تاثیر شاخص‌های اکولوژیکی بر رشد اقتصادی در ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

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

2 استادیار اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده مهندسی زراعی و عمران روستایی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان، ملاثانی، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکترای اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

با توجه به اهمیت شاخص‌های اکولوژیکی در ارزیابی مخاطرات محیط‌زیست، در این مطالعه به بررسی شاخص ردپای اکولوژیکی و ظرفیت زیستی بر رشد اقتصادی ایران در چارچوب تابع تولید پرداخته شد. پس از ارزیابی نتایج مانایی متغیرها، با استفاده از رهیافت مدل خودتوضیحی با وقفه‌های گسترده (ARDL) به بررسی روابط بلندمدت و کوتاه‌‌‌مدت بین متغیرها پرداخته شد. نتایج آزمون علیت نشان داد که متغیرهای سرمایه‌، اشتغال، مصرف انرژی، ردپای اکولوژیکی و ظرفیت زیستی، رابطه‌ی علی معناداری با معیار رشد اقتصادی دارند. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن است که شاخص ردپای اکولوژیکی با وجود اثرگذاری منفی بر رشد اقتصادی، فاقد معنی‌داری آماری بود. در مقابل، میزان سرمایه، مصرف انرژی و ارتقای ظرفیت زیستی، مطابق انتظار، تاثیری مثبت و معنادار بر رشد اقتصادی بر جا می‌گذارند. بنابراین، پیشنهاد می‌شود در تدوین سیاست‌های تولیدی و تجاری کشور به نحوی اقدام شود که ضمن حفظ هرچه بیشتر ظرفیت زیستی، با محدود نمودن واردات کالاهایی که توان زیستی داخلی را از بین می‌‌برند، به تقویت هرچه بیشتر توان زیستی کمک نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effect of Ecological Footprint Indicators on Economic Growth in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Abaa Abdeshahi 1
  • Abbas Mirzaei 2
  • Navid Kargar Dehbidi 3
1 Assoc. Profe. of Agricultural Economics, College of Agricultural Engineering and Rural Development, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran
2 Assist. Profe. of Agricultural Economics, College of Agricultural Engineering and Rural Development, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran
3 Economic growth, Ecological footprint, Biological capacity, Iran, ARDL
چکیده [English]

Due to the importance of ecological indicators in assessing environmental hazards, in this study, the ecological footprint index and biological capacity on Iran's economic growth in the framework of production function were investigated. Based on the results of variables stationary, the long and short run relationships between variables were investigated by applying Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) approach. The results of causality tests indicate that there is a significant causal relationship from capital, labor force, energy consumption, ecological footprint and biological capacity variables to economic growth. The results also shoe that the ecological footprint index, despite the negative impact on economic growth, was not statistically significant. The empirical results also indicate that capital, energy consumption, and biological capacity have a significant and positive effect on economic growth in long run. Therefore, it is suggested that the country's production and trade policies be formulated in such a way that while preserving the biological capacity as much as possible, by limiting the import of goods that destroy domestic biological capacity, help to strengthen the biological capacity as much as possible.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Economic Growth
  • Ecological Footprint
  • Biological Capacity
  • Iran
  • ARDL
Adams, S.; Klobodu, E. K. M. & Apio, A. 2018. Renewable and non-renewable energy, regime type and economic growth. Renewable Energy, 125, 755-767.
Ahmad, N.; Du, L.; Lu, J.; Wang, J.; Li, H. Z. & Hashmi, M. Z. 2017. Modelling the CO2 emissions and economic growth in Croatia: is there any environmental Kuznets curve?. Energy, 123, 164-172.
Apergis, N. & Payne, J. E. 2010. Energy consumption and growth in South America: Evidence from a panel error correction model. Energy economics, 32(6), 1421-1426.
Appiah, M. O. 2018. Investigating the multivariate Granger causality between energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Ghana. Energy Policy, 112, 198-208.
Aydin, M. & Turan, Y. E. 2020. The influence of financial openness, trade openness, and energy intensity on ecological footprint: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(34), 43233-43245.
Aydin, M. 2019. Renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption-economic growth nexus: Evidence from OECD countries. Renew. Energy. 136, 599–606.
Bageri, M. 2010. Investigate the relations Short-term and long-term between GDP, energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in Iran. Energy Economics Studies, 27(7). 101-129. (in persian).
Baltagi, B. 2008. Econometric analysis of panel data (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.             
Cárdenas Rodríguez, M.; Haščič, I. & Souchier, M. 2018. Environmentally adjusted multifactor productivity: Methodology and empirical results for OECD and G20 countries. Ecological economics, 153(C), 147-160.
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.
Chow, G. C. & Li, J. 2014. Environmental Kuznets curve: conclusive econometric evidence for CO2. Pacific Economic Review, 19(1), 1-7.
Churchill, S. A.; Inekwe, J.; Ivanovski, K. & Smyth, R. 2020. The environmental Kuznets curve across Australian states and territories. Energy Economics, 90, 104869.
Cornelia, P.G. 2014. True cost economics: ecological footprint. Procedia Economics and Finance, 8, 550–555.
Destek, M. A. & Aslan, A. 2017. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in emerging economies: Evidence from bootstrap panel causality. Renewable Energy. 111(Supplement C), 757–763.
Ellabban, O.; Abu-Rub, H. & Blaabjerg, F. 2014. Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 39, 748–764.
Esfahani, H. S. & Ramı́rez, M. T. 2003. Institutions, infrastructure, and economic growth. Journal of development Economics, 70(2), 443-477.
Global Footprint Network. 2020. Retrieved January 11, 2020, from  https://www.footprintnetwork.org/.
Halicioglu, F. 2009. An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37, 1156-1164.
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).
Knowles, S. & Owen, P. D. 1995. Health capital and cross-country variation in income per capita in the Mankiw-Romer-Weil model. Economics letters, 48 (1), 99-106.
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: 2016. Edition. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
Matei, I. 2017. Is there a Link between Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth? A Dynamic Panel Investigation for the OECD Countries. REP, 127 (6), 986-1012
Mikayilov, J.I.; Mukhtarov, S.; Mammadov, J. & Azizov, M. 2019. Reevaluating the environmental impacts of tourism: does EKC exist? Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:19389–19402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05269-w.
Mogadasi, R. & Ziaee, Z. 2011. Investigate the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and GDP based on panel data. Economics and agricultural development, 4(25). 480-487. (in persian).
Moradgholi, F.; Zamanian, G. & Hatefi Madjumerd, M. 2020. The impact of energy consumption, financial development on economic growth, based on nonlinear and asymmetric approach, Fiscal and Economic Policies. 8(29): 7-53. (in Persian).
Muhammad, B. & Khan, S. 2019. Effect of bilateral FDI, energy consumption, CO2 emission and capital on economic growth of Asia countries. Energy Reports, 5, 1305-1315.
Narayan, S. & Doytch, N. 2017. An investigation of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth nexus using industrial and residential energy consumption. Energy Econ. 68, 160–176.
Nofresti, M. 1999. The unit root and integration in econometrics, Rasa Cultural Services Institute, First edition, Tehran. (in persian).
Oosthoek, J. & Gills, B. K. 2005. Humanity at the crossroads: The globalization of environmental crisis. Globalizations, 2(3): 283-291.
Ozturk, I. & Acaravci, A. 2010. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 3220-3225.
Pesaran, H.M. & pesaran. B. 1997. Working with Microfit 4.0: An Introduction to Econometrics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pesaran, H.M. & Shin, Y. 1998. An Autoregressive Distributed lag Modeling Approach to Cointegration Analysis, In (Ed) S. Storm. The Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century, Chapter II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
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.
Rahman, M.M. & Velayutham, E. 2020. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus: New evidence from South Asia. Renewable Energy. 147, 399-408.
Saboori, B.; Sulaiman, J. & Mohd, S. 2012. Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy policy, 51, 184-191.
Sadeghi, H. & Islami, M. 2011. Economic growth and environmental pollution in Kyoto Protocol countries. Energy Studies, 8(30), 1-32. (in persian).
Sadorsky, P. 2009. Renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and oil prices in the G7 countries. Energy Economics. 31(3), 456–462.
Satti, S. L.; Hassan, M. S.; Mahmood, H. & Shahbaz, M. 2014. Coal consumption: An alternate energy resource to fuel economic growth in Pakistan. Economic Modelling, 36, 282-287.
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.
Shahbaz, M.; Sarwar, S.; Chen, W. & Malik, M. N. 2017. Dynamics of electricity consumption, oil price and economic growth: Global perspective. Energy Policy, 108, 256-270.
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).
Sharzehi, G. & Haghani, M. 2009. Causality between CO2 emission and national income with Emphasis on energy consumption. Economic Research, 44(87), 75-90. (in persian).
Siddiki, J. U. 2000. Demand for money in Bangladesh: a cointegration analysis. Applied Economics, 32 (15): 1977-1984.
Sinha, A. & Shahbaz, M. 2018. Estimation of environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emission: role of renewable energy generation in India. Renewable energy, 119, 703-711.
Stern, D. I. & Cleveland, C. J. 2004. Energy and economic growth. Encyclopedia of energy, 2, 35-51.
Stern, D. I. 2000. A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macro economy. Energy Economics, 22, 267-283.
Tang, C.F.; Tan, B.W. & Ozturk, I. 2016. Energy consumption and economic growth in Vietnam. 566 Ren and Sust Ener Rev. 54, 1506-14.
Tugcu, C.T.; Ozturk, I. & Aslan, A. 2012. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth relationship revisited: Evidence from G7 countries. Energy Econ. 34, 1942–1950.
Tuna, G. & Tuna, V.E. 2019. The asymmetric causal relationship between renewable and NON-RENEWABLE energy consumption and economic growth in the ASEAN-5 countries. Resources Policy. 62, 114–124.
Ucan, O.; Aricioglu, E. & Yucel, F. 2014. Energy Consumption and Economic Growth Nexus: Evidence from Developed Countries in Europe. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. 3, 411-419.
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.
Uddin, G.A; Alam, K. & Gow, J. 2019. Ecological and economic growth interdependency in the asian economies: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(13):13159–13172. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/ s11356-019-04791-1.
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, pp.144-157.
Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W. 1998. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). Canada: New Society Publishers.
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, 261-269.
Wilson, J. & Anielski, M. 2005. Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions, the Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Anielski Management Inc, from: www.anielski.com.
World Development Indicators. 2020. Retrieved January 7, 2020, from http://www.worldbank.org/.
Yang, J.; Zhang, T.; Sheng, P. & Shackman, J. D. 2016. Carbon dioxide emissions and interregional economic convergence in China. Economic Modelling, 52, 672-680.