ArticleScientific reports2024
Understanding carbon resilience under public health emergencies: a synthetic difference-in-differences approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public health emergencies influence urban carbon emissions, yet an in-depth understanding of deviations between regional emissions under such emergencies and normal levels is lacking. Inspired by the concept of resilience, we introduce the concept of regional carbon resilience and propose four resilience indicators covering periods during and after emergencies. A synthetic difference-in-differences model is employed to compute these indicators, providing a more suitable approach than traditional methods assuming unchanged levels before and after emergencies. Using the COVID-19 pandemic in China as a case study, focusing on the power and industry sectors, we find that over 40% regions exhibit strong resilience (> 0.9). Average in-resilience (0.764 and 0.783) is higher than post-resilience (0.534 and 0.598) in both sectors, indicating lower resilience during than after emergencies. Significant differences in resilience performance exist across regions, with Hebei (0.93) and Hangzhou (0.92) as top performers, and Qinghai (0.29) and Guiyang (0.36) as the least resilient. Furthermore, a preliminary correlation analysis identifies 22 factors affecting carbon resilience; higher energy consumption, stronger industrial production, and a healthier regional economy positively contribute to resilience with coefficients over + 0.3, while pandemic severity negatively impacts resilience, with coefficients up to -0.58. These findings provide valuable references for policymaking to achieve carbon neutrality goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.