经济全球化能够有效抑制“一带一路”沿线国家的生态足迹吗?——来自动态门槛面板模型的经验证据

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20190207

自然资源学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (2): 301-311.doi: 10.31497/zrzyxb.20190207

经济全球化能够有效抑制“一带一路”沿线国家的生态足迹吗?——来自动态门槛面板模型的经验证据

聂莹¹(), 刘清杰²(), 孙素芬¹

1. 北京市农林科学院农业信息与经济研究所,北京 100097
2. 北京师范大学新兴市场研究院,北京 100875

收稿日期:2018-07-12 修回日期:2018-11-26 出版日期:2019-02-28 发布日期:2019-02-28
作者简介:
作者简介：聂莹（1986- ）,女,河南濮阳人,博士,主要从事资源环境经济学与区域经济发展研究。E-mail: nieying0508@163.com
基金资助:
北京师范大学学科交叉建设项目（B10.1）;国家社会科学基金重大项目（14ZDA035）;北京市自然科学基金项目（9172009）;北京市科技计划项目（Z161100001116071）

Does economic globalization effectively inhibit the ecological footprint of countries along "The Belt and Road"?:Empirical evidence from the dynamic threshold panel model

NIE Ying¹(), LIU Qing-jie²(), SUN Su-fen¹

1. Institute of Agricultural Information and Economics Beijing Academy of Agriulture and Forestry Sciences, Beijing 100097, China
2. Emerging Markets Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China

Received:2018-07-12 Revised:2018-11-26 Online:2019-02-28 Published:2019-02-28
Contact: LIU Qing-jie E-mail:nieying0508@163.com;liuqingjie@bnu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于1993-2013年“一带一路”沿线55个国家的平行面板数据,运用Hansen动态面板门槛模型,以经济发展水平（人均GDP）为门槛变量,检验经济全球化与生态足迹之间的关系。研究结果表明：在不同的经济门槛范围内,经济全球化对生态足迹存在不同的影响。当经济发展水平小于等于3905美元时,经济全球化水平的提高能够显著降低生态足迹;当经济发展水平超过第一门槛值3905美元时,经济全球化水平对生态足迹的影响从显著抑制转变为促进作用,但是不显著;而当经济发展水平跨越第二门槛值8778美元时,经济全球化水平的提高能够显著刺激生态足迹的提高。当前“一带一路”沿线国家主要集中在第一门槛区间和第三门槛区间,经济全球化对生态足迹的影响出现两极分化态势,其中在第三门槛区间的国家在参与全球化的过程中应对资源的可持续利用引起充分重视,这关系到全球化的可持续发展和“一带一路”建设的顺利推进。

关键词: “一带一路”沿线国家;, 生态足迹, 经济全球化, 动态门槛面板模型

Abstract:

Using the panel threshold model proposed by Hansen, this paper empirically studies the nonlinear relationship between economic globalization and ecological footprint based on panel data of 55 countries along "The Belt and Road" from 1993 to 2013, with economic development level (per capita GDP) as the threshold variable. The results show that there are distinctive relations between economic globalization and ecological footprint divided by thresholds rather than a single linear relationship. In different ranges of thresholds, the influences of economic globalization on ecological footprint are different. When the economic development level is less than per capita ${$}$ 3905, the improvement of economic globalization can effectively reduce the ecological footprint; when the economic development level exceeds the first threshold of per capita ${$}$ 3905, its improvement has positive effect on the ecological footprint, but the coefficient is not significant; when it exceeds the second threshold of per capita ${$}$ 8778, its improvement will increase the ecological footprint significantly. Currently, countries along "The Belt and Road" are mainly concentrated in the first and third threshold interval, and the influence of economic globalization on the ecological footprint has a polarization trend. Attention should be given to the countries in the third threshold interval in the process of globalization, which is closely related to many aspects in sustainable development of globalization and "The Belt and Road Initiative".

Key words: countries along "The Belt and Road", ecological footprint, economic globalization, dynamic panel threshold model

聂莹, 刘清杰, 孙素芬. 经济全球化能够有效抑制“一带一路”沿线国家的生态足迹吗?——来自动态门槛面板模型的经验证据[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 301-311.

NIE Ying, LIU Qing-jie, SUN Su-fen. Does economic globalization effectively inhibit the ecological footprint of countries along "The Belt and Road"?:Empirical evidence from the dynamic threshold panel model[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2019, 34(2): 301-311.

图/表 9

图1

图2

表1

表2

图3

图4

表3

门槛估计值和置信区间"

	门槛估计值	95%置信区间
门槛值 $γ 1$	8.27	[6.22, 8.39]
门槛值 $γ 2$	9.08	[6.25, 9.08]

表3

表4

门槛效应模型估计结果"

被解释变量	弹性系数	T值	P值
$ope n i, t$	0.0034^***	2.78	0.006
$ln gd p i, t$	0.2482^***	9.53	0.000
$urba n i, t$	0.0057	1.08	0.279
$λ 1$	-0.0027^**	-2.14	0.033
$λ 2$	0.0003	0.22	0.825
$λ 3$	0.0037^***	2.76	0.006
常数项	-3.642^***	-7.02	0.000

表4

表5

参考文献 16

[1]	田颖聪. “一带一路”沿线国家生态环境保护. 经济研究参考, 2017, (15): 104-120.
	[TIAN Y C.Ecological environment protection of countries along the Belt and Road. Review of Economic Research, 2017, (15): 104-120.]
[2]	WACKERNAGEL M, REES W E, TESTEMALE P.Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publisher, 1996.
[3]	WACKERNAGEL M, SCHULZ N B, DEUMLING D, et al.Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. PANS, 2002, 99(14): 9266-9271.
[4]	樊胜岳, 麻亮亮. 中国大陆足迹家族的环境库兹涅茨曲线分析. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(9): 1452-1462.
	[FAN S Y, MA L L.Environmental Kuznets Curve analysis of the footprints family in mainland China. Journal of Natural Resources, 2016, 31(9): 1452-1462.]
[5]	OZTURK I, ALMULALI U, SABOORI B.Investigating the environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: The role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 2016, 23(2): 1916-1928.
[6]	王德录, 高标. 区域生态足迹与经济增长演进关系及其社会经济动因. 水土保持研究, 2016, 23(5): 278-284.
	[WANG D L, GAO B.Evolution relationship between regional ecological footprint and economic growth and its socioeconomic driving factor. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016, 23(5): 278-284.]
[7]	TIAN Y, RUTH M, ZHU D.Using the IPAT identity and decoupling analysis to estimate water footprint variations for five major food crops in China from 1978 to 2010. Environment Development & Sustainability, 2017, 19: 1-21.
[8]	RICE J.Ecological unequal exchange: International trade and uneven utilization of environmental space in the world system. Social Forces, 2007, 85(3): 1369-1392.
[9]	吴德存, 刘金平, 杨贺. 中国省域生态足迹空间效应及社会经济因素研究: 基于空间杜宾面板STIRPAT模型. 经济问题探索, 2017, (3): 162-169.
	[WU D C, LIU J P, YANG H.Chinese provincial special effect of ecological footprint and the social and economic factors: Based on the spatial durbin panel STIRPAT model. Inquiry into Economic Issues, 2017, (3): 162-169.]
[10]	刘建兴, 顾晓薇, 李广军, 等. 中国经济发展与生态足迹的关系研究. 资源科学, 2005, 27(5): 33-39.
	[LIU J X, GU X W, LI G J, et al.Economic development and ecological footprint in China. Resources Science, 2005, 27(5): 33-39.]
[11]	国务院发展研究中心课题组. 进出口贸易与我国经济增长. 经济日报, 2004-07-20.
	[The State Council Development Research Center Team. Import and export trade and economic growth in China. The Economic Journal, 2004-07-20.]
[12]	WACKERNAGEL, MATHIS.Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New York: New Society Publishers, 1996.
[13]	吴巧生. 理解中国工业化与能源消费: 基于计量经济模型的实证检验. 中国地质大学学报: 社会科学版, 2010, 10(4): 49-54.
	[WU Q S.Understanding the relationship between industrialization and energy consumption in China: Empirical tests of econometric models. Journal of China University of Geosciences: Social Sciences Edition, 2010, 10(4): 49-54.]
[14]	冯银, 成金华, 申俊. 中国省域能源生态足迹空间效应研究. 中国地质大学学报: 社会科学版, 2017, 17(3): 85-96.
	[FENG Y, CHENG J H, SHEN J.Spatial effect of provincial energy ecological footprint in China. Journal of China University of Geosciences: Social Sciences Edition, 2017, 17(3): 85-96.]
[15]	OGUNYOMI O O, DAISI O R, OLUWASHIKEMI R A.Economic globalization, income inequality and economic growth in Nigeria: A static data analysis (1986-2010). ABC Journal of Advanced Research, 2013, 2: 55-68.
[16]	BUKHARI M, MUNIR K.Impact of globalization on income inequality in selected Asian countries. Mpra Paper, 2016.

	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
生态足迹	2.8	1.8	0.4	9.3
经济全球化水平（%）	75.8	43.7	15.6	345.4
人均GDP（ln）	7.6	1.3	4.7	10.9
经济规模（ln）	23.9	1.9	19.3	29.9
城镇化水平（%）	51.2	20.3	10.0	100.0

模型	F值	P值	自举次数	临界值
模型	F值	P值	自举次数	1%	5%	10%
单一门槛检验	51.507^***	0.000	400	37.027	22.459	16.039
双重门槛检验	34.717^***	0.005	400	20.609	4.977	-0.628
三重门槛检验	17.622^*	0.070	400	34.273	20.444	13.512

经济全球化能够有效抑制“一带一路”沿线国家的生态足迹吗?——来自动态门槛面板模型的经验证据

Does economic globalization effectively inhibit the ecological footprint of countries along "The Belt and Road"?:Empirical evidence from the dynamic threshold panel model

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 16

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	毕明丽, 谢高地, 姚翠友. 人类可持续发展指数的改进及国际比较[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(5): 1017-1029.
[2]	周墨竹, 王介勇. 基于复杂网络的全球稻米贸易格局演化及其启示[J]. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(5): 1055-1067.
[3]	杨艳昭, 封志明, 孙通, 汤峰. “一带一路”沿线国家水资源禀赋及开发利用分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(6): 1146-1156.
[4]	贾琨, 杨艳昭, 封志明. “一带一路”沿线国家粮食生产的时空格局分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(6): 1135-1145.
[5]	王淑新, 何红, 李双, 杜建括. 中国旅游足迹家族研究进展[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 424-436.
[6]	林永钦, 齐维孩, 祝琴. 基于生态足迹的中国可持续食物消费模式[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(2): 338-347.
[7]	杨屹, 胡蝶. 生态脆弱区榆林三维生态足迹动态变化及其驱动因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(7): 1204-1217.
[8]	王祥, 强文丽, 牛叔文, 刘爱民, 成升魁, 李真. 全球农产品贸易网络及其演化分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(6): 940-953.
[9]	靳相木, 李陈. 土地承载力研究范式的变迁、分化及其综论[J]. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(3): 526-540.
[10]	杨屹, 梁砺波, 张景乾. 关中城市群生态足迹演变趋势及公平性评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(8): 1360-1373.
[11]	靳相木, 柳乾坤. 自然资源核算的生态足迹模型演进及其评论[J]. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(1): 163-176.
[12]	孙艳芝, 沈镭. 关于我国四大足迹理论研究变化的文献计量分析[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(9): 1463-1473.
[13]	曹淑艳, 谢高地. 城镇居民食物消费的生态足迹及生态文明程度评价[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(7): 1073-1085.
[14]	王灵恩, 成升魁, 钟林生, 刘晓洁, 高利伟, 曹晓昌. 旅游城市餐饮业食物消费及其资源环境成本定量核算——以拉萨市为例[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(2): 215-227.
[15]	郝海广，李秀彬，张惠远，张继平. 农牧交错区农户生态足迹及其影响因素[J]. 自然资源学报, 2016, 31(1): 52-63.