Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

China's agricultural green total factor productivity based on carbon

emission: An analysis of evolution trend and influencing factors
Dongdong Liu a, Xiaoyan Zhu b, Yafei Wang b, *
a
School of Economics, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, 250358, China
b
School of Economics and Management, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing, 401331, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: China's economy is currently moving from a stage of high-speed growth to a stage of high-quality
Received 15 April 2020 development. Agricultural green total factor productivity is of great significance for promoting the
Received in revised form high-quality development of the economy. Based on the panel data of China's provincial agriculture, this
19 July 2020
paper uses the Super-SBM model to calculate China's agricultural green total factor productivity based on
Accepted 8 August 2020
Available online 26 August 2020
carbon emissions. On this basis, this paper uses the nuclear density estimation method to investigate its
dynamic evolution trend and the panel data model to empirically study the influencing factors of China's
^as de
Handling editor. Cecilia Maria Villas Bo agricultural green total factor productivity. The results show that China's agricultural carbon emissions
Almeida show an inverted-“U” trend, but the overall growth rate shows a gradual declining trend. The main
concentration areas are transferred from the eastern region to the central region, and agricultural fer-
Keywords: tilizer is the main source of such emissions. China's agricultural green total factor productivity overall
Agricultural green total factor productivity shows a fluctuating growth trend, and the differences between provinces show an increasing trend.
Evolution trend Agricultural factor endowments and regional characteristics affect China's agricultural green total factor
Influencing factors
productivity, and there are regional differences in these effects. An important way to improve China's
Data envelopment analysis
agricultural green total factor productivity and promote the coordinated development of agricultural
regions and the high-quality development of the economy is by promoting clean agricultural production,
strengthening the research and development of agricultural science and technology, expanding the
agricultural opening-up level, and promoting the deep integration of industrialization and agricultural
modernization.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction protecting the environment in producing areas, promoting the

Since the reform and opening up, the reform of agriculture in
China has been comprehensively deepened, leading to remarkable
achievements and significant contributions to the world's agricul-
tural development. However, because of this rapid growth of the
agricultural economy, agriculture in China has had severe resource
constraints and caused serious environmental pollution and a large
amount of greenhouse gas emissions(Xu and Lin, 2017). According
to the author's calculation, Fig. 1 presents that China's gross agri-
cultural output value and gross agricultural carbon emissions
increased from 2003 to 2017. In 2020 and for many years, Central
No. 1 Document has been involved in agriculture has repeatedly
stressed the importance of saving agricultural resources and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yafeiwang@cqnu.edu.cn (Y. Wang).
transformation of agriculture from being production-oriented to
being quality-improvement-oriented and the high-quality devel-
opment of agriculture. According to data from the Permanent
Representative Office of China submitted to the Food and Agricul-
ture Organization of the United Nations, the global greenhouse gas
emissions from are 14% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and data
from the China Council for the International Cooperation Com-
mittee on Environment and Development demonstrate that the
agricultural greenhouse gas emissions of China are approximately
17% of total national emissions (Dong et al., 2008).
China's economy is currently moving from a stage of high-speed
growth to a stage of high-quality development, and it is in the key
period of changing its development mode, optimizing its economic
structure and transforming its growth power. Agricultural devel-
opment should change from focusing on quantitative expansion to
focusing on quality improvement and pay more attention to the
sustainable development of resources and to the transformation to

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123692
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang
Fig. 1. Gross agricultural carbon emission and gross agricultural output value.
green-intensive development. As a measure of factor quality, total
factor productivity (TFP) is the core of national wealth growth,
especially developing countries (Krugman, 1994; Johnson, 1997;
Feng et al., 2019; Xia and Xu, 2020), which has become an impor-
tant indicator to measure the high-quality development of agri-
cultural economy.
However, research on the measurement of agricultural TFP only
considers capital and labor (Zhou, 2009), and less involves the
carbon emission factors of agricultural green development. The
carbon dioxide is one of the most pressing problems worldwide
and change over time (Ahmed, 2012; IPCC, 2013; Zhang et al., 2019),
whichharms the environment and adversely affect human lives
(Sirag, 2018). Therefore, many countries include China have made
encouraging promises to reduce carbon emissions (Jiang et al.,
2019). Agricultural carbon emission refers to the emission of
greenhouse gases caused by fertilizer, pesticide, energy consump-
tion and land conversion in the process of agricultural production
(Li et al., 2011; IPCC, 2007). Moreover, China's regional develop-
ment is unbalanced, and the agricultural factor resources in
different regions differ, which is not conducive to the regional co-
ordinated development of China's agricultural economy.Hence, this
paper studies the development trend, influencing factors, and
regional differences of agricultural green TFP in China, based on the
perspective of carbon emission. It is of great theoretical and prac-
tical significance for improving green TFP and realizing regional
coordinated development and high-quality development of agri-
culture in China.
The main purpose of this study is to explore the evolution trend
and influencing factors of China's agricultural green TFP, based on
the perspective of carbon emission. First, this paper measures and
analyzes the evolution trend of agricultural carbon emissions.-
Second, this paper measures the agricultural green TFP in China and
analyzes its evolution trend. Third, this paper uses a panel data
model to conduct empirical research on the influencing factors of
agricultural green TFP.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews
the relevant literature. Section 3 introduces the method and
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692
data.Section 4 presents the empirical results and discussion. Sec-
tion 5ends up with conclusions and implications.
2. Literature review
2.1. Measurement of agricultural green TFP
Studies of the calculation of the agricultural TFP have used the
stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) method and the data envelopment
analysis (DEA) method. The SFA method needs to set the probability
distribution from a random error term, and the frontier production
function is easily affected by individual regions (Aigner et al., 1977;
Lin and Wang, 2014). Therefore, a few studies have used the
method to study agricultural TFP. For example, Wanget al. (2012)
calculated the green TFP in China's agriculture based on the SFA
method of using the loss of nitrogen and phosphorus in agricultural
production as a factor input. However, the DEA method does not
need to set a specific production function, and it is suitable for the
multi-input and multioutput boundary production function (Bai
et al., 2019); thus, it has become the main method to measure
TFP (Fare et al., 1994; Tian and Yu, 2012; Tugcu and Tiwari, 2016).
Because the Malmquistindex of the traditional DEA method cannot
measure TFP that includes unexpected output, many scholars have
used the Malmquist-Luenberger (ML) index (Chung et al., 1997) to
measure the agricultural TFP (Yang and Chen, 2011; Han and Zhao,
2013). However, because of the differences in research objects,
research perspectives, or sample selection, the conclusions are
different.
To avoid the potential linear programming unsolved problem
and the non-cyclical or transitive characteristics of the MLindex,
some scholars have used the Global MLindex to measure agricul-
tural TFP based on carbon emissions.The aforementioned literature
has used the radial and angular DEA model, and the measurement
has not included relaxation variables or ignored some input or
output, resulting in inaccurate measurement results.To overcome
the shortcomings and examine green goals, many scholars have
used the non-radial and non-oriented SBM models based on
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang
relaxation variables (Tone, 2001) to accurately measure the agri-
cultural greenTFP(Li, 2014; Liang et al., 2015; Ge, 2018). However,
the model cannot evaluate and rank multiple fully effective deci-
sion units effectively. Therefore, Tone (2002) proposed a Super-
SBMmodel based on the modified relaxation variable.At present,
the Super-SBM model has been widely used to study TFP (Zhou
et al., 2019).
2.2. Influencing factors of agricultural green TFP
With the continuous improvement of TFP measurement
methods, scholars began to pay attention to the influencing factors
of TFP. Most of the studies examined the agricultural TFP, as well as
the important influencing factors of green TFP in industry, service
industry and city. Gao (2015), Liu (2018) and Ge et al. (2018)
believed that the proportion of agricultural output value, agricul-
tural technology level and the adjustment of agricultural industrial
structure are important factors affecting China's agricultur-
alTFP.Chen (2016), Lin and Xu (2019)and Peng et al. (2020)proposed
that market-based environmental regulation, carbon tax, technol-
ogy level and energy structure would affect China's industrial green
TFP.Wang and Wang (2017) believe that the development level and
internal structure of the service industry have an important impact
on the green TFPof China's service industry.Chen and Tang (2018)
found that manufacturing agglomeration would has an important
impact on urban green TFP.
However, few studies have focused on the influencing factors of
green TFP in agriculture, especially in a narrow sense.In a narrow
sense, agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fisheries have
different demands for input factors, and the production cycle of
each product is different, resulting in inaccurate research conclu-
sions and no practical significance.In addition, the aforementioned
literature has mainly considered that the agricultural economic
development level, agricultural production structure, and agricul-
tural technology level are the important factors that affect agri-
cultural green TFP.The regional characteristics are also a reason that
affects the growth of agricultural green TFP, and the analysis of
agricultural green TFPhas not been comprehensive.China's vast
territory and different regional economic development factors lead
to regional differences in China's agricultural green TFP (Gao, 2015).
Based on the perspective of carbon emissions, this paper ex-
amines the evolution trend and influencing factors of China's
agricultural green TFP.Compared with the literature, the main
contributions in this paper areas follows:First, this paper selects
agriculture in a narrow sense as the research object, selects input-
output indicators, considers the “relaxation” of input factors and
the sequencing of effective units, uses the Super-SBMmodel to
accurately measure the agricultural green TFP in China, and ana-
lyzes its evolution trend. Second, based on the reality of China's
agricultural development, this paper accurately measures and an-
alyzes the evolution trend of agricultural carbon emissions, which
is of great significance for the scientific formulation of carbon
emission reduction policies. Third, the literature has ignored the
influence of regional characteristics on agricultural green TFP. This
paper puts the agricultural factor endowment and regional char-
acteristics into a unified research framework and uses a panel data
model to conduct empirical research on the influencing factors of
agricultural green TFP.
3. Methods and data
3.1. Methods
3.1.1. Panel data model
Agricultural green TFP is of great significance to promote the
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692
high-quality development of an economy, and China's economy is
currently moving from a stage of high-speed growth to a stage of
high-quality development. Therefore, to investigate the influencing
factors of China's agricultural green TFP, it is helpful to provide a
decision-making basis for related top-level designs.According
toGao (2015), combined with the availability of data, the influ-
encing factors of agricultural green TFP can be classified into two
categories: agricultural factor endowment and regional character-
istics. Among these two categories, agricultural factor endowments
include the agricultural economic development level, agricultural
production structure, agricultural technology level, and natural
conditions, in which the agricultural economic development level,
agricultural technology level, and natural conditions can directly
affect agricultural green TFP.Agricultural production structure af-
fects agricultural green TFP by changing the agricultural resource
allocation efficiency.Regional characteristics include the regional
economic development level, degree of regional opening to the
outside world, and regional industrialization level, in which the
regional economic development level can directly affect agricul-
tural green TFP. The degree of regional opening to the outside world
and the regional industrialization level affect agricultural technol-
ogy progress and then affect the agricultural green TFP.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, to further explore the
influencing factors of China's agricultural green TFP, this paper es-
tablishes a panel data model. Panel data refers to data that tracks
the same group of individuals over time, which has both cross-
section latitude and a time dimension. Compared with cross-
section data and time series data, panel data can solve the prob-
lem of missing variables, provide more information on individual
dynamic behavior, and improve the accuracy of estimation by
providing a large sample and reducing the multicollinearity among
variables (Rashid Khan et al., 2019). The panel data model is as
follows:
X
4 X
7
ln gtfpit ¼ b0 þ bn ln afeit þ bn ln trcit þ li þ ht þ εit (1)
n¼1 n¼5
In the formula, irepresents provincial administrative region,t
represents time, b represents parameter to be estimated, l repre-
sents individual effect, h represents time effect,ε represents random
disturbance term of normal distribution.ln gtfpis the logarithm of
green TFP. ln afeis the logarithm of agricultural factor endowment,
including the agricultural economic development level (ln aed),
which is characterized by the ratio of agricultural gross product to
agricultural employees; agricultural production structure (ln aps),
which is characterized by the proportion of the sown area of grain
crops to the total sown area of crops; agricultural technology level
(ln atl), which is characterized by the proportion of the total power
of agricultural machinery to the added value of agriculture; natural
conditions (ln tnc), which is characterized by the proportion of the
affected area to the total sown area of crops.ln trcis the logarithm of
regional characteristics, including the regional economic develop-
ment level (ln red), which is represented by the ratio of regional
GDP to the permanent population at the end of the year; the degree
of regional opening up (ln rou), which is represented by the pro-
portion of the total import and export of goods in the regional GDP
of the place where the business unit is located; the regional
industrialization level(ln ril), which is characterized by the ratio of
regional industrial added value to the permanent population at the
end of the year.
3.1.2. Calculation method of agricultural green TFP
This paper uses the Super-SBMmodel to calculate the China's
agricultural green TFP.Compared with the radial and angularDEA
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692

model and SBM model,Super-SBM model can evaluate and rank agricultural machinery produce carbon emissions.Agricultural
multiple fully effective decision units effectively (Tone, 2002; Zhou plowing damages the organic carbon in the soil, forming carbon
et al., 2019).The Super-SBMmodel mainly includes target efficiency emissions.Fossil fuels used in electricity for agricultural irrigation
valuer, inputx, expected outputyg , unexpected outputyb , input cause carbon emissions.The estimation formula of agricultural
slackS , expected output slack Sg and unexpected output slackSb . carbon emissions is as follows:
The specific form is shown in formula (2): X X
C¼ Cr ¼ Sr $dr (3)
1X
m
xi In the formula, Crepresents the agricultural total carbon emis-
m xi0 sion, Cr represents the carbon emission from carbon emission
r ¼ min i¼1
!
X
s1 g s2 y b
X sourcesr, Sr represents the amount of carbon emission sourcesr,
1 y r j
g þ dr represents the carbon emission coefficient of carbon emission
s1 þ s2 r¼1 yr0 ybj0
j¼1 sourcesr.Among them, chemical fertilizer is characterized by the
net amount of agricultural chemical fertilizer application
8 (10000tons), the corresponding carbon emission coefficient is
>
> x0 ¼ X l þ S ; yg0 ¼ Y g l  Sg ; yb0 ¼ Y b l  Sb
>
> 0.8965 kg kg1 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL); Pesticide is
>
>
>
> Xn Xn Xn characterized by the amount of pesticide used (10000 tons), the
>
>  g g b
>
> x  l x ; y  l y ; y  lj ybj corresponding carbon emission coefficient is 4.9341 kg kg1
>
> j j j j
< j¼1;s0 j¼1;s0 j¼1;s0 (ORNL); Agricultural film is characterized by the amount of agri-
s:t: (2)
>
>  g g b cultural plastic film(tons), the carbon emission coefficient is
>
> x  x0 ; y  y0 ; y  yb0
>
> 5.18 kg kg1 (Institute of Resources, Ecosystem and Environment of
>
>
>
> Xn
g Agriculture, IREEA); Agricultural machinery is expressed by the use
>
> lj ¼ 1; S  0; Sg  0; Sb  0; y  0; l  0
>
> amount of agricultural diesel (10000 tons), the corresponding
: j¼1;s0
carbon emission coefficient is 0.5927 kg kg1 (IPCC); Agricultural
ploughing is expressed by the total planting area of crops (1000
In the formula, m、s1 and s2 are the number of input indicators,
HA), the carbon emission coefficient is 312.6 kg km2(Institute of
expected output indicators and unexpected output indicators
Agriculture and Biotechnology of China Agricultural University,
respectively, and lis the weight vectors. Whenr  1, the evaluated
IABCAU); Agricultural irrigation is expressed by effective irrigation
decision unit is relatively effective, otherwise, the evaluated deci-
area(HA),the carbon emission coefficient is 20.476 kg/hm2(Li et al.,
sion unit is invalid.According to the Super-SBM model, the calcu-
2011).
lation of agricultural green TFP includes two aspects: agricultural
output and agricultural input. In this paper, agricultural output
includes expected output and non-expected output, in which the 3.1.4. Method of kernel density estimation
expected output is represented by the gross agricultural output Kernel density estimation method (Rosenblatt, 1956) is a
value (100 million yuan), and the expected output is characterized nonparametric estimation method which can get smooth estima-
by agricultural carbon emissions (10000 tons).Carbon emission is tion of density function. It is mainly used to estimate the probability
the main influencing factor of global climate change; does not density of random variables. If the f ðxÞ is density function of
contain nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients; and can char- random variablex, then the kernel density estimator is:
acterize various pollutants in agricultural production. Therefore, it
is reasonable to use carbon emission as the unexpected output of ∧ 1 X n
X x
f ðxÞ ¼ Kð i Þ (4)
agricultural production in this paper (IPCC, 2007). nh i¼1 h
In this paper, agricultural input includes labor, land, mechanical
power, fertilizer, pesticide, plastic film, and water: among them, In the formula,nis the sample size, his bandwidth, Kð ,Þis kernel
labor is expressed by the number of agricultural employees function. Among them, bandwidth meet the following con-
(10000individuals), land is expressed by the total planting area of ditions: lim hðnÞ ¼ 0 lim nhðnÞ ¼ n; The kernel function mainly
n/∞ n/∞
crops (1000 HA), mechanical power is expressed by the total power includes Gaussian kernel, quadratic kernel, double weight kernel
of agricultural machinery (10000 kW), chemical fertilizer is and so on. Compared with other kernel functions, Gaussian kernel
expressed by the net amount of agricultural chemical fertilizer function has the best estimation effect. Hence, we select the
application (10000 tons),a pesticide is expressed by the use amount commonly Gaussian kernel function, and its expression
of pesticide (10000 tons), plastic film is expressed in tons of agri- pffiffiffiffiffiffi
isð1 = 2pÞexpð  x2 =2Þ。
cultural plastic film,and water is expressed in effective irrigation
area (1000 ha).
3.2. Data

3.1.3. Calculation method of agricultural carbon emission
Agricultural carbon emissions are ultimately produced by agri-
cultural activities (Chen et al., 2018).Numerous studies have
focused on the calculation of agricultural carbon emissions(Dal-
gaard et al., 2011; Tian et al., 2014; Bennetzenetal., 2016). Howev-
er, different methods may provide different results. According to Li
et al. (2011) and theIPCC (2007), agricultural carbon emissions are
mainly from six aspects: chemical fertilizer, pesticides, agricultural
film, agricultural machinery, agricultural plowing, and agricultural
irrigation, among which the production and use of chemical fer-
tilizer, pesticides, and agricultural film lead to carbon emission-
s.Agricultural diesel and other fossil fuels are consumed by
4
Considering the availability of data, in addition to Hong Kong,
Macao, Taiwan and Tibet, this paper uses the balance panel data of
30 provincial administrative regions of China from 2003 to 2017 for
empirical test.In view of the implementation of the new national
economy industry classification standard since 2003, in order to
avoid the large bias of empirical results due to the inconsistent
statistical caliber, this paper selects 2003 as the research starting
point.In the sample, 30 provincial administrative regions in China
include Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhe-
jiang, Fujian, Shandong, Guangdong, Hainanin the eastern region,
Shanxi, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei and Hunan
in the central region, Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan,
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang
Guizhou, Yunnan, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia and Xinjiang in
the western region.
The original data is mainly from the statistical yearbook and
statistical data.Regional GDP, regional industrial added value, total
output value of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery,
total output value of agriculture, total sown area of crops, total
power of agricultural machinery, net amount of agricultural fertil-
izer application, use amount of pesticides, use amount of agricul-
tural plastic film, effective irrigation area, sown area of grain crops,
affected area, the permanent population at the end of the year and
the total amount of goods import and export of the place where the
business unit is located are from China Statistical Yearbook.
Notably, the regional GDP is reduced by the regional GDP index, the
regional industrial added value by the regional industrial producer
ex-factory price index, and the agricultural gross output value by
the agricultural gross output value index. The regional GDP index,
the regional industrial producer ex-factory price index, and the
agricultural gross output value index are derived from the China
Statistical Yearbook.According toGe et al. (2018),the number of
agricultural employees is calculated. The data are from the statis-
tical yearbook of China's provinces, the statistical yearbook of
China's forestry, the yearbook of China's animal husbandry and
veterinary medicine, the statistical data of China's agriculture, and
the statistical yearbook of China's fisheries. The total amount of the
import and export of goods in the business unit's location is con-
verted by using the RMB exchange rate (annual average price),
derived from the China Statistical Yearbook.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Results and discussion of carbon emission
According to the calculation method of agricultural carbon
emission, China's agricultural carbon emissions in 2003e2017 is
calculated. The results are shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
4.1.1. Total agricultural carbon emissions and its annual growth rate
Fig. 2 shows China's gross agricultural carbon emissions and its
Fig. 2. Gross agricultural carbon emission and its annual growth rate.
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692
annual growth rate. According to Fig. 2, from the perspective of
total carbon emissions, total agricultural carbon emissions dem-
onstrates an inverted-“U” trend.In 2003, the agricultural carbon
emission was 65.2056 million tons and reached the highest value of
91.0656 million tons in 2015 and 88.0157 million tons in 2017, with
an average annual growth rate of 2.1658%.Based on the aspect of the
month-to-month growth rate, the growth rate of the total amount
of agricultural carbon emissions shows a gradual decline.The
growth rate was 6.4883%, 0.4515%, and - 2.2628%from 2003 to
2004, from 2014 to 2015, and from 2016 to 2017, respectively.
From the perspective of development trends, the development
trend of total carbon emissions can be divided into three stages.The
first stage is from 2003 to 2008: Total carbon emissions shows an
upward trend, but the annual growth rate shows a fluctuating
downward trend.The reason for this phenomenon is that the policy
of “two relief and three subsidy”in the Central No. 1 document in
2004 has promoted the enthusiasm of farmers in raising farmland
and the increase of agricultural production materials such as
chemical fertilizers, which has led to an increase in carbon emis-
sions.Additionally, the 17th CPC National Congress in 2007 and
Central No. 1document in 2008 emphasized the protection of the
ecological environment and the development of conservation
agriculture, which reduced the growth rate of carbon emissions.
The second stage is from 2009 to 2015: Total carbon emissions
shows an upward trend, but the annual growth rate on a month-to-
month basis shows a downward trend.The main reason for this
phenomenon is that Central No. 1 document emphasizes the
importance of agricultural input and subsidies, indirectly increasing
the agricultural means of production such as fertilizers and pesti-
cides. For example, the amount of fertilizer (net amount) reached
60.226 million tons in 2015, accounting for one third of the world's
chemical fertilizer consumption, which led to an increase in carbon
emissions. In 2014, China's Central No. 1 document pointed out that
the modernization of agriculture should be accelerated because that
plays a critical role in the decline of carbon emission growth.
The third stage is from 2016 to 2017. The total carbon emissions
and the annual growth rate on a month-to-month basis demon-
strate a downward trend. The main reason for this phenomenon is
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692

Fig. 3. Sources and regional proportion of agricultural carbon emissions.

Fig. 4. Annual average agricultural carbon emissions.

that on the one hand, Central No.1 document in 2016 and 2017
pointed out that strengthening resource conservation and ecolog-
ical rehabilitation, promoting agricultural green development, and
promoting the transformation of agricultural development from
overdependence on resource consumption to sustainable devel-
opment, which led to a reduction in agricultural carbon emissions,
6
would be helpful; on the other hand, the agricultural means of
production, such as agricultural fertilizers, diesel, and pesticides,
have been decreasing. For example, the amount of fertilizer (net
amount) in China decreased from 60.226 million tons in 2015 to
59.844 million tons in 2016 and 58.594 million tons in 2017.
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang
4.1.2. Sources and regional share of agricultural carbon emissions
Fig. 3 shows the sources and regional share of agricultural car-
bon emissions.According to Fig. 3, from the perspective of carbon
emission sources, agricultural fertilizer is the main source of agri-
cultural carbon emissions in China.The carbon emissions of pesti-
cides, agricultural diesel oil, agricultural fertilizer, agricultural
plastic film, crops, and agricultural irrigation account for 10%, 15%,
60%, 13%, 0.5%, and 1.5% of total carbon emissions, respectively.-
Further analysis shows that from 2003 to 2017, the proportion of
carbon emissions generated by pesticides has an inverted-“U”
trend, that of agricultural fertilizers hasa “W”-shapedtrend, that of
agricultural diesel hasa downward trend, that of agricultural plastic
films and crops hasan upward trend, and that of agricultural irri-
gation hasa “U”-shapedtrend.From the perspective of the regional
distribution of carbon emissions, China's agricultural carbon
emissions from 2003 to 2011 are mainly concentrated in the
eastern region, and those from 2012 to 2017 are mainly concen-
trated in the central region.Agricultural carbon emissions in the
eastern, central, and western regions accounted for 40%, 35%, and
25% of total carbon emissions from 2003 to 2011, respectively, and
34%, 36%, and 30% from 2012 to 2017.Further analysis shows that
the proportion of agricultural carbon emissions in the eastern re-
gion has a downward trend, that in the western region has an
upward trend, and that in the central region has a fluctuating trend,
which is consistent with the conclusion of the study byLiu et al.
(2019).
4.1.3. Annual average agricultural carbon emissions
Fig. 4 shows the average annual agricultural carbon emissions in
China.According to Fig. 4, there are differences in annual agricul-
tural carbon emissions in China. In Shandong, Henan, Hebei,
Jiangsu, Anhui, Hubei, and other provinces, the annual average
agricultural carbon emissions are higher, among which Shandong is
the highest (approximately 7,811,121 tons). The average annual
carbon emissions of Qinghai, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Ningxia
are relatively low, of which Qinghai is the lowest (approximately
14,564,700 tons). The average annual agricultural carbon emissions
of Shandong is approximately 54 times that of Qinghai. In sum-
mary, China's agricultural carbon emissions are mainly concen-
trated in its large agricultural provinces, which to a certain extent
shows that large agricultural provinces have not fully shifted from
extensive management relying on resource consumption to sus-
tainable development, and there are still high input and high
emission development models.
4.2. Results and discussion of agricultural green TFP
According to the Super-SBMmodel, China's agricultural green
TFPin 2003e2017 is calculated. The results are shown in
Fig. 5andFig. 6.
4.2.1. Time evolution trend of China's agricultural green TFP
Fig. 5 shows the time evolution trend of China's agricultural
green TFP.According to Fig. 5, from a nationwide perspective,
China's agricultural green TFPshows a fluctuating growth trend
from 0.6150 in 2003 to 0.8227 in 2017. From a regional distribution
perspective, the overall agricultural green in the eastern, central,
and western regions shows a fluctuating growth trend, from
0.6806, 0.4807, and 0.6471 in 2003 to 0.8996, 0.7108, and 0.8271 in
2017, respectively.According to the aforementioned analysis, the
whole country and all the regions showa growth trend, which is
mainly because of China's continuous strengthening of agricultural
pollution control and ecological environment protection to pro-
mote agricultural green development.Since 2003, Central No.1do-
cument has focused on agriculture, rural areas, and farmers and
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692
repeatedly emphasized the cleaner agricultural production and
sustainable development.Further analysis shows that agricultural
green TFP in the eastern region is higher than that in the western
region and is the lowest in the central region, which is mainly
caused by the imbalance of regional development.The eastern re-
gion has strong economic strength and rich agricultural talent re-
sources, which can rapidly strengthen the research and
development and extension of agricultural science and technology
to promote agriculturalgreen development; the central and west-
ern regions have weak economic foundations and little agricultural
technology talent, which is not conducive to promoting agricultural
modernization.
4.2.2. Annual average annual agricultural green TFP
Fig. 6 shows the annual average annual agricultural green TFP in
China.According to Fig. 6, there are differences in the annual
average agricultural green TFP in China. Hainan, Zhejiang,
Shanghai, Xinjiang, Fujian, Guangdong have an average annual
agricultural green TFP of more than 0.9, of which Hainan is the
highest (approximately 0.9949); Gansu, Anhui, Yunnan, Jiangxi,
Shanxi, Shandong, Henan, Hunan, and Liaoning have an average
annual agricultural green TFP of less than 0.6, of which Gansu is the
lowest (approximately 0.3828). Hainan has an average annual
agricultural green TFPapproximately 2.6 times that of Gansu
province.In summary, China's provinces with high annual green
TFP are mainly located in the eastern region, and the provinces with
low annual green TFP are mainly located in the central and western
regions. To a certain extent, the eastern provinces are more
conducive to green agricultural development than the western
provinces. There is much room for improvement in the energy ef-
ficiency of China's east region(Cheng et al., 2020).Additionally, the
annual agricultural green TFPof most of the major agricultural
provinces is relatively low, which to some extent shows that there
are still high input and high emission development models in the
major agricultural provinces, which need to further develop mod-
ern agriculture.
4.2.3. Dynamic evolution trend of the annual average agricultural
green TFP
According to the method of kernel density estimation, the dy-
namic evolution of the annual average agricultural green TFP in
China is shown inFig. 7.According toFig. 7, the difference in annual
average agricultural green TFP in China's provinces is gradually
increasing.From 2003 to 2017, the annual average agricultural
green TFP of China's province changes from “single peak” distri-
bution to “double peak” distribution; specifically, from 2003 to
2009, it shows an obvious “single peak” distribution, and from 2010
to 2017, it shows an obvious “double peak” distribution.Further
analysis shows that the nuclear density map moves to the right and
the peak position decreases with time, which to a certain extent
shows that the overall level of annual agricultural green TFP in
China is increasing.
4.3. Analysis of the influencing factors of agricultural green TFP
4.3.1. Panel unit root test
Before using panel data model for regression, this paper first
tests whether the variables that measure the influencing factors of
agricultural green TFP can be used for direct regression.Through the
comparative analysis of the characteristics of various panel unit
root test methods, this paper selects Fisher test method to examine
the stability of variables.Table 1 shows the panel unit root test
results.The results showed that all sequences were stable at least at
1% significance level. According to the above analysis, the variables
used in this paper are stable and can be directly regressed.
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692

Fig. 5. Time evolution trend of agricultural green TFP. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 6. The annual average annual agricultural green TFP. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

4.3.2. Results and analysis of overall samples
Table 2shows the overall sample regression results; among
them, model (1) is the result of the pooled ordinary least squares
(POLS)model, model (2) is the result of the random effect (RE)
model, model (3) is the result of the fixed effect (FE)model,and
model (4) is the result of two-way fixed effect (Two-way FE)mod-
el.To select a more effective estimation method, this paper uses the
Ftest and LMtest to test whether there is an individual effect, and
uses the Hausmantest to assess whether to use theFE model or the
REmodel.If there is no individual effect, the POLSmodel should be
used; otherwise, the Hausman test should be tested. If it passes the
8
Hausman test, it can further test whether there is a time effect to
determine whether to use the two-wayFEmodel.According to the
test results inTable 2, the efficiency of the two-wayFEmodel
regression is higher in this paper.Specifically, based on the Ftest,
that the original hypothesis that each individual has the same
intercept term is rejected, that is, the FE model is superior to the
POLSmodel.TheLM test results demonstrate that regarding the
original hypothesis, there should be no random disturbance term
reflecting individual characteristics that should be rejected, that is,
the FE model should be used instead of the POLSmodel.Next, we
use the Hausmantest to determine whether to use theFE model or
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692

Table 2
Regression results of total samples.

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4)

POLS RE FE Two-way FE

ln aed 0.2652*** 0.0869** 0.1475*** 0.1493***

(0.0314) (0.0396) (0.0414) (0.0405)
ln aps 0.3786*** 0.1296* 0.2512*** 0.3028***
(0.0542) (0.0743) (0.0788) (0.0817)
ln atl 0.1608*** 0.1160*** 0.1024*** 0.1202***
(0.0243) (0.0311) (0.0336) (0.0365)
ln tnc 0.0333** 0.0043 0.0001 0.0063
(0.0145) (0.0098) (0.0095) (0.0097)
ln red 0.1090* 0.3077*** 0.3303*** 0.5780***
(0.0633) (0.0547) (0.0544) (0.1200)
ln rou 0.0639*** 0.0155 0.0222 0.0513**
(0.0133) (0.0180) (0.0210) (0.0225)
ln ril 0.1935*** 0.0276 0.0208 0.0691
(0.0432) (0.0428) (0.0430) (0.0511)
Cons tan t 0.1298 0.3536*** 0.3684*** 0.4175***
(0.0885) (0.0999) (0.1003) (0.1063)
Fig. 7. Dynamic evolution trend of annual average agricultural green TFP. (For inter- Region NO NO YES YES
pretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Effect
Web version of this article.) Year NO NO NO YES
Effect
F 39.04***
Table 1 Test
Unit root test results of panels. LM 942.20***
Test
Variables P Z L* Pm Hausman 37.27***
ln gtfp 199.1147*** 9.0943*** 9.6484*** 12.6994*** Test
ln aed 134.9967*** 5.5281*** 5.6266*** 6.8462*** Time 6.67***
ln aps 182.2846*** 7.9857*** 8.4303*** 11.163*** Effect
ln atl 163.304*** 6.2676*** 6.9553*** 9.4303*** Test
ln tnc 211.3735*** 9.7582*** 10.58*** 14.2404*** R  squared 0.521 e 0.497 0.544
ln red 189.8662*** 7.7985*** 8.4124*** 11.8551*** Note: Standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
ln rou 148.5387*** 7.0039*** 6.9496*** 8.0824***
ln ril 148.4278*** 6.1893*** 6.4299*** 8.0723***

Note: ***p < 0.01.
RE model. The test results demonstrate that the original hypothesis,
that is, the individual effect is not related to all explanatory vari-
ables, is rejected.Thus, we should use the FEmodel instead of the RE
model.Furthermore, this paper tests the time effect. The test results
demonstrate that the original hypothesis of “no time effect” is
rejected and that the model should include the time effect.Next, the
results are analyzed as follows:
4.3.2.1. ①Agricultural factor endowments. The agricultural eco-
nomic development level has a significant inhibitory effect on
agricultural green TFP. The results demonstrate that the coefficient
of the agricultural economic development level is 0.1439 at the 1%
significance level.The main reason for this result is that China's
agricultural production is still in the process of extensive to
intensive transformation. The areas with a high level of agricultural
economic development cause a lot of agricultural carbon emissions,
which hinders the improvement of agricultural green TFP.
The agricultural production structure has a significant role in
promoting agricultural green TFP.The results demonstrate that the
coefficient of agricultural production structure is 0.3028 at the 1%
significance level.The main reason for this finding is that China
constantly adjusts and optimizes its agricultural structure, vigor-
ously develops the production of scarce and green high-quality
agricultural products, promotes the transformation of agriculture
from production increase oriented to quality-improvement-
oriented, and further advances its high-quality grain project to
improve the agricultural green TFP.
The agricultural technology level has a significant inhibitory
effect on agricultural green TFP. The results demonstrate that the
9
coefficient of the agricultural technology level is 0.1202 at the 1%
significance level. The main reason for this finding is that the
improvement of the agricultural technology level is theoretically
conducive to the optimization of the combination of agricultural
production factors, the improvement of agricultural production
efficiency, the reduction of agricultural carbon emissions(Zaman
et al., 2012), and the improvement of agricultural TFP. However,
the improvement of the agricultural technology level, such as the
use of agricultural mechanization, will increase the use of agricul-
tural diesel oil, leading to agricultural environmental pollution and
reducing agricultural green TFP. China should promote the effective
application of agricultural mechanization technology and equip-
ment; support the use of organic fertilizer instead of chemical
fertilizer, and agricultural plastic film recycling; and promote
agriculturalgreen development.
The effect of natural conditions on agricultural green TFP is not
significant. The results demonstrate that the coefficient of natural
conditions is 0.1202 at the 10% significance level.The main reason
for this result is that although China's agricultural science and
technology is developing constantly, production technology and
breeding technology continue to progress, it still needs to rely on
the natural environment, the degree of agricultural modernization
needs to be improved.
4.3.2.2. ②Regional characteristics. The regional economic devel-
opment level has a significant role in promoting agricultural green
TFP. The results demonstrate that the coefficient of the regional
economic development level is 0.5780 at the 1% significance level.
The main reason for this finding is that for a long time, China has
attached great importance to agricultural development and
constantly strengthened the guidance of high-quality green
development; additionally, local capital with a high level of
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692

regional economic development is strong and capable of support- Table 3

ing agricultural research and development and improving the Regression results by samples.

agricultural technology level to promote the growth of agricultural Variables (1) (2) (3)
green TFP. Eastern Region Midlands Western Region
The regional opening degree to the outside world has a signif-
ln aed 0.2048** 0.1506 0.1271**
icant inhibitory effect on agricultural green TFP. The results
(0.1002) (0.1083) (0.0585)
demonstrate that the coefficient of the agricultural technology level ln aps 0.2922*** 0.0428 0.3565
is 0.0513 at the 5% significance level. The main reason for this (0.1003) (0.2536) (0.2392)
finding is that although opening to the outside world is conducive ln atl 0.0766 0.0437 0.1588*
(0.0777) (0.0344) (0.0902)
to the diffusion of agricultural production technology, the house-
ln tnc 0.0181 0.0281* 0.0061
hold contract system implemented in China enhances the enthu- (0.0126) (0.0156) (0.0253)
siasm of farmers' production and promotes the improvement of ln red 0.1483 0.3460 0.4824*
labor productivity. Notably, China's agricultural products lack (0.2305) (0.2605) (0.2780)
competitiveness in the international market because of its inferior ln rou 0.3047*** 0.1300*** 0.0005
(0.0719) (0.0282) (0.0359)
exports (Lin and Chen, 2018), hindering the growth of agricultural
ln ril 0.0493 0.2326*** 0.1269
green TFP. (0.1272) (0.0509) (0.1344)
The influence of regional industrialization levels on agricultural Cons tan t 0.3952** 1.0551*** 0.2218
green TFP is not significant. The results demonstrate that the co- (0.1985) (0.1481) (0.2540)
Region YES YES YES
efficient of natural conditions is 0.0691 at the 10% significance
Effect
level.To a certain extent, this finding shows that the effect of in- Year YES YES YES
dustry back-feeding on agriculture in China is not significant, which Effect
needs to be combined with the characteristics of agricultural factor F 31.12*** 17.65*** 40.31***

endowments, play the role of industry back-feeding agriculture, Test

LM 229.17*** 0.00 238.24***
and promote the green development of agriculture.
Test
Hausman 14.97* 60.55*** 21.97***
4.3.3. Results and analysis of samples grouped by region Test
Considering the imbalance of regional development in China, Time 33.17*** 29.13*** 16.62***
the influence of agricultural factor endowment and regional char- Effect
Test
acteristics on agricultural green TFP may depend on regional
R  squared 0.574 0.875 0.515
characteristics. Therefore, the overall sample is divided into the
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
eastern region, central region and western region. According to the
test results, the eastern region, central region, and western region
use the two-way FE model for regression, and the results are shown
agricultural green TFP, which is not significant.
in Table 3.
The agricultural technology level has a significant inhibitory
effect on agricultural green TFP in the western region but not in the
4.3.3.1. ①Agricultural factor endowments. According to Table 3,
eastern and central regions. The results demonstrate that the co-
there are regional differences in the impact of agricultural factor
efficient of the agricultural technology level in the western region
endowments on agricultural green TFP. The economic development
is 0.1588 and passes the test of the 10% significance level, and that
level has a significant inhibitory effect on agricultural green TFP in
in the eastern region and central region is 0.0766 and 0.0437,
the eastern and western regionsbut not in the central region.
respectively, and has not passed the test ofthe 10% significance
Theresults demonstrate the following: the coefficient of the agri-
level. A possible reason for these findings is that the agricultural
cultural economic development level in the eastern region and the
technology level in the eastern and central regions is relatively
western region is 0.2048 and 0.1271, respectively, and passes
high, and the effective application of agricultural mechanization
the test of the 1% and 5%significance levels, respectively, and that in
technology and equipment is promoted by the high level of regional
the western region is 0.1506 and passes the test of the 10%signifi-
industrialization; however, there are still high energy consumption
cance level. The reason why the agricultural economic develop-
and high pollution production methods.
ment level has no significant and positive impact on the
Natural conditions have a significant role in promoting agri-
agricultural green TFP in the western region may be that the central
cultural green TFP in the central region but not in the eastern and
region is in the stage of rapid rise, which can absorb the new
western regions. The results demonstrate that the coefficient of
agriculturaltechnology in the eastern region, but it cannot fully
natural conditions in the central region is 0.0281 at the 10%signif-
absorb the new technology because of the lack of agricultural
icance level and that in the eastern region and western region is
technology talents.
0.0181 and 0.0061, respectively, and has not passed the test of the
The agricultural production structure has a significant role in
10%significance level.To some extent, this finding shows that the
promoting agricultural green TFP in the eastern region, but not in
agricultural production in the western region depends on the
the central and western regions. The results demonstrate that the
natural environment.
coefficient of the agricultural production structure in the eastern
region is 0.2922 at the 1% significance level, and that in the central
region and the western region is 0.0428 and 0.3565, respectively, 4.3.3.2. ②Regional characteristics. There are regional differences in
and pass the test ofthe 10% significance level. The main reason for the impact of regional characteristics on agricultural green TFP. The
these findings is that compared to the eastern region, the central regional economic development level has a significant role in
and western regions have relatively less funds, technology, and promoting agricultural green in the western region, and it has no
talent, and the agricultural infrastructure is relatively backward, significant effect in the eastern and central regions. The results
which hinders the adjustment of the agricultural production demonstrate that the estimated coefficient of the economic
structure, resulting in the impact of the agricultural production development level in the western region is 0.4824 at the 10% sig-
structure of the central region and western region on the rate of nificance level and that in the eastern region and the central region
10
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang
is 0.1483 and 0.3460, respectively, and has not passed the test of the
10%significance level. The reason for these findings may be that on
the one hand, the eastern region and the central region may prefer
to develop the secondary and tertiary industries with high added
value and the agricultural resources cannot reach the optimal
allocation; on the other hand, the eastern region and the central
region may have the technical bottleneck of agricultural research
and development such that the impact of the regional economic
development level on agricultural green TFPis not significant.
The regional opening degree to the outside world has a signif-
icant inhibitory effect on agricultural green TFPin the eastern and
central regions but not in the western regions. The results
demonstrate that the estimated coefficient of the degree of opening
to the outside world in the eastern region and central region
is 0.3047 and 0.1300, respectively, and passes the test ofthe 1%
significance level, and that in the western region is 0.0005and has
not passed the test of the 10%significance level. The main reason is
that to prevent technology spillover, developed countries are
willing to transfer advanced technology to China's backward
western region by opening up to the outside world. However,
because of the lack of agricultural technology talent in the western
region, they are unable to effectively absorb advanced technology,
resulting in the following: The impact of the degree of opening up
to the outside world on agricultural green TFP is not significant.
Theregional industrialization level has a significant inhibitory
effect on agricultural green TFP in the central region but not in the
eastern and western regions. The results demonstrate that the
estimated coefficient of the industrialization level in the central
region is 0.2326 at the 1% significance level, and that in the
eastern region and the western region is 0.0493 and 0.1269,
respectively, and has not passed the test of the 10% significance
level. The main reason for this finding is that to realize the strategy
of the rise of the central region, the central region has focused on
the high-quality development of its manufacturing industry, which
leads to the inefficient allocation of agricultural resources; thus, the
industrialization level in the central region has a restraining effect
on the agricultural green TFP.
5. Conclusions and implications
Based on China's agricultural panel data from 2003 to 2017, on the
basis of calculating and analyzing agricultural carbon emissions, this
paper uses the Super-SBMmodel to calculate agricultural green TFP
in China and uses the nuclear density estimation method to examine
its dynamic evolution trend. On this basis, a panel data model is used
to empirically study the influencing factors of agricultural green TFP
in China. The main conclusions are as follows: First, the total amount
of agricultural carbon emissions shows an inverted-“U” trend, and
the overall month-to-month growth rate shows a gradual decline.
The main concentration areas are transferred from the eastern region
to the central region, and agricultural fertilizer is the main source.-
Second, China's agricultural green TFP shows a general trend of
fluctuating growth, and there are regional differences:The provinces
with higher annual average agricultural green TFP are mainly located
in the eastern region, and their differences in the provinces have an
increasing trend.Third, the agricultural economic development level,
agricultural technology level, and regional opening-up degree have a
significant inhibitory effect on China's agricultural green TFP; the
agricultural production structure and regional economic develop-
ment level demonstrate a significant promoting effect; and the
natural conditions and regional industrialization level have no sig-
nificant impact. All the aforementioned effects have regional
differences.
Based on the aforementioned conclusions, the following policy
implications are obtained:First, to promote clean agricultural
11
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692
production, China should continue to promote the zero-growth
action of chemical fertilizer, conduct experiments to replace
chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer, and promote cost saving
and efficiency in agriculture. Additionally, China should establish
and improve the production supervision and product traceability
system of the chemical fertilizer industry, strictly enforce industry
access management, and promote the establishment of a national
agricultural sustainable development pilot demonstration area for
reducing emissions (Liu et al., 2017). On this basis, China should
intensify its efforts to control agricultural carbon emissions,
conduct agricultural fertilizer-saving actions, achieve negative
growth in fertilizer use, and promote green development in
agriculture.
Second, China should strengthen the research and development
of agricultural science and technology.China should also establish
modern agricultural science and technology innovation alliances,
promote the construction of resource opening and sharing and the
service platform base, support local research and development of
characteristic and advantageous industrial technology, and establish
differential agricultural science and technology evaluation systems
to achieve coordinated development of agricultural technology in
various regions. China should also accelerate the selection of new
varieties with high quality, high yield, multiple resistances, and wide
adaptability; optimize the agricultural production structure; speed
up the research and development of agricultural machinery and
equipment production suitable for different regions; support the
innovation of agricultural science and technology; and improve the
level of agricultural technology and agricultural green TFP.
Third, China should promote the deep integration of industri-
alization and agricultural modernization and opening up in its
agricultural field. China should also promote the agglomeration of
agricultural land, guide the large-scale operation of agriculture,
promote the inflow of industrial production factors into agriculture,
and improve the transfer rate of agricultural land. Additionally,
China should promote agricultural science and technology, make
agricultural mechanization assist agricultural production, improve
the comprehensive productivity of agriculture, promote the
transformation of agricultural industrialization to form a linkage
effect between industry and agriculture, and improve the added
value of agricultural production.China should also stimulate the
development of agriculture through fiscal policy and industrial
policy, realize the coordinated development of industry and agri-
culture, strengthen agricultural cooperation with foreign countries,
encourage the export of advantageous agricultural products, pro-
mote agricultural going out, promote the mutual recognition of
agricultural product certification results, and expand the agricul-
tural opening-up level to promote agricultural green TFP and
realize the high-quality development of its agricultural economy.
This study has limitations.First, although in a narrow sense
agriculture plays a critical role in China's agricultural development,
with the continuous reform of China's agriculture, forestry, animal
husbandry, and fisheries may have a substantial impact on the
environment. In further research, the green TFP of forestry, animal
husbandry, and fisheries should be considered. Second, because of
the data limitations, the paper mainly uses macrolevel data to
investigate the evolution trend and influencing factors of China's
agricultural green TFP. With the continuous improvement of the
data, microdata should be considered in further research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dongdong Liu: Methodology, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization, Funding acquisition. Xiaoyan Zhu: Data curation,
Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Yafei Wang: Conceptu-
alization, Resources.
D. Liu, X. Zhu and Y. Wang
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Our heartfelt thanks should also be given to the Social Science
Foundation of China (SSFC) (Nos.19XJL006, 18BJY093, 18ZDA005)
for their funding supports.
References
Ahmed, E.M., 2012. Green TFP intensity impact on sustainable east Asian produc-
tivity growth. Econ. Anal. Pol. 42 (1), 67e78. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0313-
5926(12)50005-6.
Aigner, D., Lovell, C.K., Schmidt, P., 1977. Formulation and estimation of stochas-
ticfrontier production function models. J. Econ. 6 (1), 21e37. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0304-4076(77)90052-5.
Bai, C., Du, K., Yu, Y., Feng, C., 2019. Understanding the trend of total factor carbon
productivity in the world: insights from convergence analysis. Energy Econ. 81,
698e708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.05.004.
Bennetzen, E.H., Smith, P., Porter, J.R., 2016. Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions
fromglobal agricultural production: 1970e2050. Global Change Biol. 22 (2),
763e781. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13120.
Chen, C., 2016. China's industrial green total factor productivity and its de-
terminants—An empirical study based on ML index and dynamic panel data
model. Stat. Res. 33 (3), 53e62. https://doi.org/10.19343/j.cnki.11-1302/
c.2016.03.007.
Chen, J., Cheng, S., Song, M., 2018. Changes in energy-related carbon dioxide
emissions of the agricultural sector in China from 2005 to 2013. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 94, 748e761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.050.
Chen, Y., Tang, X., 2018. Spillover effects of manufacturing agglomeration on urban
green total factor productivity: based on the perspective of urban grade.
Finance Trade Res. 29 (1), 1e15. https://doi.org/10.19337/j.cnki.34-1093/
f.2018.01.001.
Cheng, M., Shao, Z., Gao, F., Yang, C., Tong, C., Yang, J., Zhang, W., 2020. The effect of
research anddevelopment on the energy conservation potential of China's
manufacturing industry: the case of east region. J. Clean. Prod. 258, 120558
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120558.
Chung, Y.H., F€ are, R., Grosskopf, S., 1997. Productivity and undesirable outputs: a
directional distance function approach. j. Environ. Manage. 51 (3), 229e240.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1997.0146.
Dalgaard, T., Olesen, J.E., Petersen, S.O., Petersen, B.M., Jorgensen, U., Kristensen, T.,
2011. Developments in greenhouse gas emissions and net energy use in Danish
agriculture - how to achieve substantial CO2 reductions? Environ. Pollut. 159
(11), 3193e3203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.024.
Dong, H., Ye, Li, Tao, X., Peng, X., Li, N., Zhu, Z., 2008. China greenhouse gas emis-
sions fromagricultural activities and its mitigation strategy. Trans. Chin. Soc.
Agric. Eng. 24, 269e273. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:1002-6819.2008.10.055.
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., Zhang, Z., 1994. Productivity growth, technical
progress andefficiency change in the industrialised countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 84
(1), 66e83. https://doi.org/10.2753/PET1061-1991361256.
Feng, Y., Zhong, S., Li, Q., Zhao, X., Dong, X., 2019. Ecological well-being performance
growth in China (1994e2014): from perspectives of industrial structure green
adjustment and green total factor productivity. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117556
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.031.
Gao, F., 2015. Evolution trend and internal mechanism of regional total factor
productivity in Chinese agriculture. J. of Quant. Tech. Econ. 32 (5) https://
doi.org/10.13653/j.cnki.jqte.2015.05.001, 3-19,53.
Ge, P., Wang, S., Huang, X., 2018. Measurement for China’ s agricultural green TFP.
China Popul. Resour. Environ. 28 (5), 66e74. https://doi.org/10.12062/
cpre.20171010.
Han, H., Zhao, L., 2013. Growth and convergence of agricultural total factor pro-
ductivity in China under environmental regulations. China Popul. Resour. En-
viron. 23 (3), 70e76. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2013.03.011.
IPCC, 2013. Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University
Press.
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation: Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change: Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Jiang, T., Huang, S., Yang, J., 2019. Structural carbon emissions from industry and
energy systems in China: an input-output analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118116
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118116.
Johnson, D.G., 1997. Agriculture and the wealth of nations. Am. Econ. Rev. 87 (2),
1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5150(96)01217-0.
Krugman, P., 1994. The myth of Asia's miracle. Foreign Aff. 73 (6), 62e78. https://
doi.org/10.2307/20046929.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123692
Li, B., Zhang, J., Li, H., 2011. Research on spatial-temporal characteristics and
affecting factors decomposition of agricultural carbon emission in China. China
Popul. Resour. Environ. 21 (8), 80e86. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-
2104.2011.08.013.
Li, G., 2014. The green productivity revolution of agriculture in China from 1978 to
2008. Chin. Econ. Q. 13 (2), 537e558. https://doi.org/10.13821/
j.cnki.ceq.2014.02.011.
Liang, J., Long, S., 2015. China's agricultural green total factor productivity growth
and its affecting factors. J. South China Agr. U. (Soc. Sci. Ed.). 14 (3), 1e12. https://
doi.org/10.7671/j.issn.1672-0202.2015.03.001.
Lin, B., Chen, Z., 2018. Does factor market distortion inhibit the green total factor
productivity in China? J. Clean. Prod. 197, 25e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.06.094.
Lin, B., Wang, X., 2014. Exploring energy efficiency in China's iron and steel in-
dustry: a stochastic frontier approach. Energy Pol. 72, 87e96. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.043.
Lin, B., Xu, M., 2019. Exploring the green total factor productivity of China's
metallurgical industry under carbon tax: a perspective on factor substitution.
J. Clean. Prod. 233, 1322e1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.137.
Liu, B., Shi, J., Wang, H., Su, X., Zhou, P., 2019. Driving factors of carbon emissions in
China: a joint decomposition approach based on meta-frontier. Appl. Energy
256, 113986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113986.
Liu, X., Zhang, S., Bae, J., 2017. The impact of renewable energy and agriculture on
carbon dioxide emissions: investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in
four selected ASEAN countries. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 1239e1247. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.086.
Liu, Z., 2018. Analysis on the dynamic and influencing factors of agricultural total
factor productivity in China. Chinese J.Agr.Resour. Regional Plan. 39 (12),
104e111. https://doi.org/10.7621/cjarrp.10059121. 20181215.
Peng, J., Xie, R., Ma, C., Fu, Y., 2020. Market-based environmental regulation and
total factor productivity: evidence from Chinese enterprises. Econ. Modell.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.03.006.
Rashid Khan, H.U., Nassani, A.A., Aldakhil, A.M., Qazi Abro, M.M., Islam, T.,
Zaman, K., 2019. Pro-poor growth and sustainable development framework:
evidence from two step GMM estimator. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 767e784 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.195.
Rosenblatt, M., 1956. Remarks on some nonparametric estimates of a density
function[J]. Ann. Math. Stat. 27 (3), 832e837. https://doi.org/10.2307/2237390.
Sirag, A., Matemilola, B.T., Law, S.H., Bany-Ariffin, A.N., 2018. Does environmental
Kuznetscurve hypothesis exist? evidence from dynamic panel threshold.
J. Environ. Econ.Policy 7 (2), 145e165. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21606544.2017.1382395.
Tian, X., Yu, X., 2012. The enigmas of TFP in China: a meta-analysis. China econ. Rev
23 (2), 396e414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2012.02.007.
Tian, Y., Zhang, J., He, Y., 2014. Research on spatial-temporal characteristics and
driving Factor of agricultural carbon emissions in China. J.Integr.Agr. 13 (6),
1393e1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2095-3119(13)60624-3.
Tone, K.A., 2002. Slacks⁃based measure of super⁃efficiency in data envelopment
analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 143 (1), 32e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-
2217(01)00324-1.
Tone, K.A., 2001. Slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130 (3), 498e509. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(99)
00407-5.
Tugcu, C.T., Tiwari, A.K., 2016. Does renewable and/or non-renewable energy con-
sumption matter for total factor productivity (TFP) growth? evidence from the
BRICS. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 65, 610e616. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.07.016.
Wang, Q., Wang, H., Chen, H., 2012. A study on agricultural green TFP in China:
1992-2010. Econ. Rev. (5), 24e33. https://doi.org/10.19361/j.er.2012.05.003.
Wang, S., Wang, X., 2017. Does service inward foreign direct investment improve
green total factor productivity: an empirical study based on China's provincial
panel data. J. Int. Tr. (12), 83e93. https://doi.org/10.13510/j.cnki.jit.2017.12.008.
Xia, F., Xu, J., 2020. Green total factor productivity: a re-examination of quality of
growth for provinces in China. China Econ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chieco.2020.101454, 101454.
Xu, B., Lin, B., 2017. Factors affecting CO2 emissions in China's agriculture sector:
evidence from geographically weighted regression model. Energy Pol. 104,
404e414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.011.
Yang, J., Chen, Y., 2011. Empirical study on China's agricultural production growth
under the binding of environment. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 21 (6),
153e157. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-2104.2011.06.025.
Zaman, K., Khan, M.M., Ahmad, M., Rustam, R., 2012. The relationship between
agricultural technology and energy demand in Pakistan. Energy Pol. 44,
268e279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.050.
Zhang, K., Dong, J., Huang, L., Xie, H., 2019. China's carbon dioxide emissions: an
interprovincial comparative analysis of foreign capital and domestic capital.
J. Clean. Prod. 237 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117753.
Zhou, R., 2009. Technical progress, technical efficiency, and productivity growth of
China's agriculture. J. Quant. Tech. Econ. 26 (12), 70e82. https://doi.org/
10.13653/j.cnki.jqte.2009.12.007.
Zhou, Y., Liu, W., Lv, X., Chen, X., Shen, M., 2019. Investigating interior driving factors
and cross-industrial linkages of carbon emission efficiency in China's con-
struction industry: based on Super-SBM DEA and GVAR model. J. Clean. Prod.
241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118322. N.PAG.