Technical Efficiency Analysis Using Ecological Footprint and Biological Capacity

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Department of Agricultural Economics, Urmia University

Abstract

Objectives: Ecological footprint is used as an indicator to assess the use of natural resources or natural capital; The higher the amount, the greater the utilization of resources to meet human needs and the disposal of waste produced by them. The purpose of this study is to estimate the technical efficiency of Iran economy using ecological footprint.
Material and Methods: For this purpose, data related to inputs (ecological footprint and population) and output (GDP) for the period 1961-2017 were collected and analyzed using data envelopment analysis. Results: The results show that there is an ecological deficit in the years before 1980 and an ecological surplus in the years after 1980. The average technical efficiency in the period of ecological deficit and surplus and for the whole period were 0.97, 0.65 and 0.75, respectively. There is also a statistically significant difference between technical efficiency in the period of ecological deficit and surplus.
Suggestions: It is recommended that appropriate policies be adopted and implemented to reduce the ecological footprint and increase the biological capacity so that the ratio of the ecological footprint to the biocapacity decreases over time and the economy becomes sustainable. It is also suggested that either the population be reduced or that the knowledge and awareness of population about the consumption and use of natural capital be increased, in order to reduce the consumption of natural capital. Also,, it is suggested that the use of renewable sources replace non-renewable sources and that renewable sources be used efficiently.

Keywords

References

Aghyari Hir T, Honarvar H and Alizadeh Aghdam M.B. 2017. Mediating Role of Consumerism on the Relationship between Materialism and Ecological Footprint (The case of Urmia Citizens). Quarterly Journal of Environmental Education and Sustainable Development, 6(1): 1-136. (In Persian).
Charfeddine L and 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.
Daliri H and Mehrgan N. 2015. Measuring Sustainable Development in the Khorasan Provinces of Iran. Journal of Economics and Regional Development, 22(9): 1-30. (In Persian).
Dashti G, Mohammadpour Z and Ghahremanzadeh M. 2020. Evaluating the Relationship between Economic and Environmental Efficiency in Iranian Agriculture Sector. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 30(4), 199-211. (In Persian).
Fakher H, Abedi Z and Shaygani B. 2018. Investigating the Relationship between Trade and Financial Openness with Ecological Footprint. Economic Modeling, 11(40): 49-67. (In Persian).
Farrell M.J. 1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistics Society, 120 (A): 253–281.
Fu W, Turner JC, Zhao J and Du G. 2015. Ecological Footprint (EF): An Expanded Role in Calculating Resource Productivity (RP) Using China and The G20 Member Countries as Examples. Ecological Indicators, 48: 464–471.
Gharakhluo M, Hataminezhad H, Baghvand A and Yalve M. 2013. Urban Sustainable Development Assessment with Regard to Footprint Ecological Method (Case Study: Kermanshah City). Human Geography Research, 45(2): 105-120. (In Persian).
Global Footprint Network (Ed.). 2018. National Footprint Accounts. 2018th ed. Global Footprint Network, Oakland, CA, USA.
Greene, W. H. 2002. Econometric Analysis, Fifth edition, Prentice Hall.
Hervieux MS and Darné O. 2014. Production and Consumption-Based Approaches for The Environmental Kuznets Curve in Latin America Using Ecological Footprint. Document de Travail Working Paper, Lemana, EA 4272: www.univ-nantes.fr/iemniae/recherche.
Jorgenson AK and Burns TJ. 2007. The Political-Economic Causes of Change in The Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1991–2001: A Quantitative Investigation. Social Science Research, 36: 834–853.
Kruskal WH and Wallis WA. 1952. Use of Ranks in One-criterion Variance Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47: 583–621.
Lin D, Hanscom L, Murthy A, Galli A, Evans M, Neill E, Mancini MS, Martindill J, Medouar FZ, Huang S and Wackernagel M. 2018. Ecological Footprint Accounting for Countries: Updates and Results of The National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources, 7 (58): 1-22.
Marti L, Puertas R. 2020. Analysis of the Efficiency of African Countries Through Their Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity. Science of the Total Environment, 722: 137504.
Molaei M, Besharat E and Mohammadi M. 2020. Factors Affecting the Consumption of Ecological Resources in Iran Using Economic Approach. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 22(8): 377-388. (In Persian).
Molaei M, Sani F. 2015. Estimating Environmental Efficiency of the Agricultural Sector. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 25(2): 91-101. (In Persian)
Molaei M and Basharat E. 2015. 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).
Molaei M and Sani F. 2016. Estimation of Technical and Environmental Efficiency of Dairy Farms in Sarab County (Data Envelopment Analysis Approach). Journal of Animal Science Research, 25(4): 141-155. (In Persian).
Mrabet Z and 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.
Ozcan B, Ulucak R and Dogan E. 2019. Analyzing Long Lasting Effects of Environmental Policies: Evidence from Low-Middle-and High-Income Economies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44: 130–143.
Parsasharif H, Amirnejad H and Taslimi M. 2021. Investigating and Determining the Factors Affecting the Ecological Footprint of Selected Asian and European Countries. Agricultural Economics Research, 13(2): 155-172. (In Persian).
Rees W.E. 1992. Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leave Out. Environment and Urbanization, 4 (2): 121–130.
Rees WE and Wackernagel M. 1994. Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: Measuring the Natural Capital Requirements of The Human Economy. Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability, Eds. Jansson, A.M., Hammer, M., Folke, C., Costanza R. (1994) Island Press Washington DC. pp. 362–390.
Reinhard R, Lovell CAK and Thijssen G.J. 2000. Environmental Efficiency with Multiple Environmentally Detrimental Variables, Estimated with SFA and DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 121: 287-303.
Rudolph A and Figge L. 2017. Determinants of Ecological Footprints: What Is the Role of Globalization?. Ecological Indicators, 81: 348–361.
Shortall OK and Barnes A.P. 2013. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Technical Efficiency of Farmers. Journal of Ecological Indicators, 29: 478-488.
Solarin SA and Bello M.O. 2018. Persistence of Policy Shocks to An Environmental Degradation Index: The Case of Ecological Footprint In 128 Developed and Developing Countries. Ecological Indicators, 89: 35–44.
Ulucak R and Lin D. 2017. Persistence of Policy Shocks to Ecological Footprint of the USA. Ecological Indicators, 80: 337–343.
Wilcoxon F. 1945. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics, 1: 80–83.
Yilanci V, Gorus MS and Aydin M. 2019. Are Shocks to Ecological Footprint in OECD Countries Permanent or Temporary? Journal of Cleaner Production, 212: 270–301.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION
Volume 33, Issue 2
July 2023
Pages 193-205

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics