نشریه محیط زیست طبیعی

اثر رشد اقتصادی بر تخریب محیط زیست در منطقه خاورمیانه: کاربرد ردپای اکولوژیکی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه شیراز- دانشکده کشاورزی- بخش اقتصاد کشاورزی

2 دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز

3 استادیار اقتصاد کشاورزی، بخش اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه گیلان

4 دانشجوی اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

در این مطالعه اثر رشد اقتصادی، مصرف انرژی، ظرفیت زیستی و آزاد سازی تجاری بر ردپای اکولوژیکی مصرف بعنوان شاخصی از تخریب محیط زیست با استفاده از داده‌های پنل دوره 1990 الی 2013، مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. بر اساس نتایج آزمون های ایستایی، متغیرهای مورد استفاده در مدل همگی در سطح ایستا نبوده و با یکبار تفاضل گیری ایستا شدند. همچنین نتایج آزمون‌های پدرونی و کائو نشان داد که متغیرهای مورد استفاده هم‌جمع هستند. به منظور برآورد روابط بلندمدت میان متغیرها از روش FMOLS استفاده شد. نتایج مطالعه نشان داد که یک رابطه مثبت و معنی‌دار میان ردپای اکولوژیکی و ظرفیت زیستی و یک رابطه منفی و معنی‌دار میان آزادسازی تجاری و ردپای اکولوژیکی وجود دارد. همچنین افزایش مصرف انرژی منجر به افزایش ردپای اکولوژیکی می‌شود. همچنین نتایج نشان داد که یک رابطه N شکل میان رد پای اکولوژیکی و رشد اقتصادی وجود دارد و این امر حاکی از آن است که افزایش رشد اقتصادی در این منطقه به تخریب بیشتر محیط زیست منجر خواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The impact of economic growth on environmental degradation in Middle East region: application of ecological footprint

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohhammad Hassan Tarazkar 1
  • Navid Kargar 2
  • Reza Esfanjari 3
  • Efat Ghorbaniyan 4

1 assistant professor of agricultural economics, Shiraz university

2 Ph. D. Student of Economics of Natural Resources and Environment, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University

3 Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Gilan University

4 Ph. D. Student of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University

چکیده [English]

This study examines the effects of economic growth, energy consumption, biological capacity and trade openness on the ecological footprint (EF) of consumption as index of environmental degradation using a panel data during the period 1990–2013. A number of panel unit root tests confirm that the data are first-difference stationary. Results from Pedroni and Kao panel co-integration tests show that the variables are co-integrated. Therefore, the panel Fully Modified Ordinary Least Square (FMOLS) method is then employed to estimate the long run relationship between the variables. The results indicate a positive and significant relationship between ecological footprint (EF) and biological capacity, and a negative and insignificant impact of trade openness on EF. Energy consumption is also led to increase EF. The results showed the N-shape relationship between EF and economic growth. Therefore, economic growth will lead to further environmental degradation in this region.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Economic growth
  • Ecological footprint
  • Biological capacity
  • Trade openness
  • Middle East
Acar, S & Aşıcı, A. A., 2017. Nature and economic growth in Turkey: what does ecological footprint imply?, Middle East Development Journal. 9(1), 101-115.
Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L. and Mohammed, A.H., 2015. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological Indicators, 48, pp.315-323.
Aşıcı, A. A. & Acar. S., 2016. Does income growth relocate ecological footprint?. Ecological Indicators. 61(2): 707-714.
Baltagi, B., 2008. Econometric analysis of panel data, (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
Dinda, S., 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: a survey. Ecological Economics. 49(4): 431-455.
Esty, D. C., Levy, M. A., Srebotnjak, T., de Sherbinin, A., Kim, C. H., & Anderson, B. (2006). Pilot 2006 environmental performance index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.
Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., & de Sherbinin, A. (2005). Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Retrieved May 27, 2009.
Galli, A.; Kitzes, J.; Niccolucci, V.; Wackernagel, M.; Wada, Y. & Marchettini, N., 2012. Assessing the global environmental consequences of economic growth throughthe Ecological Footprint. A focus on China and India. Ecological Indicators. 17: 99–107.
Hervieux, M.S. & Darné, O., 2014. Production and consumption-based approaches for the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Latin America using ecological footprint. Document de Travail Working Paper.
Hong, L.; Zhang, P.; Chunyu, H. & Gang, w., 2007. Evaluating the effects of embodied energy in international trade on ecological footprint in China. Ecological Economics. 62: 136-148.
Im, K. S.; Pesaran, M.H. & Shin, Y., 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics. 115(1): 53-74.
Jomhehpoor, M.; Hataminejad, H.& Shahnavaz, S., 2013. Investigating the status of sustainable development of Rasht city using ecological footprint method, Human geographic research. 45 (3): 191-208. (in Persian)
Kaly, U. L., Pratt, C., & Mitchell, J. (2005). Building resilience in SIDS: the environmental vulnerability index. Final Report. SOPAC, UNEP.
Kao, C., 1999. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics. 90(1): 1-44.
Levin, A.; Lin, C. F. & Chu, C. J., 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics. 108(1): 1–24.
Lin, D.; Hanscom, L.; Martindill, J.; Borucke, M.; Cohen, L.; Galli, A.; Lazarus, E.; Zokai, G.; Iha, K.; Eaton & Wackernagel, D.M., 2016., Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts. Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
Lopez- Menendez, A. J.; Perez, R. & Moreno, B., 2014. Environmental costs and renewable energy: Re-visiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Environmental Management. 145: 368-373.
Molaei, M.& Besharat, A., 2016. The study of the relationship between GDP and ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation, Economic, 4 (50): 1017-1033. (in Persian)
Nijkamp, P.; Rossi, E. & Vindigni, G., 2004. Ecological Footprints in Plural: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Empirical Results. Regional Studies. 38: 747-765.
Oosthoek, J., & Gills, B. K., 2005. Humanity at the crossroads: The globalization of environmental crisis. Globalizations, 2(3): 283-291.
Pedroni, P., 2000. Fully Modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Advances in Econometrics. (15): 93-130.
Pedroni, P., 2004. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory. 20(03): 597-625.
Rees W. E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban. 4:121–30.
Shahbaz, M.; Loganathan, N.; Muzaffar, A. T.; Ahmed, K. & Jabran, M. A., 2016. How urbanization affects CO2 emissions in Malaysia? The application of STIRPAT model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 57: 83-93.
Shahinifar, M. & Habibi, S., 2016. Application of Ecological Footprint Method in Regional Geographic Assessment (Case Study: Kermanshah County), Environmental Design, 9 (32): 41-62. (in Persian)
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological indicators, 9(2), 189-212.
Teixidó-Figueras, J., & Duro, J. A., 2015. International ecological footprint inequality: a methodological review and some results. Environmental and Economics, 60(4), 607-631.
Uddin, G. A.; Salahuddin, M.; Alam, K. & Gow, J., 2017. Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators. 77: 166–175.
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E., 1997. Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological economics, 20(1), 3-24.
Wackernagel, M., 1994. Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: a Tool for Planning toward Sustainability. a Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philophy. University of British Colombia.
Wackernagel, M.; Monfreda, C.; Erb, K.H.; Haberl, H. & Schulz, N.B., 2004. Ecological footprint time series of Austria, the Philippines, and South Korea for 1961–1999: comparing the conventional approach to an ‘actual land area’ approach. Land Use Policy. 21:261–9.
WDI (World Development Indicators), 2017. Retrieved January 4, 2017.
Wilson, J. & Anielski, M., 2005. Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions, the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Anielski Management Inc.
نشریه محیط زیست طبیعی
دوره 73، شماره 1
فروردین 1399
صفحه 77-90