اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی

با همکاری انجمن اقتصاد کشاورزی ایران

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

پیوندهای مفید

چک لیست ارسال مقاله

دستورالعمل ارسال مقاله

فایل‌های راهنما

ارسال مقاله

راهنمای داوران

اسامی داوران

بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر عدم سرمایه‌گذاری طبیعی: رویکرد رگرسیون داده‌های پانل

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی به زبان انگلیسی

نویسندگان

1 گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده مهندسی زراعی و توسعه روستایی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان، ملاثانی، ایران

2 گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

این مطالعه به بررسی همبستگی بین رشد اقتصادی و تأثیر آن بر محیط‌زیست، به‌ویژه با تمرکز بر مفهوم پایداری محیطی پرداخت. در این راستا، داده‌های پس‌انداز خالص تعدیل‌شده بانک جهانی (ANS) برای سنجش فشار بر محیط‌زیست، به‌ویژه از طریق اندازه‌گیری عدم سرمایه‌گذاری طبیعی، استفاده شد. این اندازه‌گیری اثرات تجمعی خسارت دی اکسید کربن (CO2) و همچنین کاهش مواد معدنی، انرژی و منابع جنگلی را در بر می‌گیرد. با توجه به درون‌زایی متغیرهای توضیحی برای برآورد اثر واقعی درآمد سرانه و سایر متغیرها بر میزان فشار بر محیط‌زیست از داده‌های پانل استفاده شد. در این مطالعه، از روش پانل متغیر ابزاری (IV) با اثرات ثابت و از داده‌های 213 کشور در دوره زمانی 1990 تا 2018 بهره گرفته شد. نتایج تحلیل رگرسیون نشان داد که بین درآمد و تأثیر بر محیط‌زیست در کشورهای در حال توسعه همبستگی مستقیم وجود دارد. با این حال، این رابطه به طور قابل توجهی در کشورهای کم درآمد در مقایسه با کشورهای با درآمد بالا مشهودتر است. علاوه بر این، این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که گسترش تجارت به افزایش فشار زیست‌محیطی در تمام گروه‌های کشورها مساعدت می‌نماید. افزایش نرخ ثبت نام مدارس می‌تواند بر محیط‌زیست کشورهای توسعه یافته و در حال توسعه با درآمد بالا تأثیر بگذارد. همچنین اثر متغیر باز بودن سرمایه بر فشار محیطی برای کشورهای توسعه یافته و پردرآمد مثبت برآورد شد. البته این اثر برای کشورهای کم‌درآمد منفی بود. در نهایت، نتایج نشان داد که کشورهای در حال توسعه می‌بایستی ساختار حقوقی خود را بهبود بخشند و همچنین بوروکراسی و پیچیدگی قوانین را کاهش دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating the Factors Affecting Natural Disinvestment: A Panel Data Regression Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abbas Mirzaei 1
  • Hassan Azarm 2

1 Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture Engineering and Rural Development, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran

2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

چکیده [English]

This study examined the correlation between economic growth and the impact on the environment, specifically focusing on the concept of environmental sustainability. The World Bank's Adjusted Net Savings (ANS) data is utilized in this study to gauge the strain on the environment, specifically through the measurement of natural disinvestment. This measurement encompasses the cumulative effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) damage, as well as depletions in minerals, energy, and forest resources. This study uses panel data with respect to the endogeneity of explanatory variables to estimate the real effect of per capita income and the other variables on environmental pressure. In this regard, employing the panel Fixed-Effects Instrumental Variable (IV) methodology, the data from 213 countries have been used in the period from 1990 to 2018. Through regression analysis, it has been discovered that there is a direct correlation between income and the impact on the environment in developing nations. However, this relationship is notably more pronounced in low-income countries compared to high-income countries. Additionally, the study reveals that trade expansion contributes to an increase in environmental pressure across all groups of countries. An increase in the school enrolment rate can affect the environment in developed and high-income developing countries. Moreover, the variable effect of capital openness on environmental pressure was estimated to be positive for developed and high-income countries. However, this effect was found to be negative for low-income countries. Finally, the result showed that developing countries should improve their legal structure and also reduce the bureaucracy and complexity of the laws.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Developing country
  • Economic growth
  • Environmental sustainability
  • Instrumental variables
  • Panel data

©2023 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

مراجع
  1. Adams, S., & Nsiah, C. (2019). Reducing carbon dioxide emissions; does renewable energy matter?. Science of the Total Environment, 693, 133288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2023. 100491
  2. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: An advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy, 69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817
  3. Alam, S. (2010). Globalization, poverty and environmental degradation: sustainable development in Pakistan. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(3), 103–114.
  4. Ali, S., Yusop, Z., Kaliappan, S.R., & Chin, L. (2020). Dynamic common correlated effects of trade openness, FDI, and institutional performance on environmental quality: evidence from OIC countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(11), 11671-11682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07768-7
  5. Al-Mulali, U., & Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
  6. Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., & Ozturk, L. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 76, 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.019
  7. Al-Mulali, U., Solarin, S.A., Sheau-Ting, L., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Does moving towards renewable energy cause water and land inefficiency? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 93, 303-314.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.023
  8. Aşıcı, A.A. (2012). Economic growth and its impact on environment: A panel data analysis. Ecological indicators, 24, 324-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.019
  9. Aşıcı, A.A., & Acar, S. (2018). How does environmental regulation affect production location of non-carbon ecological footprint?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 927-936.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.030
  10. Balezentis, T., Li, T., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, A. (2016). Is the Lithuanian economy approaching the goals of sustainable energy and climate change mitigation? Evidence from DEA-based environmental performance index. Journal of Cleaner Production, 116, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.088
  11. Baltagi, B.H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data. 3rd edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5
  12. Barbier, E.B. (2010). A global green new deal: Rethinking the economic recovery. Cambridge University Press. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/7727
  13. Bohringer, C., & Jochem, P.E.P. (2007). Measuring the immeasurable – a survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Economics, 63, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.008
  14. Boulatoff, C., & Jenkins, M. (2010). Long-term nexus between openness, income and environmental quality. Internaqtional Advences Economics Research, 16 (4), 410-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-010-9283-y
  15. Boulding, K.E. (1966). The economics of the coming Spaceship Earth. In: Jarrett, H. (Ed.), Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, Johns Hopkins University Press, and Baltimore, MD.
  16. Cameron, A.C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. Published by Stata Press, Likeway Drive, College Station, Texas.
  17. Charfeddine, L. (2017). The impact of energy consumption and economic development on ecological footprint and CO2 emissions: evidence from a Markov switching equilibrium correction model. Energy Economics, 65, 355-374.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.05.009
  18. Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 76, 138-154.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.031
  19. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of international money and Finance, 20(2), 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
  20. Chou, L.C., Zhang, W.H., Wang, M.Y., & Yang, F.M. (2020). The influence of democracy on emissions and energy efficiency in America: New evidence from quantile regression analysis. Energy & Environment, 31(8), 1318–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X19882382
  21. Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 412–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109485
  22. Costantini, V., & Monni, S. (2007). Environment, human development and economic growth. Ecological Economics, 64 (4), 867–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.011
  23. Daly, H.E. (1993). The perils of free trade. Scientific American, 269 (5), 24–29.
  24. Destek, M.A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118537.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537
  25. Din, S.U., Khan, M.Y., Khan, M.J., & Nilofar, M. (2021). Nexus between sustainable developments, adjusted net saving, economic growth, and financial development in South Asian emerging economies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-14.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00818-6
  26. Ehrhardt-Martinez, K., Crenshaw, E.M., & Jenkins, J.C. (2002). Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: A cross-national investigation of intervening mechanisms. Social Science Quarterly, 83 (1), 226–243. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42956283
  27. EIA, (2018). Energy information administration. International Energy Outlook. US Department of Energy. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/international/overview/country/IDN. (Retrieved 14 January 2021).
  28. Esty, D.C. (2001). Bridging the trade-environment divide. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 113-130. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696559
  29. Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). The ecological footprint atlas. Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
  30. Fakher, H.A., Ahmed, Z., Acheampong, A.O., & Nathaniel, S.P. (2023). Renewable energy, nonrenewable energy, and environmental quality nexus: An investigation of the N-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve based on six environmental indicators. Energy, 263, 125660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125660
  31. Ganda, F. (2019a). Carbon emissions, diverse energy usage and economic growth in South Africa: Investigating existence of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 38(1), 30-46.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13049
  32. Ganda, F. (2019b). The environmental impacts of financial development in OECD countries: a panel GMM approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(7), 6758-6772.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04143-z
  33. Gnègnè, Y. (2009). Adjusted net saving and welfare change. Ecological Economics, 68 (4), 1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.002
  34. Greene, W.H. (2008). Econometric Analysis. 6th ed, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  35. Herwartz, H., & Walle, Y.M. (2014). Determinants of the link between financial and economic development: Evidence from a functional coefficient model. Economic Modelling, 37, 417-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.11.029
  36. Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
  37. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Earthscan Publications Ltd.; 1st edition.
  38. Jahanger, A., Usman, M., & Balsalobre‐Lorente, D. (2022). Autocracy, democracy, globalization, and environmental pollution in developing world: fresh evidence from STIRPAT model. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(4), e2753. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2753
  39. Khan, I., Hou, F., Le, H.P., & Ali, S.A. (2021). Do natural resources, urbanization, and value-adding manufacturing affect environmental quality? Evidence from the top ten manufacturing countries. Resources Policy, 72, 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102109
  40. Knight, K.W., & Rosa, E.A. (2011). The environmental efficiency of well-being: A cross-national analysis. Social Science Research, 40(3), 931-949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch. 2010.11.002
  41. Larissa, B., Maran, R.M., Ioan, B., Anca, N., Mircea-Iosif, R., Horia, T., Gheorghe, F., Ema Speranta, M. & Dan, M.I. (2020). Adjusted Net Savings of CEE and Baltic Nations in the Context of Sustainable Economic Growth: A Panel Data Analysis. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(10), 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13100234
  42. Levin, A., Lin, C.F., & Chu, C.S.J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
  43. Maddala, G.S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631-652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
  44. Marin, G., & Mazzanti, M. (2009). The dynamics of delinking in industrial emissions: The role of productivity, trade and R&D. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 3, 91–117.
  45. Marquart-Pyatt, S.T. (2010). Environmental sustainability: A closer look at factors influencing national ecological footprints. International Journal of Sociology, 40(2), 65-84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20788546
  46. Mazzanti, M., & Zoboli, R. (2009). Municipal waste Kuznets curves: Evidence on socio-economic drivers and policy effectiveness from the EU. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(2), 203-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9280-x
  47. Merko, F., Xhakolli, E., Themelko, H., & Merko, F. (2019). The importance of calculating green GDP in economic growth of a country-case study Albania. International Journal of Ecosystems & Ecology Sciences, 9(3), 469-474. https://doi.org/10.31407/ijees9308
  48. Muhammad, S., & Long, X. (2021). Rule of law and CO2 emissions: a comparative analysis across 65 belt and road initiative (BRI) countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123539
  49. Muradian, R., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2001). Trade and the environment: from a ‘Southern’ perspective. Ecological Economics, 36 (2), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00229-9
  50. Nathaniel, S., & Khan, S.A.R. (2020). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, 122709.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122709
  51. Özokcu, S., & Özdemir, Ö. (2017). Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 639-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2017.01.059
  52. Pao, H.T., & Tsai, C.M. (2011). Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy, 36(1), 685-693.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.041
  53. Pardi, F., Md.Salleh, A., & Nawi, A.S. (2015). A conceptual framework on adjusted net saving rate as the indicator for measuring sustainable development in Malaysia. Journal of Technology Management and Business, 2 (2), 1-10.
  54. Park, H. M. (2011). Practical guides to panel data modeling: A step by step analysis using stata, International University of Japan, Public Management & Policy Analysis Program.
  55. Pierse, R.G., & Shell, A.J. (1995). Temporal aggregation and the power of tests for unit root. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 335– 345. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(93)01589-E
  56. Poltarykhin, A.L., Alekseev, A.E., Kudryavtsev, V.V., Makhanova, T.A., Voronkova, O.Y., & Aydinov, H.T. (2018). Prospects for the development of the green economy of russian federation. European Research Studies, 21(4), 470-479.‏
  57. Roeland, A., & de Soysa, I. (2021). Does Egalitarian Democracy Boost Environmental Sustainability? An Empirical Test, 1970–2017. Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(2), 163.‏
  58. Sanchez, E.Y., Represa, S., Mellado, D., Balbi, K.B., Acquesta, A.D., Colman Lerner, J.E., & Porta, A.A. (2018). Risk analysis of technological hazards: Simulation of scenarios and application of a local vulnerability index. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 352, 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.03.034
  59. Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal of Cleanear Production, 18(6), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014
  60. Siche, J.R., Agostinho, F., Ortega, E., & Romeiro, A. (2008). Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecological Economics, 66(4), 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2007.10.023
  61. Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K., & Dikshit, A.K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15, 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2011.01.007
  62. Slesnick, D.T. (2020). GDP and social welfare: an assessment using regional data. Measuring Economic Growth and Productivity, Foundations, KLEMS Production Models, and Extensions, 481-508.
  63. Steininger, K. (1994). Reconciling trade and environment: towards a comparative advantage for long-term policy goals. Ecological Economics, 9(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)90014-0
  64. Tisdell, C. (2001). Globalisation and sustainability: Environmental Kuznets curve and the WTO. Ecological Economics, 39(2), 185-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00234-8
  65. Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
  66. (2000). Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting – An Operational Manual. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  67. Venevsky, S., Chenxi, L.U., Xiaoliang, S.H.I., Lingyu, W.A.N.G., Wright, J.S., & Chao, W. U. (2020). Econometrics of the environmental Kuznets curve: testing advancement to carbon intensity-oriented sustainability for eight economic zones in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124561
  68. Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X., & Xiao, Y. (2013). Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: A spatial econometric approach. Ecological Indicators, 34, 15-21.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.021
  69. Weinzettel, J., Steen, K.G., Hertwich, E., Borucke, M., & Galli, A. (2014). Ecological footprint of nations: Comparison of process analysis, and standard and hybrid multiregional input–output analysis. Ecological Economics, 101, 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.020
  70. World Bank. (2020). The World Development Indicators online database. Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development indicators&preview=on#
  71. World Economic Forum. (2001). Environmental Sustainability Index, The World Economic Forum Retrieved from http://www.ciesin org/indicators/ESI/index.html.
  72. Yang, X., Lou, F., Sun, M., Wang, R., & Wang, Y. (2017). Study of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the economic growth of Russia based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Applied Energy, 193, 162-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.02.034
  73. York, R., Rosa, E.A., & Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00188-5
  74. Zafar, M.W., Shahbaz, M., Sinha, A., Sengupta, T., & Qin, Q. (2020). How renewable energy consumption contribute to environmental quality? The role of education in OECD countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122149
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image
اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی
دوره 37، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 61
دی 1402
صفحه 379-396
فایل ها
سابقه مقاله
  • تاریخ دریافت: 09 اردیبهشت 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 14 آذر 1402
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 27 آذر 1402
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 27 آذر 1402
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار