Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33112878›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Does environmental regulation reduce China's haze pollution? An empirical analysis based on panel quantile regression.

Congxin Li, Guozhu Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Congxin LiSchool of Economics, Hebei GEO University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.
Guozhu LiSchool of Economics, Hebei GEO University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8880-7711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Haze pollution in China is very serious and has become the source of mortality, affecting the health and lives of residents. The Chinese government adopts different policy measures to reduce haze pollution. The impact of different types of environmental regulations on haze pollution has become a hot topic for academics and government departments. Based on panel data from 2005-2017, this paper studies the effect of different types of environmental regulations on haze pollution in 30 provinces of China using a panel quantile model. The results show that when haze pollution changes from a low quantile to a high quantile, the marginal impact of command-and-control environmental regulation on haze pollution changes from 0.122 to -0.332. Command-and-control environmental regulation can reduce haze pollution, but its impact is not significant. The main reason for this finding is that environmental law enforcement is not strict. The marginal impact of economically restrained environmental regulation on haze pollution changes from -14.389 to 49.939. Economically restrained environmental regulation can reduce haze pollution in low quantiles, but not in high quantiles. The collection of sewage charges fees is far less than the total profit, which has no deterrent effect on enterprises. The marginal impact of public participation in environmental regulation on haze pollution changes from 0.154 to -0.002. Public participation in environmental regulation cannot reduce haze pollution in low quantiles, but can in high quantiles; however its impact becomes insignificant. This study reveals the quantile-based discrepancy in the effect of environmental regulation on haze pollution, and offers a new perspective for research on the effects of environmental regulation.

Indexed as

Empirical ResearchSocial Control, FormalAir PollutionChinaRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID33112878
PMCPMC7592848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.