بررسی تاثیر شاخص توسعه انسانی بر کیفیت محیط‌زیست در کشورهای نفتی و غیرنفتی خاورمیانه

بی نیاز, ارسلان; کلهری, صابر; آزرم, حسن

doi:10.22034/eiap.2025.217504

بررسی تاثیر شاخص توسعه انسانی بر کیفیت محیط‌زیست در کشورهای نفتی و غیرنفتی خاورمیانه

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

ارسلان بی نیاز ¹

صابر کلهری ²

حسن آزرم ³

¹ استادیار، گروه اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

² کارشناس مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان اصفهان، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، اصفهان، ایران

³ دکتری اقتصاد کشاورزی، بخش اقتصاد کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

10.22034/eiap.2025.217504

چکیده

شاخص توسعه انسانی به عنوان معیار سنجش سطوح توسعه اقتصادی و اجتماعی بر تخریب و میزان فشار وارده بر محیط‌زیست موثر است. با این حال، تاکنون شمار اندکی از پژوهش‌ها بر رابطه بین توسعه انسانی و کیفیت محیط‌زیست از دریچه منحنی سنتی کوزنتس محیط‌زیستی تمرکز داشته‌اند. در این راستا، هدف از تحقیق حاضر ارزیابی تاثیر شاخص توسعه انسانی همراه با سایر متغیرهای توضیحی شامل تجارت، مصرف انرژی و شهرنشینی بر شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک در کشورهای نفتی و غیرنفتی خاورمیانه است. در این پژوهش از داده‌های ترکیبی موجود در پایگاه‌های داده بانک جهانی، برنامه توسعه سازمان ملل متحد و شبکه جهانی ردپا برای 8 کشور نفتی (بحرین، ایران، عراق، کویت، عمان، قطر، عربستان سعودی و امارات متحده عربی) و 5 کشور غیرنفتی (مصر، اردن، لبنان، سوریه و ترکیه) در منطقه خاورمیانه در دوره زمانی 2000 الی 2019 استفاده شد. همچنین، برای برآورد رگرسیون از روش GMM تفاضلی دومرحله‌ای بهره گرفته شد. در این روش، پس از تصریح مدل اولیه، از رگرسیون تفاضل‌گیری می‌شود تا اثرات مقاطع را از الگو حذف کرد. سپس، در مرحله‌ی دوم از پسماندهای باقیمانده در مرحلة اول برای متوازن کردن ماتریس واریانس- کواریانس استفاده می‌شود. نتایج نشان داد که یک رابطه U شکل معکوس بین توسعه انسانی و ردپای اکولوژیکی برای کشورهای غیرنفتی وجود دارد. به طوری که، بهبود شاخص توسعه انسانی در مراحل اولیه توسعه با افزایش شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک به محیط‌زیست کشورهای غیرنفتی آسیب می‌رساند. اما با بهبود سطح توسعه کشورها، این روند معکوس می‌شود. با این حال، افزایش بیشتر در توسعه انسانی منجر به بهبود مستمر کیفیت محیط‌زیست در کشورهای نفتی می‌شود. همچنین، نتایج نشان داد که اثر مثبت مصرف انرژی بر شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک در کشورهای نفتی نسبت به کشورهای غیرنفتی از لحاظ عددی قابل توجه‌تر است. این در حالی است که ضریب اثرگذاری متغیر حجم تجارت بر شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک برای کشورهای نفتی و غیرنفتی به ترتیب منفی و مثبت برآورده شده است. تاثیر متغیر شهرنشینی بر شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک برای هر دو گروه کشورهای نفتی و غیرنفتی نیز مطابق انتظار و مثبت است. بنابراین، سیاست‌گذاران باید از علّیت موجود بین توسعه انسانی و شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک آگاه باشند و بر روی تسریع توسعه انسانی برای معکوس کردن روند فعلی تخریب محیط‌زیست تمرکز کنند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

شاخص توسعه انسانی

شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک

منحنی کوزنتس محیط‌زیستی

خاورمیانه

موضوعات

اقتصاد محیط زیست

عنوان مقاله English

Investigating the Effect of the Human Development Index on the Quality of the Environment in Oil and Non- Oil Countries of the Middle East

نویسندگان English

Arsalan Biniaz ¹

Saber Kalhori ²

Hassan Azarm ³

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Agriculture Economics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

² Researcher, Isfahan Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Isfahan, Iran

³ Ph.D. of Agricultural Economics, Department of of Agricultural Economics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

چکیده English

The Human Development Index (HDI), as a measure of the level of economic and social development, has an impact on the level of environmental degradation and pressure. So far, few researchers have focused on the relationship between human development and environmental quality through the lens of the traditional Environmental Kuznets Curve. In this context, the aim of this research is to assess the impact of the Human Development Index, together with other explanatory variables such as trade, energy consumption and urbanisation, on the Ecological Footprint Index in oil and non-oil countries in the Middle East. This study uses the combined data available in the databases of the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, and Global Footprint Network for 8 oil countries (Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) and 5 non-oil countries (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates) in the Middle East region for the period 2000 to 2019. The two-stage difference GMM estimation method was also used to estimate the regression. In this method, after specifying the initial model, it is differentiated from the regression to remove the effects of cross from the model. Then, in the second step, the remaining residuals from the first step are used to balance the variance-covariance matrix.The results showed that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between human development and ecological footprint for non-oil countries. Thus, improving the human development index in the early stages of development by increasing the ecological footprint index damages the environment of non-oil countries. In spite of that with the improvement of the development level of the countries, this trend is reversed. However, a further increase in human development leads to continuous improvement of environmental quality in oil countries. Moreover, the results showed that the positive effect of energy consumption on the ecological footprint index is numerically more significant in oil countries than in non-oil countries. This is despite the fact that the effect coefficient of the trade volume variable on the ecological footprint index for oil and non-oil countries has been met, respectively, negatively and positively. The effect of the urbanization variable on the ecological footprint index for both groups of oil and non-oil countries is as expected and positive. Therefore, policymakers should be aware of the existing causality between human development and the ecological footprint index and focus on accelerating human development to reverse the current process of environmental degradation.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Human Development Index

Ecological Footprint Index

Environmental Kuznets Curve

Middle East

Al-Maamary, H.M., Kazem, H.A. & Chaichan, M.T., 2017. The impact of oil price fluctuations on common renewable energies in GCC countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 75: 989–1007.

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.

Alola, A.A., Bekun, F.V. & Sarkodie, S.A. 2019. Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of the Total Environment. 685: 702–709.

Alsamara, M., Mrabet, Z., Saleh, A.S. & Anwar, S. 2018. The environmental Kuznets curve relationship: a case study of the Gulf Cooperation Council region. Environmental science and pollution research. 25 (33): 33183–33195.

Anderson, A. 2012. Climate change education for mitigation and adaptation. Journal of education for sustainable development. 6: 191–206.

Anderson, T. W. & Hsiao, C. 1981. Estimation of dynamic models with error components. Journal of the American statistical Association. 76(375): 598-606.

Arellano, M. & Bover, O. 1995. Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of econometrics. 68(1): 29-51.

Arellano, M. & Bond, S. 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The review of economic studies. 58 (2): 277–297.

Arouri, M.E.H., Youssef, A.B., M’henni, H. & Rault, C. 2012. Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy Policy. 45: 342–349.

As¸ıcı, A.A., & Acar, S. 2016. Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecological Indicators. 61: 707–714.

Baltagi, B. H. 2008. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Bekun, F.V., Emir, F. & Sarkodie, S.A. 2019. Another look at the relationship between energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and economic growth in South Africa. Science of the Total Environment. 655: 759–765.

Bello, M.O., Solarin, S.A. & Yen, Y.Y. 2018. The impact of electricity consumption on CO2 emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and ecological footprint: the role of hydropower in an emerging economy. J. Environmental Managment. 219: 218–230.

Blundell, R. & Bond, S. 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics, 87(1): 115-143.

Boussaidi, R. & Hakimi, A. 2024. Financial inclusion, economic growth, and environmental quality in the MENA region: What role does institution quality play?. In Natural Resources Forum. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Churchill, S.A., Inekwe, J., Ivanovski, K. & Smyth, R. 2018. The environmental Kuznets curve in the OECD: 1870–2014. Energy Economics. 75: 389–399.

Daliri, H. 2019. Relationship between Ecological Footprint and Economic Growth in D8 Countries: Testing the Kuznets Environmental Hypothesis Using PSTR Model. Quarterly Journal of Economic Modeling Research. 10(39): 81-111. [In Persian]

Danish, H.S., Baloch, M.A., Mahmood, N. & Zhang, J.W. 2019. Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Society. 47: 101516.

Destek, M.A. & Sarkodie, S.A. 2019. Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Science of the Total Environment. 650: 2483–2489.

Dong, K., Sun, R. & Dong, X. 2018. CO2 emissions, natural gas and renewables, economic growth: assessing the evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment. 640: 293–302.

Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. & De Sherbinin, A. 2005. Environmental sustainability index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. 47(2): 60-76.

Fodha, M. & Zaghdoud, O. 2010. Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: an empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy. 38 (2): 1150–1156.

Greene, W. H. 2008. Econometric analysis – sixth edition. New Jersey, Upper Saddle River: Pearson International.

Grossman, G.M. & Krueger, A.B. 1991. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (No. W3914). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hdom, H.A., 2019. Examining carbon dioxide emissions, fossil & renewable electricity generation and economic growth: evidence from a panel of South American countries. Renewable Energy. 139: 186–197.

Hsiao, C. 2003. Analysis of panel data, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.

Jha, R. & Murthy, K.B. 2003. An inverse global environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Comparative Economics. 31 (2): 352–368.

Kaika, D. & Zervas, E. 2013. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory—Part A: concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy. 62: 1392–1402.

Kassouri, Y. & Altıntas, H. 2020. Human well-being versus ecological footprint in MENA countries: a trade-off? Journal of Environment Managment. 263: 110405.

Lantz, V. & Feng, Q. 2006. Assessing income, population, and technology impacts on CO2 emissions in Canada: where’s the EKC? Ecological Economics. 57 (2): 229–238.

Li, X. & Xu, L. 2021. Human development associated with environmental quality in China. Plos one. 16(2): e0246677.

Luo, G., Baležentis, T. & Zeng, S. 2023. Per capita CO2 emission inequality of China's urban and rural residential energy consumption: a Kaya-Theil decomposition. Journal of Environmental Management. 331: 117265.

Mancini, M.S., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Lin, D., Bastianoni, S., Wackernagel, M. & Marchettini, N. 2016. Ecological footprint: refining the carbon footprint calculation. Ecological Indicatators. 61: 390–403.

Mátyás, L. & Sevestre, P. 1993. Linear models for panel data (No. 2012-2018-559).

Miah, M.D., Masum, M.F.H. & Koike, M. 2010. Global observation of EKC hypothesis for CO2, SOx and NOx emission: a policy understanding for climate change mitigation in Bangladesh. Energy Policy. 38 (8): 4643–4651.

Mimouni, K. & Temimi, A. 2019. What drives energy efficiency? New evidence from financial crises. Energy Policy. 122: 332–348.

Mirhashemi Dehnavi, S.M. 2019. Examination of Environmental Kuznets Curve with Emphasis on the Role of Financial and Institutional Development. Agricultural Economics Research. 46(12): 133-154. [In Persian]

Mrabet, Z. & Alsamara, M. 2017. Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: a comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 70: 1366–1375.

Mrabet, Z., Alsamara, M., Mimouni, K. & Mnasri, A. 2021. Can human development and political stability improve environmental quality? New evidence from the MENA region. Economic modelling. 94: 28-44.

Nasir, M. & Rehman, F.U. 2011. Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: an empirical investigation. Energy Policy. 39 (3): 1857–1864.

Raza, A., Habib, Y. & Hashmi, S. H. 2023. Impact of technological innovation and renewable energy on ecological footprint in G20 countries: The moderating role of institutional quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 30(42): 95376-95393.

Sadeghi Shahdani, M., Mohammadi Samchouli, A. & Rastegari Koupaei, M.J. 2021. Investigation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for N2O Gas Emissions in Iran by ARDL Model. Jourrnal of Environmental Science and Technology. 23: 175–186. [In Persian]

Salahuddin, M., Gow, J. & Ozturk, I. 2015. Is the long-run relationship between economic growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and financial development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 51: 317–326.

Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Abbas, F. & Anis, O. 2015. Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Economics. 51: 275–287.

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 energy performance indices. Ecological Economics. 66 (4): 628–637.

Sun, J., 1999. The nature of CO2 emission Kuznets curve. Energy Policy. 27 (12): 691–694.

Tran, N. Van, Tran, Q. Van, Do, L.T.T., Dinh, L.H. & Do, H.T.T. 2019. Trade off between environment, energy consumption and human development: do levels of economic development matter? Energy. 173: 483–493.

Uddin, G.A., Alam, K. & Gow, J. 2016. Does ecological footprint impede economic growth? An empirical analysis based on the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Australian Economic Papers. 55 (3): 301–316.

Ulucak, R. & Lin, D. 2017. Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecological Indicatators. 80: 337–343.

Wang, S., Li, Q., Fang, C. & Zhou, C. 2016. The relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment. 542: 360–371.

Zoundi, Z. 2017. CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 72: 1067–1075.