Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Land degradation, economic growth and structural change: evidences from Italy

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study investigates the relationship between land degradation and the evolution of the productive structure in Italy during the last 50 years (1960–2010). The objectives of the study are twofold: (i) to present and discuss an original analysis of the income–environment relationship in an economic-convergent and environmental–divergent country and (ii) to evaluate the impact of the (changing) productive structure and selected socio-demographic characteristics on the level of land vulnerability. The econometric analysis indicates that the relationship between GDP and land degradation across Italian provinces is completely reverted once we move from a cross-sectional analysis to panel estimates. While economic and environmental disparities between provinces go in the same direction, with richer provinces having lower levels of LD, over time the growth process increases LD with the economic structure acting as a significant variable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This LD index ranges from 1 to 2. The ESAI procedure is described in the sample descripition section.

  2. We lag the ESAI in the Figure by 5 years since we consider the process of growth to act in-time and that this process causes, with a delay, a change in the environmental GINI. In other words economic changes happen fist and exert a delayed effect on LD.

  3. As we are using variables at 10 years intervals, problems of non stationarity of the series and possible spurious results are ruled out.

  4. In the cross-section estimation we used GDP per capita to compare provinces having different dimension. In the dynamic estimation we shift to GDP we analyse changes and thus, since there’s no dimensional bias, we address directly the impact of overall economic growth. However, estimations using the per capita GDP return very similar results (available upon request).

  5. Simultaneous causality can be better addressed by using an IV type estimator, but unfortunately, due to the peculiarity of the dataset (Italian provinces over 50 years) we could not find suitable instruments.

  6. Since we do not assess causality at this stage the negative relation can be also due to the land endowment. Economic activities tend to locate where infrastructures are better developed. Hilly regions, for example, are likely to act as a barrier to economic growth due to the difficulty to develop transport links to markets.

References

  • Aldy, J. E. (2005). An environmental Kuznets curve analysis of U.S. state-level Carbon Dioxide emissions. Journal of Environment and Development, 14, 48–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansuategi, A. (2003). Economic growth and transboundary pollution in Europe, an empirical analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 26, 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antrop, M. (2000). Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15(3), 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auffhammer, M., & Carson, R.T. (2008). Forecasting the path of China’s CO2 emissions using province-level information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55(3), 229–247.

  • Bajocco, S., Salvati, L., & Ricotta, C. (2011). Land degradation versus fire: A spiral process? Progress in Physical Geography, 35(1), 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S., & Graddy, K. (2000). Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environment and Development Economics, 5, 433–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basso, F., Bove, E., Dumontet, S., Ferrara, A., Pisante, M., Quaranta, G., & Taberner, M. (2000). Evaluating environmental sensitivity at the basin scale through the use of geographic information systems and remotely sensed data: An example covering the Agri basin (Southern Italy). Catena, 40, 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bimonte, S. (2002). Information access, income distribution, and the environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 53, 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, J. K. (1994). Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, 11, 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briassoulis, H. (2011). Governing desertification in Mediterranean Europe: The challenge of environmental policy integration in multi-level governance contexts. Land Degradation and Development, 22(3), 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruvoll, A., & Medin, H. (2003). Factors behind the environmental Kuznets Curve: A decomposition of the changes in air pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caviglia-Harris, J.L., Chambers, D., & Kahn, J.R. (2008) Taking the “U” out of Kuznets: A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1149–1159.

  • Cavlovic, T. A., Baker, K. H., Berrens, R. P., & Gawande, K. (2000). A meta-analysis of environmental Kuznets Curve studies. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 29(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chimeli, A. B. (2007). Growth and the environment, are we looking at the right data? Economic Letters, 96, 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costantini, E. A. C., Urbano, F., Aramini, G., Barbetti, R., Bellino, F., Bocci, M., et al. (2009). Rationale and methods for compiling an atlas of desertification in Italy. Land Degradation and Development, 20, 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, S., Hamilton, K., Paudey, K. D., & Wheeler, D. (2006). Environment during growth: accounting for governance and vulnerability. World Development, 34(9), 1597–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., & Wheeler, D. (2002). Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fingleton, B. (2001). Externalities, economic geography, and spatial econometrics: Conceptual and modelling developments. International Regional Science Review, 2, 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franceschi, D., & Kahn, J. R. (2003). Beyond strong sustainability. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 10, 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galeotti, M. (2007). Economic growth and the quality of the environment: Taking stock. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 9, 427–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. F. (2004). Dynamic causal patterns of desertification. BioScience, 54, 817–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heerink, N., Mulatu, A., & Bulte, E. (2001). Income inequality and the environment: Aggregation bias in environmental Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics, 38, 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J., Stellmes, M., Udelhoven, T., Roder, A., & Sommer, S. (2008). Mediterranean desertification and land degradation: Mapping related land use change syndromes based on satellite observations. Global and Planetary Change, 64(3–4), 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahuthu, A. (2006). Economic growth and environmental degradation in a global context. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8, 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmas, C., Kirkby, M., & Geeson, N. (Eds.). (1999). The MEDALUS Project, Mediterranean desertification and land use: Manual on key indicators of desertification and mapping Environmentally Sensitive Areas to desertification. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison, D. (2006). Environmental Kuznets curves: A spatial econometric approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51, 218–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnani, E. (2000). The environmental Kuznets curve, environmental protection and income distribution. Ecological Economics, 32, 431–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnani, E. (2001). The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Development path or policy result? Environmental Modeling & Software, 16, 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, S., & Kathuria, V. (2006). Is economic growth sustainable? Environmental quality of Indian States after 1991. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 9, 38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller-Furstenberger, G., & Wagner, M. (2007). Exploring the environmental Kuznets hypothesis: Theoretical and econometric problems. Ecological Economics, 62, 648–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papyrakis, E., & Gerlagh, R. (2007). Resource abundance and economic growth in the United States. European Economic Review, 51, 1011–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patriarca, F., & Vona, F. (2012). Environmental Taxes, Inequality and Technical Change. Revue de l’OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, 0(5), 389–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paudel, K. P., Zapata, H., & Susanto, D. (2005). An empirical test of environmental Kuznets curve for water pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics, 31, 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranjan, R., & Shortle, J. (2007). The environmental Kuznets curve when the environment exhibits hysteresis. Ecological Economics, 64, 204–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romm, J. (2011). Desertification: The next dust bowl. Nature, 478, 450–451.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J., Debertin, D. L., & Pagoulatos, A. (2004). The Environmental Kuznets Curve for US countries: A spatial economic analysis with extensions. Paper Regional Science, 83, 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvati, L., & Bajocco, S. (2011). Land sensitivity to desertification across Italy: Past, present, and future. Applied Geography, 31(1), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvati, L., Bajocco, S., Mancini, A., Gemmiti, R., & Carlucci, M. (2011). Socioeconomic development and vulnerability to land degradation in Italy. Regional Environmental Change, 11(4), 767–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvati, L., & Zitti, M. (2009). Convergence or divergence in desertification risk? Scale-based assessment and policy implications in a Mediterranean country. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(7), 957–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santini, M., Cacciamo, G., Laurenti, A., Noce, S., & Valentini, R. (2010). A multi-model GIS framework for desertification risk assessment. Applied Geography, 30(3), 394–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, S., Zucca, C., Grainger, A., Cherlet, M., Zougmore, R., Sokona, Y., & Hill, J. (2011). Application of indicator systems for monitoring and assessment of desertification from national to global scales. Land Degradation and Development, 22(2), 184–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J. H. (2001). The Environmental Kuznets curve: a methodological artefact? Population and Environment, 23, 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, X. (2006). Environment, governance and GDP: Discovering their connections. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 9, 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, J. V., Safriel, U., Bastin, G., Zougmore, R., von Maltitz, G., Sokona, Y., & Hill, J. (2011). Monitoring and assessment of land degradation and desertification: Towards new conceptual and integrated approaches. Land Degradation and Development, 22(2), 150–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vona, F., & Patriarca, F. (2011). Income inequality and the development of environmental technologies. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 2201–2213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuindeau, B. (2007). Territorial equity and sustainable development. Environmental Values, 16, 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LUISS School of European Political Economy, Rome, Italy

    Piero Esposito

  2. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Fabrzio Patriarca

  3. Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura, unità per la Climatologia e la Meteorologia applicate all’Agricoltura, Via del Caravita 7a, 00184, Rome, Italy

    Luigi Perini

  4. Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura, centro per lo studio delle Relazioni Pianta-Suolo (CRA-RPS), Via della Navicella 2-4, 00184, Rome, Italy

    Luca Salvati

Authors
  1. Piero Esposito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabrzio Patriarca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luigi Perini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luca Salvati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrzio Patriarca.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5 and 6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esposito, P., Patriarca, F., Perini, L. et al. Land degradation, economic growth and structural change: evidences from Italy. Environ Dev Sustain 18, 431–448 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9655-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9655-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation