Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Agricultural Economics, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: Environmental degradation such as greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere, deforestation and collapsing fisheries indicate that human demand is exceeding the capacity of the biosphere. Therefore, in the most environmental studies, the greenhouse gases emission used an indicator of environmental impacts. But, a major weakness of these studies is that greenhouse gases emission such as carbon dioxide (CO2) is used as the index of environmental damage. In contrast, the ecological footprint represents a comprehensive indicator of anthropogenic pressure on the environment. Ecological Footprint (EF) measures the ecological assets that a population requires to produce the natural resources it consumes and to absorb its waste, especially carbon emissions. Ecological footprint is expressed in mutually exclusive units of area necessary to annually provide ecosystem services. Recent studies showed that the natural ecosystem of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including land, air and water, has been seriously affected by the various variables. Therefore, in this study a robust set of control variables is identified for ecological footprint as a comprehensive index of environmental degradation.
Material and methods: To achieve this goal the Extreme Bounds Analysis (EBA) method was used for identifying a robust set of control variables. The EBA is a statistical tool, to test whether the variables suggested in previous studies are indeed robustly related to ecological footprint, independent of other explanatory variables included in the regression. Also, the KOF used as the index of Globalization. In addition, specific type of KOF include political, social and overall globalization used in the empirical analysis. The analysis covers 11 countries of MENA region from 1995 to 2014.
Results and discussion: The results of Sala-i-Martin EBA showed that energy consumption, GDP per capita, urban population and economic, social and political globalization are robust. Also, the GDP per capita, energy consumption, urban population, have a positive effect on ecological footprint. The average effect of energy consumption on ecological footprint is 0.001 and statistically significant. Therefore, an increase of energy consumption by 10 unit relates to rising ecological pressures by almost 0.01 unit. Also, an increase in the urban population increases the ecological footprint per capita consistently and is statistically significant at 1 percent level. A 0.2 global hectare increase in the ecological footprint is driven by an increase in the urban population by 10 unit. The results showed that, a 10 percent increase in economic and social globalization will enhance ecological footprint by 0.29 and 0.49 unit, respectively. According to the EBA results, a 10 unit increase in political globalization will reduce ecological footprint by 0.16 unit. The findings show that globalization may have different effects on ecological footprint.
Conclusions: The findings suggest that economic and social globalization correlates positively with the ecological footprint. In contrast, political globalization have a negative relationship with ecological footprint. According to the empirical results, the negative correlation between political globalization and ecological footprint support the “global environmental governance” hypothesis. On the other hand, the positive relationship between social globalization and ecological footprint did not support the ‘global environmental awareness’ hypothesis in MENA region.
Keywords
Ewing, B. Moore, D. Goldfinger, S. Oursler, A. Reed, A. and Wackernagel, M., 2010. The ecological footprint atlas 2010. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
Fiala, N., 2008. Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics. 67, 519-525. Figge, L. and Martens, P., 2014. Globalisation continues: The maastricht globalisation index revisited and updated. Globalizations. 11, 875-893. Galli, A. Iha, K. Pires, S.M. Mancini, M.S. Alves, A. Zokai, G. and Wackernagel, M., 2020. Assessing the ecological footprint and biocapacity of Portuguese cities: Critical results for environmental awareness and local management. Cities. 96, 10-36. Gassebner, M. Lamla, M.J. and Sturm, J.E., 2010. Determinants of pollution: What do we really know? Oxford Economic Papers. 63, 568-595. Gassebner, M. Lamla, M.J. and Vreeland, J.R., 2013. Extreme bounds of democracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 57, 171-197. Hegre, H. and Sambanis, N., 2006. Sensitivity analysis of empirical results on civil war onset. Journal of conflict resolution. 50, 508-535. Hlavac, M., 2016. Extreme bounds: Extreme bounds analysis in R.Jorgenson. Journal of Statistical Software. 72, 1-21. Juffe-Bignoli, D. Burgess, N.D. Bingham, H. Belle, E.M.S. De Lima, M.G. Deguignet, M. and Eassom, A., 2014. Protected planet report 2014. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 11. Kitzes, J. Moran, D. Galli, A. Wada, Y. and Wackernagel, M., 2009. Interpretation and application of the ecological footprint: A reply to Fiala (2008). Ecological Economics. 68, 929-930. Leamer, E.E., 1983. Sensitivity analyses would help. The American Economic Review.75, 308-313. Levine, R. and Renelt, D., 1992. A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regresions. The American Economic Review. 82, 942-963. Levine, R. and Zervos, S.J., 1993. What have we learned about policy and growth from cross-country regReesions? The American Economic Review. 83, 426-430. Liu, Y. and Hao, Y., 2018. The dynamic links between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic development in the countries along “the Belt and Road”. Science of the Total Environment. 645, 674-683. Monfreda, C. Wackernagel, M. and Deumling, D., 2004. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land use policy. 21, 231-246. Oosthoek, J. and Gills, B.K., 2005. Humanity at the crossroads: The globalization of environmental crisis. Globalizations. 2, 283-291. Potrafke, N., 2015. The evidence on globalisation. The World Economy. 38, 509-552. Rafindadi, A.A. Muye, I.M. and Kaita, R.A., 2018. The effects of FDI and energy consumption on environmental pollution in predominantly resource-based economies of the GCC. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 25, 126-137.
Ragas, A.M.J. Knapen, M.J. Heuvel, P.J.M.V.D. Eijkenboom, R.G.F.T.M. Buise, C.L. and Laar, B.J.V.D., 1995. Towards a sustainability indicator for production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production. 3, 123–129. Rao, B.B. and Vadlamannati, K.C., 2011. Globalization and growth in the low-income African countries with the extreme bound’s analysis. Economic Modelling. 28, 795-805.
Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leave out. Environment and Urbanization. 4, 121–130. Rudolph, A. and Figge, L., 2017. Determinants of ecological footprints: What is the role of globalization. Ecological Indicators. 81, 348-361.
Sala-i-Martin, X.X., 1997. I just ran four million regReesions . American Economic Review. 87, 178-183. Sturm, J.E. and De Haan, J., 2005. Determinants of long-term growth: New results applying robust estimation and extreme bounds analysis. Empirical Economics. 30, 597-617. Uddin, G.A. Salahuddin, M. Alam, K. and Gow, J., 2017. Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators. 77, 166-175. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W.E., 1997. Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics. 20, 3-24. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W., 1998. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers. 20, 3-24. Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A. Ruano, M.A. Ormeño-Candelario, V. and Sanchez-Loor, D.A., 2020. Global ecological footprint and spatial dependence between countries. Journal of Environmental Management. 272, 11-35.
)