The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 34(3) (2018) 191-197

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics

Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajsl

A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Port Environmental Carrying Capacity

Jian LIa, Bao JIANGb, Na LINc

a Professor, College of Economy, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China, E-mail: lijian@ouc.edu.cn (First Author)
b Associated
Professor, College of Economy, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China, E-mail: jiangbao@ouc.edu.cn (Corresponding Author)
c
College of Economy, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Based on the concept of environmental carrying capacity (ECC), this study applies data
Received 15 October 2017
envelopment analysis (DEA) and panel data analysis on panel data of 20 coastal ports in China
Received in revised form 15 March 2018
Accepted 31 July 2018 from 2007 to 2012 to study the ECC mechanism of coastal ports. Research indicates that both port
environmental technology level and environmental construction scale affect port ECC (PECC) with
Keywords: the latter dominating the changes in PECC. Additionally, economic development level and port
Environmental carrying capacity throughput capacity positively impact PECC; educational investment negatively impacts PECC to a
Environmental Kuznets Curve certain extent; and the degree of technological innovation and industrial transformation and
Environmental Education Theory
upgrading have no obvious effect on PECC, indicating that science and technological investments
Cost Theory
Data envelopment analysis did not achieve the desired output of industrial transformation and upgrading. Given the
government’s policy of advancing sustainable development and supply-side reform, this study
provides policy guidance for the port to promote the construction of ecological civilization from the
perspective of PECC.

Copyright © 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. T h i s i s a n o p e n a c c e s s a r t i c l e u n d e r t h e C C B Y - N C - N D l i c e n s e
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Driven by economic globalization and trade liberalization, ports have
developed rapidly and have gradually become an important growth pole of
the urban economy (Jiang, 2010). However, in an extensive economic
growth mode, high losses and input bring about high emissions and
pollution, leading to a deteriorating port ecological environment (Dai et al.,
2008) and limiting port development in China. Port economic growth and
port environmental carrying capacity (PECC) are opposing forces,
resulting in slow development of the port economy.
Therefore, a study of the PECC mechanism can promote understanding
of port development law, provide a comprehensive understanding of the
development status and factors that hinder port development, and facilitate
the development of a viable and scientific development strategy (Yuan

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.09.002

2092-5212/© 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.
192 A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Port Environmental Carrying Capacity
and Li, 2013; Chen and Bao, 2008). Based on the sustainable
development of the port, this study applies the data envelopment analysis
(DEA) and panel data models to analyze the impact mechanism of PECC
and thereafter, provides suggestions for improving the port carrying
capacity and promoting sustainable port development.
2. Literature Review
The mechanism of environmental carrying capacity (ECC) comprises
two parts. First, there is the internal influence mechanism, i.e., the internal
influence of port construction on the port’s ECC. Second, there is the
influence of external factors on the port’s carrying capacity, including
social and economic factors, technical effect overflow, and educational
radiation effects.
In the study of PECC, the influencing factors are rarely explored.
Nonetheless, the study of influencing factors is necessary to coordinate
economic development and the environment. Drawing on Ma et al.’s
(2007) and Zhang et al.’s (2013) research methods, this study divides the
PECC into technical and scale carrying capacities, expressing them as
environmental technology and environmental construction scale,
respectively. The internal impact mechanism of PECC is studied from the
perspective of the port’s technology level and environment construction
scale. In addition, the external influence mechanism of PECC is further
studied from three aspects: economy, society, and environment.
ęEnvironmental Kuznets Curve” hypothesis (EKC) argues that there is
a clear constraint between economic growth and environmental pollution
such that inadequate economic development would have an adverse
impact on the environment and the environmental quality would improve
with higher economic growth (Song and Wang, 2011). Conversely, He
and Ran (2009) believed that economic growth has led to serious
environmental problems and that there is a two-way impact between
economic growth and environmental pollution. Hinterland economic
development level is closely related with port environment and
development; the port city’s economy depends heavily on port
development and port development greatly promotes the development of
the city (Zhang et al., 2014). In addition, different levels of economic
development have an important impact on the port’s input and output, and
thus, have a certain impact on PECC.
ę Environmental Education Theory” highlights the impact of higher
levels of population education on the role of sustainable development and
notes that improvements in cultural structure would also promote the
scientific management of enterprises, resulting in a high level of
productivity and lower undesired output. Indeed, environmental education
has become an important support and guarantee towards the construction
of an “ecological civilization” and an effective means of implementing a
sustainable development strategy. People with a higher level of education
have a higher awareness of environmental protection; hence, education
levels have a certain impact on the ECC.
ęCost Theory” maintains that reasonable environmental regulation can
form a mechanism for enterprises’ reform, accelerating the transformation
and upgrading of industries to adapt to the sustainable development of the
environment. In the short term, given upgrading and its associated costs,
its role or impact on the environment is not obvious. However, in the long
run, transformation and upgrading is an important means to enhance the
quality of the environment (Zeng et al., 2013). Yuan and Xie (2014) found
that environmental regulation plays a catalytic role in industrial structure
adjustment and industrial upgrading becomes the key to solve
environmental problems to a certain extent. While the port belongs to the
tertiary industry, the secondary industry accounted for far more than the
tertiary port industry with much lower levels of technical intensity and
fine processing in the industry interior than that required by the tertiary
industry. The development of the port’s tertiary industry would help
reduce environmental consumption and gradually form a type of low
pollution-low consumption development model. To a certain extent, the
port’s transformation and upgrading would affect the PECC. “Porter
Hypothesis” views that improving the technology and competitiveness of
enterprises can bring about an improvement in environmental quality. He
et al. (2015) further proposed the “Environmental Policy Effectiveness”
hypothesis whereby improving the technical level can effectively reduce
environmental pollution. Ling and Feng’s (2012) research results show
that science and technology can effectively control and govern
environmental pollution. Environmental regulation can have an impact on
technological progress, which, in turn, can promote environmental
protection (Shi et al., 2013; Shixiong et al., 2007). Improvements in
technical level can greatly reduce social transaction costs, realize the
intensive development of resources and environment, optimize resource
allocation, reduce consumption of environmental resources, realize the
change of port operation mode, and improve port output efficiency and
ECC.
3. Research on Internal Mechanism
3.1. Model Building
Based on the theory of environmental carrying capacity, PECC is
defined from the “threshold” perspective as the threshold established by
influencing human activities. Within this threshold, the port can maintain
its own function and the dynamic stability of environmental systems, i.e.,
the “optimal value” of ECC (Zhang et al., 2008). By analysing the
“threshold” of the carrying capacity of the port, the load threshold of
various environmental factors in the port can be quantitatively analyzed
under the optimal carrying capacity. In addition, the port’s internal impact
mechanism can be reflected upon, thereby enabling the systematic
evaluation of the environmental conditions of the port economy and
facilitating the visual control of relevant environmental policy.
According to the quantitative measure of the ECC “threshold,” the BCC
model calculation results are represented by the comprehensive carrying
capacity of the port environment, the port environmental technology
carrying capacity, and port environmental scale carrying capacity.
Using this quantitative measure of the PECC, index 1 shows that the
port environment input and output efficiency is the highest, i.e., the
overall effect of port environment construction is the best. In addition, the
port “technical carrying capacity” index shows the level of port
environmental resources utilization, i.e., economic and technological level
of port environment construction, while the “scale bearing capacity” index
of the port shows the scale effect of the port environment input and
output, i.e., the scale of the port environment construction.
Moreover, further projection analysis of China’s coastal ports can
clearly describe the difference between the output and investment capacity
of each port and adjust the input-output value for the port that does not
meet the standard to achieve the optimal input-output level. In this
manner, we can obtain the microcosmic factors that affect the port’s
carrying capacity. According to the 2007-2012 input-output indicators
corresponding to the slack variable, we can obtain the factor adjustment’s
 A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Port Environmental Carrying Capacity 193

difference from the optimal frontier. of the ports in the Pearl River Delta is 0.815 and Shantou Port’s PECC is
Notwithstanding that port development warrants a certain amount of poor. It is found that the main factor affecting the comprehensive PECC is
resource investment, the port of China blindly pursues growth in port size the scale carrying capacity of the port, i.e., the port environment
and business volume while ignoring the actual development of the port construction scale dominates the impact on comprehensive PECC, thereby
itself, resulting in overcrowding, over-redundancy, excessive port implying that the scale effect in the process of port construction did not
investment, inefficiency, and so on. When the port’s input and output produce the incremental effect for most ports.
values reach the effective value of DEA, the ECC of the port is in the
optimal state, i.e., within the PECC threshold. Table 2
China’s coastal PECC evaluation
3.2. Index Selection Comprehensive Technical Scale
Area Ports Carrying Carrying Carrying
Human activities determine the PECC to a large extent. Hence, Capacity Capacity Capacity
selecting different measurement metrics and human activities would result
Qingdao 0.934 1.000 0.957
in different structures when measuring port carrying capacity. We need to
Rizhao 0.888 0.990 0.910
take separate measures by period, region, and the changes of port’s
Yantai 0.807 0.939 0.867
conditions when we evaluate PECC. The selection of indicators and the Bohai
Average 0.758 0.916 0.835
establishment of an evaluation index system are essential steps for this Sea
Dalian 0.694 0.939 0.849
purpose. This paper mainly combines the definition and characteristics of Region
Tangshan 0.684 0.918 0.844
PECC to develop the evaluation index.
Yingkou 0.662 0.843 0.711
PECC is an objective quantity with objective attributes; it is an
Tianjin 0.639 0.785 0.707
environmental system with a certain functional structure to meet human
Shanghai 1.000 1.000 1.000
needs and bear the pressure of human activities. In addition, the port is a
Zhoushan 0.930 1.000 0.955
resource; science and technological developments as well as social life
Yangtze Ningbo 0.893 1.000 0.930
would involve a certain consumption of port resources. To quantify the
River Average 0.712 0.879 0.805
PECC, we should take into account economic and social activities, human
Delta Wenzhou 0.561 0.782 0.687
activities, port natural conditions, and so on (Lane et al., 2014; Zhuang et
Nantong 0.458 0.757 0.652
al., 2009; Cao et al., 2006).
Fuzhou 0.428 0.737 0.607
Considering the availability and completeness of the statistical data and
Shenzhen 1.000 1.000 1.000
the selection principle of the evaluation index, this study selects passenger
Pearl Xiamen 1.000 1.000 1.000
throughput, container throughput, and per capita GDP as the output index,
River Guangzhou 0.865 0.977 0.901
and the number of berths, length of berths, sewage treatment rate,
Delta Average 0.815 0.923 0.832
pollutant emissions, and number of environmental management
Shantou 0.393 0.716 0.428
practitioners as input indicators. According to Yang and Wang (2013)
selection criteria, this study regards unexpected output of pollutant Haikou 1.000 1.000 1.000
South
emissions as input indicators. Fangcheng 1.000 1.000 1.000
China
Average 0.948 0.985 0.963
Sea
Table 1 Beihai 0.844 0.954 0.888

Quantitative indicators of environmental carrying capacity

Input Indicators Output Indicators
Based on the PECC projection analysis, the method of improving port
carrying capacity can be discussed in detail. In addition, according to our
Container Throughput
Number of Berths findings, passenger throughput may be increased since an increase in
Passenger Throughput
Length of Berths passengers imposes a small incremental damage to the environment and
can effectively improve the economic efficiency of the port. It is an
Number of Environmental effective means to bridge the PECC. Nonetheless, this method is based on
Management Practitioners environmental costs; improving the ECC should be based on more
Per Capita GDP
Sewage Treatment Rate scientific and objective means.
Pollutant Emissions

3.3. Empirical Results 4. Research on External Mechanisms

At a sub-regional level, the ECC of the port in the South China Sea area
is the highest with a comprehensive PECC of 0.948. The port technology
and scale carrying capacities indicate comprehensive and coordinated
development while the “ecological civilization” construction effect of the
port is remarkable. Average carrying capacity of the ports in the Bohai
Rim area is 0.758, among which the port carrying capacity of Tianjin,
Yingkou, Tangshan, and Dalian is poor. Ports in the Yangtze River Delta
have an average port carrying capacity of 0.712, with Wenzhou, Nantong,
and Fuzhou faring poorer in this measure. The average carrying capacity
4.1. Model Establishment
This paper selects the observations of 20 coastal ports in China from
2007 to 2012, adopting the comprehensive ECC of the port as the
explanatory variable. A panel regression model is established by using the
variable index of ECC as the independent variable:
Capacity=SCDP+TTL+TYTR+KJYR per GDP (1)
194 A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Port Environmental Carrying Capacity

Capacity represents the portability of the port under study. In terms of Table 3
explanatory variables, SGDP represents the level of economic Panel cointegration test
development, SJYB represents the industry transformation and upgrading Testing method Statistic name Statistic value
capacity, KJTR represents technology investment, JYTR represents Panel V -6.325
education investment, TTL represents port throughput, and i and t Panel rho 4.578
represent port and year, respectively. The intercept and random error Panel PP -25.857***
items are also included. Pedroni test Panel ADF -11.467***
This study mainly employs panel data of 20 ports along the coast of Group rho 7.562
China from 2007 to 2012, which ensures that the research analysis has a Group PP -10.332***
sufficient sample size to ensure a suitable statistical level. Including six Group AD -2.501***
years of data can overcome the statistical subjectivity associated with an Kao test ADF -6.704***
individual time series. At the same time, the panel data selected in this Note: Δ represents the first difference of the variable
study are collected from the Year-on-Year Statistical Yearbook and China *, **, *** respectively represents statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and
Urban Statistical Yearbook. Therefore, the study data are objective and 10%
real.
To assess the rationale of adopting this method, the redundant fixed
4.2. Index Selection effect test is employed to judge whether it is a mixed data or a fixed effect
model. As shown in Table 4, the F statistics are 7.850 and 101.261,
Numerous factors affect the carrying capacity of the port with complex
respectively, and the corresponding p-values are all near 0, which is
underlying relationships. We synthesize the literature review to identify
significant at the 1% level. The redundancy fixation test rejects the
the factors that influence actual port development and select factors for
original hypothesis. Therefore, we should employ the individual fixed
inclusion based on data availability. Adopting PECC as the explanatory
effect regression model.
factor, we use economic development level, industrial transformation and
upgrading ability, science and technology level, education level, and port
Table 4
throughput capacity as explanatory variables.
Redundant fixed effect test results
Redundant fixed effect test Statistic value df p-Value
Port economy level (SGDP) = National tertiary industry output per (2)
GDP Cross-section F 7.85 (17,81) 0.000
Port throughput (TTL) = Container throughput/berth (3) Cross-section Chi-square 101.261 17 0.000
Industrial transformation and upgrading capacity (SJYB) = Share (4)
of employment in the tertiary industry Next, the Hausman test is used to select the individual random effects
Education level (TYTR) = Investment in education (5) and the individual fixed effect model. Hausman test result is 82.380 with
Technology level (KJYR) = Technology investment (6) p-value 0.000, which is less than 0.05. Accordingly, the original
hypothesis is rejected and a fixed effect model is established. Hence, it is
Using regression analysis, we establish the panel regression model and evident that the individual fixed effect model should be employed in this
analyse the selected factors. We establish the following hypotheses: study.
H1: The level of port economic development plays a positive role in Next, we employ the F-test to determine whether to use the variable
PECC. interceptor or variable coefficient model. From Table 5, it can be seen that
H2: Port throughput plays a positive role in PECC. the adjusted R-squared is 0.613, the Goodness of Fit is better, F-value is
H3: In the short term, industrial transformation and upgrading have an 8.709, and the corresponding p-value is 0, which indicates that the model
insignificant impact on PECC. Conversely, in the long term, is statistically significant. By analyzing the panel data regression results
industrial transformation and upgrading have a positive impact on that affect the PECC, we obtain:
PECC.
H4: Improvement in educational level can promote PECC Table 5
improvement. Panel regression results
H5: Technical input plays a positive role in PECC. Variable Coef. Std. Err. t P-value

4.3. Empirical Results _cons -1.194 0.648 -1.842 0.068*

SGDP 0.023 0.008 2.774 0.007***
We apply the panel unit root tests and find that the panel data of each TTL 0.479 0.042 11.433 0.000***
variable is stationary. Moreover, there is no unit root in the horizontal SJYB -0.008 0.010 -0.774 0.440
sequence of the panel data of each variable.
KJYR -0.0004 0.0003 -1.535 0.128
As shown in Table 3, the results of the Pedroni test reveal that Panel
TYTR -0.0002 0.0010 -2.012 0.047**
PP, Panel ADF, Group PP, and Group AD were significant at 1% level,
R-squared 0.692
and that the Kao test yielded a significant result. According to the
comprehensive analysis, there is a cointegration relationship among the F 8.709
variables in the two panel data models. The regression model is based on Adj R-squared 0.613
cointegration estimation thereby yielding more accurate estimation results. F Significant level 0.000
 A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Port Environmental Carrying Capacity
Note: *, **, *** respectively represents statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10%
The statistical results can be concluded as following:
(1) The coefficient of impact of port economic development (SGDP) on
PECC is 0.023 and is significant at 10%. This is consistent with H1:
SGDP has a positive impact on PECC, i.e., the GDP created by the port
industry can promote PECC improvement to a certain extent. With every
percentage increase in the level of economic development, the PECC
increases by 0.0229 percentage points. The higher the level of
development, the higher is the impact of port development support such
that a higher port industry output can improve the PECC.
(2) The coefficient of impact of the explanatory variable port
throughput capacity (TTL) on the PECC is 0.479 and is negative at 1%
significance levels. This is consistent with H2: Port throughput has a
positive impact on PECC. With every percentage point increase in port
throughput capacity, the PECC increases by 0.479 percentage points; the
higher the port throughput, the higher the PECC.
(3) The coefficient of impact of technology investment (KJTR) on
PECC is negative and does not pass the significance tests thereby
indicating that the impact of science and technology investment on the
port environment is not obvious. This does not prove H3 whereby
investment in science and technology plays a positive role in the PECC.
(4) The impact coefficient of education investment (JYTR) on PECC is
-0.0002. It is negative and statistically significant at 5% significance
levels, i.e., investment in education has a negative influence on PECC.
This is the opposite of H4. Hence, with every percentage point increase in
investment in education, the PECC decreases by 0.0002 percentage
points. The negative effect of educational investment on PECC is not
obvious and it is not difficult to change the impact of education
investment from negative to positive.
(5) The impact coefficient of industry upgrade (SJYB) on PECC is
negative but did not pass the significance test. Hence, the result does not
meet H5: Industrial transformation and upgrading play a positive role in
the PECC. This implies that the transformation and upgrading of the port
industry did not have a significant impact on the PECC. While the port
belongs to the tertiary industry, it is in fact, the second industry. The
industry transformation and upgrading only occurred at the surface and
did not achieve real transformation and upgrading.
5. Analysis of Results
The main factor influencing the comprehensive environmental carrying
capacity of the port is the bearing capacity of the scale, i.e., the size of the
port environment construction led to changes in PECC. This indicates that
most of the economies of scale in the environmental construction process
of each port did not produce incremental effects.
Economic development level and port throughput capacity can promote
the enhancement of PECC. To a certain degree, education investment has
a negative impact on PECC; weak professionalism in educational
investment and longer return periods are the main reasons for the negative
impact. Moreover, technological innovation and the degree of industrial
transformation and upgrading have no obvious effect on the carrying
capacity of the port, indicating that neither has the investment in science
and technology achieved effective output, nor did the port focus on
introducing environmental protection technology and improving their own
management systems. In fact, the port industry did not achieve real
transformation and upgrading; it remains lower/downstream in the supply
chain and engages in high loss, low value-added industries.
195
Through the analysis of the data regression results, we reach the
following conclusions:
First, the level of port economic development plays a positive role in
PECC; the higher the level of development, the higher is the impact of
port development support such that a higher port output can improve the
PECC. In addition, according to the “EKC” hypothesis, the positive
impact of the economic development on the PECC explains that the
economic development is at a high level and in the rising phase of the U-
type development. The main reason for this is that economic development
led to economic system changes, improved resource utilization, and
enabled enterprises to change their mode of production in order to pursue
efficient green development.
Secondly, port throughput has a positive impact on PECC. On the one
hand, improvement of port throughput has improved operational
efficiency, reduced the consumption of resources and environment,
liberated the remaining resources, reduced input, and improved the ECC
to a certain extent. On the other hand, the improved efficiency has further
increased output and enhanced the input-output ratio thereby improving
the PECC.
Thirdly, the influence coefficient of science and technology investment
on PECC is negative, which shows that the effect of science and
technology investment on port environment is not obvious. This differs
from the hypothesis of this study probably because, on the one hand, the
investment in science and technology was merely capital investment and
the ports did not really absorb the core technology and management
methods. As such, ports could not establish their own technical systems
and self-innovation ability remained low indicating that the blind pursuit
of higher technology cannot guarantee high returns and high efficiency.
On the other hand, the technology investment may have been more
focused on improving existing benefits versus combining the technology
investment with existing environmental protection technology to enhance
the PECC.
Fourthly, educational input has a negative impact on ECC contrary to
H4 of this study. The main reason may include, on the one hand, the fact
that investment in education increased while the cycle became longer such
that the appropriate return cannot be obtained within a short period. On
the other hand, poor professionalism in the education sector cannot
cultivate strong professional talent, resulting in a very low talent output
rate. In addition, the negative impact of educational input on PECC is not
obvious. This indicates that it is not difficult to offset this negative impact
and to realize the effective output of education inputs.
Lastly, the transformation and upgrading of the port industry did not
have a significant impact on the PECC. On the one hand, the port industry
upgrade is not obvious, according to the “follow the cost” principle. In the
short term, the impact of industrial transformation and upgrading on ECC
is not significant. Conversely, in the long term, industrial transformation
and upgrading have a positive impact on PECC. This also suggests that it
is difficult to achieve industrial upgrading in the port of China. Although
the port belongs to the tertiary industry, it is generally characterized by
high energy consumption and high pollution output. Hence, without
changing the very essence of the industry, real transformation cannot be
achieved. On the other hand, the impact coefficient is negative indicating
that the port industry did not really achieve transformation and upgrading;
the focus remains on the “high consumption, high pollution” industry.
6. Recommendations
196 A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Port Environmental Carrying Capacity
Based on the empirical results and conclusions of the static
measurement, dynamic evolution, and panel data analysis of PECC
combined with the status of port development, this paper outlines the
following specific recommendations to improve ECC:
First, introduce advanced production technology and gather advanced
management experience. Although recent years have seen rapid
development in the port industry, it remains dominated by heavy industry
as well as processing and manufacturing. Most enterprises are in the lower
rungs of the value chain being among the lowest in value creation and
engaging in production and processing with low technical content. The
empirical conclusion of this study reveals that technological investment
has a negative effect on port carrying capacity. This suggests that the ports
did not focus on introducing or learning environmental protection
technology; instead, they blindly focussed on improvements in production
efficiency without perfecting their management systems. Therefore, in the
future development process, the port should vigorously introduce
advanced production technology to improve self-innovation ability, learn
from foreign advanced management experience, and transform from
extensive to intensive and from being high loss-high pollution to low
consumption-low pollution. In other words, we should use advanced
production technology and management methods to promote the PECC.
Moreover, we should also attempt to improve the port technology
progress carrying index, i.e., the index of port environment technology
application continuity, in order to improve the comprehensive PECC.
Secondly, accelerate industrial structure upgrading to achieve real
transformation. Industry transformation and upgrading refers to industrial
structure adjustments and production replacement. Based on the data, the
focus of the industrial structure gradually shifted from the secondary
industry to the tertiary industry, with a shift in industrial types from heavy
industry with high energy consumption to light industry with low energy
consumption and low pollution transition. The industrial structure should
lean towards higher technological content, which is more conducive to the
social economy and human development. Hence, port development should
accelerate the upgrading of industrial structure, actively introduce
advanced technology, and establish its own technical systems to achieve
real transformation.
Thirdly, change education methods and strengthen the training of
professional personnel. Empirical studies show that education investment
has a negative impact on PECC. Due to the long return period of
investment in education, it did not realize its returns during the period
under analysis. A major cause of this is that professional development
through education has not been realized and hence, cannot meet the needs
of the industry and society. Educational specialization would enhance the
degree of industrial specialization and provide a stronger guarantee for the
development of enterprises and society. Accordingly, in terms of
professional education, we should increase professional training and
specialization of personnel.
Fourthly, focus on the application of environmental technology to
achieve technical intensity. In terms of operations, the port should
eliminate certain high energy consuming and high pollution modes of
operation, as well as strengthen the port environmental management
system in order to ensure the sustainable use of port resources. As ports
excessively consume marine environmental resources in the development
process, in order to achieve sustainable port development, we should
vigorously apply environmental protection technology to reduce the loss
of environmental resources and to ensure the sustainable development of
the social economy.
Lastly, scientifically plan port layout. Port layout planning should take
into account the regional ecological environment, social resources,
economic development, and other factors, in order to maintain the positive
impact of economic growth on the environment. Formulate the plan that
meets the future development requirements of the port environmental and
ecological protection. Improve the marine environmental supervision and
management system, effectively manage the port shoreline resources,
avoid blind construction and repeated development, and prevent
environmental pollution at the source.
The ports should recognize their own port conditions based on their
ECC characteristics, improve the comprehensive PECC, and thus promote
the construction of port ecological civilization. Moreover, ports should
pay attention to the dynamic trend of the EKC curve so as to maintain a
positive impact of economic growth on the environment. Finally, it is
recommended to continue to focus on the measurement and evaluation of
the PECC, understand the deficiencies in the development of the port
itself, formulate scientific development strategies, and undertake positive
measures to continuously improve the port’s sustainable development
capacity. Integrating social and economic development, resource
environment, human activities, and other factors are necessary to promote
balanced, sustainable development between the port economy and
environmental protection, and to accelerate the realization of an
ecologically civilized port.
References
Chen, H.X. and Bao, H.J. (2008). “Economic Growth, Ecological
Footprint and Sustainable Development Capacity: An Empirical Study
Based on Zhejiang Province”, China Industrial Economy, No. 8, pp. 5-14.
Cao, Y., Zhang, X.S. and Liu, X. (2006). “Construction of
Environmental Performance Evaluation Index System in Yunnan
Province”, nvironmental Protection, No. 2, pp. 61-63.
Dai, M.X., Hu, Y.D. and Peng, S.T. (2008). “Application of AHP-
Fuzzy in Comprehensive Evaluation of Port Environmental Carrying
Capacity”, Journal of Safety and Environment, Vol. 8, No. 5. pp. 109-112.
Feng, T., Li, L. and Xia, X.H. (2012). “Industry Efficiency and Total
Factor Productivity Growth under Resources and Environmental
Constraint in China”, The Scientific World Journal, No. 2, pp. 1-10.
He, C.X. and Ran, M.S. (2009). “Environmental Pollution and
Economic Growth: A Regional Difference Based on Provincial Panel
Data”, Chinese Population, Resources and Environment, Vol. 19, No. 2,
pp. 56-62.
He, W., Liu, C.J. and Liu, J. (2015). “Environmental Regulation,
Technological Progress and Atmospheric Environmental Quality - An
Empirical Analysis Based on Panel Data in Tianjin”, Science in Science
and Technology Management, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 51-61.
Jiang, D.M. (2010). “An Analysis of Coastal Economy Promoting the
Economic Development of Coastal Areas”, Chinese Population,
Resources and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 53-57.
Lane, M., Dawes, L and Grace, P. (2014). “The essential parameters of
a resource-based carrying capacity assessment model: An Australian case
 A Study on the Influence Mechanism of Port Environmental Carrying Capacity
study”, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 272, pp. 220-231.
Ling, L. I., & Feng, T. A. O. (2012). “Selection of Optimal
Environmental Regulation Intensity for Chinese Manufacturing
Industry——Based on the Green TFP Perspective [J].” China industrial
economics, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 70-82.
Ma, Y.J., Huang, X.J. and Xiao, S.S. (2007). “Performance Evaluation
of Regional Eco-environment Construction Based on DEA Model - A
Case Study of Suzhou City in Jiangsu Province”, Resources and
Environment In the yangtze basin, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 769-774.
Shi, Y., Wang, H., Yin, C. (2013). “Evaluation method of urban land
population carrying capacity based on GIS—A case of Shanghai, China”,
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 39, No. 0, pp. 27-38.
Shixiong, C., Li, C., Zhande, L. (2007). “Disharmony between society
and environmental carrying capacity: a historical review, with an
emphasis on China”, Ambio, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 409-415.
Song, M.L. and Wang, S.H. (2011). “China's "inflection point" of
environmental Kuznets curve: empirical analysis based on provincial
data”, Management World, No. 10, pp. 168-169.
Su, C., Wang, H.Q. and Tian, Y.N. (2011). “Study on Evaluation Index
of Resources and Environment Carrying Capacity”, Chinese Population,
Resources and Environment, Vol. 21, No. 12, pp. 335-338.
Yang, L. and Wang, K.L. (2013). “Regional differences of
environmental efficiency of China’s energy utilization and environmental
regulation cost based on provincial panel data and DEA method”,
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 58, No. 5-6, pp. 1074-1083.
Yuan, X.L. and Li, Z.D. (2013). “China's ecological environment
197
dynamic change, regional differences and impact mechanism”, Economic
Sciences, Vol. No. 6, pp. 59-76.
Yuan, Y.J. and Xie, R.H. (2014). “A Study on the Effect of
Environmental Regulation on Industrial Structure Adjustment - An
Empirical Test Based on China's Provincial Panel Data”, China Industrial
Economy, No. 8, pp. 57-69.
Zhang, W.Y., Chen, T.M. and Wang, T.D. (2013). “Research on
Regional Environmental Governance Efficiency in China Based on DEA
and Malmquist Index”, East China Economic Management, Vol. 27, No.
2, pp. 172-176.
Zhang, Y.D., Zhang, L. and Cui, K.J. (2008). “The Concept of Port
Environmental Carrying Capacity and Its Influencing Factors”, Waterway
Port, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 372-376.
Zhang, Z., Lu, W. X. and Zhao, Y. (2014). “Development tendency
analysis and evaluation of the water ecological carrying capacity in the
Siping area of Jilin Province in China based on system dynamics and
analytic hierarchy process”, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 275, No. 0, pp. 9-
21.
Zeng, L., Zhang, T.Z. and Zeng, S.Y. (2013). “Adjustment of Industrial
Structure in Yunnan - Guizhou Region under the Restriction of Resources
and Environment Carrying Capacity”, Environmental Protection, Vol. 41,
No. 18, pp. 43-45.
Zhuang, Y.L., Yang, H.Z. and Guo, Ru. (2009). “Study on the
Construction of Environmental Indicators in the Construction of
Ecological Island - Taking Chongming Island as an Example”, Resources
and Environment of Yangtze River Basin, Vol. 18, No, 10, pp. 937-942
.