Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The impact of urbanization on per capita CO2 emissions

도시화가 1인당 탄소 배출에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2016.07.11
  • Accepted : 2016.09.20
  • Published : 2016.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This research examines the impacts of urban population growth on per capita $CO_2$ emissions with particular focus on the interaction effect between urbanization and income levels. Employing the Panel Fixed Effects model together with the Pooled LS and Panel GLS models, the research reported here analyzes the relevant data on 84 countries. The statistical results show a nonlinear(an inverted-U) relationship between urbanization and per capita $CO_2$ emissions; that is, while the urban agglomeration leads to increases in per capita $CO_2$ emissions for low income countries, this adverse impact does not hold true for high income countries. The research findings can contribute to addressing broad issues of urban compactness and patterns of energy consumption that should be considered by those concerned about the sustainable urban development.

본 연구는 도시화가 1인당 탄소 배출에 미치는 영향을 도시화와 소득 수준 간의 교호 작용을 중심으로 분석하였다. 이를 위해 84개 국가에 대한 패널 자료를 고정효과 모형을 통해 회귀분석하고 동시에 Pooled LS 모형 및 패널 GLS 모형과도 비교하였다. 그 결과 1인당 탄소배출과 도시화는 비선형적 관계를 이루는 것으로 나타났다. 즉 저소득 국가에서 도시로의 인구 집중이 1인당 탄소 배출을 증가시키는 반면, 고소득 국가에서는 오히려 반대의 효과가 나타났다. 이러한 본 연구의 결과는 도시의 압축성(compactness)과 에너지 소비 패턴에 대한 논의로 확장할 수 있으며, 이를 통해 지속가능한 도시개발을 위한 연구와 정책 개발의 토대를 제공할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bertinelli L, Black D. 2004. Urbanization and growth. Journal of Urban Economics. 56: 80-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2004.03.003
  2. Centre for Liveable Cities. 2014. New Lenses on Future Cities: A New Lens Scenarios Supplement. Singapore: Shell International BV.
  3. Chen H, Jia B, Lau SSY. 2008. Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International. 32: 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.06.005
  4. Cole MA, Neumayer E. 2004. Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution. Population and Environment. 26(1): 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:POEN.0000039950.85422.eb
  5. Commoner B. 1971. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. New York: Knopf.
  6. Commoner B, Corr M, Stamler PJ. 1971. The causes of pollution. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 13(3): 2-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1971.9930577
  7. Dietz T, Rosa EA. 1994. Rethinking the environmental impact of population, affluence, technology. Human Ecology Review. Summer/Autumn(1): 277-300.
  8. Dietz T, Rosa EA. 1997. Effects of population and affluence on $CO_2$ emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 94(1): 175-179. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.1.175
  9. Dinda S. 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics. 49: 431-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
  10. Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP. 1971. Impact of population growth. Science. 171(3977): 1212-1217. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3977.1212
  11. Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP. 1972. A bulletin dialogue on the 'Closing Circle'. Critique: One dimensional ecology. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 28(5): 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1972.11457906
  12. Fan Y, Liu LC, Wu G, Wei YM. 2006. Analyzing impact factors of $CO_2$ emissions using the STIRPAT model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 26: 377-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.007
  13. Hamilton C, Turton H. 2002. Determinants of emissions growth in OECD countries. Energy Policy. 30(1): 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00060-X
  14. Lee HJ, Kang MG. 2012. Relationship between urbanization and $CO_2$ emissions: A crosscountry panel data analysis. Journal of The Korean Regional Development Association. 24(5): 125-144. [Korean Literature]
  15. Liddle B. 2004. Demographic dynamics and per capita environmental impact: Using panel regressions and household decompositions to examine population and transport. Population and Environment. 26(1): 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:POEN.0000039951.37276.f3
  16. Martinez-Zarzoso I, Maruotti A. 2011. The impact of urbanization on $CO_2$ emissions: Evidence from developing countries. Ecological Economics. 70: 1344-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.009
  17. Parikh J, Shukla V. 1995. Urbanization, energy use and greenhouse effects in economic development: Results from a cross-national study of developing countries. Global Environmental Change. 5(2): 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(95)00015-G
  18. Poumanyvong P, Kaneko S. 2010. Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower $CO_2$ emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecological Economics. 70: 434-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.029
  19. Schulze PC. 2002. I=PBAT. Ecological Economics. 40(2): 149-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00249-X
  20. Shi A. 2003. The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975-1996: evidence from pooled cross-country data. Ecological Economics. 44(1): 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00223-9
  21. United Nations. 2015. World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. New York: UN Population Division.
  22. United Nations-Habitat. 2015. Urban Planning for City Leaders. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
  23. Waggoner PE, Ausubel JH. 2002. A framework for sustainability science: A renovated IPAT identity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 99(12): 7860-7865. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122235999
  24. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T. 2003. Footprints on the Earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review. 68(2): 279-300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519769