As global climate change intensifies, the need to reduce emissions of methane (CH4), a potent short-lived greenhouse gas, is becoming increasingly urgent. As the world’s largest emitter of CH4, China urgently needs to conduct indepth research into the CH4 emissions associated with interprovincial trade. This study first established a methane emission accounting model covering energy activities, waste and wastewater, and agricultural activities, and estimated CH4 emissions for China’s 31 provinces from 2012 to 2022. Building on this foundation, the study integrated methods such as multi-region input-output modeling, sectoral decomposition, structural path analysis, and sensitivity analysis to conduct an indepth investigation into the patterns of CH4 transfers implied by interprovincial trade in China in 2017, quantify indirect CH4 emissions from household consumption in China, and identify key sectors and pathways for emissions reductions across different industrial sectors. The key findings are as follows: (1) From 2012 to 2022, China’s annual CH4 emissions averaged 58.1738 million metric tons, exhibiting a fluctuating trend characterized by a decline followed by an increase. (2) Interprovincial trade had a significant impact on China’s CH4 emissions. CH4 emissions have shifted from east to west and from coastal to inland regions. There are marked differences in the total volume and structure of CH4 emissions from both the production and consumption sides across provinces, with Zhejiang Province (3.022 million metric tons), Jiangsu Province (2.7337 million metric tons), and Guangdong Province (2.388 million metric tons) accounting for the largest outflows. (3) In 2017, indirect CH4 emissions from household consumption were primarily concentrated in the first four industrial levels (PL0~PL3), mainly originating from four sectors: construction (S28), food and tobacco (S6), agricultural, forestry, livestock, and fishery products and services (S1), and water, environmental, and public facility management (S37). (4) At the 0th industrial level, key pathways for reducing indirect CH4 emissions from household consumption include the sectors of agricultural, forestry, livestock, and fishery products and services, and water, environmental, and public infrastructure management. At the 1st to 3rd industrial levels, there are 10 key pathways for emission reductions, and a distinct “sectoral aggregation” phenomenon is observed. Finally, relevant policy recommendations are proposed to provide a scientific basis for CH4 emission reductions at the provincial level in China.
- Open Access
- Article
Does Interregional Trade Lead to a Shift in CH4 Emissions? A Study Based on a Multi-Region Input-Output Model and Structural Path Analysis
- Yujie Wang (王宇杰) 1,*,
- Tongsen Hao (郝同森) 1,
- Muyao Qin (秦沐瑶) 1,*,
- Xinru Wang (王欣茹) 2,
- Qing Miao (苗青) 3,
- Liwei Jin (靳立伟) 1,
- Xiao Gu (顾笑) 4
Author Information
Received: 04 Jul 2026 | Revised: 17 Jul 2026 | Accepted: 01 Aug 2026 | Published: 06 Aug 2026
Abstract
Keywords
regional trade | implied CH4 emissions | trade diversion | emission reduction pathways | MRIO | structural pathways
References
- 1.
Sun, X.; Cheng, X.; Guan, C.; et al. Economic drivers of global and regional CH4 emission growth from the consumption perspective. Energy Policy 2022, 170, 113242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113242.
- 2.
Cheng, X.; Wu, X.; Guan, C.; et al. Impacts of production structure changes on global CH4 emissions: Evidences from income-based accounting and decomposition analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 213, 107967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107967.
- 3.
Khanna, N.; Lin, J.; Liu, X.; et al. An assessment of China’s methane mitigation potential and costs and uncertainties through 2060. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 9694. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-54038-y.
- 4.
Harmsen, M.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Bodirsky, B.L.; et al. The role of methane in future climate strategies: Mitigation potentials and climate impacts. Clim. Chang. 2020, 163, 1409–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02437-2.
- 5.
Cael, B.B.; Goodwin, P.A. Global methane pledge versus carbon dioxide emission reduction. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 104015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acf8dd.
- 6.
Guo, M.; Cheng, C.; Wu, X. Mapping the heterogeneity of global methane footprint in China at the subnational level. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 345, 118479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118479.
- 7.
Xu, C.; Qin, Y.; Li, J.; et al. Spatiotemporal decoupling CH4 emission from economic growth and future trend in categorized Chinese cities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2025, 112, 107859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107859.
- 8.
Hu, L.; Fang, X. Bridging the Gap: A comprehensive review and cross-check analysis for China’s Non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission estimates. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 394, 127362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.127362.
- 9.
Wang, L.; Sun, Y.; Zheng, S.; et al. How efficient coal mine methane control can benefit carbon-neutral target: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 424, 138895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138895.
- 10.
Liu, Y.; Gao, H.; Yu, Z.; et al. Managing Methane Emissions in Abandoned Coal Mines: Comparison of Different Recovery Technologies by Integrating Techno-Economic Analysis and Life-Cycle Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 13900–13908. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02928.
- 11.
Yacovitch, T.I.; Daube, C.; Herndon, S.C. Methane emissions from offshore oil and gas platforms in the gulf of Mexico. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 3530–3538. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b07148.
- 12.
Alirahmi, S.M.; Perrucci, A.; Maschietti, M.; et al. Renewable-integrated flexible production of energy and methane via re-using existing offshore oil and gas infrastructure. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 426, 139125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139125.
- 13.
Xu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Cai, X. Can green electrification expansion to rice cultivation reduce agricultural methane emissions in China? J. Clean. Prod. 2024, 434, 139906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139906.
- 14.
Wang, Q.; Ye, L.; Jiang, G.; et al. Free nitrous acid (FNA)-based pretreatment enhances methane production from waste activated sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11897–11904. https://doi.org/10.1021/es402933b.
- 15.
Zhang, D.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; et al. New sludge pretreatment method to improve methane production in waste activated sludge digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4802–4808. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1000209.
- 16.
Li, Z.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, P.; et al. Comparative analysis of certified emission reduction methodologies for methane emission reduction in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 375, 124242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124242.
- 17.
Yan, H.; Liu, L.; Yan, J. Unveiling the mitigation potential of non-CO2 greenhouse gases in global supply chains. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2025, 30, 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-025-10264-3.
- 18.
Zhu, M.; Zhao, Z.; Meng, Y.; et al. Unfolding the evolution of carbon inequality embodied in inter-provincial trade of China: Network perspective analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 97, 106884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106884.
- 19.
Zhu, Q.; Xu, C.; Lee, C. Trade-induced carbon-economic inequality within China: Measurement, sources, and determinants. Energy Econ. 2024, 136, 107731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107731.
- 20.
Xia, C.; Zheng, H.; Meng, J.; et al. Outsourced carbon mitigation efforts of Chinese cities from 2012 to 2017. Nat. Cities 2024, 1, 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00088-8.
- 21.
Liu, L.; Hu, X.; Li, L.; et al. Understanding China’s agricultural non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gas emissions: Subnational insights and global trade dynamics. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2024, 106, 107487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107487.
- 22.
Liu, L.; Liu, L.; Liang, Q. Common footprints of the greenhouse gases and air pollutants in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125991.
- 23.
Geng, Y.; Dong, H.; Xi, F.; et al. A Review of Carbon Footprint Research in Response to Climate Change. ChinaPopul. Resour. Environ. 2010, 20, 6–12.
- 24.
Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. China Submits the “Fourth National Communication of the People’s Republic of China on Climate Change” and the “Third Biennial Update Report of the People’s Republic of China on Climate Change”. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywdt/hjywnews/202312/t20231229_1060290.shtml (accessed on 7 April 2026).
- 25.
IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/chinese/index.html (accessed on 7 April 2026).
- 26.
IPCC. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html (accessed on 7 April 2026).
- 27.
General Office of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment. Notice on the Issuance of the “Guidelines for the Compilation of Provincial Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2025 Edition)”. Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk2018/xxgk/xxgk05/202601/t20260104_1139798.html (accessed on 7 April 2026).
- 28.
Fevereiro, J.; Genovese, A.; Purvis, B.; et al. Macroeconomic models for assessing the transition towards a circular economy: A systematic review. Ecol. Econ. 2025, 236, 108669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108669.
- 29.
Niu, F.; Mei, Y. The Origins, Compilation Methods, and Development Trends of Input-Output Tables. Adv. Geogr. 2025, 44, 1779–1792.
- 30.
Zhang, K.; He, L.; Lu, H. Characteristics of Carbon Transfer in Interregional Trade in China and Its Impact on Carbon Neutrality. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 3407–3416.
- 31.
Zhong, W.; Song, J.; Yang, W.; et al. Evolving household consumption-driven industrial energy consumption under urbanization: A dynamic input-output analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125732.
- 32.
Kim, M.; Choi, J.; Eom, J. Indirect household electricity consumption in Korea: A regional analysis using energy-extended input–output and structural decomposition methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2026, 554, 148125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148125.
- 33.
Yang, Y.; Park, Y.; Smith, T.M.; et al. High-resolution environmentally extended input–output model to assess the greenhouse gas impact of electronics in South Korea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 2107–2114. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05451.
- 34.
Liu, Y.; Xu, B.; Wang, Y. Quantifying the carbon advantages of capital: Evidence from China’s multiregional input-output analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2025, 515, 145780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145780.
- 35.
Leontief, W. Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1970, 52, 262–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926294.
- 36.
Treloar, G.J. Extracting Embodied Energy Paths from Input–Output Tables: Towards an Input–Output-based Hybrid Energy Analysis Method. Econ. Syst. Res. 1997, 9, 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535319700000032.
- 37.
Bullard, C.W.; Herendeen, R.A. The energy cost of goods and services. Energy Policy 1975, 3, 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(75)90035-X.
- 38.
Mattila, T.; Koskela, S.; Seppälä, J.; et al. Sensitivity analysis of environmentally extended input–output models as a tool for building scenarios of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.11.021.
- 39.
Zhen, W.; Qin, Q.; Zhong, Z.; et al. Uncovering household indirect energy-saving responsibility from a sectoral perspective: An empirical analysis of Guangdong, China. Energy Econ. 2018, 72, 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.05.006.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Suite 4002 Level 4, 447 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
General Inquiries: info@sciltp.com