About the Journal
In Memory of Professor Jerzy Radecki
Editorial Office
Editorial Board
Scope
Impact Factor
Indexed in...
Journal Impact Factor contributing items
Contact
Subscription
Current issue
Online first
Notes to Authors
Frequently Asked Questions
Editorial policies
PJOES Publication Policy Overview
PJOES Peer Review Policy
PJOES Research Ethics and Malpractice Policy
PJOES Plagiarism Policy
PJOES Conflict of Interest Policy
PJOES Open Access Policy
PJOES Instructions for Reviewers
Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy
Archive
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Is it Possible for Government Intervention
to Support Low-Carbon Transition in Agriculture
through Agri-Environmental Protection? Evidence
from the Waste Agricultural Film Recycling Pilot
1
School of Management Science & Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
2
School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
3
College of Marxism, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150006, China
Submission date: 2024-02-22
Final revision date: 2024-04-04
Acceptance date: 2024-04-13
Online publication date: 2024-11-20
Publication date: 2025-01-09
Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2025;34(2):1973-1993
KEYWORDS
government interventionagri-environmental protectionagricultural low-carbon transformationrecycling and utilization of abandoned agricultural filmsdifference-in-difference model
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
With the escalating serious degradation of the agricultural environment and the rising carbon
emissions in the agriculture sector, protecting the agricultural environment and advancing
the low-carbon transformation of agriculture are essential priorities. This research develops a difference
in differences model (DID model) based on panel data from Chinese provinces between 2011 and 2021
to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of government action in agricultural protection on reducing
carbon emissions, using China’s waste agricultural film recycling and utilization pilot project as
a quasi-natural experiment. The study’s conclusion that government involvement significantly reduced
the amount and rate of agricultural film usage in the pilot areas proved the effectiveness of the pilot
plan. In addition, the pilot regions’ agricultural carbon emissions decreased significantly in quantity
and rate as a result of the government’s engagement, therefore advancing the low-carbon transformation
of agriculture. Even after several robustness tests, the study’s conclusions still hold up. Simultaneously,
the study discovered that the efficacy and carbon reduction impact of the pilot strategy are moderated
by the interaction between the government and the market. In order to gain experience for upcoming
work on agricultural environmental protection and low-carbon agricultural transformation, the research
makes policy recommendations.
CONFLICT OF 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.
REFERENCES (34)
1.
BARTOLINI F., GALLERANI V., RAGGI M., VIAGGI D. Modelling the linkages between cross‑compliance and agri‑environmental schemes under asymmetric information. *Journal of Agricultural Economics*, 63 (2), 310, 2012. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477...>.
2.
LIU T., XU H. Post‑assessment in policy‑based strategic environmental assessment: Taking China’s agricultural support and protection subsidy policy as an example. *Environmental Impact Assessment Review*, 100, 107047, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar...>.
3.
WANG R., CHEN J., LI Z., BAI W., DENG X. Factors analysis for the decoupling of grain production and carbon emissions from crop planting in China: Regulating effects of planting scale & technological progress. *Environmental Impact Assessment Review*, 103, 107249, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar...>.
4.
LI M., LIU S., SUN Y., LIU Y. Agriculture and animal husbandry increased carbon footprint on the Qinghai‑Tibet Plateau during the past three decades. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 278, 123963, 2021. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle...>.
5.
HUANG H., YI M. Impacts and mechanisms of heterogeneous environmental regulations on carbon emissions: Evidence from a DID‑based empirical study. *Environmental Impact Assessment Review*, 99, 107039, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar...>.
6.
KERSEBAUM K.C., MATZDORF B., KIESEL J., PIORR A., STEIDL J. Model‑based evaluation of agri‑environmental measures in Brandenburg (Germany) concerning N pollution of groundwater & surface water. *Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science*, 169 (3), 352, 2006. <https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.2...>.
7.
TAMINI L.D. Nonparametric analysis of the impact of agri‑environmental advisory activities on adoption of best management practices: Case study in Quebec. *Ecological Economics*, 70 (7), 1363, 2011. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecol...>.
8.
ZALIDIS G.C., TSIAFOULI M.A., TAKAVAKOGLOU V., BILAS G., MISOPOLINOS N. Selecting agri‑environmental indicators to monitor & assess EU agri‑environmental measures. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 70 (4), 315, 2004. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenv...> PMid:15016440.
9.
STUPAK N., SANDERS J., HEINRICH B. Farmers’ understanding of nature and uptake of nature‑protection measures. *Ecological Economics*, 157, 301, 2019. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecol...>.
10.
BARTKOWSKI B., DROSTE N., LIESS M., SIDEMOHOLM W., WELLER U., BRADY M.V. Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri‑environmental schemes. *Land Use Policy*, 102, 105230, 2021. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.land...>.
11.
BAREILLE F., ZAVALLONI M. Decentralisation of agri‑environmental policy design. *European Review of Agricultural Economics*, 47 (4), 1502, 2020. <https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/j...>.
12.
ZHONG F., NING M., XING L. Effects of crop insurance on agrochemical use under Chinese conditions: Case study in the Manasi watershed, Xinjiang. *Agricultural Economics*, 36 (1), 103, 2007. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574...>.
13.
ZHU L., ZHANG C., CAI Y. Varieties of agri‑environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment. *Land Use Policy*, 71, 505, 2018. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.land...>.
14.
LOPEZ L.A., CADARSO M.A., GÓMEZ N., TOBARRA M.A. Food miles, carbon footprint & global value chains for Spanish agriculture: Assessing carbon border tax impacts. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 103, 423, 2015. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle...>.
15.
HU J., WANG Z., HUANG Q., HU M. Agricultural trade shocks & carbon leakage: Evidence from China’s trade shocks to Belt & Road economies. *Environmental Impact Assessment Review*, 90, 106629, 2021. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar...>.
16.
ALI R., ISHAQ R., BAKHSH K., YASIN M.A. Do agricultural technologies influence carbon emissions in Pakistan? ARDL‑based evidence. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, 29 (28), 43361, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356...> PMid:35094271.
17.
MAMUN A., MARTIN W., TOKGOZ S. Reforming agricultural support for improved environmental outcomes. *Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy*, 43 (4), 1520, 2021. <https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.1...>.
18.
SONG Z., YANG R. Interaction and evolution of urban agricultural multifunctionality & carbon effects in Guangzhou, China. *Land*, 11 (9), 1413, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.3390/land11...>.
19.
MA S., LI J., WEI W. Carbon emission reduction effect of digital agriculture in China. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, 1, 18, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356...>.
20.
JIANG S., WANG L., XIANG F. The Effect of Agriculture Insurance on Agricultural Carbon Emissions in China: The Mediation Role of Low‑Carbon Technology Innovation. *Sustainability*, 15 (5), 4431, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su1505...>.
21.
MU L., WANG Y., MAO H. Does Agricultural Insurance Drive Variations in Carbon Emissions in China? Evidence from a Quasi‑Experiment. *Polish Journal of Environmental Studies*, 32, 1, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes...> PMid:35393951.
22.
LIU C., JIANG Y. When China's environmental governance encounters marketization of economy: Good or bad? *Environment, Development and Sustainability*, 1, 26, 2023.
23.
ZHANG J., YANG Y. Can environmental disclosure improve price efficiency? The perspective of price delay. *Finance Research Letters*, 52, 103556, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl....>.
24.
LI S., LI Z., NI J., YUAN J. Growing pains for others: Using holidays to identify the pollution spillover between China and South Korea. *China Economic Review*, 77, 101916, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chie...>.
25.
TRUONG Y., BERRONE P. Can environmental innovation be a conventional source of higher market valuation? *Journal of Business Research*, 142, 113, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus...>.
26.
WAKKER P.P. The correct formula of 1979 prospect theory for multiple outcomes. *Theory and Decision*, 94 (2), 183, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238...>.
27.
YANG Y., GAO P., ZHOU H. Understanding the evolution of China's standardization policy system. *Telecommunications Policy*, 47 (2), 102478, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telp...>.
28.
JIANG Z., GAO X. Text mining and quantitative evaluation of China's green consumption policies based on green consumption objects. *Environment, Development and Sustainability*, 1, 22, 2023. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668...>.
29.
JACOBSON L.S., LALONDE R.J., SULLIVAN D.G. Earnings losses of displaced workers. *The American Economic Review*, 685, 709, 1993. <https://doi.org/10.17848/wp92-...>.
30.
NUNN N., QIAN N. The potato's contribution to population and urbanization: Evidence from a historical experiment. *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, 126 (2), 593, 2011. <https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qj...> PMid:22073408.
31.
CAI X., LU Y., WU M., YU L. Does environmental regulation drive away inbound foreign direct investment? Evidence from a quasi‑natural experiment in China. *Journal of Development Economics*, 123, 73, 2016. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdev...>.
32.
HECKMAN J.J., ICHIMURA H., TODD P.E. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. *The Review of Economic Studies*, 64 (4), 605, 1997. <https://doi.org/10.2307/297173...>.
33.
DU Z., ZHU C., ZHOU Y. Increasing Quantity or Improving Quality: Can Soil Pollution Control Promote Green Innovation in China's Industrial and Mining Enterprises? *Sustainability*, 14 (22), 14986, 2022. <https://doi.org/10.3390/su1422...>.
34.
GANG F., XIAOLU W., GUANGRONG M. The Contribution of Marketization to China's Economic Growth. *China Economist*, 7 (2), 4, 2012.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2083-5906 |
| ISSN: | 1230-1485 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
