دانلود مقاله حفاظت از محیط زیست و شادی
چکیده
مقدمه
مروری بر مطالعات پیشین
داده ها
شادی و محیط زیست در سراسر اروپا
روش شناسی و تخمین اقتصاد سنجی
نتایج
بحث
بررسی استحکام
نتیجه گیری
منابع
Abstract
Introduction
Literature review
Data
Happiness and environment across Europe
Methodology and econometric estimation
Results
Discussion
Robustness check
Conclusions
References
چکیده
ارتباط احتمالی بین مقررات محیطی و شادی نشان دهنده یک موضوع نسبتاً جدید و کمی بررسی شده است. این مطالعه می‌خواهد با بررسی رابطه بلندمدت بین هزینه‌های حفاظت از محیط زیست و شادی در مورد کشورهای اروپایی، به این جریان تحقیقات اخیر کمک کند. این تجزیه و تحلیل هم از داده های خرد از پایگاه داده جهانی شادی وینهوون (2013) و هم از داده های کلان 19 کشور اروپایی که در دوره 1997-2019 مشاهده شده است، استفاده می کند. یک تحلیل ناهمگونی پانل پویا از طریق یک مدل تاخیر توزیع شده خودرگرسیون، با استفاده از سه برآوردگر مختلف اعمال می‌شود: اثر ثابت پویا، گروه میانگین و برآوردگرهای گروه میانگین تلفیقی. به منظور در نظر گرفتن وابستگی مقطعی پانل، از آزمون های هم انباشتگی Westerlund نیز استفاده می شود. برآوردهای اثر ثابت پویا وجود یک ارتباط مستقیم بین شادی و هزینه های حفاظت از محیط زیست در بلندمدت را برجسته می کند در حالی که نرخ بیکاری بر شادی هم در کوتاه مدت و هم در بلندمدت تأثیر منفی می گذارد. تحلیل ما به دولت‌ها توصیه می‌کند که هزینه‌های زیست‌محیطی را در میان ابزارهای ممکن برای بهبود رفاه داخلی قرار دهند، و بر اهمیت تأثیر متقابل بین کیفیت محیطی و رضایت از زندگی تأکید می‌کند. آخرین جنبه در اجرای اقدامات سیاست ملی و اروپایی برای ترویج توسعه پایدار بسیار مهم است.
توجه! این متن ترجمه ماشینی بوده و توسط مترجمین ای ترجمه، ترجمه نشده است.
Abstract
The possible linkage between environmental regulation and happiness represents a relatively new and little explored issue. This study wants to contribute to this recent stream of research by examining the long-run relationship between environmental protection expenditure and happiness in the case of European countries. The analysis draws both on micro data from Veenhoven's (2013) World Database of Happiness and macro data of 19 European countries observed during the period 1997–2019. A dynamic panel heterogeneity analysis through an autoregressive distributed lag model is applied, using three different estimators: the dynamic fixed effect, the mean group and the pooled mean group estimators. In order to account for cross-sectional dependence of the panel, Westerlund cointegration tests are also used. Dynamic fixed effect estimations highlight the existence of a direct link between happiness and environmental protection expenditure in the long run while the unemployment rate negatively affects happiness both in the short and in the long run. Our analysis recommends governments to include environmental expenditure among possible instruments to improve domestic well-being, highlighting the importance of the interplay between environmental quality and life satisfaction. The last aspect is crucial when implementing national and European policy measures to promote sustainable development.
Introduction
Promotion of sustainable development and the provision of citizens' well-being represent key environmental management goals and are two of the fundamental aims of many multilateral environmental agreements. In particular, the parties which ratified the Aarhus Convention1 recognized the importance of extensive environmental protection for the well-being of present and future generations. They also stated that everyone has the right to live in an environment fitting for their own health.2 In October 2019, the Council of the European Union invited the Member States to “develop a cross-sectoral assessment of impacts on wellbeing in order to strengthen knowledge-based policy and decision-making” (Council of the European Union, 2019, p. 10). Therefore, the pursuit of happiness and well-being cannot represent a secondary objective also in environmental policy (United Nations, 2011; Breslow et al., 2016). As pointed out by Gowdy (2005), welfare policies that focus more on measures of well-being than ordinary income indicators can better achieve environmental and social sustainability goals and can represent a better measure of social progress (Breslow et al., 2016). Moreover, as stated by Helliwell et al. (2012), the goal of well-being of a community and the growing importance of societal happiness trigger an alternative development approach “that challenges the logic of GDP metrics” (Verma, 2017, p.477). After all, it should not be forgotten that economic growth is a tool to improve quality of life and well-being for current and future generations. Happiness measures allow us to proxy the concept of utility or subjective well-being defined as a state characterized by health, happiness and prosperity (Frey and Stutzer, 2010) or intended as a “condition of appreciation of life” (Veenhoven, 2000, p. 4 and p. 11).3 Indeed, a more recent version of the World Happiness Report, in light of the “growing awareness of the major role that the natural environment plays in our happiness”, started to look at the effects of environmental quality on life satisfaction (Krekel and MacKerron, 2020, p. 97). Given the complex interplay between environmental conditions and human well-being (Breslow et al., 2016), an interesting question concerns the actions that policymakers can take to improve environmental quality which is proved to shape happiness and quality of life (Krekel and MacKerron, 2020, p. 97). The answer to this question concerns possible policy actions for controlling pollution and environmental degradation that could adversely affect the well-being of a community. The linkage between environmental degradation and well-being can be explained in the light of the environmental failure of market societies and the “interrelated dimensions of ecological integrity and human well-being” (Breslow et al., 2016, p. 251). Public spending on environmental protection is a response to a worsening in the quality of life caused by overexploitation of natural resources and aims to restore happiness by improving the quality of the environment and securing a healthy ecosystem. The role of public expenditure is thus to provide those goods like environmental protection and pollution abatement which, by influencing the capacity of individuals and community to achieve a healthy environmental goal, can be considered an attribute of well-being (Breslow et al., 2016, p. 252).
Conclusions
The economic literature has amply highlighted the limits and problems that emerge with the use of income growth as an indicator of quality of life, thereby posing some challenging questions to economists. The use of income growth as an indicator of the quality of life of a community suggests that citizens living in the richest countries are not always the happiest (Easterlin, 1974 and Easterlin, 1995; (Frey and Stutzer, 2002); Castriota, 2006; Brockmann et al., 2009; Veenhoven, 2010).