Deciphering the point source carbon footprint puzzle: Land use dynamics and socio-economic drivers.

Abstract

Point source carbon emissions account for approximately 80 % of total emissions. Investigating the influence of land use and socio-economic indicators on these emissions is crucial for achieving sustainable development goals. Existing research faces challenges such as focusing on specific regions, mixing variables that may exhibit multicollinearity, and lacking sufficient land use information. This study takes China, the largest emitting country, as a case study, utilizing geospatial big data to subdivide land use into 11 categories based on emission sectors. The impacts of land use and socio-economic indicators on different emission sectors are discussed from the perspectives of bivariate and spatial statistical analysis, with spatial hotspots identified. Hierarchical regression is used to evaluate the explanatory power of the indicators and to establish models, and potential carbon reduction strategies are further explored. Key findings reveal: (1) Significant multicollinearity between land use and socio-economic indicators was demonstrated, with land use explaining 57.1 % of emissions compared to 37.4 % explained by socio-economic indicators. The spatial consistency between land use and emissions exceeds 80 %, and the spatiotemporal variability is relatively low, making land use a more advantageous factor in explaining point source carbon emissions. (2) Agricultural mechanization increases emission intensity, but this efficient farming method helps convert surplus plowland, the largest influencing factor (Coefficient = 0.717), into carbon sinks, thereby controlling agricultural emissions. (3) Land intensification helps control the area of industrial land, the main factor influencing industrial emissions (Coefficient = 0.392). It also contributes to the efficient use of carbon reduction technologies and industrial supporting land. (4) Mixed commercial and residential land has the greatest impact on commercial, service, and household emissions. However, its relationship with the economy (Correlation = 0.479) is stronger than its relationship with emissions (Correlation = 0.182), making it more applicable to cities that serve as economic growth hubs.