Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022) 29:6886–6899

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16053-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An insight into the drag effect of water, land, and energy

on economic growth across space and time: the application
of improved Solow growth model
Yao Zhang 1,2 & Wenxin Liu 1 & Sufyan Ullah Khan 3 & Brent Swallow 2 & Chaohui Zhou 1 & Minjuan Zhao 1

Received: 6 April 2021 / Accepted: 16 August 2021 / Published online: 30 August 2021
# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Economies that depend on natural resources can experience a resource drag effect when economic growth is limited by con-
straints on the availability of those resources. Therefore, this study uses panel data and the improved Solow growth model to
explore the resource drag effect on China’s regional economic growth from 1987 to 2017 and makes innovative contributions to
address these four gaps in the previous literature: the resources gap, the consistent measurement gap, the regional gap, and the
temporal gap. The empirical results indicate that the resource drag effect reduced China’s overall annual economic growth by
0.58% during the study period, with reductions of 1.07%, 0.29%, 0.79%, and 0.46% in the Eastern, Western, Central, and
Northeastern regions, respectively. In the meantime, the resources drag effect changed in individual regions and across regions.
The results on energy drag are most notable. Policies such as “West-to-East Electricity Transmission” and “West-to-East Gas
Transmission” promoted economic growth of the Eastern and Western Region, facilitating continued growth in both regions and
attracted the return of labor to the Western region. The results indicate that the policies such as west-to-east energy transfer for
helping to even out the economic growth conditions in different regions. Labor force mobility has also been important to alleviate
resource dependence of agricultural production in Central regain, while other regions have managed to continually grow through
improvements in inefficiency. Also, growth in some regions/provinces continues to depend upon increases in water, land, and
energy availability and export. This will become increasingly problematic as the social prices of these inputs rise to account for
environmental damage. Therefore, the government should adjust the industrial structure of each region to optimize use of
resource endowments, alleviate dependence on natural resources, and achieve sustainable economic development.

Keywords Regional economic growth . Drag . Virtual agriculture water . Land resources . Energy . China

Introduction 2010). In 2019, China’s total gross domestic product (GDP)

was about 15.1 trillion U.S. dollars, accounting for more than
China’s economy expanded rapidly from 1979 to 2007, with 16% of the world economy. However, limits on resources and
an average annual growth rate of nearly 11% (Shen and Li heightened concern about the environment have increased

Responsible Editor: Ilhan Ozturk

* Minjuan Zhao Chaohui Zhou

minjuan.zhao@nwafu.edu.cn zhouchaohui970316@163.com
Yao Zhang
yao27@ualberta.ca 1
College of Economics and Management, Northwest Agriculture and
Wenxin Liu Forestry University, Yangling 712100, China
liuwenxin@nwafu.edu.cn
2
Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology,
Sufyan Ullah Khan University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
drsufyan@xaiu.edu.cn
3
Brent Swallow College of international cooperation, Xian International University,
brent.swallow@ualberta.ca Xian 710077, China
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
pressure on China’s economic growth (Xu et al. 2018). The
average annual growth rates for water resources, land re-
sources, and energy consumption during the period of 1987–
2017 were 3.1%, 0.8%, and 5.8%, respectively. In 2017,
China’s energy consumption was about 3.132 billion tons of
oil equivalent, up to 3.1% from the previous year. This is the
fastest energy consumption growth rate in the world. And
China accounted for 23.2% of worldwide energy consumption
in 2017. This high dependence on natural resources is a great
risk to sustained economic growth (Liu and Chen 2007). The
natural resource constraint on economic growth is called the
“Growth Drag Effect” (Nordhaus 1992; Romer 2001). The
question we explore is how much have these three resources
dragged China’s economic growth between 1987 and 2017
(Muller 2015)? In order to provide a comprehensive insight
into the prospects of sustainable economic development and
address four major gaps in the literature, this article will use
the improved Solow growth model to analyze the drag on the
economic development of China’s 31 provinces by three types
of resources: water, land, and energy from 1987 and 2017. At
the same time, it analyzes the resource drag changes caused by
resource flows in China’s four major economic regions.
The initial “Growth Drag” research mainly focused on
using production functions or economic growth models to
analyze the impacts of natural resources on economic devel-
opment (Dasgupta and Heal 1974; Nordhaus 1992; Bruvoll
et al. 1999). Dasgupta and Heal (1974) use economic growth
models to analyze the effect of non-renewable resources on a
country’s economic growth and found a certain “Growth
Drag” of those resources. The implication is that a country’s
economy can only step onto a sustainable growth path when
non-renewable resources no longer play an important role in a
country’s portfolio of production activities. Nordhaus (1992)
uses the production function to analyze the constraints of land
resources to the US economy, showing that the economic
growth of the USA decreased by 0.24% per year because of
the drag effect of land resources. Subsequently, Bruvoll et al.
(1999) found that the resource drag caused losses to Norway’s
social welfare. Some scholars have done research based on the
Romer (2001) hypothesis to analyze the resource drag effect
on China’s economic development, finding widespread con-
sequences of the drag effect of resources on China’s economic
growth. For example, research on the water resources drag
effect estimates effects of 0.14% (Xie et al. 2005), 1.52%
(Liu and Chen 2007), and 0.26% (Yang et al. 2007).
Estimates of the draft effect of land resources are 1.75%
(Xue et al. 2004), 1.32% (Xie et al. 2005), and 1.26% (Cui
2007). And estimates of energy resources drag effect are
0.85% (Liu and Chen 2007), 0.58% (Shen and Li 2010), and
0.68% (Lei et al. 2007). There is a need to update and refine
these results.
Based on reviewing the existing related literature, we found
four gaps in the research on the Growth Drag Effect in China.
6887
First, researchers have explored the Growth Drag Effect of
specific resources, such as land resources (Xue et al. 2004;
Fu and Zhan 2012), water resources (Wang et al. 2015; Liu
et al. 2011; An et al. 2018; Fahad and Wang 2018; Bai et al.
2021), and energy (Xu et al. 2018; Shen and Li 2010; Lei et al.
2007; Xue et al. 2017; Xie et al. 2005; Fahad and Wang 2020).
However, few studies have analyzed the drag effects of all
three resources together. Second, different measurement
methods have been employed in the selection and creation
of variables, leading to inconsistent results. For example, wa-
ter resources have been measured by available water resources
(Liu and Chen 2007; Yang et al. 2007) and total water con-
sumption (Xue et al. 2017; Liu and Huang 2015; Wan et al.
2012). Three land resources indicators have been used: first,
the sum of cultivated land, forestry land, available grassland,
and built-up area (Xue et al. 2004; Xue et al. 2017; Yang et al.
2007); second, the sum of cultivated land, forestry land, and
available grassland (Xue et al. 2004); third, the sum of the
agricultural planted area and built-up areas (Wang 2010).
Also, two energy measures have been used: total energy con-
sumption (Shen and Li 2010; Lei et al. 2007; Xue et al. 2017)
and total energy consumption of the primary industry (Xue
et al. 2004). Scholars have not yet formed a consensus on
which of these various measures are best. The third gap we
identified is that existing research on the resource drag effect
on China’s economic development is divided into studies con-
ducted for particular regions (Wan et al. 2012; Wang 2010;
Liu and Zhu 2012) and for the national level (Romer 2001;
Xue et al. 2004; Lei et al. 2007). However, no research quan-
tifies differences between the four regions of the country. And
the fourth gap is that previous studies analyze the drag effect
of resources on economic growth over certain periods of time
(Shen and Li 2010; Liu and Chen 2007; Xue et al. 2004), but
there is a lack of research to analyze the dynamic growth drag
effect across different time periods and different regions.
This article makes innovative contributions to address
these four gaps in the previous literature. First, we address
the resources gap by incorporating water resources, land re-
sources, and energy as separate variables in the model.
Second, we address the consistent measurement gap through
more careful assessment of all water resources used, particu-
larly water resource use and land resource use. Agriculture
accounts for 65% of water use, while current methods used
to measure that use are too approximate (Sun et al. 2010). A
more accurate approach is to focus on virtual water, which
calculates all of the water used in the growth of crops and
animal products (Sun et al. 2010; Yan et al. 2013).
Therefore, this paper uses the virtual water for crop and animal
products to represent agricultural water consumption, water
for households to represent domestic water consumption, wa-
ter for the industry to represent industrial water consumption,
and water for the environment to represent ecological water
consumption. We then add these four types of water
6888
consumption together to represent total water resources use.
At the same time, we use agricultural planting area (country-
side land use) and the built-up area (city land use) to represent
land resources use, and the total amount of energy consump-
tion (including coal, oil, natural gas, et al.) to express energy
use in order to more accurately evaluate the drag effects of
water resources, land resources, and energy on economic de-
velopment. Third, we address the regional gap by explicit
aggregation of the provinces into four regions. The inconsis-
tent distribution of land, water, and energy resources across
the regions of China has led to differences in the rate of eco-
nomic development (Wang 2010; Ma et al. 2020). This begs
the question: What impact do the drag effects of different
resources have on specific regional economies? To address
these questions, this paper not only studies the changes in
resource drag effects in 31 provinces, but also the changes in
resource drag effects in the four major economic regions. The
results of this paper will answer these questions and, further-
more, will provide useful guidance for economic growth for
each region. Fourth, we address the temporal gap by analyzing
panel data for the 1987 to 2017 period. Economic growth was
variable during this time period, as was the availability of
land, water, and energy resources due to continuous use or
investment (Liu et al. 2002). Therefore, only measuring the
drag effect of resources on economic growth at a particular
time provides little understanding of the dynamic changes of
the drag effect of resources. And temporal and spatial perspec-
tives provide rich information for solving resource constraint
problems across multiple heterogeneous regions. Based on
this, this paper uses panel data to analyze the constraints and
trends of resources in economic growth in China’s four re-
gions over the period of 1987–2017.
In summary, based on Romer’s (2001) “Growth Drag”
model which can account for multiple resources at the same
time, and has been widely used, this paper focuses on the drag
effect of water, land, and energy resources, using panel data to
determine the drag effects of different resources on China’s
economic growth across space and time. The results measure
the true constraints of land, water, and energy on economic
growth in China’s four regions and how those constraints have
changed over the last 30 years. The results can help govern-
ments at all levels to formulate policies that sustainable eco-
nomic development under resource constraints.
Material and methods
Improved Solow growth model
This article uses the Solow growth model to analyze economic
growth because of its emphasis on the scarcity of resources
and limits to growth associated with pure material capital ac-
cumulation. Simultaneously, the Solow model emphasizes
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
that the economic growth rate will be stable under the condi-
tion of constant population growth and constant technological
progress.
The classic Solow growth model is as follows:
Y ðt Þ ¼ F½S ðt Þ; K ðt ÞLFðt Þ ð1Þ
where Y represents the economic output, S represents the
physical capital stock, LF represents the labor force, and K
represents the “knowledge or labor validity.” And t denotes
time, which is not directly introduced into the production
function but is introduced through S, LF, and K. K and LF
are introduced in the form of a product. The premise is that the
production function is constant for the two independent
variables—capital and effective labor.
However, natural resources are not considered in the Solow
growth model. Romer (2001) builds on the classic Solow
model to account for the effects of natural resources (R) and
land resources (L). So, we can get:
Y ðt Þ ¼ S ðt Þα Rðt Þβ Lðt Þγ ½K ðt ÞLFðt Þ1−α−β−γ ; ðα > 0; β > 0; γ > 0; α þ β þ γ < 1Þ
ð2Þ
where S(t) represents the physical capital stock, R(t) repre-
sents the natural resources, L(t) represents the amount of land
resources, and K(t)LF(t) represents the labor force. Parameter
α represents the output elasticity of physical capital stock,
parameter β represents the output elasticity of natural re-
sources stocks, and parameter γ represents the output elasticity
of land resource stocks (Romer 2001). We postulate that water
resources, land resources, and energy all play important roles
in economic growth. Therefore, based on formula (2), this
paper incorporates all three resources into the model. So, we
can get:
Y ðt Þ ¼ S ðt Þα E ðt Þβ W ðt Þφ LðtÞγ ½K ðtÞLFðt Þ1−α−β−φ−γ ; ðα > 0; φ > 0; β > 0; γ > 0; α þ β þ φ þ γ < 1Þ
ð3Þ
where W(t) represents the number of water resources, E(t)
represents the energy, φ represents the output elasticity of
water resources stocks, and β represents the output elasticity
of energy stocks. Based on classical Solow model,
  
S ˙ ðt Þ ¼ sY ðt Þ−δS ðt Þ, LF˙ ðt Þ ¼ nLFðt Þ, and K ˙ ðt Þ ¼ gK ðt Þ
(Romer 2001). s represents the savings rate, δ represents the
capital discount rate, and n and g are representing the labor
growth and technological progress rates, respectively.
Perform logarithm operations of formula (3), we can get:
lnY ðt Þ ¼ αlnS ðt Þ þ βEðt Þ þ φlnW ðt Þ þ γlnLðt Þ
þ ð1−α−β−φ−γ Þ½lnK ðt Þ þ lnLFðt Þ ð4Þ
Time is derived on both sides of Eq. 4. According to the
fact that the logarithm of a variable versus time equals this
variable’s growth rate, we can get:
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
gY ðt Þ ¼ αg S ðt Þ þ βg E ðt Þ þ φgW ðt Þ þ γg L ðt Þ
þ ð1−α−β−φ−γ Þ½g K ðt Þ þ g LF ðt Þ
where gY(t) represents the growth rate of Y (economic out-
put), gS(t) represents the growth rate of S (physical capital
stock), gE(t) represents the growth rate of E (energy), gW(t)
represents the growth rate of W (water resources), gL(t) repre-
sents the growth rate of L (land resources), gK(t) represents the
growth rate of K (knowledge or labor validity), and gLF(t)
represents the growth rates of LF (labor force).
We assume that LF, K, W, and L all increase at a constant
rate, so then S and Y will increase at the same growth rate.
 where CVW is the virtual water content per unit weight of
Based on the motion of capital: S ˙ ðt Þ ¼ sY ðt Þ−δS ðt Þ. Then,
we can get:
 crop (kg/hm2). The CWR can be obtained by calculating the
˙
S ðt Þ=S ðt Þ ¼ s½Y ðt Þ=S ðt Þ−δ
Y/S must be constant to keep the growth rate of S constant.
So, gY(t) = gS(t) (Romer 2001). Then, we can get the growth
rate of Y as follows:
g bgp Y ¼ ½γgL ðt Þ þ φg W ðt Þ þ βg E ðtÞ þ ð1−α−β−φ−γ Þðg þ nÞ=ð1−αÞ
where gbgpY represents the growth rate of Y on the balanced
growth path. From this, we can get the average economic
output’s growth rate of the unit labor as follows:
g bgp Y =LF ¼ g bgp Y −g bgp LF
¼ ½ð1−α−β−φ−γ Þg þ γg L ðt Þ þ φg W ðt Þ þ βg E ðt Þ−ðβ þ φ þ γ Þn=ð1−αÞ
When water resources, land, and energy are unconstrained
in the economic growth, and grow as labor increases, the
growth rate of these three resources should be n (labor growth
 
rate), which means W ˙ ðt Þ ¼ nW ðt Þ, L˙ ðt Þ ¼ nLðt Þ, and

E ˙ ðt Þ ¼ nEðt Þ.
Assuming that land resources and energy are constrained,
water resources are unconstrained (growth is n), and water
resources are constrained (growth is 0), the average growth
rate of unit labor can be deducted to obtain the drag effect of
water resources:
Dragwater ¼ e
g bgp Y =LF −g bgp Y =LF ¼ φn=ð1−αÞ
In the same manner, the drag effect of land resources can be
obtained:
Dragland ¼ γn=ð1−αÞ
The drag effect of energy is
DragEnergy ¼ βn=ð1−αÞ
6889
Virtual water calculation model
ð5Þ
This paper uses CROPWAT to calculate the virtual agriculture
water content of China’s agricultural products as estimated by
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(Sun et al. 2010; Yan et al. 2013). The meteorological data,
which are required by the CROPWAT software, are derived
from FAO’s CLIMATAT database. The unit virtual water
content of each crop can be calculated as follows:
CVW ¼ CWR=CY ð12Þ
the crop (m3/kg), CWR is the water requirement per unit area
of the crop (m3/hm2), and CY is the yield per unit area of the
ð6Þ amount of soil evaporation (ETC) accumulated during the
whole growth period of the crop (Sun et al. 2010):
nd nd
CWR ¼ 10  ∑ ETC ¼ 10  K c ∑ ET0 ð13Þ
i¼1 i¼1
ð7Þ where ETC is the soil evaporation, ET0 is the daily potential
evaporation (mm/d) during the crop growth period, KC is the
corresponding crop coefficient, and nd is the total number of
days in the crop growth period.
The equation for calculating the total amount of crop vir-
tual water is shown as follows:
TVW ¼ CVW  TCY ð14Þ
ð8Þ
where TVW is the total amount of virtual water (t) of a crop
and TCY is the total yield (kg) of the crop in that year.
Study area and variable selection
According to the criteria of the National Bureau of Statistics,
this paper divided China’s economic regions into the Eastern,
Western, Central, and Northeastern Region (see Fig. 1). Due
to a lack of data from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau, these
three areas are not included in this study. The four major
economic divisions are the most commonly used divisions
of national regions in China. The main reason is geographical
ð9Þ factors in addition to the speed of economic development. The
coastal and land-sea economy of the Eastern region can de-
velop rapidly, and trade with various countries also starts from
the Eastern region. The Northeastern region is mainly the
coldest in the country, with abundant resource reserves and
ð10Þ special regional characteristics. The development of the
Central and Western regions has been relatively slow. The
Western region especially has small human populations, is
ð11Þ mainly reliant on agriculture, and has low amounts of foreign
trade. The Central region lies between the west and east, and
6890
Fig. 1 Division of the four major
economic regions in China
its economic development depends on agriculture and indus-
try at the same time, and the economic development speed is
moderate.
The dependent variable in this paper is economic output
(Y). And the independent variables are labor force (LF), water
resources (W), land resources (L), energy resources (E), and
physical capital stock (S). Apart from the water data discussed
above, all other raw data comes from the China Statistical
Yearbook (1988–2018) and the China Energy Statistical
Yearbook (1988–2018). All calculated data are in Table 1.
And this article sums up the data of all provinces in each
region to represent the overall situation of the region. The
selection criteria are as follows:
1. Output (Y-GDP): The economic output data is represent-
ed by the real gross domestic product (real GDP), and the
real GDP is adjusted at a constant price based on 1978 by
nominal GDP (Xue et al. 2004).
2. Labor force (LF-labor): The labor force data is represent-
ed by the number of workers with a job at the end of the
study year in each province.
3. Water resources (W—water): Water resources data is rep-
resented by the sum of industrial water use, domestic wa-
ter use, virtual agricultural water use (see Supplementary
Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2), and ecological water
use (Zhang et al. 2020).
4. Land resources (L—land): This paper uses the sum of the
crop planting area and the urban built-up area as the land
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
resources (Wang 2010). This variable does not reflect
land used for extensive livestock grazing.
5. Energy (E—energy): Energy use is represented by the
total amount of energy consumed in each province in each
year, with all energy converted into the same unit: 10,000
tons of standard coal.
6. Physical capital stock (S—capital stock): Because there
are no direct data on the physical capital stock in the
statistical yearbook, it had to be estimated. This paper
draws on Zhang et al. (2004) calculation method for cap-
ital stock, a city’s depreciation rate of capital stock is
9.6%, and the constant price is based on 1978 (Zhang
et al. 2004). The formula is St = It + (1 − at)St − 1. St
represents the capital stock of the t-year, It represents the
investment amount for the t-year, at indicates the depreci-
ation rate for the t-year, and St − 1 indicates the capital
stock for the t-1 year.
Stationarity and co-integration test of the data
As previously discussed, this paper uses the Solow growth
model to analyze the drag effect of water resources, land re-
sources, and energy in the four economic regions of China
from 1987 to 2017 based on the panel data. Because the panel
data is two-dimensional, the stability of the data directly de-
termines the accuracy of the results. Thus, we tested for the
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899 6891

Table 1 Data of GDP, water,

land, capital, labor, and energy in Year 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
China from 1987 to 2017
Eastern region GDP 535 903 1861 3140 6177 10375 15212
Water 2877 3552 4632 5192 5801 6286 6374
Land 7730 8561 8752 9306 9326 9572 9839
Capital 822 1390 3056 5646 11284 22103 36471
Labor 18634 21446 23263 24491 28227 30229 32070
Energy 30213 38696 53177 68722 139993 184840 196794
Western region GDP 228 343 580 901 1684 3174 4841
Water 1840 2294 2843 3285 4351 4898 5086
Land 46411 49849 50963 53785 54664 56582 57519
Capital 435 570 960 1735 3898 9426 17301
Labor 15206 17359 18597 19118 19526 20633 21876
Energy 18789 24190 33337 40515 77141 117573 129803
Central region GDP 251 361 676 1043 1908 3430 5171
Water 2478 2850 3614 3873 4449 5183 5378
Land 9268 10181 10304 11100 11062 11497 11758
Capital 380 512 927 1652 3508 8181 14768
Labor 14490 16949 18574 19660 20980 22547 23299
Energy 20710 24809 31148 37615 70003 95993 98038
Northeastern region GDP 142 197 316 483 877 1583 2034
Water 652 919 1269 1481 1914 2455 2542
Land 6385 7098 7228 7737 7682 8557 8659
Capital 205 294 459 707 1509 3690 5589
Labor 4201 4676 4852 4815 5274 5808 5856
Energy 15049 17427 20242 20956 32478 45727 40715
Entire country GDP 1156 1803 3434 5568 10646 18562 27258
Water 7847 9615 12358 13831 16515 18821 19381
Land 69794 75689 77247 81929 82734 86207 87775
Capital 1842 2766 5402 9739 20199 43400 74129
Labor 52532 60431 65286 68084 74007 79216 83101
Energy 84761 105121 137904 167808 319615 444133 465350

Note: GDP’s unit is 100 million dollars, capital’s unit is 100 million dollars, water’s unit is 100 million m3 , land’s
unit is 10000 ha, labor’s unit is 10,000 people, and energy’s unit is 10,000 T of standard coal. Calculated by the
author, the data of each region is expressed by the sum of the data of each province in the region. For the missing
data in the yearbook, the data of the adjacent year is replaced by the adjacent year, the annual average of the
adjacent years is replaced, and the linear difference is added

stationarity and co-integration of the data before we did the
regression analysis (Li and Shen 2010). We use STATA to do
the “Levin-Lin-Chu unit-root test” and “Fisher-ADF unit-root
test” to test for stationarity.
The logarithms of Y, L, W, E, S, and LF are calculated like
“lnY(t), lnL(t), lnW(t), lnE(t), lnS(t), and lnLF(t),” respective-
ly. When performing the separate ADF tests for each region, a
lag order of 8 (Pmax = (12 * (T/100) ^ 1/4)) was selected
according to the principle of the greatest possible recommend-
ed by Schwert (1989). The lnY(t), lnL(t), lnW(t), lnE(t), lnS
(t), and lnLF(t) of the Eastern, Western, Central, and
Northeastern regions are tested and all have unit-roots. By
testing the first-order difference values of lnY(t), lnL(t), lnW
(t), lnE(t), lnS(t), and lnLF(t), it is found that Y, L, W, E, S, and
LF are all first-order single integers I (1). The results of the
unit-root tests after the first-order difference are shown in
Supplementary Table 3.
The requirement of co-integration is the same order and the
whole unit. The above unit-root test results show that the
variables (Y, L, W, E, S, and LF) are in the same order and
single integers. So, we continue to do the co-integration test.
And the co-integration test results are shown in
Supplementary Table 4.
Through the data stationary test and co-integration test re-
sults, we found that there is at least one co-integration rela-
tionship between these six variables. That is to say, there is a
6892 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899

long-term stable equilibrium relationship between Y, L, W, E,
S, and LF. That means that further analysis can be done.
Model selection
There are usually three forms of panel data model selection: a
fixed-effect model, a random-effects model, and a hybrid es-
timation model. By using the Hausman test on the data, the
null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, this paper uses the
fixed-effect model for regression. The results of the
Hausman test are shown in Supplementary Table 5.
Results and discussion
Changes in resource drag from 1987 to 2017 by
region
Over the past 30 years, the highest rates of economic growth
and fixed capital accumulation were in the Eastern region
from 1992 to 1996 (average of 16.49% and 17.59%, respec-
tively) (see Table 2). Due to a large influx of labor and rapid
physical capital stock accumulation, the demand for land, wa-
ter, and energy resources increased rapidly in the Eastern re-
gion during that time period (Xu et al. 2018; Shen and Li
2010). In the period from 1987 to 1991, increase in energy
consumption promoted economic growth at an annual average
of 6.84%. And from 1992 to 1996, energy consumption had a
drag effect on economic growth of an annual average of
3.14%. From 1987 to 2017, the drag effects of water and land
resources formed a dynamic change characteristic called,
“Obstruction-Promotion-Obstruction-Promotion” and it grad-
ually approached a zero value, which means that the Eastern
region’s dependence on land and water resources gradually
decreased. The economic growth of China’s Eastern region
is progressively transforming toward sustainable
development. Agricultural development is slowing as techno-
logical progress and capital accumulation are now driving
economic development; this result is basically consistent with
the findings of Wan et al. (2012).
From 1987 to 2017, the trend in the role of land and water
resources in economic growth in the Western region was
“Obstruction-Promotion-Obstruction-Promotion-Obstructio-
n” (Cui 2007), while energy consumption has long hindered
the economy (Li and Shen 2010) (see Table 3). The increase
and decrease of the energy drag effect are in line with the law
of economic growth (Zhang et al. 2020). This series of chang-
es is related to the limited quantity of resources in the Western
region and the policy that help grow the economics of the
Western region that began in 2000. The implementation of
policies such as “West-to-East Electricity Transmission from”
and “West-to-East Gas Transmission” has increased both the
economic development speed of the Western region and the
binding force of energy on the economy. At the same time,
since 2000, the labor force growth rate in the Western region
has increased, and the demand for land, water, and energy due
to the return of labor force has increased too, which has led to
an even larger drag effect of land resources, water resources,
and energy to Western region’s economic growth. These re-
sults are consistent with previous studies including Wang
(2010) and Liu and Huang (2015).
From 1987 to 2017, the economic development of the
Central region was relatively less affected by the resource drag
than any other region (see Table 4). There are three main
reasons for this. First, the growth rate of the number of the
labor force in the Central region is declining year by year, so
growth in demand for resources is also decreasing in this re-
gion. Second, the growth rate of the physical capital stock
shows a “Growth-Decrease-Growth-Decrease” pattern, which
is following the law of the Central region’s economic growth
basically, which means that the Central region’s economic
growth is mainly related to the accumulation of physical

Table 2 Drag effect of water resources, land resources, and energy in economic growth in the Eastern region of China from 1987 to 2017

Water Land Energy Capital Labor GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GD- GD- GD- Drag*
GDP Water Land Energy Capital Labor Water Land Energy

1987–1991 0.07 0.04 −0.14 0.94 −0.03 9.01 5.03 6.99 3.47 10.42 3.08 3.55 1.81 −6.84 −1.47
1992–1996 −0.02 0.00 0.99 0.41 −0.11 16.49 6.18 5.78 7.95 17.59 1.88 −0.05 0.01 3.14 3.10
1997–2001 −0.05 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.17 10.75 2.45 5.63 4.19 13.19 0.89 −0.06 0.00 0.00 −0.07
2002–2006 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.65 0.10 14.37 2.76 9.29 16.78 14.87 2.71 0.31 −0.01 0.08 0.38
2007–2011 −0.03 0.04 0.46 0.04 0.03 11.36 1.73 4.47 6.28 14.66 1.70 −0.05 0.07 0.81 0.83
2012–2017 0.03 −0.02 −0.01 0.40 0.04 7.95 0.28 3.90 1.26 10.54 1.19 0.06 −0.05 −0.02 −0.02

Note: The elasticity coefficient of water, land, energy, and capital, and labor growth rate are represented by “Water,” “Land,” “Energy,” “Capital,” and
“Labor,” respectively. The growth rate of GDP, water, land, energy, and capital, and labor growth rate are represented by “GR-GDP,” “GR-Water,”
“GR-Land,” “GR-Energy,” “GR-Capital,” and “GR-Labor,” respectively. The “Growth Drag Effect” of water, land, and energy are represented by “GD-
Water,” “GD-Land,” and “GD-Energy,” respectively. And the unit of GR-GDP, GR-Capital, GR-Labor, GR-Water, GR-Land, GR-Energy, GD-Water,
GD-Land, and GD-Energy are all %. The same below
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899 6893

Table 3 Drag effect of water resources, land resources, and energy in economic growth in the Western region of China from 1987 to 2017

Water Land Energy Capital Labor GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GD- GD- GD- Drag*
GDP Water Land Energy Capital Labor Water Land Energy

1987–1991 0.09 0.16 0.05 0.37 0.13 7.76 4.74 3.45 4.05 4.86 2.87 0.41 0.74 0.24 1.40
1992–1996 −0.01 −0.02 0.39 0.31 0.23 11.36 4.43 5.35 7.61 10.97 1.49 −0.02 −0.04 0.85 0.79
1997–2001 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.03 8.91 2.13 3.69 2.54 12.33 0.50 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04
2002–2006 −0.06 0.01 0.03 0.36 −0.05 12.90 6.82 5.00 14.65 17.30 0.37 −0.03 0.01 0.02 −0.01
2007–2011 −0.03 −0.08 0.21 0.09 0.03 13.78 2.31 6.62 9.02 19.50 1.29 −0.04 −0.11 0.30 0.15
2012–2017 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.39 0.04 8.81 0.76 6.07 2.00 12.91 1.18 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.20

capital stock. Third, the growth rate of land resources and
growth rate of energy in the Central region in each period
are all smaller than that of the other regions, that is, the
Central region’s economic growth is less dependent on re-
sources; the evidence from Fu and Zhan (2012) also supports
this hypothesis. Since 1987, water resources have constantly
dragged the Central region’s economic growth (Wang 2010).
The main reason is that the agricultural production in Henan
province, Hunan province, and Shanxi province within the
Central region is highly dependent on water resources use
(Ma et al. 2020).
There are two main reasons for the gradual increase in the
drag effect of land, water, and energy resources in the
Northeast region. First of all, it is because of the dependence
of the Northeast region’s economy on industry, the exploita-
tion of oil fields, exploitation of coal, and mines (Xu et al.
2018). Second, the number of workers in the labor force is
increasing year by year, the physical capital stock is accumu-
lating rapidly, and the demand for resources for household and
industrial use is increasing, making the consumption of water
and land resources significantly higher than in any other re-
gions in the whole country, and further causing the Northeast
region to rely more and more on water and land resources than
other regions (see Table 5). Since 2010, the state has gradually
started to control the exploitation of oil fields, coal, and mines
in the Northeast, transforming industries rapidly developing
green tourism to promote economic development. Therefore,
there have been significant improvements in the drag effect of
water, land, and energy on economic growth in the Northeast
region from 2012 to 2017.
Changes in resource drag by province
For the 1987 to 2017 period, we estimate that the average
economic growth rate in China was 11.11%, while the average
annual resource drag effect was 0.58%. The drag effects of
water, land, and energy resources reduced the average annual
growth rate of China's overall economy by 0.58% (see Table 6
and Supplementary Table 6). The resource drag effects in the
Eastern, Western, Central, and Northeastern regions were
1.07%, 0.29%, 0.79%, and 0.46%, respectively. The resource
drag effect was greatest in the Eastern region, which also had
the fastest economic growth (11.804% annual growth rate of
GDP) over the same period. By 2030, the economic growth
rate of the eastern region will drop to 88.84% in 2017 due to
the drag effect of resources. The Central region is located in
the plain where Shanxi province’s economic growth has been
dependent on mining coal, Henan province’s economic
growth is dependent on grain production, and Hunan prov-
ince’s economic growth is dependent on rice production. The
economic growth of these provinces in the Central region is
highly dependent on energy and water resources use (Liu et al.
2011), but expansions in resource availability have minimized
the drag effect on economic growth. The resources that

Table 4 Drag effect of water resources, land resources, and energy in economic growth in the Central region of China from 1987 to 2017

Water Land Energy Capital Labor GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GD- GD- GD- Drag*
GDP Water Land Energy Capital Labor Water Land Energy

1987–1991 0.03 0.04 0.35 0.21 0.00 5.93 2.39 3.86 1.78 5.91 3.47 0.14 0.20 1.52 1.86
1992–1996 0.01 −0.05 0.04 −0.06 −0.98 13.84 5.07 9.49 6.27 12.36 1.84 0.01 −0.08 0.07 0.00
1997–2001 0.08 0.09 −0.02 0.28 0.36 8.85 0.89 1.41 2.46 12.31 1.19 0.14 0.15 −0.03 0.26
2002–2006 0.09 −0.05 0.03 0.44 −0.12 12.41 3.51 3.62 14.07 15.67 1.36 0.22 −0.11 0.07 0.17
2007–2011 0.10 −0.04 0.64 −0.30 −0.43 12.81 3.38 5.97 6.96 18.92 1.50 0.12 −0.04 0.74 0.82
2012–2017 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.08 1.09 8.56 0.74 3.85 0.42 12.54 0.66 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.12
6894 Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899

Table 5 Drag effect of water resources, land resources, and energy in economic growth in the Northeastern region of China from 1987 to 2017

Water Land Energy Capital Labor GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GD- GD- GD- Drag*
GDP Water Land Energy Capital Labor Water Land Energy

1987–1991 0.10 0.22 0.01 1.38 1.25 0.69 7.36 7.16 2.58 9.33 2.72 −0.71 −1.56 −0.11 −2.38
1992–1996 −0.07 0.12 −0.34 0.65 0.77 1.80 7.04 2.83 3.22 4.99 3.97 −0.75 1.32 −3.86 −3.29
1997–2001 0.04 −0.01 0.02 0.03 0.07 2.12 2.35 1.04 0.39 3.85 5.23 0.20 −0.03 0.13 0.30
2002–2006 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.31 0.08 4.35 5.57 3.58 9.04 10.74 9.21 0.19 0.14 0.05 0.38
2007–2011 0.01 0.09 0.45 0.14 0.32 6.50 5.74 3.82 7.85 14.93 16.71 0.18 1.68 8.86 10.72
2012–2017 −0.06 0.02 0.17 0.36 0.45 2.31 0.70 2.07 −2.30 5.38 9.14 −0.88 0.34 2.41 1.87

produce the drag effect on economic development in the
Northeast region are mainly energy-related because the
Northeast contains China’s main energy-producing areas, in-
cluding oil and coal production (Li and Shen 2010; Shen and
Li 2010). The labor force growth rate in the Western region is
relatively small (1.22%), and the physical capital stock accu-
mulation rate in the Western region is relatively fast (13.06%).
Economic development in the Western region is mainly relat-
ed to the accumulation of the physical capital stock, and the
dependence on resources is not as large as in other regions (Xu
and Wang 2006). Thence, the drag effect of all three resources
on economic growth in the Western region is lower than in the
rest of the country.
There is a large regional imbalance in China’s water, land,
and energy resources, and there are also serious imbalances in
China’s regional economic growth (Wang 2010; Xu and
Wang 2006). To more fully reveal the drag effects of water,
land, and energy resources on economic growth in the four
economic regions of China, this study conducted a regression
analysis on the 31 provinces based on the panel data from
1987 to 2017. And based on the analysis results, the 31 prov-
inces are divided, according to the size of Drag* and GR-GDP
(see Table 6), into three “Growth Drag” constraint levels:
weak drag, medium drag, and strong drag (see Fig. 2) and
three economic growth rate types: low growth, medium
growth, and high growth (see Fig. 3).
The resources of Fujian province, Yunnan province, and
other provinces have weak drag effect on the economy. There
are two different reasons why resources have less drag effect
in these provinces: The first category: the economic growth
rates of Fujian province, Shandong province, and Zhejiang
province rank among the top 10 in the country, and the growth
rate of the labor force is on a medium-speed, but the growth
rate of accumulation of the physical capital stock is on a
fast-speed (Zhang et al. 2004), indicating that local economic
growth is mainly driven by the accumulation of capital, so the
regional resources’ drag effects are relatively small. In the
second category, Yunnan province, Hunan province, and oth-
er Central and Western provinces, the economic growth rate is
relatively slow, and the labor growth rate is lower than the
national average. Therefore, the current situation of sparsely
populated land has greatly reduced the resource pressure on
economic growth (Xue et al. 2004).
The resources of Hainan, Shaanxi, and Anhui provinces
et al. have a moderate drag effect on the economic develop-
ment. There are three plausible explanations for this: First,
Liaoning province, Jilin province, and Shanxi province are
relatively resource-rich provinces (Xu et al. 2018; Liu et al.
2011). Their economic development depends, primarily, on
the exploitation and utilization of resources, and constant con-
sumption of limited resources will inevitably impose a drag
effect on economic growth (Liu and Chen 2007; Xu and
Wang 2006). Second, within the Central region and Western
region, which have provinces with large land areas, such as
Hubei province and Xinjiang province, the physical capital
stock has a high growth rate (over 12.5%) and a high labor
growth rate (over 1.20%). The high-speed accumulation of the
physical capital stock and increasing labor force has led to
increasing demand for water, land, and energy resources in
these provinces (Fu and Zhan 2012). As a result, resources
have a moderate drag effect on economic growth in the
Central and Western regions, the evidence from Liu et al.
(2011) also supports it. Third, coastal cities with rapid eco-
nomic development, such as those in Hainan province and
Jiangsu province, have small land areas, low energy storage,
and significant growth of the labor force. The demand for
resources by the growth of the number of the labor force is
also increasing, which conflicts with the scarce local re-
sources. These regional resources have a moderate drag effect
on the economy.
Resources have a strong drag effect on economically
developed areas such as Tianjin and Shanghai, mainly be-
cause these areas have attracted a large amount of
high-quality labor, which increases the labor force growth
rate. Simultaneously, the demand for resources in the in-
dustry and service sectors in these areas has increased,
while limited water, land, and energy resources have im-
posed strong drag effects on the rapidly developing econo-
my of the region (Xu and Wang 2006). And there are two
plausible reasons for the strong resource drag effect on the
economic development of Inner Mongolia and Xizang.
First, these two provinces have more land resources than
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899 6895

Table 6 China’s 31 provinces variable coefficient panel model and “Drag” measurement results

Water Land Energy Capital Labor GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GR- GD- GD- GD- Drag*
GDP Capital Labor Water Land Energy Water Land Energy

Entire country 0.05 0.06 0.14 0.36 0.04 11.11 13.11 1.54 3.06 5.27 5.84 0.11 0.14 0.33 0.58
Beijing 0.00 0.04 0.42 0.07 0.03 10.03 11.22 2.58 1.38 4.44 3.56 −0.01 0.10 1.16 1.25
Tianjin 0.09 0.07 0.22 0.52 −0.03 11.72 12.92 2.21 3.78 4.18 5.00 0.40 0.34 1.01 1.76
Hebei 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.44 0.36 10.77 13.28 1.48 4.65 4.15 5.83 0.28 0.20 0.36 0.84
Shanghai 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.51 0.47 10.18 10.91 1.86 −0.25 5.12 4.83 0.36 0.33 0.53 1.22
Jiangsu 0.02 0.01 0.31 0.38 −0.08 12.04 14.74 1.10 2.00 7.08 6.42 0.04 0.01 0.54 0.60
Zhejiang 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.50 −0.04 12.28 13.90 0.86 1.42 7.77 7.84 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.19
Fujian −0.01 0.07 0.02 0.51 0.70 12.34 14.10 2.77 2.84 6.81 8.09 −0.06 0.42 0.13 0.49
Shandong 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.30 −0.25 11.65 13.22 1.92 3.78 6.59 6.51 0.03 0.12 0.30 0.44
Guangdong 0.02 0.04 0.21 0.20 0.11 13.35 14.54 2.63 1.65 8.21 8.21 0.06 0.13 0.70 0.89
Hainan 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.22 −0.02 10.99 12.83 2.47 6.63 6.53 10.64 0.19 0.22 0.09 0.50
Eastern region 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.48 0.03 11.80 13.47 1.83 2.69 6.41 6.45 0.18 0.19 0.70 1.07
Inner Mongolia 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.76 −0.14 11.98 16.72 1.58 6.56 3.00 8.04 0.37 0.65 1.15 2.16
Guangxi −0.04 −0.02 0.11 0.31 0.03 10.68 13.74 1.24 2.37 5.64 7.67 −0.08 −0.03 0.19 0.09
Chongqing 0.01 −0.01 0.12 0.16 0.04 11.68 14.09 0.43 4.70 8.79 5.97 0.01 −0.01 0.06 0.06
Sichuan 0.10 0.08 0.19 0.25 −0.16 10.53 10.73 0.69 1.40 6.85 5.52 0.09 0.07 0.17 0.34
Guizhou 0.13 0.05 0.43 0.38 −0.14 10.15 11.80 1.15 2.82 5.63 6.09 0.25 0.09 0.79 1.12
Yunnan 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.29 −0.16 10.13 14.09 1.82 4.30 6.21 6.77 0.15 0.11 0.24 0.49
Xizang 0.10 0.08 0.16 0.26 −0.15 11.29 13.27 3.16 3.52 5.07 7.04 0.43 0.36 0.69 1.48
Shaanxi 0.15 0.04 0.19 0.48 −0.04 11.04 12.63 1.20 3.22 4.94 6.33 0.35 0.10 0.44 0.88
Gansu 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.41 0.34 10.00 11.61 1.06 3.04 3.07 4.45 0.02 0.11 0.10 0.23
Qinghai 0.02 0.08 0.17 0.44 0.14 9.60 13.13 1.76 1.99 3.55 7.98 0.06 0.25 0.54 0.85
Ningxia 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.40 −0.11 9.81 12.54 2.29 6.79 5.97 8.44 0.12 0.25 0.38 0.74
Xinjiang 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.31 0.07 9.71 13.26 2.78 5.48 4.51 8.27 0.16 0.07 0.76 0.99
Western region 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.31 0.05 10.72 13.06 1.22 3.45 5.26 6.65 0.05 0.07 0.17 0.29
Shanxi −0.01 0.05 0.36 0.34 0.01 9.78 10.82 1.50 3.40 3.80 5.08 −0.02 0.12 0.82 0.92
Anhui 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.23 0.19 10.93 11.87 1.80 2.12 5.48 5.77 0.13 0.25 0.42 0.81
Jiangxi −0.09 0.06 0.15 0.41 0.46 10.49 13.11 1.64 2.45 5.79 5.91 −0.24 0.16 0.43 0.34
Henan 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.21 0.33 10.73 14.32 1.98 3.72 5.49 5.23 0.04 0.12 0.20 0.36
Hubei 0.01 0.00 0.39 0.29 −0.01 10.87 13.58 1.44 2.32 4.17 5.38 0.02 −0.01 0.80 0.82
Hunan 0.04 0.15 0.05 0.47 0.36 10.34 11.86 0.95 2.00 3.94 5.05 0.08 0.27 0.09 0.44
Central region 0.14 0.06 0.14 0.31 −0.17 10.61 12.98 1.60 2.62 4.76 5.32 0.33 0.13 0.33 0.79
Liaoning 0.09 0.03 0.25 0.64 0.03 9.13 11.52 0.59 4.84 3.32 3.56 0.14 0.05 0.40 0.59
Jilin 0.24 0.10 0.10 0.26 0.28 10.02 13.70 1.30 3.47 3.68 3.18 0.42 0.17 0.17 0.76
Heilongjiang 0.21 0.16 0.02 0.61 0.11 8.98 9.99 1.59 5.08 2.50 3.21 0.84 0.64 0.08 1.56
Northeast region 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.41 0.01 9.28 11.65 1.11 4.64 3.11 3.37 0.08 0.12 0.25 0.46

most other provinces, but the available water resources and
energy are limited, so the per capita available resources are
low, as also found by Wang et al. (2015). Second, the
elasticity coefficient of water, land, and energy resources
in these provinces are bigger than most other provinces in
the whole country, which means resources contribute sub-
stantially to economic growth (Wang et al. 2015; Xu and
Wang 2006). Therefore, resources have a strong constrain
on economic growth when there is low resource availability
but large dependence.
Conclusion and recommendation
Conclusion
Following Romer’s hypothesis, this paper uses the panel data
and the improved Solow growth model to calculate and ana-
lyze the drag effects of water, land, and energy resource con-
sumption in China’s regional economic growth from the two
dimensions: time and space (include regional and province).
After analysis, the following research conclusions are drawn:
6896
Fig. 2 China’s 31 provinces
resources drag effect level
(1) From the perspective of regions, it is found that, due to
the drag effect of water, land, and energy resources, the aver-
age annual growth rate of China’s overall economy has de-
creased by 0.58%. The average annual growth rate of the
economy in the Eastern, Western, Central, and Northeastern
regions decreased by 1.07%, 0.29%, 0.79%, and 0.46%, re-
spectively. According to the analysis of the growth rate of the
basic elements of economic development in each region, we
can find that the economic development in the Eastern region
is highly dependent on land resources and energy (Xu et al.
2018), the economic growth in the Central region is highly
Fig. 3 China’s 31 provinces
economic growth mode
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
dependent on energy (Xu et al. 2018), and the economic de-
velopment in the Northeast region is extremely dependent on
water resources (Wang et al. 2015; Xu and Wang 2006).
Finally, economic development in the Western region is main-
ly dependent on capital stock, so the region has a relatively
small dependence on resources. These results are consistent
with a number of previous studies that have evaluated partic-
ular elements of resource drag.
(2) From the perspective of provinces: First, the fastest-
growing economies of the seven provinces, such as Beijing,
Shanghai, and Tianjin, have experienced strong resource drag
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
effects (Wan et al. 2012). This is mainly due to the contradic-
tion between the limited available resources and rapid growth
in labor demand (Xu and Wang 2006). Second, the economic
development of 13 provinces, including Jiangsu, Shaanxi, and
Jilin, moderately drags effect by resources. This is mainly due
to the rapid accumulation of physical capital stock and the
growing labor force which has caused an increasing demand
for the three resources in these areas (Liu and Chen 2007; Xu
and Wang 2006). Third, the economic development of 11
provinces, including Fujian, Yunnan, and Hunan, weakly
drags effect by resources. This is mainly due to the sparse
population and the low growth rate of labor in these areas,
and the economic growth depends on the accumulation of
physical capital stock. This has largely alleviated resource
pressures on economic growth.
(3) From the perspective of time, the resource drag effect
on economic development in China’s four different regions
shows dynamic variability. First, from 1987 to 1991, the
Eastern region’s economy grew rapidly under the impetus of
energy, attracting a large influx of labor, which directly caused
the demand for resources in that region to rise sharply. During
this period, expansions of resource availability promoted the
economy to increase by an additional annual rate of 1.47%.
Then, from 1997 to 2001, the labor force in the Central,
Western, and Northeastern regions was in short supply, reduc-
ing the demand for resources. Therefore, the drag effect of
resources was relatively small. However, because of the large
demand for energy in the previous period, the role of energy in
economic growth changed from promotion of 6.84% annual
average to an obstacle of 3.14% in the Eastern region. From
2001 to 2006, policies such as “West-to-East Electricity
Transmission” and “West-to-East Gas Transmission” were
gradually implemented. While promoting the rapid develop-
ment of the Eastern region, these policies also attracted the
return of labor to the Central and Western regions (Xu et al.
2018). This, in turn, made the energy drag effect on the
Eastern and Western regions’ economies continue to grow
(Xue et al. 2017; Shen and Li 2010; Lei et al. 2007).
Afterward, from 2007 to 2017, the state gradually controlled
the development of small coal mines in the Northeast to pro-
tect resources while protecting the environment. Industry in
the Northeast region has transformed. Therefore, the drag ef-
fect of water, land, and energy resources for economic growth
in the Eastern region has significantly improved.
Policy recommendation
Water, land, and energy resources are the foundation of eco-
nomic development. According to the results provided in this
article, to achieve the coordinated development of water, land,
and energy resources with economic growth, future macro
policies should focus on the following:
6897
1. Differences in regional resource endowments determine
the direction and speed of regional economic develop-
ment. Through research and analysis, it is found that pol-
icies such as “West-to-East Electricity Transmission” and
“West-to-East Gas Transmission” are successful and help
to balance economic growth in different regions. So, the
government must pay attention to the regional differences
in resource constraints and develop effective measures for
different regions. Moreover, labor force mobility has also
been important to alleviate resource dependence of agri-
cultural production in Central regain, while other regains
have managed to stay ahead through improvements in
efficiency. If developing countries want sustainable and
stable economic growth, it is necessary and important to
strengthen the fixed capital input and the rational alloca-
tion of labor, and continue to make technical progress in
all sectors of the economy. Only in this way can re-
sources, capital, and labor work together to promote sus-
tainable economic development.
2. Growth in some regions/provinces continues to depend
upon increases in water, land, and energy availability
and export (through virtual water). This will become in-
creasingly problematic as the social prices of these inputs
rise to account for environmental damage. We must ac-
quire and export resources reasonably and effectively and
alleviate the dependence of different regions on water,
land, and energy resources to achieve the goals of sustain-
able resource use and sustained economic growth.
3. Lastly, through this study, the research has shown that
regional economic growth is a dynamic process. The drag
effect of resources within different regions varies greatly
over time, and at the same time, it will have a certain
degree of impact on their regions. Therefore, the use of
resources should not only be based on the immediate in-
terests but also on the future and the impact on neighbor-
ing regions. The implementation of resource and devel-
opment policies should be formulated from the country
and the world as a whole based on empirical data.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary
material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16053-0.
Author’s contribution Yao Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing - original draft, Software, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization. Wenxin Liu: Investigation, Editing, Formal analysis.
Sufyan Ullah Khan: Data curation, Writing - review & editing, Formal
analysis. Brent Swallow: Grammar, review. Chaohui Zhou: Data
curation. Minjuan Zhao: Supervision and funding acquisition.
Funding This research was funded by the National Soft Science Project
of State Forestry and Grassland Administration (Grant No. 2019131039),
The Key Special Funds of Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of
Finance (Grant No. CARS-07-F-1), The Key Project of Six Industrial
Research Institutes of Northwest Agricultural and Forestry University
6898
(Grant No. Z221021601), and China Scholarship Council
(202006300062).
Data availability statement The datasets used and/or analyzed during the
current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
request.
Declarations
Ethical approval This is an observational study. We confirmed that no
ethical approval is required.
Consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent to publish Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
References
An M, Butsic V, He WJ, Zhang ZF (2018) Drag effect of water consump-
tion on urbanization—a case study of the Yangtze River Economic
Belt from 2000 to 2015. Water 10:1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w10091115
Bai YY, Zhang TA, Zhai YJ, Shen XX, Ma XT, Zhang RR, Ji CX, Hong
JL (2021) Water footprint coupled economic impact assessment for
maize production in China. Sci Total Environ 752:141963. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141963
Bruvoll AG, Glomstrd S, Vennemo H (1999) Environmental Drag: evi-
dence from Norway. Ecol Econ 30(2):235–249. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0921-8009(98)00115-3
Cui Y (2007) “An Analysis of Drag” of land resources in China's eco-
nomic growth. Econ Theory Business Manag 11:32–37. https://doi.
org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-596X.2007.11.007
Dasgupta P, Heal G (1974) The optimal depletion of exhaustible re-
sources. Rev Econ Stud 41:3–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296369
Fahad S, Wang J (2018) Farmers’ risk perception, vulnerability, and
adaptation to climate change in rural Pakistan. Land Use Policy
79:301–309
Fahad S, Wang J (2020) Climate change, vulnerability, and its impacts in
rural Pakistan: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27-2:1334–1338
Fu C, Zhan LQ (2012) Research on the relationship between economic
growth and natural resources in Central China. TheoreticalMonthly,
11: 5-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14180/j.cnki.1004-0544.2012.11.
036
Lei M, Yang CM, Wang DD (2007) Quantitative analysis of energy
shortage constraints in China's economic growth. Energy Technol
Manag 5:101–104. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-9943-B.
2007.05.026
Li Y, Shen KR (2010) Energy constraints and China's economic growth
—metrology analysis based on energy “Tail Effect”. Econ Issues 32
(7):16–20. https://doi.org/10.16011/j.cnki.jjwt.2010.07.004
Liu YB, Chen F (2007) Analysis on resource consumption drag of
China's urbanization. China Indust Econ 11:48–55. https://doi.org/
10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.2007.11.006
Liu YB, Huang MY (2015) “Resource Drag” and “Resource Curse” in
the process of urbanization—based on panel data analysis of 27 coal
cities in China. East China Econ Manag 29(1):55–61. https://doi.
org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-5097.2015.01.010
Liu C, Zhu DC (2012) Research on the influence of resource limitation on
economic growth in Weibei Area of Anhui Province—based on the
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
perspective of resource growth drag. J Inner Mongolia Agric Univ
Soc Sci Ed 14(2):44–46. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-4458.
2012.02.016
Liu XH, Yuan HY, Hong L, Zhou ZY, Yin ZJ (2002) Research on
Stochastic forecast model of water resources use. China Rural
Water and Hydropower 12:70–72. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.
1007-2284.2002.12.029
Liu YB, Yang XM, Zhou RH, Duan YF, Yao CS (2011) A comparative
analysis of resources consumption drag of the Central Region of
China. Res Sci 33(9):1781–1787. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C3NJ00797A
Ma WJ, Opp C, Yang DW (2020) Spatiotemporal supply-demand char-
acteristics and economic benefits of crop water footprint in the semi-
arid region. Sci Total Environ 738:139502. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2020.139502
Muller M (2015) The 'Nexus' as a step back towards a more coherent
water resource management paradigm. Water Alternatives 8:675–
694 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272019230
Nordhaus WD (1992) Lethal model 2: the limits to growth Revisited.
Brook Pap Econ Act 2:1–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534581
Romer D (2001) Advanceed Macroeconomics (Second Edition).
Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Press, The
McGraw- Hill Companies.
Schwert GW (1989) Testing for unit roots: A Monte Carlo investigation. J
Bus Econ Stat 7:147–160
Shen KR, Li Y (2010) An analysis of the energy bound on economic
growth. Ind Econ Res 2:1–8. https://doi.org/10.13269/j.cnki.ier.
2010.02.003
Sun CZ, Liu YY, Zhang L (2010) Analysis on the spatial-temporal
matching of crops virtual water versus resources-environment-
economy factors in China. Res Sci 32(3):512–519 DOI: CNKI:
SUN:ZRZY.0.2010-03-021
Wan YK, Dong SC, Wang YN, Mao QL, Liu JJ (2012) Damping effects
of water and land resources on economic growth in Beijing. Res Sci
34(3):475–480 DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZRZY.0.2012-03-014
Wang JT (2010) Study on the land resource growth drag of in China's
regional economic growth. Econ Geogr 30(12):2067–2072. https://
doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2010.12.024
Wang YB, Wu PT, Sun SK, Cao XC, Liu J (2015) Impact of virtual water
flows of grain on water resources and regional economy in China.
Transac Chinese Soc Agric Machine 46(10):208–215. https://doi.
org/10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2015.10.027
Xie SL, Wang W, Xue JB (2005) Analysis of the drag effect of water and
land resources in China's economic development. Manag World 7:
22–25 DOI: CNKI:SUN:GLSJ.0.2005-07-003
Xu KN, Wang J (2006) An empirical study of a linkage between natural
resource abundance and economic development. Econ Res J 041
(001):78–89 DOI: CNKI:SUN:JJYJ.0.2006-01-008
Xu J, Zhou M, Li H (2018) The drag effect of coal consumption on
economic growth in China during 1953–2013. Resour Conserv
Recycl 129:326–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.
027
Xue JB, Wang W, Zhu JW, Wu B (2004) Analysis of the drag effect of
China's economic growth. J Financ Econ 30(9):5–14. https://doi.
org/10.16538/j.cnki.jfe.2004.09.001
Xue JB, Zhao MZ, Zhu YX (2017) Growth drag, factor contribution and
resource redundancy: analysis on agriculture. Technol Econ 36(11):
65–74 DOI: CNKI:SUN:JSJI.0.2017-11-010
Yan MD, Song XY, Zhang WH (2013) Analysis of virtual water of
selected agricultural products in Chongqing, China. Res Environ
Yangtze Basin 22(Z1):6–10 DOI: CNKI:SUN:CJLY.0.2013-S1-
002
Yang Y, Wu CF, Luo YH, Wei SC (2007) A research about “Growth
Drag” of Chinese water-land resource to the economy. Econ Geogr
27(4):529–532. https://doi.org/10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2007.04.012
Environ Sci Pollut Res (2022) 29:6886–6899
Zhang J, Wu GY, Zhang JP (2004) The estimation of China's pro-vincial
capital stock: 1952—2000. Econ Res J 10:35–44. DOI: CNKI:SUN:
JJYJ.0.2004-10-004
Zhang Y, Liu WX, Zhao MJ (2020) The drag effect of water resources on
China’s regional economic growth: analysis based on the temporal
6899
and spatial dimensions. Water 12(1):266. https://doi.org/10.3390/
w12010266
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Environmental Science & Pollution Research is a copyright of Springer, 2022. All Rights
Reserved.