Analyzes carbon footprint pressure dynamics in Chinese cities, revealing impacts of local and neighboring emissions.
Limiting anthropogenic carbon emissions within vegetation carbon sequestration capacity is essential for urban sustainability. However, previous studies frequently neglected spatial dependency among cities, leading to uncertainties in understanding whether local carbon footprint pressure (CFP) is shaped only by local conditions or also by neighboring cities. This study analyzes the spatial patterns of CFP across Chinese cities from 2000 to 2019 and further investigates its driving factors using cross-sectional data for 2019. Spatial analysis methods, an extended STIRPAT model, and spatial econometric models are combined to diagnose the socioeconomic, environmental, and spatial mechanisms of CFP. Results indicate that the mean center of CFP’s standard deviation ellipse shifted from northwest to southeast during 2000–2019, reflecting a spatial redistribution of carbon-emission pressure on vegetation carbon sequestration. The 2019 driver analysis shows that carbon-emission intensity, used here as an inverse proxy for technology-related emission efficiency, is the most influential factor: a 1% increase in carbon-emission intensity is associated with an approximate 1.2% increase in local CFP. Affluence, vegetation carbon sequestration, precipitation, temperature, and forest cover also shape CFP distribution patterns. Crucially, the study identifies significant spatial spillover effects: a 1% reduction in the carbon-emission intensity of neighboring cities is associated with at least a 0.8% reduction in local CFP. These findings suggest that CFP is jointly shaped by local socioeconomic development, ecological endowments, and inter-city spatial interactions. The study highlights the need to integrate local emission reduction, carbon-sink protection, and regional collaboration into urban climate governance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: