پژوهش‌های جغرافیای اقتصادی

پژوهش‌های جغرافیای اقتصادی

ارزیابی نقش مصرف انرژی تجدید پذیر و خط مشی تجاری در ردپای اکولوژیکی به‌عنوان شاخص تخریب محیط‌زیست با استفاده از رویکرد حسابداری نوآورانه در ایران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 استادیار حسابداری، گروه مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه زنجان، زنجان، ایران.
2 استادیار حسابداری، گروه مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.
3 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.
چکیده
هدف این پژوهش بررسی تأثیر مصرف انرژی تجدیدپذیر، خط­‌مشی تجاری، رشد اقتصادی و ظرفیت زیستی بر ردپای اکولوژیکی به‌عنوان شاخص تخریب محیط‌زیست در ایران در بازه زمانی 1986 تا 2021 می­باشد. بدین منظور در این پژوهش از مدلARDL برای به دست آوردن ضرایب پویا بلندمدت وکوتاه­‌مدت، آزمون علیت تودا- یاماموتو برای بررسی مسیر علیت و آزمون تجزیه چولسکی استفاده شده است. نتایج نشان می­‌دهد که در بلندمدت بین متغیر ظرفیت زیستی، با ردپای اکولوژیکی رابطه مثبت وجود دارد اما به لحاظ آماری معنی­داری نیست، اما بین متغیرهای خط­‌مشی ­تجاری و تولید ناخالص داخلی با ردپای اکولوژیکی رابطه مثبت و معنی‌­داری وجود دارد. از طرفی، بین متغیر مصرف انرژی تجدیدپذیر با ردپای اکولوژیکی رابطه منفی و معنی­‌داری وجود دارد. ضریب تصحیح خطای به‌دست‌آمده در این مدل نشان می­دهد در هر دوره 47 درصد از عدم تعادل حاصل از بروز تکانه و منحرف شدن مدل کوتاه­‌مدت از روند بلندمدت تعدیل‌شده و به سمت روند بلندمدت خود باز می‌گردد. یک رابطه علی دوسویه بین خط­مشی تجاری و ردپای اکولوژیکی برقرار می‌­باشد. همچنین، علیت یک‌سویه از خط­‌مشی تجاری به تولید ناخالص داخلی تأیید می‌­شود. نتایج حاصل از تجزیه چولسکی نشان می‌­دهد که شوک­‌های نوآورانه ایجاد شده در متغیرها برای 10 دوره آتی، بدین‌صورت بر ردپای اکولوژیکی تأثیر می‌­گذارند که در دوره دوم بیشترین سهم تأثیر در مقایسه با بقیه متغیرها مربوط به انرژی تجدیدپذیر به میزان 3/5 درصد است اما با گذشت زمان و در پایان دوره دهم بیشترین سهم تأثیر به ترتیب مربوط به تولید ناخالص داخلی 19/60 درصد، خط­مشی تجاری 9/54 درصد، مصرف انرژی تجدیدپذیر 7/76 درصد و ظرفیت زیستی 1/28 درصد می‌­باشد. ازاین‌رو، خط­‌مشی­‌های انرژی که باعث افزایش سهم انرژی تجدیدپذیر در سبد انرژی ­شود، توصیه می‌­گردد.
کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله English

Assessing the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy in the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation using an innovative accounting approach in Iran

نویسندگان English

Said rasoul Hosayni 1
Amin Hajiannejad 2
Marziyeh Razavi 3
1 Assistant Professor of Accounting, Department of Management and Accounting, Faculty of Humanities, University OF Zanjan , Zanjan, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor of Accounting, Department of Management and Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan , Isfahan, Iran.
3 PhD student, Department of Management and Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan , Isfahan, Iran.
چکیده English

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of renewable energy consumption, trade policy, economic growth and biological capacity on ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation in Iran in the period 1986 to 2021. For this purpose, in this study, the autoregressive model with wide distribution interval (ARDL) has been used to obtain long-term and short-term dynamic coefficients. The Toda-Yamamoto causality test was also used to examine the causal path The Cholesky analysis test for innovative accounting has been used to validate the estimated models. The results show that in the long run, there is a positive relationship between the biological capacity variable and the ecological footprint, but it is not statistically significant. However, there is a positive and significant relationship between trade policy variables and GDP with ecological footprint, so that in the long run, with a one percent increase in these variables, the amount of ecological footprint increases by 64.9% and 80.7%, respectively (applying pressure Upward - negative effect on environmental quality), On the other hand, there is a negative and significant relationship between the variable of renewable energy consumption and ecological footprint and increasing one percent of this variable in the long run leads to a decrease in the amount of ecological footprint by 33.9% (applying downward pressure - a positive effect on Environmental quality). The error correction coefficient obtained in this model shows that in each period, 47% of the imbalance resulting from the occurrence of shock and deviation of the short-term model from the long-term trend is adjusted and returns to its long-term trend. There is a two-way causal relationship between trade policy and the ecological footprint. Also, one-way causality from trade policy to GDP is confirmed. The results of Cholesky analysis show that the innovative shocks generated in the variables for the next 10 periods, thus affecting the ecological footprint, so that in the second period the largest share of impact compared to other variables is related to renewable energy by 3.5% But over time and at the end of the tenth period, the largest share of impact is related to GDP of 19.60%, commercial policy of 9.54%, renewable energy consumption of 7.76% and bio-capacity of 1.28%, respectively. Therefore, country-specific energy policies that increase the share of renewable energy in the energy portfolio are recommended.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Renewable energy
Ecological footprint
Biocapacity
Trade policy
Economic Growth
Akinlo, A. (2008): Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from11 Sub-Sahara African countries, Energy Economics, 30, 2391–2400.
Alola, A. (2019): The trilemma of trade, monetary and immigration policies in the United States: accounting for environmental sustainability, Sci. Total Environ, 260-267.
Altıntaş, H. & Kassouri, Y. (2020): Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions? Ecological indicators, 113, 106-187.
Abui, A. & Faridzad, A. & Baloonjad, R. (2018): Assessing the distributional effects of rising energy carrier prices in Iran, ­Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research,8(30),167-187. (In Persian)
Chambers, N., & Simmons, C., & Wackernagel, M. (2014): Sharing nature’s interest: ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability: Routledge.85.
Charfeddine, L., & Z. Mrabet. (2017): The Impact of EconomicDevelopment and Social-political Factors on Ecological Footprint: A Panel Data Analysis for 15 MENA Countries, Renewable andSustainable Energy Reviews,76, 138–154.
Cornelia, P.G. (2014): True Cost Economics: Ecological Footprint, Procedia Econ, Fin.8, 550–555.
Destek, S.A & Sarkodie. (2019): Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve forecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development, Sci. TotalEnviron, 650 2483e2489.
Dogan, E., & Ulucak, R., & Kocak, E., & Isik, C. (2020): The use of ecological footprint in estimating theenvironmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence andheterogeneity, Science of the total environment, 723, 138-163.
Darvish, B. & Motalebi, M. & Havasebeigi, F (2021): Globalization, energy consumption and environmental degradation in Iran: Empirical evidence from the Maki integration test, Economic Research (Sustainable Growth and Development), 2, (21), 59-82. (In Persian)
Ehigiamusoe, K. U., &   Lean, H. H., & Smyth, R. (2020): The moderating role of energy consumption in the carbonemissions-income nexus in middle-income countries, Applied energy, 261, 114215.
 Fakher, H. A., Abedi, Z., & Shaygani, B. (2018): Investigating the relationship between trade and financial openness with ecological footprint, Economic modeling, 11(40), 49-67. (In Persian)
Fallahi, F. Pourabadolhan, & M, Sadeghi, S. K, & Shokri, T. (2020): A Study of the Relationship between Economic Growth and Environmental Quality in Iran: New Evidence Based on Continuous Wavelet Transformation, Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research.189. (In Persian)
Ferng, J. J. (2014): Nested open systems: Animportant concept for applying ecological footprintanalysis to sustainable development assessment, Ecological economics, Vol. 106, 105-111.
 Hong, L., P. & Zhang, H. Chunyu & W. Gang (2017): Evaluating theEffects of Embodied Energy in International Trade on EcologicalFootprint in China, Ecological Economics, 62, 136-148.
 Hosseinzadeh, N., Nesari, R., & Montazeri, R. (2014): Tehran Municipality's Sustainable Financing Strategies in the Five-Year Plan, with Emphasis on Resistance Economy Communication Policies, Economics and Urban Management. 3, 99-116. (In Persian)
 Ito, K. (2017): CO2 emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from paneldata for developing countries, International Economics, 151, 1-6.
Jayadevappa, R., & Chhatre, S. (2000): International trade and environmental quality: a survey, Ecological Economics, 32(2), 175-194.
Jomehpour, M. Hatami Nejad, H. & Shahanvaz, S. (2013): Investigating the development status of sustainable cities in Rasht using methods, ecological footprints, Human Geography Research, (3), 191-208. (In Persian)
Kargar dehbidi, N. & Bakhshoodeh, M. (2019): Comparison of the Fossil and renewable energies impact oncarbon dioxide emissions in OPEC and Asian countries without oil reserves. Environmental researches, 10(19),313-326. (In Persian)
Kasman, A., and Y. S. Duman. (2015): CO2 Emissions, Economic Growth, Energy Consumption, Trade and Urbanization in new EU Member and Candidate Countries: A Panel Data Analysis, Economic Modeling, 44, 97-103.
 Khan, M. K., Teng, J. Z. Khan, M. I. & Khan, M. O. (2019): Impact of globalization, economic factors and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Pakistan, Science of the total environment, 688, 424-436.
 Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2007): Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts, Science for Environment & Sustainable society, 4,1-9.
Kohansal, M. R. & Shayanmehr, S. (2016): The interplay between energy consumption, economic growth and environmental pollution: Application of spatial panel simultaneous-equations model. Journal of Iranian Energy Economics, 5(19),179-216. (In Persian)
Kohansal, M. R. and bahrami-Nasab, M. (2019): Assessing the relationship between energy consumption and pollution with economic growth in line with general environmental policies, Quarterly Journal of Strategic and Macro Policies ,4, (7). (In Persian)
Kuriqi, A.N. Pinheiro, A. Sordo-Ward, L. Garrote. (2017): Trade-off between environmental flow policy and run-of-river hydropower generation in Mediterranean climate, European Water 60, 123-130.
Li, T., Wang, Y., & Zhao, D. (2016): Environmental Kuznets curve in China: new evidence from dynamic panel analysis, Energy Policy, 91:138-147.
Lütkepohl, New Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis, Spring Verlag, Berlin.
Luck, M., Jenerette, G., Wu, J., & Grimm, N. B. (2001): The Urban Funnel Model and the Spatially Heterogeneous Ecological Footprint, Ecosystems ,4 :782–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0046-8.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004): Establishing National Natural Capital Accounts Based on Detailed Ecological Footprint and Biological Capacity Assessments, Land Use Policy, 21, 231-246.
Masoudi, N. Dehmardeh Ghaleh No, N. & Esfandiari, M. (2020): Investigating the Impact of Renewable Energy and Technical Innovations and Economic Growth on Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Journal of Economic Growth and Development Research, 10, (40): 35-54. (In Persian)
 Molaei, M., & Ehsan, B. (2016): Investigating relationship between gross domestic product and ecological footprint as an environmental degradation index, Journal of economic research (tahghighat-e-eghtesadi), 50(4),1017-1033. (In Persian).
Nijkamp, P., E. Rossi and G. Vindigni (2004): Ecological Footprintsin Plural: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Empirical Results, Regional Studies, 38, 747-765.
Sarkodie, V. Strezov. (2019): Assessment of contribution of Australia’s energyproduction to CO2 emissions and environmental degradation using statisticaldynamic approach, Sci. 888-899.
Shahbaz, M. Sinha, A. (2020): Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: aliterature survey, J. Econ. Stud. 46, (1), 106-168.
Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., & Sinha, A. (2020): Revisiting the role of renewable andnon-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: evidence from quantile ARDLapproach, Sustainable cities and society, 57, 102-138.
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.
Tarazkar, M.H., & Fathi, F. (2019): Effect of trade liberalization on greenhouse gas emission in Iran: applicationof nonlinear asymmetric cointegration approach, Journal of natural environment, 72(1), 85-96. (In Persian)
Tarazkar, M.H., Kargar, N., Esfanjari, R., & Ghorbaniyan, E. (2019): The impact of economic growth on environmental degradation in Middle East region: application of ecological footprint, Journal of natural environment, 73(1), 77-90. (In Persian)
Uddin, G. A., M. Salahuddin, K. Alam and J. Gow (2017): Ecological Footprint and Real Income: Panel Data Evidence fromthe 27 Highest Emitting Countries, Ecological Indicators, 77:166–175.
Usman, O., Alola, A. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2020): Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption andtrade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: evidence from the US, Renewableenergy, 150, 266-277.
Wackernagel M, C. Monfreda, K-H. Erb, H. Haberl and NB Schulz. (2004): Ecological Footprint Time Series of Austria, ThePhilippines, and South Korea for 1961–1999: Comparing theConventional Approach to an ‘Actual Land Area’ Approach, LandUse Policy, 21:261-9.
Wiedmann, T., J. Minx, J. Barret and M. Wackernagel. (2006): Allocating Ecological Footprints to Final Consumtion Categorieswith Input-Output Analysis, Ecological Economics, 56, 28-48.
Wilson, J., and M. Anielski. (2005): Ecological Footprints ofCanadian Municipalities and Regions, the Canadian Federation ofCanadian Municipalities, Anielski Management 5: 128.
دوره 3، شماره 10
زمستان 1401
زمستان 1401
صفحه 84-103

  • تاریخ دریافت 12 بهمن 1401
  • تاریخ بازنگری 06 اسفند 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش 25 اسفند 1401