عوامل موثر بر میزان مصرف منابع اکولوژیک در ایران با رویکرد اقتصادی
محورهای موضوعی :
اقتصاد محیط زیست
مرتضی مولایی
1
(دانشیار، گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.*(مسوول مکاتبات))
احسان بشارت
2
(کارشناس ارشد، گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.)
مهرداد محمدی
3
(کارشناس ارشد، گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران.)
تاریخ دریافت : 1395/10/18
تاریخ پذیرش : 1398/05/02
تاریخ انتشار : 1399/08/01
کلید واژه:
پناهگاه آلودگی,
کوزنتس زیست‌محیطی,
مدل ARDL,
ردپای اکولوژیک,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: ارتباط بین توسعه و محیط‌زیست از مباحث عمده در محافل مختلف است. هدف از این مطالعه بررسی عوامل موثر بر ردپای اکولوژیکی و آزمون فرضیه پناهگاه آلودگی و فرضیه زیست‌محیطی کوزنتس می‌باشد.
روش بررسی: در این مطالعه، بعد از معرفی شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک به عنوان شاخص تخریب منابع طبیعی، عوامل موثر بر آن طی دوره 2011-1965 و در قالب تخمین مدل تخریب منابع‌طبیعی، با روش اقتصادسنجی خودرگرسیون با وقفه های توزیعی (ARDL) بررسی شده و همچنین فرضیه‌های منحنی زیست‌محیطی کوزنتس و پناهگاه آلودگی برای ایران آزمون شده است. در این تحقیق، از متغیرهای تولید ناخالص داخلی، شاخص تجارت آزاد، شهرنشینی، شاخص توسعه انسانی، شاخص توسعه بازارهای مالی به عنوان عوامل موثر بر ردپای اکولوژیک استفاده شده‌است.
یافته‌ها: مطابق نتایج بدست آمده درآمد سرانه، آزادسازی تجارت، توسعه بازارهای مالی و شهرنشینی هم در کوتاه‌مدت و هم در بلندمدت تاثیر مثبت و معنی‌دار و شاخص توسعه انسانی تاثیر منفی و معنی‌دار بر ردپای اکولوژیک سرانه دارند. همچنین نتایج یاد شده فرضیه پناهگاه آلودگی را نیز تأیید می‌کند؛ ولی فرضیه منحنی زیست‌محیطی کوزنتس تأیید نمی‌شود و رابطه بین درآمد و ردپای اکولوژیکی به شکل N می‌باشد. مقدار ضریب تصحیح خطای بدست آمده 99/0- است که نشان می‌دهد در هر دوره 99 درصد از عدم تعادل در ردپای اکولوژیک تعدیل شده و به سمت روند بلند مدت خود نزدیک می‌شود که نشان از سرعت تعدیل بسیار بالایی است.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: براساس نتایج این مطالعه رشد اقتصادی در ایران باعث تخریب بیشتر منابع طبیعی می‌شود. بنابراین، بایستی دولت‌ها به برنامه‌های توسعه توجه ویژه‌ای داشته باشند تا در راستای توسعه پایدار باشد.
چکیده انگلیسی:
Background and Objective: The objective of this study is the investigation of factors affecting Ecological Footprint and testing Pollution Haven and Environmental Kuznets’ Curve hypotheses.
Method: In this study, after introducing ecological footprint as an indicator of natural resources degradation, factors affecting it is investigated in the form of natural resources degradation model for the period 1965-2011 using Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model; and Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and Pollution Haven hypotheses were tested. In this study, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), free trade index, urbanization, human development index, development of financial markets index were used as factors affecting the ecological footprint.
Findings: Results show that per capita GDP, free trade, development of financial markets and urbanization have positive and significant impacts in long and short term periods, but human development has negative and significant impact on ecological footprint. These results confirmed Pollution Haven hypothesis; but the EKC hypothesis is not confirmed and the relationship between income and ecological footprint is in the form of N. The coefficient of Error Correction is negative and significant which represent the long run equilibrium. The coefficient is -0.99 meaning that ecological footprint corrects its previous period disequilibrium at a speed of 99% annually to reach at the steady state.
Discussion and Conclusion: According to the results of this study, economic growth in Iran leads to more natural resources degradation. Therefore, governments should pay special attention to development programs in order to be sustainable.
منابع و مأخذ:
Reference
List, J. A., Gallet, C., 1999. The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Does One Size Fit All?. Ecological Economics, Vol. 31, PP.409–23.
Begun, J., Eicher, T. S., 2008. In search of an environmental Kuznets curve in sulphur dioxide concentrations: A Bayesian model averaging approach. Environment and Development Economics, Vol.13, Issue 6, PP. 795-822.
Egli, H., 2007. A Dynamic Model of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning Point and Public Policy. Environment & Resource Economics, Vol. 36, PP. 15-34.
Iwata, H., Okada, K., Samreth, S., 2010. Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: The role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, Vol.38, Issue 8, PP. 4057-4063
Mills Busa, J., 2013. Deforestation beyond borders: Addressing the disparity between production and consumption of global resources. Conservation Letters, Vol. 6, Issue 3, PP. 192-199.
Paudel, K. P., Zapata H., Susanto, D., 2005. An empirical test of Environmental Kuznets Curve for water pollution. Environment and Resource Economics, Vol. 31, Issue 3, PP. 325-348.
Mills, J. H., Waite, T. A., 2009. Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, Issue 7, PP. 2087-2095.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D., 2004. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land use policy, Vol. 21, Issue 3, PP. 231-246.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J., Wackernagel, M., 2006. Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input-output analysis. Ecological Economics, Vol. 56, Issue 1, PP. 28-48.
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Callejas, A. L., Falfan, I. S. L., Mendez, J. G., Guerrero, A.I.S., 1997. Ecological footprints of nations. How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? In: International Council for Local Environment Initiatives, Toronto, Commissioned by the Earth Council for the RIO +5 forum.
Boutaud, A., Gondran, N., Brodhag, C. 2007. Local environmental quality versus global ecological carrying capacity: what might alternative aggregated indicators bring to the debates about environmental Kuznets curves and sustainable development?. International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, Issue 3, PP. 297-310.
Bagliani, M., Bravo, G., Dalmazzone, S. 2008. A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecological Economics, Vol. 65, Issue 3, PP. 650-661.
Caviglia-Harris, J. L., Chambers, D., Kahn, J.R., 2009. Taking the “U” out of Kuznets. A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, Issue 4, PP.1149-1159.
Hervieux, M. S., Darné, O., 2016. Production and consumption-based approaches for the environmental Kuznets curve using ecological footprint. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 5, Issue 3, PP. 318-334.
Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., 2016. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 23, Issue 2, PP. 1916-1928.
Teymoori I., Salarvandian, F., Ziarii, K. The Ecological Foot Print of Carbon Dioxide for Fossil Fuels in the Shiraz. Geographical Research Quarterly Journal, 2014; 29(1):193–204. (In Persian)
Samadpour P, Faryadi Sh. Determination of Ecological Footprints of Dense and High-Rise Districts, Case Study of Elahie Neighborhood, Tehran. Journal of Environmental Studies, 2008; 34(45): 63–72. (In Persian)
Ghaeimi Rad T, Hataminezhad H. Assessing the Ecological Footprint of Lahijan Transport. Quarterly Journal of Geography (Regional Planning), 2018; 30(1): 69–80. (In Persian)
Fotros M.H., Maboodi R. Air Pollution, Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in Iran. Journal of Iran Energy Economics, 2011;1(1):189–211. (In Persian)
Molaei M., Besharat E. Investigating relationship between Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint as an Environmental Degradation Index. Journal of Economic Research, 2016; 50(4): 1017–33. (In Persian)
Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., Smith, R.J., 2001. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3): 289-326.
_||_
Reference
List, J. A., Gallet, C., 1999. The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Does One Size Fit All?. Ecological Economics, Vol. 31, PP.409–23.
Begun, J., Eicher, T. S., 2008. In search of an environmental Kuznets curve in sulphur dioxide concentrations: A Bayesian model averaging approach. Environment and Development Economics, Vol.13, Issue 6, PP. 795-822.
Egli, H., 2007. A Dynamic Model of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning Point and Public Policy. Environment & Resource Economics, Vol. 36, PP. 15-34.
Iwata, H., Okada, K., Samreth, S., 2010. Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: The role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, Vol.38, Issue 8, PP. 4057-4063
Mills Busa, J., 2013. Deforestation beyond borders: Addressing the disparity between production and consumption of global resources. Conservation Letters, Vol. 6, Issue 3, PP. 192-199.
Paudel, K. P., Zapata H., Susanto, D., 2005. An empirical test of Environmental Kuznets Curve for water pollution. Environment and Resource Economics, Vol. 31, Issue 3, PP. 325-348.
Mills, J. H., Waite, T. A., 2009. Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, Issue 7, PP. 2087-2095.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., Deumling, D., 2004. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land use policy, Vol. 21, Issue 3, PP. 231-246.
Wiedmann, T., Minx, J., Barrett, J., Wackernagel, M., 2006. Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input-output analysis. Ecological Economics, Vol. 56, Issue 1, PP. 28-48.
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Callejas, A. L., Falfan, I. S. L., Mendez, J. G., Guerrero, A.I.S., 1997. Ecological footprints of nations. How much nature do they use? How much nature do they have? In: International Council for Local Environment Initiatives, Toronto, Commissioned by the Earth Council for the RIO +5 forum.
Boutaud, A., Gondran, N., Brodhag, C. 2007. Local environmental quality versus global ecological carrying capacity: what might alternative aggregated indicators bring to the debates about environmental Kuznets curves and sustainable development?. International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, Issue 3, PP. 297-310.
Bagliani, M., Bravo, G., Dalmazzone, S. 2008. A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecological Economics, Vol. 65, Issue 3, PP. 650-661.
Caviglia-Harris, J. L., Chambers, D., Kahn, J.R., 2009. Taking the “U” out of Kuznets. A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, Issue 4, PP.1149-1159.
Hervieux, M. S., Darné, O., 2016. Production and consumption-based approaches for the environmental Kuznets curve using ecological footprint. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Vol. 5, Issue 3, PP. 318-334.
Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., 2016. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 23, Issue 2, PP. 1916-1928.
Teymoori I., Salarvandian, F., Ziarii, K. The Ecological Foot Print of Carbon Dioxide for Fossil Fuels in the Shiraz. Geographical Research Quarterly Journal, 2014; 29(1):193–204. (In Persian)
Samadpour P, Faryadi Sh. Determination of Ecological Footprints of Dense and High-Rise Districts, Case Study of Elahie Neighborhood, Tehran. Journal of Environmental Studies, 2008; 34(45): 63–72. (In Persian)
Ghaeimi Rad T, Hataminezhad H. Assessing the Ecological Footprint of Lahijan Transport. Quarterly Journal of Geography (Regional Planning), 2018; 30(1): 69–80. (In Persian)
Fotros M.H., Maboodi R. Air Pollution, Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in Iran. Journal of Iran Energy Economics, 2011;1(1):189–211. (In Persian)
Molaei M., Besharat E. Investigating relationship between Gross Domestic Product and Ecological Footprint as an Environmental Degradation Index. Journal of Economic Research, 2016; 50(4): 1017–33. (In Persian)
Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., Smith, R.J., 2001. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3): 289-326.
