Application of difference-in-differences model in policy-based strategic environmental assessment: taking policy for agricultural support and protection subsidy as an example
-
摘要:
政策环境评价是环境影响评价体系的重要组成部分,开展其方法研究对政策环境评价制度完善及实践开展至关重要。双重差分(DID)是计量领域用于政策效果评估的主流方法之一,以农业支持保护补贴政策为例,采用多期DID评估该政策对农业面源污染的影响,探究DID在政策环境评价中的适用性。结果表明,DID在政策环境评价中具有较好的适用性,可用于政策实施后的环境影响评价和政策实施前相关政策的回顾性评价。未来应加强政策环境评价的技术方法研究,形成统一完善的技术方法体系,以促进政策环境评价制度的构建与实践的开展。研究发现,政策设计上环境利好的农业支持保护补贴政策在研究区域对农业面源控制的正向影响并不显著,甚至刺激农户施用更多农药,产生了负面影响。
-
关键词:
- 双重差分(DID)模型 /
- 政策环境评价 /
- 农业支持保护补贴政策 /
- 农业面源污染
Abstract:Policy-based strategic environmental assessment (policy-based SEA) is an important part of the environmental impact assessment system. It is very important to carry out the method research of policy-based SEA for its system improvement and practice. Difference-in-differences (DID) is one of the main methods used to evaluate policy effects in econometrics. Taking the policy of agricultural support and protection subsidy as an example, multi-period DID was used to evaluate the impact of the policy on agricultural non-point source pollution, and explore the applicability of DID in policy-based SEA. This study found that DID had good applicability in policy-based SEA. In addition to the environmental impact assessment of post-implementation policies, DID could also be used for the retrospective evaluation of the relevant policies of pre-implementation policies. In the future, the research on technical methods of policy-based SEA should be strengthened, and a unified technical method system should be formed to promote the construction and improvement of policy-based SEA system. In addition, it was found that although the policy for agricultural support and protection subsidy was a favorable policy for environment, its positive impact on agricultural non-point source pollution was not significant, and even stimulated farmers to use more pesticides, resulting in a negative environmental impact.
-
表 1 样本选择及分组情况
Table 1. Sample selection and grouping
具体区域 政策实施年份 山东省 枣庄市、济南市、德州市、济宁市、临沂市、青岛市、泰安市、威海市、淄博市、菏泽市、烟台市、莱芜市、滨州市、东营市、聊城市、日照市 2015 河南省 郑州市、开封市、洛阳市、平顶山市、安阳市、鹤壁市、新乡市、焦作市、濮阳市、许昌市、漯河市、三门峡市、商丘市、周口市、驻马店市、南阳市、
信阳市、济源市2015 河北省 石家庄市、唐山市、秦皇岛市、邯郸市、邢台市、保定市、张家口市、承德市、沧州市、廊坊市、衡水市 2016 湖北省 武汉市、黄石市、十堰市、宜昌市、襄阳市、鄂州市、荆门市、孝感市、荆州市、黄冈市、咸宁市、随州市、恩施土家族苗族自治州、仙桃市、潜江市、
天门市、神农架地区2016 表 2 变量及其定义
Table 2. Variables and definitions
变量性质 子指标 变量名称 符号 变量说明 被解释
变量农业面源污染指标 化肥施用强度/(kg/hm2) fer 单位面积化肥施用量,化肥使用量(折纯量)/农作物种植总面积 农药使用强度/(kg/hm2) pes 单位面积农药施用量,农药使用量(折纯量)/农作物种植总面积 总氮产生强度/(kg/hm2) TN 单位面积总氮产生量,总氮产生量/农作物种植总面积 总磷产生强度/(kg/hm2) TP 单位面积总磷产生量,总磷产生量/农作物种植总面积 控制变量 生产要素替代 农业劳动力投入强度/(人/hm2) lab 单位面积劳动力投入量,农业劳动力数量/农作物种植总面积 农业机械投入强度/(kW/hm2) mac 单位面积机械劳动力投入量,机械化总动力总量/农作物种植总面积 灌溉水平/% irr 灌溉面积/农作物种植总面积 劳动生产经验 上一年农村居民家庭人均
收入/(元/人)inc 全部折算为2009年不变价 上一年粮食单产/(kg/hm2) yie 上一年单位面积粮食产量,上一年粮食总产量/上一年粮食种植面积 种植结构 种植结构/% str 粮食种植面积/农作物种植总面积 虚拟变量 政策虚拟变量 treat_time 各地级市实施政策的当年及其之后该变量取值为1,否则为0 注:在后续模型估计中,表中变量除种植结构和灌溉水平外,其他均转换为对数形式。 表 3 氮肥、磷肥、复合肥产污系数[20]
Table 3. Pollution production coefficient of nitrogen fertilizer, phosphate fertilizer and compound fertilizer
污染物 氮肥 磷肥 复合肥 TN 1 0 0.33 TP 0 0.44 0.15 表 4 多期双重差分结果
Table 4. Results of multi-period DID
项目 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ln fer ln fer ln TN ln TN ln TP ln TP ln pes ln pes treat_time −0.010
(0.044)−0.022
(0.046)0.043
(0.070)0.023
(0.066)0.065
(0.061)0.059
(0.056)0.044**
(0.018)0.035**
(0.016)str __ −0.076
(0.373)__ −0.362*
(0.192)__ −0.243
(0.242)__ −0.498**
(0.246)irr __ 0.152
(0.191)__ −0.104
(0.082)__ −0.130
(0.075)__ 0.063
(0.139)ln mac __ 0.012
(0.045)__ 0.005
(0.040)__ 0.071
(0.052)__ −0.069
(0.038)ln lab __ −0.111
(0.204)__ 0.226*
(0.123)__ 0.162
(0.103)__ 0.082
(0.061)ln in __ −0.082
(0.069)__ −0.154**
(0.074)__ 0.004
(0.087)__ −0.109
(0.075)ln yie __ −0.107
(0.334)__ 0.082
(0.298)__ −0.007
(0.337)__ 0.152
(0.100)常数项 6.025***
(0.058)8.461***
(2.490)5.438***
(0.069)4.940
(3.212)3.882***
(0.06)2.871
(3.052)2.300***
(0.022)1.942
(1.590)R2 0.026 0.044 0.022 0.047 0.034 0.052 0.302 0.372 样本数 566 563 562 560 562 560 538 536 注:单数列(1)、(3)、(5)、(7)为没有增加控制变量的回归结果,双数列(2)、(4)、(6)、(8)为增加了控制变量的回归结果。***、**、*分别表示待估系数在1%、5%、10%水平上显著;括号内数字为标准误差。表5同。 表 5 安慰剂检验结果
Table 5. Results of placebo test
项目 政策执行时间提前1年 政策执行时间提前2年 无控制变量 有控制变量 无控制变量 有控制变量 treat_time 0.023
(0.019)0.025
(0.019)−0.004
(0.016)0.001
(0.018)str __ −0.506 **
(0.244)__ −0.503 **
(0.246)irr __ 0.078
(0.135)__ 0.067
(0.140)ln mac __ −0.072*
(0.039)__ −0.070*
(0.039)ln lab __ 0.075
(0.063)__ 0.083
(0.061)ln inc __ −0.111
(0.075)__ −0.114
(0.076)ln yie __ 0.159
(0.099)__ 0.149
(0.101)常数项 2.321***
(0.026)1.973
(1.588)2.348***
(0.024)2.055
(1.61)R2 0.299 0.370 0.298 0.368 样本数 538 536 538 536 -
[1] 李海生, 李小敏, 赵玉婷, 等.基于文献计量分析的近40年国内外环境影响评价研究进展[J]. 环境科学研究,2022,35(5):1091-1101. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2022.02.16LI H S, LI X M, ZHAO Y T, et al. Environmental impact assessment research in domestic and foreign literature in past four decades based on scientometric reviews[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences,2022,35(5):1091-1101. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2022.02.16 [2] 朱源. 精准科学依法优化环境影响评价对象[N]. 中国环境报, 2020-07-17. [3] 耿海清, 李天威, 徐鹤.我国开展政策环评的必要性及其基本框架研究[J]. 中国环境管理,2019,11(6):23-27.GENG H Q, LI T W, XU H. The necessity and basic framework of China's policy strategic environmental assessment[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management,2019,11(6):23-27. [4] 刘经纬. 我国政策环境影响评价制度的证成与展开[D]. 泉州: 华侨大学, 2019. [5] 费希尔. 战略环境评价理论与实践: 迈向系统化[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008. [6] 潘硕, 刘婷, 徐鹤.CGE模型在政策环境影响评价中的应用[J]. 环境影响评价,2016,38(5):17-22.PAN S, LIU T, XU H. The application of CGE model in policy environmental impact assessment[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment,2016,38(5):17-22. [7] LENZEN M, MURRAY S A, KORTE B, et al. Environmental impact assessment including indirect effects: a case study using input-output analysis[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2003,23(3):263-282. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00104-X [8] 邱怡慧, 苏时鹏.集体林权制度改革环境影响评价方法学分析[J]. 林业资源管理,2017(6):20-26.QIU Y H, SU S P. Methodological analysis of environmental impact assessment on the reform of collective forest tenure reform[J]. Forest Resources Management,2017(6):20-26. [9] ABAZA H, HAMWEY R. Integrated assessment as a tool for achieving sustainable trade policies[J]. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,2001,21(6):481-510. doi: 10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00091-9 [10] 毛显强, 宋鹏.探路中国政策环境影响评价: 贸易政策领域先行实践[J]. 环境保护,2014,42(1):37-40. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0253-9705.2014.01.009 [11] 李天威. 政策环境评价理论方法与试点研究[M]. 北京: 中国环境出版社, 2017. [12] ANGRIST J D, PISCHKE J S. Mostly harmless econometrics[M]. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2009. [13] ZHOU B, ZHANG C, SONG H Y, et al. How does emission trading reduce China's carbon intensity: an exploration using a decomposition and difference-in-differences approach[J]. Science of the Total Environment,2019,676:514-523. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.303 [14] YI X Y, YU L R, CHANG S H E, et al. The effects of China's Organic-Substitute-Chemical-Fertilizer (OSCF) policy on greenhouse vegetable farmers[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production,2021,297:126677. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126677 [15] DU M Z, LIAO L P, WANG B, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of the water-saving society construction in China: a quasi-natural experiment[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2021,277:111394. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111394 [16] MARDONES C, CORNEJO N. Ex-post evaluation of environmental decontamination plans on air quality in Chilean Cities[J]. Journal of Environmental Management,2020,256:109929. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109929 [17] 谢培, 宫健, 陈诚.北京市农业面源污染负荷特征分析及控制分区[J]. 环境工程技术学报,2020,10(4):613-622. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20190139XIE P, GONG J, CHEN C. Analysis of pollution load characteristics and control zones division of agricultural non-point sources in Beijing City[J]. Journal of Environmental Engineering Technology,2020,10(4):613-622. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20190139 [18] 杨秀玉, 乔翠霞.农业补贴对生态环境的影响: 从化肥使用角度分析[J]. 中国农业资源与区划,2018,39(7):47-53.YANG X Y, QIAO C X. Impacts of agricultural subsidies on ecological environment: from the perspective of fertilizer use[J]. Chinese Journal of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning,2018,39(7):47-53. [19] 于伟咏, 漆雁斌, 余华.农资补贴对化肥面源污染效应的实证研究: 基于省级面板数据[J]. 农村经济,2017(2):89-94. [20] 罗斯炫, 何可, 张俊飚.增产加剧污染: 基于粮食主产区政策的经验研究[J]. 中国农村经济,2020(1):108-131.LUO S X, HE K, ZHANG J B. The more grain production, the more fertilizers pollution: empirical evidence from major grain-producing areas in China[J]. Chinese Rural Economy,2020(1):108-131. [21] BECK T, LEVINE R, LEVKOV A. Big bad banks: the winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States[J]. The Journal of Finance,2010,65(5):1637-1667. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01589.x [22] 彭慧蓉. 中国粮食主产区农业补贴政策评价与研究: 基于农民视角的考察[M]. 武汉: 华中科技大学出版社, 2019.