The Impact of Coordinated Development of Ecological Environment and Technological Innovation on Green Economy: Evidence from China

Abstract

Promoting the coordinated development of ecological environment and technological innovation is significant to the development of a green economy. In this study, we construct an index system of ecological environment, technological innovation, and green economy based on the panel data of 30 provinces and cities in China from 2005 to 2016, using the entropy weight method, the coupling coordination model, and the panel vector autoregressive model (PVAR) to calculate the comprehensive development levels of ecological environment, technological innovation, and green economy and the coordination degree between ecological environment and technological innovation, and then further explore the impact of the coordinated development level of ecological environment and technological innovation on the development of a green economy. The research results include: First, from 2005 to 2016, the comprehensive development levels of ecological environment, technological innovation, and green economy in China’s 30 provinces and cities achieved different degrees of improvement as a whole. Among them, the comprehensive development level of green economy was the highest, followed by the development level of technological innovation, and the comprehensive development level of ecological environment was the lowest. Second, from 2005 to 2016, the coordination degree between ecological environment and technological innovation in China’s provinces and cities increased year by year, but on the whole, the coordination degree between ecological environment and technological innovation in various regions was in a state of imbalance. Third, there was a long-term equilibrium relationship among the coordinated development levels of ecological environment, technological innovation, and green economy. Fourth, through pulse analysis and Monte Carlo simulation, we found that the coordinated development level of ecological environment and technological innovation had a lagging positive impact on green economy. Finally, we provide a summary of the results of this study.

The Impact of Urbanization on Environmental Quality in Ecologically Fragile Areas: Evidence from Hengduan Mountain, Southwest China

“…Considering that the perspective of a single environmental element cannot reflect the overall characteristics of environmental quality, in this study, we designed a comprehensive index system to evaluate environmental quality [44]. With different research objectives, the authors of existing studies have applied various evaluation index systems for environmental quality [44,[46][47][48][49]. Based on the existing evaluation index system, with the principles of scientificity and availability, we selected five elements from three aspects of Hengduan Mountain is an important natural resource reserve and ecological buffer area, with the area performing various ecological functions.…”

“…Per capita wetland area [46] Freshwater productivity and biodiversity + Wetland 0.146 Per capita green area [49] Vegetation redundancy + Green 0.111…”

Effect of equity checks and balances on corporate social responsibility: A moderated mediating effect

“…This study contributes to the literature on equity checks and balances and CSR from the following aspects. First, domestic and foreign scholars have mainly studied green innovation performance from the aspects of environmental governance and protection (Gong et al, 2020;Su, 2022) and paid less attention to the impact of green innovation performance on corporate governance. This study complements previous studies on the role of green innovation in corporate governance by exploring the impact of green innovation on equity checks and balances and CSR.…”

Sustainable AI in environmental economics and management: Current trends and post-COVID perspective

“…This article is based on the theory of environmental economics and management and the latest research which has been published by Astadi et al (2022), Cui et al (2022), Fontoura and Coelho (2022), He et al (2022), Li et al (2022), Rathore et al (2022), Su (2022), and Yaoteng and Xin (2022).…”