Province SO2 concentration SO2 deposition SO2 Deposition Reduction

(mg/m3) (mg/m2) Squared in farming

and forestry
revenue (%)

Yunnan 12 400 160000 0

Shanxi 33 1000 1000000 0.8
Shaanxi 43 1300 1690000 1.5
Fujian 44 1300 1690000 1.5
Liaoning 50 1500 2250000 1.6
Hunan 50 1500 2250000 1.9
Hebei 50 1500 2250000 2
Guangxi 53 1600 2560000 2
Beijing 56 1700 2890000 2.2
Jiangxi 60 1800 3240000 2.2
Hubei 60 1900 3610000 2.5
Guangdong 62 1900 3610000 2.6
Henan 66 2000 4000000 3
Anhui 71 2100 4410000 3.2
Shandong 77 2300 5290000 3.8
Zhejiang 84 2500 6250000 4
Sichuan 97 2900 8410000 5
Guizhou 101 3000 9000000 5.1
Tianjin 104 3100 9610000 5.2
Jiangsu 141 4200 17640000 7.6
Shanghai 154 4600 21160000 8.9
3.171428571

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value

Intercept -1.3586303677 0.1014368451 -13.3938547289 3.9642E-11
SO2 depositio 0.0021571709 4.373446481182E-05 49.3242785218 1.60801E-21

0.992250858 REGRESSION 2 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat

Intercept -0.8916248463 0.1736578559 -5.13437668
X Variable 1 0.0017134666 0.0001487301 11.52064457
X Variable 2 8.639677416115E-08 2.80808073722126E-08 3.076719733
Deviations Deviations Fitted Deviations Deviations Actual - Squared
squared Values Squared Fitted
Regression
1

-3.17142857 10.05795918 -0.495762 -3.66719057 13.44828667 0.495761998 0.245779959

-2.37142857 5.623673469 0.798540556 -2.37288802 5.630597535 0.001459444 0.00000213
-1.67142857 2.793673469 1.445691833 -1.72573674 2.978167291 0.054308167 0.002949377
-1.67142857 2.793673469 1.445691833 -1.72573674 2.978167291 0.054308167 0.002949377
-1.57142857 2.469387755 1.877126017 -1.29430255 1.675219101 -0.27712602 0.07679883
-1.27142857 1.616530612 1.877126017 -1.29430255 1.675219101 0.022873983 0.000523219
-1.17142857 1.372244898 1.877126017 -1.29430255 1.675219101 0.122873983 0.015098016
-1.17142857 1.372244898 2.09284311 -1.07858546 1.163346598 -0.09284311 0.008619843
-0.97142857 0.943673469 2.308560202 -0.86286837 0.744541823 -0.1085602 0.011785317
-0.97142857 0.943673469 2.524277294 -0.64715128 0.418804775 -0.32427729 0.105155764
-0.67142857 0.450816327 2.739994387 -0.43143418 0.186135456 -0.23999439 0.057597306
-0.57142857 0.326530612 2.739994387 -0.43143418 0.186135456 -0.13999439 0.019598428
-0.17142857 0.029387755 2.955711479 -0.21571709 0.046533864 0.044288521 0.001961473
0.028571429 0.000816327 3.171428571 0 0 0.028571429 0.000816327
0.628571429 0.395102041 3.602862756 0.431434185 0.186135456 0.197137244 0.038863093
0.828571429 0.686530612 4.034296941 0.862868369 0.744541823 -0.03429694 0.00117628
1.828571429 3.343673469 4.89716531 1.725736739 2.978167291 0.10283469 0.010574973
1.928571429 3.719387755 5.112882402 1.941453831 3.769242978 -0.0128824 0.000165956
2.028571429 4.115102041 5.328599495 2.157170923 4.653386393 -0.12859949 0.01653783
4.428571429 19.6122449 7.701487511 4.530058939 20.52143399 -0.10148751 0.010299715
5.728571429 32.81653061 8.56435588 5.392927308 29.08366495 0.33564412 0.112656975
95.48285714 94.74294695 0.739910188

Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

-1.57094012 -1.14632061 -1.57094012 -1.14632061
0.002065634 0.002248708 0.002065634 0.002248708

P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

6.94751E-05 -1.25646646 -0.52678323 -1.25646646 -0.52678323
0.000000001 0.001400996 0.002025937 0.001400996 0.002025937
0.006501929 2.74012E-08 1.45392E-07 2.74012E-08 1.45392E-07
 Fitted Fitted Marginal
Values Values Damage
Regression Regression Regression
2 1 2

-0.19241471 -0.495762 0.001713467

0.908238554 0.798540556 0.001713605
1.481892315 1.445691833 0.001713726
1.481892315 1.445691833 0.001713726
1.872967834 1.877126017 0.001713743
1.872967834 1.877126017 0.001713795
1.872967834 1.877126017 0.001713812
2.071097497 2.09284311 0.001713812
2.270955095 2.308560202 0.001713847
2.472540628 2.524277294 0.001713847
2.675854097 2.739994387 0.001713899
2.675854097 2.739994387 0.001713916
2.880895502 2.955711479 0.001713985
3.087664842 3.171428571 0.00171402
3.506387328 3.602862756 0.001714123
3.932021557 4.034296941 0.001714158
4.804025239 4.89716531 0.001714331
5.026345998 5.112882402 0.001714348
5.250394693 5.328599495 0.001714365
7.828974078 7.701487511 0.00171478
8.818477373 8.56435588 0.001715004
Recution i n Revenue (%)
Revenue reduction vs. SO2 Depositio
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
SO2 Deposition (mg/m2)
tion vs. SO2 Deposition

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Deposition (mg/m2)
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.996118
R Square 0.992251
Adjusted R 0.991843
Standard E 0.197339
Observatio 21

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regressio 1 94.74295 94.74295 2432.884 1.61E-21
Residual 19 0.73991 0.038943
Total 20 95.48286

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
Intercept -1.35863 0.101437 -13.3939 3.96E-11 -1.57094 -1.14632 -1.57094 -1.14632
SO2 deposi0.002157 4.37E-05 49.32428 1.61E-21 0.002066 0.002249 0.002066 0.002249

y=mx+b
y=0.00215717092337918x-1.35863
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.99745756
R Square 0.99492159
Adjusted R S 0.99435733
Standard Erro 0.16413084
Observations 21

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 2 94.9979564 47.4989782 1763.20946 2.2467E-21
Residual 18 0.48490076 0.02693893
Total 20 95.4828571

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0%
Intercept -0.89162485 0.17365786 -5.13437668 6.9475E-05 -1.25646646 -0.52678323 -1.25646646
X Variable 1 0.00171347 0.00014873 11.5206446 9.6999E-10 0.001401 0.00202594 0.001401
X Variable 2 8.6397E-08 2.8081E-08 3.07671973 0.00650193 2.7401E-08 1.4539E-07 2.7401E-08

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Y Residuals

1 -0.19241471 0.19241471
2 0.90823855 -0.10823855
3 1.48189232 0.01810768
4 1.48189232 0.01810768
5 1.87296783 -0.27296783
6 1.87296783 0.02703217
7 1.87296783 0.12703217
8 2.0710975 -0.0710975
9 2.27095509 -0.07095509
10 2.47254063 -0.27254063
11 2.6758541 -0.1758541
12 2.6758541 -0.0758541
13 2.8808955 0.1191045
14 3.08766484 0.11233516
15 3.50638733 0.29361267
16 3.93202156 0.06797844
17 4.80402524 0.19597476
18 5.026346 0.073654
19 5.25039469 -0.05039469
20 7.82897408 -0.22897408
21 8.81847737 0.08152263
Upper 95.0%
-0.52678323
0.00202594
1.4539E-07
SO2 deposition (mg/m2)
Revenue
5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
-2 0 2
Reductio

Revenu
10
Reduction in Revenue (%)

0
2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000

SO2
-2
 Revenue reduction vs. SO2 Deposition

Fi tted Va l ues
Regres s i on 1

2 4 6 8 10
Reduction in Revenue (%)

Revenue reduction vs. SO2 Deposition

Fi tted Va l ues
Regres s i on 2
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

SO2 deposition (mg/m2)

Fi tted Va l ues
Regres s i on 1
M a rgi na l D a m a ge (% Revenu e)
Ma
0.001715
0.0017148
0.0017146
0.0017144
0.0017142
0.001714
0.0017138
0.0017136
0.0017134
0.0017132
0.001713
0.0017128
0 500
M a rgi na l D a m a ge (% Revenu e)

Marginal Damage Against SO2 Deposition

0.001715
0.0017148
0.0017146
0.0017144
0.0017142
0.001714
0.0017138
0.0017136
0.0017134
0.0017132
0.001713
0.0017128
0 500 1000 1500 SO2 2000
deposition2500
(mg/m2) 3000 3500 4000 4500
 Province SO2 SO2 Reduction Marginal Potential Marginal
concentrati deposition in farming Damage % Revenue Damage
on (mg/m3) (mg/m2) and 1995 (Yuan)
forestry
revenue
(%)

Shaanxi 43 1300 1.5 0.0017136 27912500000 4823.10163

REGRESSION 2Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0%
Intercept -0.89162485 0.17365786 -5.13437668 6.9475E-05 -1.256466463 -0.52678323 -1.25646646
X Variable 1 0.00171347 0.00014873 11.5206446 9.6999E-10 0.001400996 0.00202594 0.001401
X Variable 2 8.6397E-08 2.8081E-08 3.07671973 0.00650193 2.740119E-08 1.4539E-07 2.7401E-08
 SO2 Fitted Value 2020 Difference
Revenue from 1995
deposition Regression 2
(mg/m2)
2020

1950 9.3823873178 25293641140 2618858860

Upper 95.0%
-0.52678323
0.00202594
1.4539E-07