生态环境学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (8): 1199-1208.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2026.08.004
刘雯宇1(
), 杜涛2,3, 王晨野2,3, 王敏英2,3, 葛成军1,*(
)
收稿日期:2026-01-12
修回日期:2026-05-20
接受日期:2026-05-27
出版日期:2026-08-18
发布日期:2026-08-17
通讯作者:
E-mail: 作者简介:刘雯宇(2000年生),女,硕士研究生,研究方向为资源与环境经济。E-mail: fangyuanyy0100@163.com
基金资助:
Liu Wenyu1(
), Du Tao2,3, Wang Chenye2,3, Wang Minying2,3, Ge Chengjun1,*(
)
Received:2026-01-12
Revised:2026-05-20
Accepted:2026-05-27
Online:2026-08-18
Published:2026-08-17
摘要:
【目的】现有环境库兹涅茨曲线研究多将碳排放与常规污染物分开考察,可能影响复合环境压力识别。该文检验纳入工业二氧化碳排放是否影响曲线形态、拐点识别和阶段判断。【方法】基于2003—2023年海南省年度工业数据,构建涵盖工业用水、废水、传统工业废气、固体废物和二氧化碳排放的指标体系,设置传统工业废气与碳-气复合压力、不含碳与含碳环境污染综合指数两组比较口径,在采用熵值法构建综合污染指数的基础上,利用多项式回归模型识别曲线形态及拐点。【结果】海南各类工业环境压力并非均为倒U形,而呈现多介质异步演进特征。传统工业废气为倒U形,而碳-气复合压力转为倒N形;后者第二拐点约688亿元,较传统工业废气约793亿元的拐点低约105亿元,表明含碳口径在较低工业增加值水平识别出复合压力转折。两类综合指数均为倒N形,但含碳指数的第二拐点更低,提示其对风险识别更敏感。碳排放与碳-气复合压力的再改善拐点较低,固体废物拐点较高,工业用水存在高发展阶段反弹风险。【结论】纳入工业二氧化碳排放可影响环境压力表征、曲线识别和阶段判断。对海南及类似海岛型地区,忽略碳排放可能低估复合环境风险并误判绿色转型阶段。
中图分类号:
刘雯宇, 杜涛, 王晨野, 王敏英, 葛成军. 碳排放纳入对工业环境库兹涅茨曲线识别的影响——来自海南省的实证检验[J]. 生态环境学报, 2026, 35(8): 1199-1208.
Liu Wenyu, Du Tao, Wang Chenye, Wang Minying, Ge Chengjun. Does Incorporating Industrial CO2 Emissions Alter Industrial Environmental Kuznets Curve Identification? Evidence from Hainan Province, China[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 2026, 35(8): 1199-1208.
| 环境污染 综合指数 | 指标序号(n) | 构成指标 | 权重 符号 | 权重 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPCI−ICO2 | 1 | 工业废水排放量 | 0.316 | |
| 2 | 传统工业废气排放量 | 0.296 | ||
| 3 | 工业固体废物产生量 | 0.388 | ||
| EPCI+ICO2 | 1 | 工业废水排放量 | 0.308 | |
| 2 | 碳-气复合压力指标 | 0.312 | ||
| 3 | 工业固体废物产生量 | 0.380 |
表1 不含碳与含碳环境污染综合指数的构成指标及权重
Table 1 Constituent indicators and weights of the carbon-exclusive and carbon-inclusive environmental pollution composite indices
| 环境污染 综合指数 | 指标序号(n) | 构成指标 | 权重 符号 | 权重 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPCI−ICO2 | 1 | 工业废水排放量 | 0.316 | |
| 2 | 传统工业废气排放量 | 0.296 | ||
| 3 | 工业固体废物产生量 | 0.388 | ||
| EPCI+ICO2 | 1 | 工业废水排放量 | 0.308 | |
| 2 | 碳-气复合压力指标 | 0.312 | ||
| 3 | 工业固体废物产生量 | 0.380 |
| 变量 | 模型类别 | R2 | 调整后的R2 | F值(显著性) | AIC | BIC | α | β1 | β2 | β3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IWU | 线性 | 0.471 | 0.443 | 16.91(0.0006***) | -5.78 | -3.69 | 0.856*** | -0.681*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.730 | 0.700 | 24.34(0.0000***) | -17.91 | -14.78 | 0.643*** | 0.772 | -1.612*** | - | |
| 三次 | 0.848 | 0.821 | 31.53(0.0000***) | -27.92 | -23.75 | 0.477*** | 3.421*** | -8.564*** | 4.649** | |
| IWD | 线性 | 0.003 | -0.049 | 0.06(0.8049) | 5.58 | 7.67 | 0.456*** | 0.054 | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.010 | -0.100 | 0.09(0.9111) | 7.43 | 10.57 | 0.489*** | -0.173 | 0.251 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.211 | 0.072 | 1.51(0.2467) | 4.68 | 8.85 | 0.697** | -3.477 | -5.798 | 8.923* | |
| ICO2 | 线性 | 0.263 | 0.224 | 6.78(0.0174**) | 6.47 | 8.53 | 0.353*** | 0.545** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.311 | 0.235 | 4.06(0.0350**) | 4.65 | 7.78 | 0.255 | 1.216 | -0.744 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.625 | 0.558 | 9.43(0.0007***) | -6.11 | -1.93 | 0.546*** | -3.417** | 11.414*** | -8.130*** | |
| CIAPE | 线性 | 0.629 | 0.609 | 32.16(0.0000***) | -16.13 | -14.04 | 0.054 | 0.734*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.703 | 0.670 | 21.32(0.0000***) | -18.84 | -15.71 | -0.053 | 1.461*** | -0.807* | - | |
| 三次 | 0.723 | 0.675 | 14.82(0.0001***) | -18.32 | -14.14 | 0.012 | 0.437 | 1.881 | -1.798 | |
| CAPPI | 线性 | 0.517 | 0.491 | 20.31(0.0002***) | -12.70 | -10.61 | 0.214** | 0.633*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.592 | 0.547 | 13.08(0.0003***) | -14.27 | -11.14 | 0.112 | 1.330** | -0.774 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.778 | 0.739 | 19.86(0.0000***) | -25.03 | -20.85 | 0.297*** | -1.623 | 6.976** | -5.182** | |
| ISWG | 线性 | 0.885 | 0.879 | 145.91(0.0000***) | -16.21 | -14.57 | -0.044 | 1.143*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.885 | 0.872 | 69.37(0.0000***) | -27.84 | -25.21 | -0.054 | 1.211*** | -0.760 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.909 | 0.893 | 56.78(0.0000***) | -30.30 | -26.13 | 0.038 | -0.256 | 3.776 | -2.576* | |
| EPCI−ICO2 | 线性 | 0.712 | 0.697 | 46.94(0.0000***) | -39.67 | -37.58 | 0.107** | 0.506*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.717 | 0.686 | 22.83(0.0000***) | -38.07 | -34.93 | 0.088 | 0.633** | -0.141 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.811 | 0.778 | 24.31(0.0000***) | -44.52 | -40.34 | 0.178** | -0.797 | 3.612** | -2.509** | |
| EPCI+ICO2 | 线性 | 0.669 | 0.651 | 38.32(0.0000***) | -25.01 | -22.92 | 0.191** | 0.648*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.674 | 0.638 | 18.63(0.0000***) | -23.38 | -20.25 | 0.165* | 0.822* | -0.193 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.838 | 0.809 | 29.28(0.0000***) | -36.02 | -31.84 | 0.322*** | -1.674* | 6.360** | -4.381** |
表2 环境库兹涅茨曲线模型拟合结果
Table 2 Fitting results of the Environmental Kuznets Curve models
| 变量 | 模型类别 | R2 | 调整后的R2 | F值(显著性) | AIC | BIC | α | β1 | β2 | β3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IWU | 线性 | 0.471 | 0.443 | 16.91(0.0006***) | -5.78 | -3.69 | 0.856*** | -0.681*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.730 | 0.700 | 24.34(0.0000***) | -17.91 | -14.78 | 0.643*** | 0.772 | -1.612*** | - | |
| 三次 | 0.848 | 0.821 | 31.53(0.0000***) | -27.92 | -23.75 | 0.477*** | 3.421*** | -8.564*** | 4.649** | |
| IWD | 线性 | 0.003 | -0.049 | 0.06(0.8049) | 5.58 | 7.67 | 0.456*** | 0.054 | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.010 | -0.100 | 0.09(0.9111) | 7.43 | 10.57 | 0.489*** | -0.173 | 0.251 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.211 | 0.072 | 1.51(0.2467) | 4.68 | 8.85 | 0.697** | -3.477 | -5.798 | 8.923* | |
| ICO2 | 线性 | 0.263 | 0.224 | 6.78(0.0174**) | 6.47 | 8.53 | 0.353*** | 0.545** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.311 | 0.235 | 4.06(0.0350**) | 4.65 | 7.78 | 0.255 | 1.216 | -0.744 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.625 | 0.558 | 9.43(0.0007***) | -6.11 | -1.93 | 0.546*** | -3.417** | 11.414*** | -8.130*** | |
| CIAPE | 线性 | 0.629 | 0.609 | 32.16(0.0000***) | -16.13 | -14.04 | 0.054 | 0.734*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.703 | 0.670 | 21.32(0.0000***) | -18.84 | -15.71 | -0.053 | 1.461*** | -0.807* | - | |
| 三次 | 0.723 | 0.675 | 14.82(0.0001***) | -18.32 | -14.14 | 0.012 | 0.437 | 1.881 | -1.798 | |
| CAPPI | 线性 | 0.517 | 0.491 | 20.31(0.0002***) | -12.70 | -10.61 | 0.214** | 0.633*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.592 | 0.547 | 13.08(0.0003***) | -14.27 | -11.14 | 0.112 | 1.330** | -0.774 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.778 | 0.739 | 19.86(0.0000***) | -25.03 | -20.85 | 0.297*** | -1.623 | 6.976** | -5.182** | |
| ISWG | 线性 | 0.885 | 0.879 | 145.91(0.0000***) | -16.21 | -14.57 | -0.044 | 1.143*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.885 | 0.872 | 69.37(0.0000***) | -27.84 | -25.21 | -0.054 | 1.211*** | -0.760 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.909 | 0.893 | 56.78(0.0000***) | -30.30 | -26.13 | 0.038 | -0.256 | 3.776 | -2.576* | |
| EPCI−ICO2 | 线性 | 0.712 | 0.697 | 46.94(0.0000***) | -39.67 | -37.58 | 0.107** | 0.506*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.717 | 0.686 | 22.83(0.0000***) | -38.07 | -34.93 | 0.088 | 0.633** | -0.141 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.811 | 0.778 | 24.31(0.0000***) | -44.52 | -40.34 | 0.178** | -0.797 | 3.612** | -2.509** | |
| EPCI+ICO2 | 线性 | 0.669 | 0.651 | 38.32(0.0000***) | -25.01 | -22.92 | 0.191** | 0.648*** | - | - |
| 二次 | 0.674 | 0.638 | 18.63(0.0000***) | -23.38 | -20.25 | 0.165* | 0.822* | -0.193 | - | |
| 三次 | 0.838 | 0.809 | 29.28(0.0000***) | -36.02 | -31.84 | 0.322*** | -1.674* | 6.360** | -4.381** |
| 环境 压力指标 | EKC 曲线形态 | 低经济发展 阶段的拐点 | 中高经济发展 阶段的拐点 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 标准化后的IVA(-) | 标准化前的IVA (亿元) | 标准化后的IVA(-) | 标准化前的IVA (亿元) | |||
| IWU | N形 | 0.25 | 321.41 | 0.98 | 844.84 | |
| ICO2 | 倒N形 | 0.19 | 275.26 | 0.75 | 680.45 | |
| CIAPE | 倒U形 | - | - | 0.91 | 792.93 | |
| CAPPI | 倒N形 | 0.14 | 239.21 | 0.76 | 688.39 | |
| ISWG | 倒N形 | 0.04 | 165.67 | 0.94 | 819.60 | |
| EPCI−ICO2 | 倒N形 | 0.13 | 232.00 | 0.83 | 740.30 | |
| EPCI+ICO2 | 倒N形 | 0.16 | 253.63 | 0.81 | 725.16 | |
表3 各环境压力指标的曲线形态与拐点
Table 3 Curve shapes and turning points of environmental pressure indicators
| 环境 压力指标 | EKC 曲线形态 | 低经济发展 阶段的拐点 | 中高经济发展 阶段的拐点 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 标准化后的IVA(-) | 标准化前的IVA (亿元) | 标准化后的IVA(-) | 标准化前的IVA (亿元) | |||
| IWU | N形 | 0.25 | 321.41 | 0.98 | 844.84 | |
| ICO2 | 倒N形 | 0.19 | 275.26 | 0.75 | 680.45 | |
| CIAPE | 倒U形 | - | - | 0.91 | 792.93 | |
| CAPPI | 倒N形 | 0.14 | 239.21 | 0.76 | 688.39 | |
| ISWG | 倒N形 | 0.04 | 165.67 | 0.94 | 819.60 | |
| EPCI−ICO2 | 倒N形 | 0.13 | 232.00 | 0.83 | 740.30 | |
| EPCI+ICO2 | 倒N形 | 0.16 | 253.63 | 0.81 | 725.16 | |
| [1] |
Bai L Y, Wang X J, Zhang L, et al., 2024. A systematic study of interactions between sustainable development goals (SDGs) in Hainan Island[J]. Scientific Reports, 14(1): 26613.
DOI |
| [2] |
Ban J, Cheng J, Zhang C, et al., 2024. China’s carbon-neutral policies will reduce short-term PM2.5-associated excess incidence of cardiovascular diseases[J]. One Earth, 7(3): 497-505.
DOI URL |
| [3] |
Ben Youssef A, Hammoudeh S, Omri A, 2016. Simultaneity modeling analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis[J]. Energy Economics, 60: 266-274.
DOI URL |
| [4] |
Castle J L, Hendry D F, 2026. The ‘climate Kuznets curve’: A critique[J]. Energy Economics, 157: 109231.
DOI URL |
| [5] |
Chai Z Y, Zhu X J, Sun Y Y, et al., 2025. Evaluating pollution reduction and carbon mitigation in China’s zero-waste cities[J]. Sustainability, 17(7): 3215.
DOI URL |
| [6] | Dickey D A, Fuller W A, 1979. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366): 427-431. |
| [7] |
Dinda S, 2004. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey[J]. Ecological Economics, 49(4): 431-455.
DOI URL |
| [8] | Fang X, Gao S, 2023. An empirical study on relationship between island ecological environment and socio-economic development from perspective of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC)[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 244: 106819. |
| [9] |
Grossman G M, Krueger A B, 1995. Economic growth and the environment[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2): 353-377.
DOI URL |
| [10] |
Guo X, Shahbaz M, 2024. The existence of environmental Kuznets curve: Critical look and future implications for environmental management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 351: 119648.
DOI URL |
| [11] |
Hao Y, Wu Y R, Wang L, et al., 2018. Re-examine environmental Kuznets curve in China: Spatial estimations using environmental quality index[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 42: 498-511.
DOI URL |
| [12] |
Huang Q F, Zhao T, Lin M S, et al., 2025. Insights and practices for industrial solid waste management under “zero-waste city” construction in China[J]. Circular Economy, 4(3): 100155.
DOI URL |
| [13] |
Hussain I, Ahmad E, Majeed M T, 2023. Curvature and turning point of the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy: The role of governance[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30: 53007-53019.
DOI |
| [14] | IPCC, 2019. 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories[M]. Geneva: IPCC. |
| [15] |
Li R R, Wang Q, Guo J L, 2024. Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis of carbon emissions: Exploring the impact of geopolitical risks, natural resource rents, corrupt governance, and energy intensity[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 351: 119663.
DOI URL |
| [16] | Li S Z, Gui F, Li H Y, et al., 2025. Construction of island ecological security pattern under multi-circle development pattern: Evidence from Hainan Island[J]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 269: 107809. |
| [17] |
Li T T, Wang Y, Zhao D T, 2016. Environmental Kuznets curve in China: New evidence from dynamic panel analysis[J]. Energy Policy, 91: 138-147.
DOI URL |
| [18] |
Liang C Z, Jia P H, Zhu Y X, et al., 2026. Assessing the effectiveness and driving forces of the ecological conservation redline in Hainan Island based on the multiple ecosystem service landscape index[J]. Land, 15(3): 355.
DOI URL |
| [19] |
Liu H D, Zhang G Q, Li T Q, et al., 2024. Importance of ecosystem services and ecological security patterns on Hainan Island, China[J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12: 1323673.
DOI URL |
| [20] |
Quan Z C, Xu X, Wang W H, et al., 2024. Do industrial solid waste recycling and technological innovation promote low-carbon development in China? New insights from NARDL approach[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 916: 170446.
DOI URL |
| [21] |
Said S E, Dickey D A, 1984. Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order[J]. Biometrika, 71(3): 599-607.
DOI URL |
| [22] |
Wagner M, 2008. The carbon Kuznets curve: A cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics?[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 30(3): 388-408.
DOI URL |
| [23] |
Wang Q, Li Y F, Li R R, 2024. Rethinking the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across 214 countries: the impacts of 12 economic, institutional, technological, resource, and social factors[J]. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11: 292.
DOI |
| [24] |
Wang Q, Zhang F Y, Li R R, 2023. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: The roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent[J]. Environmental Research, 216(Part 3): 114637.
DOI URL |
| [25] |
Wei L Y, Li M H, Ma Y X, et al., 2024. Construction of an ecological security pattern for the National Park of Hainan Tropical Rainforest on the basis of the importance of the function and sensitivity of its ecosystem services[J]. Land, 13(10): 1618.
DOI URL |
| [26] |
Wu H T, Zhang T Z, Rao W X, et al., 2026. The effect of national eco-industrial parks on city-level synergistic reduction in pollution and carbon emissions: Evidence from a staggered DID analysis in the Yangtze River Delta, China[J]. Sustainability, 18(2): 598.
DOI URL |
| [27] |
Wu R, Xie Z H, Wang J Y, et al., 2025. Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve and its influencing factors of CO2 emissions: Insights from development stages and rebound effects[J]. Applied Geography, 174: 103475.
DOI URL |
| [28] |
Xian B T, Xu Y L, Chen W, et al., 2024. Co-benefits of policies to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions in China[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 104: 107301.
DOI URL |
| [29] | Yang J X, Zhao Z Y, Fang W T, et al., 2024. China’s progress in synergetic governance of climate change and multiple environmental issues[J]. PNAS Nexus, 3(9): pgae351. |
| [30] |
Yi M, Guan Y Y, Wu T, et al., 2023. Assessing China’s synergistic governance of emission reduction between pollutants and CO2[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 102: 107196.
DOI URL |
| [31] | Yin Y X, Song C Q, Jing Y, et al., 2025. EWMS: A software tool for interactively using entropy weight coefficient method for aggregating sustainability indicators[J]. Environmental Modelling & Software, 191: 106500. |
| [32] |
Yue Z, Alun G, Bolin P, 2017. Relationship between industrial water consumption and economic growth in China based on environmental Kuznets curve[J]. Energy Procedia, 105: 3557-3564.
DOI URL |
| [33] |
Zeraibi A, Ahmed Z, Shehzad K, et al., 2022. Revisiting the EKC hypothesis by assessing the complementarities between fiscal, monetary, and environmental development policies in China[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29: 23545-23560.
DOI |
| [34] |
Zhang H, Mei Y Z, Zheng J H, et al., 2025a. Evaluation of the synergistic emission reduction benefits of pollution and carbon reduction and regional synergy network analysis in Chinese cities[J]. Energy Economics, 150: 108841.
DOI URL |
| [35] |
Zhang L, Lei J R, Chen Z Z, et al., 2025b. Spatiotemporal differentiation and trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services in tropical island basins: A case study of three major basins of Hainan Island[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 490: 144798.
DOI URL |
| [36] |
Zhang Q, Yin Z C, Lu X, et al., 2023. Synergetic roadmap of carbon neutrality and clean air for China[J]. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 16: 100280.
DOI URL |
| [37] |
Zhang Z Y, Zhu Y X, Jia P H, 2024. Ecological protection redlines’ positive impact on terrestrial carbon storage in Hainan Island, China[J]. Land, 13(8): 1292.
DOI URL |
| [38] |
Zhao R X, Hu C J, Du C L, et al., 2025. Synergistic effect assessment of pollution and carbon reduction and pathway of green transformation at regional level in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 495: 145013.
DOI URL |
| [39] |
Zheng X Q, Wang J Y, Xu X B, et al., 2024. Carbon Kuznets curve in China: Nighttime light analysis in prefecture-level cities[J]. Heliyon, 10(16): e36312.
DOI URL |
| [40] |
Zhong C Q, Wu X W, Jia P H, et al., 2024. Study on the coupling coordination effect and dynamic relationship between tourism development and the ecological environment: a case study of Hainan Island[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 12: 1284278.
DOI URL |
| [41] |
陈家东, 张鹏, 郭建超, 等, 2025. 海南岛生态清洁小流域功能分区与治理措施功能匹配性研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 34(5): 743-753.
DOI |
| Chen J D, Zhang P, Guo J C, et al., 2025. Study on the Function Zoning and Function Matching Level with Control Measures of Eco-environment Friendly Small Watersheds in Hainan Island[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 34(5): 743-753. | |
| [42] |
方瑾, 刘晗, 张栋才, 等, 2026. 中国省域绿色发展潜力评估体系构建: 基于固定权与异质权的对比分析[J]. 生态环境学报, 35(1): 15-28.
DOI |
| Fang J, Liu H, Zhang D C, et al., 2026. Construction of China’s green development potential assessment system: Comparative analysis based on fixed and heterogeneous rights[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 35(1): 15-28. | |
| [43] | 国家市场监督管理总局,国家标准化管理委员会, 2020. 综合能耗计算通则: GB/T 2589-2020[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社. |
| State Administration for Market Regulation,Standardization Administration of China, 2020. General rules for calculation of the comprehensive energy consumption: GB/T 2589-2020[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China. | |
| [44] | 国务院, 2021. 国务院关于印发2030年前碳达峰行动方案的通知[EB/OL]. (2021-10-26) [2026-04-06]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-10/26/content_5644984.htm. |
| The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2021. Notice of the State Council on Issuing the Action Plan for Carbon Dioxide Peaking Before 2030 [EB/OL]. (2021-10-26) [2026-04-06]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-10/26/content_5644984.htm. | |
| [45] | 海南省统计局,国家统计局海南调查总队, 2025. 2024年海南省国民经济和社会发展统计公报[EB/OL]. (2025-03-13) [2026-04-06]. https://www.hainan.gov.cn/hainan/tjgb/202503/930d3554f3f34205a1ea1a34730247b0.shtml. |
| Hainan Provincial Bureau of Statistics, NBS Survey Office in Hainan, 2025. Statistical bulletin of Hainan Province on national economic and social development in 2024[EB/OL]. (2025-03-13) [2026-04-06]. https://www.hainan.gov.cn/hainan/tjgb/202503/930d3554f3f34205a1ea1a34730247b0.shtml. | |
| [46] |
罗良文, 雷朱家华, 2024. 中国碳市场政策的减污降碳协同效应[J]. 资源科学, 46(1): 53-68.
DOI |
|
Luo L W, Leizhu J H, 2024. Synergetic effect of China’s carbon market policies on pollution reduction and carbon reduction[J]. Resources Science, 46(1): 53-68.
DOI |
|
| [47] | 生态环境部, 国家发展和改革委员会, 工业和信息化部, 等. 2022. 关于印发《减污降碳协同增效实施方案》的通知[EB/OL]. (2022-06-13) [2026-04-06]. https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk03/202206/t20220617_985879.html. |
| Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China, et al., 2022. Notice on issuing the implementation plan for synergistic enhancement of pollution reduction and carbon reduction[EB/OL]. (2022-06-13) [2026-04-06]. https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk03/202206/t20220617_985879.html. | |
| [48] |
田嘉莉, 毛靖宇, 彭甲超, 等, 2024. 重污染企业减污降碳协同效应时空分异特征及其驱动因素分析--来自A股100家企业的证据[J]. 生态环境学报, 33(11): 1661-1671.
DOI |
| Tian J L, Mao J Y, Peng J C, et al., 2024. The Spatiotemporal differentiation and driving factors of the synergistic effect of pollution and carbon reduction in heavily polluting enterprises: Evidence from 100 A-share Enterprises[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 33(11): 1661-1671. | |
| [49] | 吴维棉, 饶胜波, 葛天南, 2024. 基于生态敏感性评价的公路交通优化策略研究--以海南热带雨林国家公园为例[J]. 国家公园(中英文), 2(3): 208-215. |
| Wu W M, Rao S B, Ge T N, 2024. Research on highway traffic optimization strategies based on ecological sensitivity evaluation: taking Hainan Tropical Rainforest National Park as an example[J]. National Park, 2(3): 208-215. | |
| [50] | 中共中央, 国务院, 2020. 海南自由贸易港建设总体方案[EB/OL]. (2020-06-01) [2026-04-06]. https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2020-06/01/content_5516608.htm. |
| Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2020. Master Plan for the Construction of Hainan Free Trade Port[EB/OL]. (2020-06-01) [2026-04-06]. https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2020-06/01/content_5516608.htm. |
| [1] | 王铁铮, 瞿心悦, 刘春香, 李有志. 东江湖水质时空变化规律及其与流域土地利用的关系[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(4): 722-732. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||