IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i5p585-d1385035.html

Have Agricultural Land-Use Carbon Emissions in China Peaked? An Analysis Based on Decoupling Theory and Spatial EKC Model

Author

Listed:
  • Haoyue Wu

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Bangwen Ding

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Lu Liu

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

  • Lei Zhou

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

  • Yue Meng

    (College of Business and Tourism, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611830, China)

  • Xiangjiang Zheng

    (School of Life Science and Engineering, Southwest University of Science and Technology, Mianyang 621010, China)

Abstract

Assessing the emission-peaking process of agricultural land use provides valuable insights for mitigating global warming. This study calculated agricultural land-use carbon emissions (ALUCEs) in China from 2000 to 2020 and explored the peaking process based on quantitative criteria. Further, we applied the Tapio decoupling index and environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) model to discuss the robustness of the peaking process. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) From 2000 to 2020, China’s average ALUCEs were 368.1 Mt C-eq (1349.7 CO 2 -eq), peaking at 396.9 Mt C-eq (1455.3 Mt CO 2 -eq) in 2015 before plateauing. Emissions from agricultural materials and soil management had entered the declining period, while those from rice cultivation were in the peaking period, those from straw burning were still rising, and those from livestock breeding remained at the plateauing phase. (2) The provinces of Beijing, Tianjin, and nine others saw a decline in ALUCEs, while Hainan, Guizhou, and another nine provinces observed plateauing, and Ningxia, Qinghai, and six other provinces experienced peaking. (3) Decoupling analysis confirmed that emission-peaking states remained stable even with agricultural growth. Instead of an inverted U-shaped relationship, we found an N-shaped relationship between ALUCEs and agricultural GDP. The spatial EKC model indicated that the peaking process had spillover effects between provinces. It is recommended that China accelerate ALUCE mitigation based on the source and phase of emissions, considering the peaking process and magnitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Haoyue Wu & Bangwen Ding & Lu Liu & Lei Zhou & Yue Meng & Xiangjiang Zheng, 2024. "Have Agricultural Land-Use Carbon Emissions in China Peaked? An Analysis Based on Decoupling Theory and Spatial EKC Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:585-:d:1385035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/585/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/5/585/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahmed Laamrani & Paul R. Voroney & Adam W. Gillespie & Abdelghani Chehbouni, 2021. "Development of a Land Use Carbon Inventory for Agricultural Soils in the Canadian Province of Ontario," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Rafiee, Shahin & Omid, Mahmoud & Mousazadeh, Hossein, 2013. "Applying data envelopment analysis approach to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emission of wheat production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 588-593.
    3. Jinyu Han & Jiansheng Qu & Dai Wang & Tek Narayan Maraseni, 2023. "Accounting for and Comparison of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions between Crop and Livestock Sectors in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2019. "Publisher Correction: Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 565(7740), pages 9-9, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruofei An & Xiaowu Hu & Shucun Sun, 2025. "The Nonlinear Relationship Between Urbanization and Ecological Environment in China Under the PSR (Pressure-State-Response) Model: Inflection Point Identification and Policy Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-24, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Suria Tarigan & Iput Pradiko & Nuzul H. Darlan & Yudha Kristanto, 2025. "Carbon Footprint Comparison of Rapeseed and Palm Oil: Impact of Land Use and Fertilizers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Zhen, Wei & Qin, Quande & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2017. "Spatio-temporal patterns of energy consumption-related GHG emissions in China's crop production systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 274-284.
    3. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Anjia Li & Xu Yin & Hui Wei, 2025. "Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Factors of the Relationship Between Land Use Carbon Emissions and Ecosystem Service Value in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-23, August.
    5. Jiali He & Xiangfei Liu & Xuetong Wang & Xueyang Li & Linger Yu & Beibei Niu, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Territorial Spaces and Its Effect on Carbon Emissions in Qingdao City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    6. Vlontzos, G. & Pardalos, P.M., 2017. "Assess and prognosticate green house gas emissions from agricultural production of EU countries, by implementing, DEA Window analysis and artificial neural networks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 155-162.
    7. Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    8. Shang, Hua & Jiang, Li & Kumar Mangla, Sachin & Pan, Xiongfeng & Song, Malin, 2024. "Examining the role of national governance capacity in building the global low-carbon agricultural supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    9. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    10. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    11. Liudmila Tripolskaja & Asta Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice & Eugenija Baksiene & Almantas Razukas, 2022. "Changes in Organic Carbon in Mineral Topsoil of a Formerly Cultivated Arenosol under Different Land Uses in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    12. Di Xu & Wenpeng Lin, 2025. "Carbon Emission Forecasts Under the Scenario of a 1.5 °C Increase: A Multi-National Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-13, April.
    13. Elahi, Ehsan & Zhang, Zhixin & Khalid, Zainab & Xu, Haiyun, 2022. "Application of an artificial neural network to optimise energy inputs: An energy- and cost-saving strategy for commercial poultry farms," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    14. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, "undated". "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Apergis, Nicholas & Aye, Goodness C. & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Gupta, Rangan & Wanke, Peter, 2015. "Energy efficiency of selected OECD countries: A slacks based model with undesirable outputs," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 45-53.
    16. Bellassen Valentin & Drut Marion & Antonioli Federico & Brečić Ružica & Donati Michele & Ferrer-Pérez Hugo & Gauvrit Lisa & Hoang Viet & Knutsen Steinnes Kamilla & Lilavanichakul Apichaya & Majewski E, 2021. "The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 113-126, December.
    17. Thomas Bournaris & George Vlontzos & Christina Moulogianni, 2019. "Efficiency of Vegetables Produced in Glasshouses: The Impact of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in Land Management Decision Making," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    18. Yu, Le & Chen, Yuan & Zhang, Siqi, 2025. "Climate change and staple grain acreage: Regional adaptation in China's agricultural cluster," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Marian Gil & Mariusz Rudy & Paulina Duma-Kocan & Renata Stanisławczyk & Anna Krajewska & Dariusz Dziki & Waleed H. Hassoon, 2024. "Sustainability of Alternatives to Animal Protein Sources, a Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, September.
    20. Gill, Jasvir Singh & Singh, Sukhpreet & Bhullar, M.S. & Kaur, Gurpreet & Kaur, Tarundeep, 2025. "Productivity-profitability-energy-carbon footprint nexus of wheat in relation to its establishment vis-à-vis in-situ rice residue management with a novel Surface Seeding-cum-Mulching technique," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:5:p:585-:d:1385035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.