba et al. 2019)
Environ Sci Pollut Res
conducted follow-up research on the dynamic nexus between
Chinaulati2 emissions, FDI, energy use, tourism arrivals, and
economic growth. This treatment has a certain rationality, but
it is difficult to assess the direct economic impact of
environmental pollution and energy consumption, which has
space for improvement. Finally, the existing studies mainly
focus on the calculation for a certain year but lack the
dynamic research in consecutive years. Lei (1998) and Liu
and Wang (2019) measured the green GDP of China in a
certain year; Shen et al. (2017) measured the green GDP of
1997–2013, but its accounting process was not based on the
SEEA accounting system, so the calculation results of Shen
et al. (2017) could not be compared with other studies.
Considering the limitation of the existing study, the novelty
of this paper lies in three aspects. Firstly, we use a new re-
search perspective. We establish a green accounting system of
economic growth from the perspective of industries instead of
space perspective, which complements the existing literature.
Secondly, we make some contributions to research theories
and methods. Besides carbon emissions, we incorporate SO2
emissions, wastewater discharge, solid waste discharge, solid
waste storage, fossil energy consumption, and water resources
consumption into the green accounting system, which is of
theoretical importance to the extension of the SEEA account-
ing system. Thirdly, we carry out a dynamic study during
2005–2017 and assess the development of a green economy
in various industries in the corresponding years. By measuring
the level of China’s green development objectively since
2005, this study aims to provide policy implications for how
to push forward green development. Therefore, this paper has
a strong theoretical and practical significance.
For the clear and accurate measure of the green develop-
ment level of China’s economy, based on the SEEA account-
ing system and industry data, we measure China’s green GDP
in 2005–2017 and analyze policy implications behind the re-
sults, with a view to making a little marginal contribution to
the construction of ecological civilization in China.
Specifically, the research objectives of this paper are as fol-
lows: first, establish a green GDP accounting framework; sec-
ond, calculate the green GDP of China and various industries
in 2005–2017; third, analyze the dynamic changes of green
GDP and make horizontal and vertical comparison; and
fourth, propose policy recommendations.
Methodology and data
Method of green GDP accounting
The SEEA accounting system is a product of considering the
current SNA and the idea of a sustainable development econo-
my. On the basis of not changing the core structure of current
GDP accounting, this accounting system establishes a statistical
database of natural resources and environmental indicators, so as
to evaluate the relationship among GDP, resources, and environ-
ment. Based on the SEEA accounting system, the accounting
equation for green GDP can be expressed as:
Green GDP ¼ Traditional GDP−
ðEnvironmental pollution cost þ Resource depletion costÞ
þEnvironmental improvement cost
Among them, environmental pollution costs, also known as
environmental degradation costs, refer to the value of environ-
mental pollution losses and the cost of protecting the environ-
ment. Currently, most related researches use carbon emission
costs to represent environmental costs, considering neither SO2
emission costs nor the damage caused by water and solid pollu-
tion to the environment. Therefore, we choose the air pollution
account represented by carbon and SO2 emissions, the water
pollution account by wastewater discharge, and the solid pollu-
tion account by solid waste discharge and solid waste storage to
measure the environmental pollution cost.
Resource depletion costs refer to the value of resources con-
sumed in economic activities. Because of the dependence of
economic development on fossil energy and water resources,
we select fossil energy consumption and water resources con-
sumption to measure the resource depletion costs. Apart from
those, scholars also include cultivated land resources as an ac-
count in the cost of resource depletion, but this paper does not
include it in consideration of that the annual data of cultivated
land occupation change of each sector is not available.
The environmental improvement cost refers to the positive
economic benefits brought by the use of waste or the improve-
ment of environmental conditions, including the output value
of comprehensive utilization of waste and the ecological ben-
efits of gardens. However, due to data limitations, we exclude
environmental improvement costs and use the following for-
mula to calculate China’s green GDP. According to Shen et al.
(2017), environmental improvement cost has a low impact on
the estimated results, so ignoring environmental improvement
cost will not have a significant impact on the results.
Green GDP ¼ Traditional GDP−
ðEnvironmental pollution cost þ Resource depletion costÞ
The process of measuring green GDP is as follows: first,
we calculate the physical quantity of each environmental pol-
lutant based on the industry data, then convert it into the real
value expressed in currency, and finally get green GDP by
eliminating the costs of environmental pollution and resource
depletion from the traditional GDP. The specific calculation
methods for each account are shown in Fig. 1.
This paper determines the conversion factor, governance
price, and shadow price in accordance with the literature and
government documents, so there is certain subjectivity, which

may affect the credibility of the research results. We have
taken some precautions to avoid overestimation of results.
On the one hand, the conversion factor, shadow prices, and
governance cost selected are all from the latest research or
government documents. First, we choose the conversion fac-
tors calculated based on LIME2, an environmental impact
assessment method developed by Japan. The LIME2 is based
on the life cycle impact assessment method of end-point
modeling (LIME), which is suitable for the actual environ-
mental conditions of Asian countries. Kunanuntakij et al.
(2017) also selects this price to measure the green GDP of
Thailand; therefore, it is credible to choose this price as the
conversion factor. Second, we select SO2 shadow price, fossil
energy shadow price and water resource shadow price based
on the latest research which adopts the latest methods in this
field, so it is appropriate to choose these prices as shadow
prices. Third, in the calculation of solid waste discharge, stor-
age, and wastewater discharge, we select treatment costs de-
fined in the official documents as the governance cost of solid
waste discharge, storage, and wastewater discharge. On the
other hand, to reach the real price, the real price level, we deal
with the conversion factor, shadow prices, and governance
cost through the price index.
Measurement method of environmental pollution
cost
Measurement of environmental pollution costs for carbon
emissions
Carbon emissions can be divided into direct carbon emissions
and indirect carbon emissions. Among them, direct carbon
Fig. 1 Accounting system of
green GDP
Environ Sci Pollut Res
emissions refer to the generated by the combustion of coal,
natural gas, petroleum, and other fossil energy, and those pro-
duced through industrial production processes. Indirect car-
bon emissions refer to those caused by the use of electricity
and heat (Ji et al. 2011). The carbon emissions we measured
include both direct and indirect carbon emissions.
Direct carbon emissions The method of estimating direct car-
bon emissions is based on the China Power Generation
Enterprise Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting Method
and Reporting Guide (2013) (National Development and
Reform Commission 2013). The calculation formula can be
symbolized as follows:
E ¼ ∑FC i  Pi ¼ ∑FC i  NCF i  EF i  109 ð1Þ
where E indicates the amount of direct carbon emissions (unit:
ton of CO2), FCi indicates the amount of the i-th fossil fuel
consumption (unit: ton), Pi is the carbon emission coefficient
of energy i (unit: ton of CO2/ton), NCVi is the average low
calorific value of the i-th fossil fuel (unit: kJ/kg), EFi refers to
the effective CO2 emission coefficient (unit: kgCO2/TJ).
Relation coefficients are shown in Table 1.
Total carbon emissions The Economic Input-Output Life
Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) model proposed by
Hendrickson in 1998 is a top-down modeling approach that
cannot only avoid truncation errors but also quickly evaluate
the environmental impact of a product or service
(Hendrickson and Horvath 1998; Hendrickson et al. 2006).
The total carbon emissions caused by the final demand of an
economic sector are both related to the direct carbon emissions
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Relation coefficients of direct carbon emissions

Energy types Raw coal Coke Crude oil Gasoline Kerosene Diesel oil Fuel oil Natural gas

Average low calorific value (unit: kJ/kg) 20908 28435 41816 43070 43070 42652 41816 38931
Effective CO emission coefficient
2 (unit: kgCO2/TJ) 94600 107000 73300 69800 71500 74100 69373 56100
Carbon emission coefficient (unit: kgCO2/kg) 0.539 0.830 0.836 0.820 0.840 0.862 0.791 0.596

The average low calorific value is collected from the General principles for calculation of the comprehensive energy consumption (GB/T 2589-2008)
(2008), the effective CO2 emission coefficient is from the IPCC (2006), and the carbon emission coefficient is obtained by multiplying the product of the
average low calorific value and effective CO2 emission coefficient by 12/44

of the sector, and other relevant sectors, so we select EIO-
LCA model to measure the amount of total carbon emissions.
The formula for calculating the amount of total carbon emis-
sions can be presented as follows:
B ¼ RðI−AÞ−1 y
where B refers to the amount of total carbon emission matrix
for each industry, R refers to the diagonal matrix, and the
diagonal elements are the amount of direct carbon emissions
divided by the total output of the industry, (I-A)-1 indicates the
Leontief inverse matrix, I refers to the unit matrix, A refers to
the direct consumption coefficient matrix, and column vector
y refers to the final demand for each industry excluding
import.
Environmental pollution costs for carbon emissions The mea-
surement process of environmental pollution costs for carbon
emissions can be shown as follows:
W carbon ¼ Dcarbon  Pcarbon
SO2 emissions are displayed in Table 3.
Measurement of environmental pollution costs of water
pollution
ð2Þ
The formula for calculating environmental costs of water pol-
lution can be expressed as follows:
W WP ¼ DWP  PWP ð5Þ
where WWP is the environmental costs of wastewater dis-
charge, PWP is the governance cost of wastewater, and DWP
is the amount of wastewater discharge. The governance cost
of wastewater can be shown in Table 4.
Measurement of environmental pollution costs of solid waste
The pollution costs of solid waste can be calculated by two
indicators: solid waste discharge and solid waste storage. The
ð3Þ calculation formulas are displayed as follows:

where Wcarbon is the environmental pollution costs for carbon W SWD ¼ DSWD  PSWD ð6Þ
emissions, Dcarbon is the amount of total carbon emissions, W SWS ¼ DSWS  PSWS ð7Þ
Pcarbon is the conversion factors. The conversion factors are
presented in Table 2. where WSWD indicates the environmental pollution costs of
solid waste discharge, DSWD the amount of solid waste dis-
charge, PSWD the governance cost per unit of solid waste dis-
Measurement of environmental pollution costs of SO2 charge, WSWS the environmental pollution costs of solid waste
emissions storage, DSWS the amount of solid waste storage, and PSWS the
governance cost per unit of solid waste storage. The gover-
The formula to calculate the environmental pollution costs of nance costs are shown in Table 5.
SO2 emissions can be symbolized as follows:
W SO2 ¼ DSO2  PSO2 ð4Þ Table 2 Conversion factor of carbon emissions during 2005–2017
(unit: yuan/kgCO2)
where WSO2 refers to the environmental pollution cost of SO2
Year 2005 2007 2010 2012 2015 2017
emissions, PSO2 refers to the shadow price of SO2, and DSO2
refers to the amount of SO2 emissions from fuel combustion Conversion factor 3.79 4.74 6.44 7.42 8.04 9.79
and production processes. By definition, the shadow price of a
pollutant can be expressed as the environmental output varia- The conversion factor is the shadow price of carbon emission calculated
by the Japanese environmental impact assessment method LIME2
tion caused by the change of per unit of pollutant at a certain (Kunanuntakij et al. 2017), which is 2.33 JPY/kgCO2. Then, we convert-
output level, so the shadow price of SO2 can measure the ed the conversion factor in yen to that in RMB and adjusted by purchasing
impact of SO2 emissions on output. The shadow prices of power parity from 2005 to 2017
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 3 The shadow price of SO2 during 2005–2017 (unit: 104 evaporation, soil absorption, product adsorption, residents,
yuan/ton)
and livestock drinking in the process of water delivery and
Year 2005 2007 2010 2012 2015 2017 use, but not the returned to surface water and underground
aquifer; and PW indicates the price of water resources. The
Shadow price 1.4287 1.4168 1.3981 1.3765 1.4117 1.4196 price data of water resources are presented in Table 7.
The shadow prices of SO2 emissions used in this paper are from Zeng and
Jiang (2018), and the data from 2015 and 2017 are given by moving Industry division and data source
average method

Taking into account the extents of the impact of various in-

Measurement method of resource depletion cost
Measurement of fossil energy depletion cost
Measurement equation of fossil energy depletion can be
expressed as follows:
W F ¼ DF  PF
where WF indicates the cost of fossil energy depletion; DF the
amount of fossil energy consumption in an economy; PF the
shadow price of fossil energy. The shadow prices are shown in
Table 6.
dustries on environment, we aggregate 29 industries in the
input-output table of China into eight major sectors based on
the China Statistical Yearbook and Industrial classification
for national economic activities (GB/T4754-2011) (National
Bureau of Statistics 2017). The eight major sectors are as
follows: agriculture, mining industry, manufacturing, electric-
ity industry, construction, sales industry, transportation, and
other services, and the classification of industry sectors can be
ð8Þ seen in Appendix Table 11. And the sources of data used in
the paper are shown in Table 8.
Results and discussion

Measurement method of water resources depletion cost Environmental pollution costs

The calculating methods of water resource depletion cost in- Based on our calculation, the average growth rate of green
clude the present value method, net price method, and user GDP excluding environmental pollution costs (12.06%) is
cost method. However, considering the renewability and un- lower than that of traditional GDP (12.46%), which indicates
even distribution of water resources, the value of water re- that the rate of economic growth will slow down considering
sources is difficult to measure by using the above methods. environmental pollution. Moreover, as shown in Fig 2, ex-
Therefore, we multiply the amount of water resources con- cluding 2010, the proportion of green GDP to traditional
sumption by the value of water resources to calculate the cost GDP generally shows a continuous growth trend, increasing
of water resource depletion (Yan 2009; Zhang et al. 2011). from 91.83% in 2005 to 96.53% in 2017. It illustrates that the
The equation of measuring the cost of water resource deple- negative environmental externalities brought by economic
tion can be symbolized as follows: growth are decreasing year by year.
As presented in Fig. 3, the highest proportion of pollution is
W W ¼ DW  PW ð9Þ carbon emissions (82.11%), followed by SO2 emissions
where WW indicates the cost of water resources depletion; DW (12.88%), water pollution (4.87%), and solid waste pollution
the amount of water consumed by transpiration and (0.14%). It is worth noting that the proportion of carbon emis-
sions in the cost of environmental pollution grows year by
year, while the proportion of SO2 emissions and water pollu-
Table 4 Governance cost of wastewater during 2005–2017 (unit: tion is gradually decreasing. It shows that controlling carbon
yuan/ton) emissions is still the key to reducing the cost of environmental
Year 2005 2007 2010 2012 2015 2017 pollution in the future.
Figure 4 reflects the proportion of sectors in environmental
Industry 4.09 4.36 4.73 5.11 5.43 5.62 pollution costs. It can be seen that agriculture, transportation,
Other services 0.61 0.65 0.71 0.76 0.81 0.84 sales industry, construction, and other services have a relative-
Other sector 2.35 2.50 2.72 2.94 3.12 3.23 ly less environmental impact, while the manufacturing, elec-
tricity industry, and other services are three sectors with dan-
The governance cost of wastewater in 2005 derives from the China
Environmental Economic Accounting Technical Guide (2009) (Yu and
gerous environmental pollution. The environmental pollution
Wang 2009). Data for other years are obtained from the data in 2005 costs for these three sectors contribute to 89.72% of the total
adjusted by price level environmental pollution costs.
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 5 Governance cost of solid waste during 2005–2017 (unit:
yuan/ton)
Year 2005 2007 2010 2012 2015
Governance costs 20.36 21.66 23.53 25.44 27.00
of emission
Governance costs 6.11 6.50 7.06 7.63 8.10
of storage
The national unified standard parameters in 2004 are adopted to monetize
the environmental pollution costs of solid waste. These standard param-
eters show that the governance costs per ton of general industrial solid
waste discharge and solid waste storage are 20 yuan and 6 yuan, respec-
tively. We take 2004 as the base year and adjust the national unified
standard parameters in 2004 according to the price level of each year in
2005–2017
The environmental pollution caused by agriculture, con-
struction, and sales industry is relatively lighter, accounting
for only 2.50% of environmental pollution costs during 2005–
2017. For the agricultural sector, the amount of carbon emis-
sions is responsible for 99.75 % of the cost of the agricultural
environmental pollution, which shows that carbon emissions
generated from the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and plastic
films in agricultural production are the main source of the
agricultural environmental pollution. For construction, the
same as agriculture, in the constitution of environmental pol-
lution cost in construction, carbon emissions, and SO2 emis-
sions generated from the unreasonable construction methods
at the construction site accounted for up to 97.30 %, which
illustrates the government should actively transform the tradi-
tional on-site construction methods to reduce the emission of
gaseous pollutants. The development of sales industry relies
more on manual work, so the degree of environmental hazards
is relatively low. According to our calculation results, the
environmental pollution cost for the sales industry only con-
tributes to 0.73% of the total costs.
Different from the relatively stable proportion of the above
three sectors, the share of mining industry and transportation
showed intermittent growth over these 10 years, which indi-
cates that the current development mode of these two sectors
will aggravate the negative impact on the environment in the
long run. Moreover, because the mining industry will dis-
charge a lot of waste rock and slag in the process of working,
the mining industry is also the sector with the most serious
discharge of solid waste, with the solid waste cost accounting
for 68.23% of total solid waste cost.
2017 Other services are the most volatile sector of the cost of
environmental pollution in the eight sectors, fluctuating from
27.98 14.21% in 2005 to 9.48% in 2017. Additionally, the amount
8.39
of wastewater discharge of other services is the highest among
the eight sectors, which occupies 66.37% of the total emis-
sions. It indicates that some sectors of other services have
caused serious water pollution.
Manufacturing and electricity industry are the two sectors
with the most substantial proportion of environmental pollu-
tion costs (54.16% and 24.31%, respectively), and also the
two sectors that account for the highest proportion of carbon
and SO2 emissions (the average proportion of carbon emis-
sions is 55.64% and 22.00%, respectively, and the average
proportion of SO2 emissions is 40.83% and 43.57%, respec-
tively). The development model with high energy-consuming
and high-carbon of the manufacturing has led to severe envi-
ronmental pollution, which makes the manufacturing sector
the highest proportion in the cost of environmental pollution.
Unlike the manufacturing, the proportion of the electricity
industry in environmental pollution costs continues to decline
during 2005–2017, which illustrates that the pollution of the
electricity industry on the environment has been controlled to
a certain extent.
As reviewed above, according to our calculation, agricul-
ture, construction industry, and sales industry are industries
with relatively low environmental pollution costs, while the
pollution of the manufacturing industry and electricity indus-
try is relatively serious. That is consistent with the conclusions
of the existing studies (Li 2015). In the future, China should
pay more attention to the industrial upgrading and green trans-
formation of industries with more pollution such as the
manufacturing and electricity industry, gradually transferring
the energy structure dominated by coal.
Resource depletion costs
Based on our calculation, the proportion of resource depletion
cost in traditional GDP is less than that of environmental pol-
lution cost, which is only 1.13% of traditional GDP. However,
as an item of accounting green GDP, the costs of resource
Table 7 Price of water resources during 2005-20171 (unit: yuan/ m3)

Table 6 The shadow price of fossil energy during 2005–2017 (unit: Year 2005 2007 2010 2012 2015 2017
yuan/ton)
Agriculture 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
Year 2005 2007 2010 2012 2015 2017 Other sectors 1.01 1.03 1.08 1.10 1.43 1.48

Shadow price 35.61 28.62 45.53 24.85 25.81 33.68 The data in 2007, 2010, and 2012 are from Xie and Yu (2016), while the
data in 2005 and 2012 were obtained for the average of the data for the
The shadow price of fossil energy is from Xie and Yu (2017), and the data years before and after 2005 and 2012, and the water resource price in
for 2015 and 2017 is obtained by the recursive method 2017 was obtained from that in 2015 after the price adjustment
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 8 Summary of data sources
Variable Source
GDP China Statistical Yearbooks
2006–2018
Fossil energy depletion China Energy Statistical
Water resource depletion Yearbooks 2006–2018
Energy consumption China Environmental Statistics
SO2 missions Yearbooks 2006–2018
Wastewater discharge
Solid waste discharge
Solid waste storage
Input-output table National Bureau of Statistics
of China
depletion still deserve attention. Moreover, as presented in Fig
5, the difference between GDP and green GDP shrunk from
1.99% in 2005 to 0.70% in 2017, indicating that the consump-
tion of fossil energy and water resources in various economic
sectors presents the declining situation with the continuous
growth of China’s economy.
As shown in Fig 6, the proportion of the cost of water resource
depletion in the cost of resource depletion is much larger than
that of energy resource depletion. It illustrates that compared with
energy-saving, implementing water conservation in various sec-
tors is more effective in reducing resource losses.
As presented in Fig. 7, the proportions of various sectors in
the cost of resource depletion are more stable than those in the
cost of environmental pollution. Sales industry, transportation,
and construction account for a relatively low proportion of
resource depletion cost (2~6%). High dependence on labor
during the sales industry developing has induced the sales
industry into the sector with lowest resource consumption:
according to our results, the proportion of the sales industry
in the cost of resource depletion is only about 2.78% during
2005–2017, which is the smallest proportion among eight
sectors. For the construction, energy consumption mainly de-
rives from the cement, steel, and aluminum used in the con-
struction process. In recent years, the popularity of non-
metallic materials has not only reduced pollution but also re-
duced building energy consumption to a certain extent: the
proportion of construction in the cost of resource depletion
shrank from 6.09% in 2005 to 3.99% in 2017. As presented
in Fig. 7, the proportion of transportation in the cost of re-
source depletion remained steady with time (from 5.62% in
2005 to 5.68% in 2017).
Other services and mining industry are responsible for a
slightly higher proportion (9~16%); and the variation in the
proportion is also relatively stable. During 2005–2017, the
amount of fossil energy depletion cost in other services is
second only to the electricity industry and manufacturing,
which is 12.73% of the total fossil energy depletion cost.
This indicates that energy saving and emission reduction for
other service industries should also be put on the agenda as
soon as possible. The consumption of fossil energy by the
mining industry derives from the consumption of coal, petro-
leum, and other resources in the mining process. Although the
mining industry is generally believed to be one of the high
energy-consuming industries, according to our calculation re-
sults, the mining industry accounts for only 9.83% of the
resource depletion cost, so the energy efficiency in the mining
industry is considered to have been improved to a certain
extent.
Agriculture, electricity industry, and manufacturing ac-
count for the three industries with the most significant propor-
tion of the resource depletion cost (64.14%). Agriculture com-
prises 16.68% of resource depletion cost. Among them, the
cost of agricultural water resource depletion accounts for
98.41% of its own resource depletion cost. Currently, many
cities of China still adopt traditional and backward irrigation
methods, which make the water use of agriculture much larger
than other sectors (Li et al. 2019): According to our calcula-
tion, 62.76% of water resources were used by agriculture dur-
ing 2005–2017. Therefore, it is vital to improve agricultural
water efficiency and minimize the economic losses caused by
agricultural water resources. The electricity industry occupies
18.66% of resource depletion cost, 28.45% of total fossil en-
ergy consumption, which is the second-largest energy-con-
suming industry. With the implementation of electricity

Fig. 2 Green GDP and traditional

GDP excluding environmental
pollution costs during 2005–2017
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Fig. 3 Environmental pollution
cost composition in different
pollution type during 2005–2017
energy-saving policy, the same as variation of the proportion
in environmental pollution cost, the proportion of the electric-
ity industry in the cost of resource depletion has decreased
year by year. As for the cost of environmental pollution, the
manufacturing comprises the highest proportion of resource
depletion cost (28.80%). This indicates that the key to China’s
green development is to improve the energy efficiency of
manufacturing and promote the sustainable development of
manufacturing.
In sum, the proportion of sales, transportation, and con-
struction industry in the resource depletion cost is relatively
low, while the proportion of agriculture, electricity industry,
and manufacturing industry in the resource depletion cost is
relatively large. According to the research of Zhou and Fang
(2019), the electricity industry, mining industry, and
manufacturing are high energy-consumption industries, while
agriculture, sales industry, transportation, and construction are
low-energy-consumption industries. This conclusion can also
be partially confirmed in our research: 64.14% of the resource
consumption cost is from the electricity industry, mining in-
dustry, and manufacturing. However, our research further
points out that agriculture is also a high-energy-consuming
industry together with the electricity industry, mining indus-
try, and manufacturing industry. This divergence between the
two results is due to that the existing research only divides
industries based on energy consumption, so they are not aware
of the huge water resources consumed in agriculture. From the
perspective of the industry distribution, the manufacturing and
the electricity industry are undoubtedly the key industry of
Fig. 4 The composition of
environmental pollution costs by
sector during 2005–2017
energy conservation. In the meanwhile, the large-scale use
of water resources in agriculture and huge fossil energy con-
sumption of other services mean that the energy conservation
and emission reduction of those two industries should also be
taken seriously.
Green GDP
The average annual growth rate of green GDP (13.13%) is
slightly higher than the growth rate of traditional GDP
(12.46%). As presented in Fig. 8, the proportion of green
GDP in traditional GDP rises from 89.85% in 2005 to
95.83% in 2017, which means that the negative externalities
of economic growth to the resource environment have weak-
ened. Considering environmental pollution costs and resource
depletion costs, the difference between traditional GDP and
green GDP between 2005 and 2017 is about 6.96%. Air pol-
lution caused by carbon emissions is 70.71% of the total en-
vironmental impact costs.
In accordance with the results in Fig. 9, it can be seen that
the primary reason for the difference between green GDP and
traditional GDP is the cost of environmental pollution (about
80~88%). Moreover, the environmental pollution cost gradu-
ally falls from 8.16% in 2005 to 3.47% in 2017, while the
resource depletion cost gradually falls from 1.99% in 2005
to 0.70% in 2017, indicating that the contradiction between
environmental resources and economic development in China
has been gradually alleviated.

Fig. 5 Green GDP and traditional
GDP excluding resource
depletion costs during 2005–2017
(unit: CNY 100 million)
In order to verify the reliability of the measurement meth-
od, it is necessary to compare the calculation results of this
paper with the existing green GDP research results. The re-
sults of different studies vary dramatically from each other due
to the lack of uniform standards for accounting Green GDP.
As shown in Table 9, it is found that the difference between
green GDP and traditional GDP is generally between 0.3 and
21% (Lei 1998; Wang et al. 2006; Shen et al. 2017; Liu and
Wang 2019).
As shown in Table 9, some differences exist between our
calculation results and the existing research: on the one hand,
the proportion of green GDP in this paper is slightly smaller
than that of the existing research. The results of Liu and Wang
(2019) show that green GDP accounted for 99.63% of the total
GDP in 2016, while the proportion of green GDP in 2017 in
this paper was only 95.83%; on the other hand, the floating
range of green GDP in this paper is also smaller than the that
of the existing research: according to the research by Shen
et al. (2017), the fluctuation range of green GDP is 7.07%,
while the fluctuation range in this paper is only 6%. The two
above differences are mainly caused by the two following
reasons. First, the accounting scope of this paper is wider than
the existing research. Compared with the existing research
(Shen et al. 2017; Liu and Wang 2019), besides carbon emis-
sions and SO2 emissions, we incorporate SO2 emissions,
wastewater discharge, solid waste discharge, solid waste stor-
age, fossil energy consumption, and water resource
Fig. 6 Resource depletion cost in
different resource types during
2005–2017
Environ Sci Pollut Res
consumption into the green accounting system. Second,
China’s environmental quality has been improved under the
promotion of a series of positive environmental policies since
2005, which may lead to a difference of less than 7% between
traditional GDP and green GDP. According to China’s envi-
ronmental quality assessment report (2018) (Yuan et al.
2019), China’s environmental quality index has increased
from 74.15 in 2005 to 137.65 in 2015. In summary, the cal-
culation results of this study are credible.
Subsector discussion
It is necessary here to clarify why we define industry output as
“industry added value” rather than “industry GDP.” We need
to be explicit about the difference between “industry GDP”
and “industry added value.” According to the definition sug-
gested by Mankiw (1998), GDP can be defined as “the market
value of all final goods and services produced within a country
in a given period of time,” while according to the definition of
China Statistics Bureau, “industrial added value” can be de-
fined as “the final result of industrial production activities in
the form of currency in the reporting period,” reflecting the
contribution of production units or sectors to GDP. It can be
seen that GDP is measured by country or region, while indus-
trial added value is measured by industry. The research in this
paper is based on the industrial perspective, so it is more
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Fig. 7 Composition of resource
depletion cost by industry (2005–
2017)
appropriate to define industrial output as “industrial added
value” than as “industrial GDP.”
As shown in Fig.10, the order of the proportion of each
sector in environmental costs from high to low is as follows:
manufacturing (49.99%), electricity industry (22.63%), other
services (11.37%), transportation (4.91%), agriculture
(3.82%), mining industry (3.46%), sales industry (2.35%),
and construction (1.48%), while the order of the proportion
of the added value of each sector in each year from high to low
is as follows: the other services (29.40%), manufacturing
(28.70%), sales industry (10.41%), agriculture (9.89%), elec-
tricity industry (8.93%), construction (6.34%), transportation
(4.82%), and mining industry (1.49%). It illustrates that high
production value does not necessarily have higher energy con-
sumption and emission demand. For instance, manufacturing
industry accounts for only 28.70% of GDP, but is accompa-
nied by 49.99% negative environmental impact.
As presented in Table 10, the differences between the tra-
ditional value-added and the green value-added of the eight
sectors show a declining trend from 2005 to 2017, which
illustrates that the pressure on the environment of these indus-
tries is gradually alleviated.
Sales and other services are the two industries with the
relatively high value-added (10.41% and 29.40% of the sector
added value, respectively) and relatively small environmental
Fig. 8 Comparison of traditional GDP and green GDP during 2005–2017
impact (2.35% and 11.37% of the environmental cost, respec-
tively), which belong to the “environment-friendly” sector.
Based on the data in Table 10, the average proportions of
green added value to the traditional added value for these
two sectors during 2005–2017 are 97.24% and 97.21%, re-
spectively. Currently, the tertiary industry represented by sales
and other services become increasingly prominent in econom-
ic development, which is called the “stabilizer” and “booster”
of national economic development. The government should
actively guide the green development of these industries by
reducing taxes and policy incentives.
In recent years, China’s industrial restructuring has gradually
reduced the proportion of the primary industry, so the added
value of agriculture comprises only 9.89% of the total output
value. Moreover, although agriculture is responsible for only
3.82% of the environmental cost, due to the larger amount of
water use in agriculture compared with those of the other sectors,
the overall environmental impact of agriculture is greater than
the two sectors above. Since 2004, the government released
several central documents on the theme of issues of agriculture,
rural development and rural residents in consecutive years to
promote green growth and sustainable development of agricul-
ture. Based on our results, in future work, the government should
also popularize agricultural water conservation and improve the
treatment efficiency of wastewater of agriculture.

Fig. 9 GDP composition during
2005–2017
With urbanization in China, the construction has also
brought severe environmental pollution in the process of rapid
development. Currently, China positions the construction as a
key sector of energy-saving and emission-reduction and is-
sued a series of standards of building energy saving. The
added value of construction is responsible for 6.34% of the
total added value, but only 1.48% of the environmental cost,
which means that the previous environmental policy plays a
role.
Although the transportation occupies only 4.91% of the
environmental impact, oil consumption in China’s transporta-
tion comprises more than 70% of the total energy consump-
tion, which indicates that the transportation will lead to a large
amount of energy consumption and environmental pollution
in the future. The government should continue to adjust the
energy structure of transportation and vigorously promote the
use of low-carbon clean energy represented by natural gas and
electricity.
Based on our results, the various pollution of the
manufacturing accounts for 55.64% of the amount of carbon
emissions, 40.83% of the amount of SO2 emissions, 28.35%
of the amount of solid waste discharge, and 52.85% of the
total fossil energy consumption, respectively. In the mean-
while, the manufacturing is also the sector with the highest
proportion of resource depletion costs and environmental pol-
lution costs, which means that manufacturing is the sector
with the most serious environmental pollution. The reason
for this lies in the characteristics of high energy-consuming
and high-carbon in manufacturing itself and the large indirect
demand of other industries for manufacturing. In response, the
government should strive to promote the transformation and
Table 9 Comparison of green GDP accounting results
Research scholar Research object Research period
Lei (1998) China 1992
Wang et al. (2006) China 2004
Shen et al. (2017) China 1997-2013
Liu and Wang (2019) China 2016
Environ Sci Pollut Res
upgrade of the manufacturing and develop the high-end
manufacturing.
The development of electricity industry has brought huge
negative impact on the environment: According to our re-
search, the electricity industry is second only to the
manufacturing in the proportion of resource depletion costs
and environmental pollution costs; in addition, the output val-
ue of the electricity industry accounts for 8.93% of the total
added value, while its proportion in the total environmental
cost is as high as 22.63%, both of which indicate electricity
industry is one of the “non-environmentally-friendly oriented”
sectors. The structure of power generation dominated by ther-
mal power directly causes high-pollution and high energy
consumption in the electricity industry. In this case, the gov-
ernment issued the Air Pollutant Emission Standards for
Thermal Power Plants in 2011 to mitigate the pressure on
the environment in the electricity industry. Driven by active
policies, the proportion of the electricity industry in the envi-
ronmental pollution costs and resource depletion costs de-
clined slowly during 2005–2017. In the future, the Chinese
government should continue to impose compulsory limits on
pollutant emission standards of electricity enterprises, espe-
cially on thermal power plants; additionally, China should
invest more funds to promote the energy structure adjustment
of the electricity industry actively.
Although the proportion of the mining industry in the total
added value and environmental cost is relatively low, the min-
ing industry is the sector with the major gap between the green
added value and the traditional added value among the eight
sectors, illustrating that there is still a considerable space for
the green development in the mining industry. Currently,
Research methods Results (%)
Input-output method 99.78
SEEA 93.50
Green GDP accounting system 78.99~87.06
Life Cycle Method 99.63
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 10 Environmental impact

composition by industry during
2005–2017

China's mining industry has some issues such as the low uti- Conclusions
lization rate of energy efficiency, backward mining equip-
ment, weak awareness of safety and environmental protection, Accurate accounting for green GDP is a prerequisite for pro-
and negligent management by government, which retards the moting green development. In this paper, we conducted theo-
green development of the industry to a certain extent. retical innovation by expanding the accounting scope of the
Therefore, strengthening comprehensive management and im- existing green GDP research. In our research, we consider the
proving energy efficiency are vital to the future development environmental pollution cost including carbon emission, SO2
in the mining industry. emission, wastewater, and solid waste discharge and consider
In summary, the proportion of green added value to the the resource consumption cost including fossil energy con-
traditional added value in all industries is steadily increasing. sumption and water resource consumption, which makes a
This illustrates that China’s energy conservation and emission beneficial supplement to the previous research. In addition,
reduction policies have achieved initial success after 2005, we extend the research perspective from provinces to the in-
and the pressure on resources and environment caused by dustries. Based on the industry data, we calculated China’s
various industries in the development process is gradually green GDP in 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012 2015, and 2017 and
relieved. Among them, the sales industry, other services, ag- objectively evaluates the current situation of China’s green
riculture, and construction account for a relatively high pro- development. Finally, the paper also makes a horizontal and
portion of green added value to the traditional added value, vertical comparison of the research results and puts forward
which belong to the “environment-friendly” industry. The corresponding policy recommendations, so this paper has
mining, manufacturing, and electricity industries account for great theoretical and practical significance to the construction
a relatively low proportion of green added value to the tradi- of China’s ecological civilization.
tional added value, which belongs to the “non-environment- The average growth rate of green GDP (13.13%) is slightly
friendly” industry. These results were confirmed by Li and Lu higher than that of traditional GDP (12.46%). In addition,
(2010). In the future, the government should further adjust the during 2005–2017, the proportion of green GDP to traditional
industrial structure, encourage the development of “environ- GDP gradually rose from 89.85% in 2005 to 95.83% in 2017
ment-friendly” industries, and gradually reduce the negative with our calculation. The environmental pollution cost gradu-
impact of industry development on resources and ally fell from 8.12% in 2005 to 3.47% in 2017, while the
environment. resource depletion cost gradually fell from 1.99% in 2005 to
0.70% in 2017. The above results indicate that under the pro-
motion of energy-saving policies after 2005, the contradiction
between environmental resources and economic development
Table 10 The proportion of green added value to the traditional added
value in some industries during 2005–2017 (%) has been gradually alleviated. Among them, carbon emissions
are the main source of negative environmental impact; the
Year 2005 2007 2010 2012 2015 2017 environmental pollution cost caused by carbon emissions ac-
counts for 70.71% of the total environmental cost.
Transportation 90.05 94.60 88.60 91.29 93.02 94.05
The order of the proportion of eight sectors in environmen-
Sales industry 94.15 97.02 95.09 96.51 97.28 99.51
tal costs from large to small is as follows: manufacturing
Other services 94.52 97.08 96.76 98.36 97.85 98.71
(49.99%), electricity industry (22.63%), other services
Agriculture 96.10 96.66 97.46 97.88 98.23 97.88
(11.37%), transportation (4.91%), agriculture (3.82%), min-
Construction 96.72 97.70 98.41 98.76 98.99 99.14
ing industry (3.46%), sales industry (2.35%), and construction
Manufacturing 85.88 86.49 84.57 87.78 91.83 92.13
(1.48%). And the proportion of green GDP in various indus-
Mining industry 86.41 78.37 74.12 70.92 75.39 88.30
tries is increasing year by year, which shows that China’s
Electricity industry 65.76 77.26 81.05 85.31 88.80 90.81
environmental quality has been improved to a certain extent.

However, in accordance with our results, a difference of
6.96% between China’s green GDP and traditional GDP,
which illustrates that the new industrialization road featuring
the coordinated development between the economy and the
ecological environment, has not yet been completed.
We will carry out future work from the following two as-
pects. (1) Based on the results obtained, some policy implica-
tions can be provided; (2) In view of the limitations of this
paper, a gradual improvement is also one of the future work
directions.
This paper puts forward the following three policy impli-
cations based on the above conclusions:
First, the government should strengthen the compre-
hensive management of highly polluting industries. As
mentioned above, electricity industry and manufacturing
are the sectors with the most serious pollution.
However, in addition to the characteristics of the sectors
itself, the lack of control over the government for the
two sectors also accounts for serious pollution in these
two industries. Therefore, in the future, the government
should accelerate its industrial upgrading and green
transformation of these two sectors and establish a
“green certificate system” to encourage the use of clean
technology in high-polluting sectors. Moreover, the gov-
ernment should also pay attention to the ecological reg-
ulation of production links to reduce pollution from the
source.
Second, accelerate the adjustment of energy structure and
improve energy efficiency effectively. According to our re-
sults, the negative impact of China’s economic development
on the environment is mainly reflected in excessive carbon
emissions, while the reasons for this situation are inseparable
from China’s energy structure based on coal. Therefore,
adjusting the energy structure and improving energy efficien-
cy are the keys to reduce the negative impact on the environ-
ment brought about by economic development. The relevant
policy implications are suggested as follows.
1. Formulate medium and long-term development plans
for renewable energy and control the total energy
consumption through reform of the supply side of
the new energy.
2. Implement the reforms of the energy market and walk out
a green and low-carbon innovative development road
with Chinese characteristics.
3. Promote innovation. Innovation is the primary driving
force to improve energy efficiency. The existing technol-
ogies and energy types are no longer able to meet the
Environ Sci Pollut Res
higher requirements of sustainable development, so inno-
vation should be enhanced from technologies, talents, in-
formation, and knowledge.
Third, adjust and optimize the industrial structure step by
step. Following our analysis, industrial structure in China still
has some space for improvement. Specifically, we can start
from the following three aspects.
1. For traditional industries such as agriculture, the govern-
ment needs to invest more in R&D to improve industrial
science and technology innovation, release new vitality
from traditional industries, and accelerate the transforma-
tion of new and old economic momentum. Considering
the current situation that the production capacity of back-
ward production capacity is lower than the industry aver-
age level, while pollutant emissions, energy consumption,
and water consumption are higher than the industry aver-
age, the government should speed up the elimination of
backward production capacity of traditional industries and
reduce the development cost of the green economy.
2. The government should accelerate the cultivation and de-
velopment of strategic emerging industries such as other
services.
3. China’s urban and industrial planning should reduce the
proportion of manufacturing and develop modern service
industries and high-tech industries.
The research still has limitations. On the one hand, ac-
counting the scope of this paper can be further expanded. In
view of data’s availability, this paper only considers fossil
energy consumption and water resource consumption when
calculating resource depletion costs, while those two afore-
mentioned depletion costs, mineral depletion cost, and land
depletion cost should also be covered in resource depletion
cost. On the other hand, the calculation of carbon emissions in
this paper is based on the input-output table. The input-output
table of China is published every 2–3 years, so continuous
time research is difficult to conduct.
To sum up, in our future study, additional work will be
done on expanding the accounting scope of green GDP for
accurate calculation of China’s green GDP. In addition, to
carry out the continuous accounting of green GDP is also
one of the future research directions.
Funding information This study was funded by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (grant number: 71673217).
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Appendix

Table 11 Classification of industry sectors

Industry sectors Subdivided industries

Agriculture Agriculture, Forestry, Animal Husbandry and Fishery and Related Indices
Mining industry Mining and washing of coal, extraction of petroleum and natural gas, mining
and processing of metal ores, mining, and processing of nonmetal ores
and mining of other ores.
Manufacturing Manufacture of foods and tobacco, manufacture of textile, clothing apparel
industry, manufacture of wood processing and furniture, manufacture of paper
printing and entertainment, processing of petroleum, coking, manufacture of chemistry, manufacture of non-metallic mineral
products, smelting and processing
of metals, manufacture of metal products, manufacture of general and
special-purpose machinery, manufacture of transportation equipment,
manufacture of electrical machinery and equipment, manufacture of computers,
communication and other electronic equipment, manufacture of measuring instruments,
machinery and equipment repair
Electricity Production and distribution of electric power and heat power, production and distribution
industry of gas and production and distribution of tap water
Construction Construction
Sales industry Wholesale trade, retail trade, accommodation and catering
Transportation Transportation, storage and postal services
Other services Finance, real estate, leasing, and commercial services, scientific research and polytechnic
services, geological prospecting industry, management of water, ecological protection,
environmental and public facilities, resident services, education, health care, social work,
social welfare, culture, sports and entertainment public administration,
social organizations, international organizations

References
Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policy making in energy:
which is the preferred method. Energy Policy 32:1131–1139
Constanza R, d’Arge R, Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B,
Limburg K, Naeem S, O'Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton
P, Belt MVD (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services
and natural capital. Nature 387:53–60
Destek MA, Ulucak R, Dogan E (2018) Analyzing the environmental
Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 25:29387–29396
Dogan E (2014) Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence
from low-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa [J]. Int J Energy
Econ Policy 4(2):154–162
Hendrickson CT, Horvath A (1998) Economic input-output models for
environmental life- cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 32:
184A–191A
Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cy-
cle assessment of goods and services: an input-output approach.
Resources for the Future Press, Washington
Huang Q, Li F (2012) Report on Chinese industrialization (1995-2015).
Social Science Literature Publishing House, Beijing
IPCC (2006) Task force on national greenhouse gas inventories
Ji J, Lil L, Ma X (2011) Greenhouse gas emissions by Chinese economy:
an assessment based on EIO-LCA model. Acta Sci Nat Univ Pekin
4:741–749
Jia H, Yu X (2013) The demonetized green GDP accounting system
based on the MCDM. J Arid Land Resour Environ 27:6–13
Kunanuntakij K, Varabuntoonvit V, Vorayos N (2017) Thailand green
GDP assessment based on environmentally extended input-output
model. J Clean Prod 167:970–977
La Notte A, Dalmazzone S (2018) Sustainability assessment and causal-
ity nexus through ecosystem service accounting: the case of water
purification in Europe. J Environ Manag 223:964–974
Lei M (1998) Green GDP accounting. J Nat Resour 4:33–39. https://doi.
org/10.3321/j.issn:1000-3037.1998.04.005
Li P (2015) Does industrial restructuring worsen China’s environmental
pollution? Inq Econ Iss 6:150–156
Li XP, Lu XX (2010) International trade, pollution industry transfer and
Chinese industries’CO2 emissions. J Econ Res 1:15–26
Li YJ, Zhang ZY, Shi MJ (2019) Restrictive effects of water scarcity on
urban economic development in the Beijing-Tianjin- Hebei city re-
gion. Sustainability 11:2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082452
Lin WB, Yang J, Chen B (2011) Temporal and spatial analysis of inte-
grated energy and environment efficiency in China based on a green
GDP index. Energies 4:1376–1390. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en4091376
Liu Z, Wang L (2019) Study on regional economic difference of green
GDP based on life-cycle cost method. For Econ 8:82–101
Mankiw NQ (1998) Principles of economics. The Dryden Press, Texas
National Bureau of Statistics (2017) Industrial classification for national
economic activities

National Development and Reform Commission (2013) China power
generation enterprise greenhouse gas emission accounting method
and reporting guide (2013). http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2013-11/04/
content_2520743.htm. Accessed 28 Jul 2020
Rees WE (1992) Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity:
what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban 4:21–13
Shen X, Wang G, Huang X (2017) Green GDP accounting and spatio-
temporal pattern in China from 1997 to 2013. J Nat Resour 32:
1639–1650
State Environmental Protection Administration, National Bureau of
Statistics (2006) 2004 China green national economic accounting
research report. Environ Prot 18:22–29
Udemba EN (2019) Triangular nexus between foreign direct investment,
international tourism, and energy consumption in the Chinese econ-
omy: accounting for environmental quality. Environ Sci Pollut Res
26(24):24819–24830
Udemba EN (2020a) Mediation of foreign direct investment and agricul-
ture towards ecological footprint: a shift from single perspective to a
more inclusive perspective for India. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:
26817–26834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09024-4
Udemba EN (2020b) A sustainable study of economic growth and devel-
opment amidst ecological footprint: New insight from Nigerian
Perspective. Sci Total Environ 732(139270):1–10
Udemba EN, Güngör H, Bekun FV (2019) Environmental implication of
offshore economic activities in Indonesia: a dual analyses of
cointegration and causality. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(31):32460–
32475
Udemba EN, Magazzino C, Bekun FV (2020) Modeling the nexus be-
tween pollutant emission, energy consumption, foreign direct in-
vestment, and economic growth: new insights from China.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(15):17831–17842
United Nations (1995) System of national accounts (1993). China
Statistical Press, Beijing
United Nations (2012) System of environmental-economic accounting
2012: central framework. https://seea.un.org/content/seea-central-
framework. Accessed 28 Jul 2020
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Wang JN, Yu F, Cao D (2006) Study report 2004 for green national
economic accounting. China Pop Resour Environ 16(6):11–17
Xie H, Yu Y (2016) Impact of water price reform on water conservation
and economic growth in China. Econ Anal Policy 51:90–103
Xie H, Yu Y (2017) The substitutability of non-fossil energy, potential
carbon emission reduction and energy shadow prices in China.
Energy Policy 107:63–71
Xu W (2015) Macroeconomics. Zhejiang Gongshang University Press,
Hangzhou
Yan H (2009) Research on resource environmental value assessment and
accounting. China Social Sciences Press, Beijing
Yang YX, Cai YL (2000) Sustainable valuation for resources and envi-
ronment and development in rural China—The SEEA and its appli-
cation research. Acta Geol Sin 55:596–606
Yu F, Wang JN (2009) China environmental economic accounting tech-
nical guide (2009). China Environmental Press, Beijing
Yuan XL, Yang WP, Zhang YS, Di H (2019) Annual report of environ-
mental quality comprehensive evaluation in China in 2018. China
Economic Publishing House, Beijing
Zeng S, Jiang X (2018) China's SO2 shadow prices and environmental
technical efficiency at the province level. Int Rev Econ Financ 57:
86–102
Zhang H, Huang M, Hu X (2010) Green GDP calculation of Fujian
province based on energy analysis. Acta Geol Sin 65:1421–1428
Zhang H, He X, Wang Y (2011) Analysis of water consumption of
China’s industries based on the input-output msethod. Resour Sci
33:1218–1224
Zhou QL, Fang SJ (2019) Regional energy endowment, enterprise het-
erogeneity and energy efficiency: an empirical analysis based on the
sample data of micro industry wide enterprises. Econ Sci 02:66–78
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.