Financing the Agri-Environmental Policy: Consequences on the Economic Growth and Environmental Quality in Romania
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Effects of the Agri-Environmental Policy on the Economic Growth
2.2. The Effects the Agri-Environmental Policy on the Quality of the Environment
3. Description of the Variables and Data Series
4. Functional Form of Variables and Econometric Techniques
5. Results and Discussion
6. Conclusions
- Improving the productivity of land, currently deficient in moisture, saline, acids, etc.
- Improving the structure of the crop plan, through using valuable and profitable plants, and reducing the use of pesticides and fertilizers.
- Increasing the use of natural fertilizers and raising public awareness of the benefits of consuming organic products.
- Increasing the average production per hectare through irrigation.
- Simultaneously with investments for irrigation, larger investments in drainage works will be necessary which, as we have shown, have not been used on a large scale in Romania and which can lead to an increase in productivity and farmers’ incomes.
- Although all the official documents identified the need for soil erosion mitigation works in Romania, which is considered to be the most serious hazard with medium- and long-term consequences, we believe that greater efforts and investments are needed in this regard. We have also identified the need for large farmers to use natural fertilizers as well, which will likely lead to positive effects on the GDP and generate visible positive effects on environmental sustainability. At the same time, the use of pesticides will have to be undertaken very carefully and adapted to each individual farm [31].
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stevens, C. Agriculture and Green Growth; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. The European Green Deal in a Nutshell. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/factsheets-european-green-deal_ro (accessed on 2 February 2022).
- Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. How Effective Are European Agri-Environment Schemes in Conserving and Promoting Biodiversity? J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 947–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Somuah, R. Effects of Agri-Environment Schemes on Agricultural Inputs and Outputs Including Biodiversity in the Netherlands. Master’s Thesis, Wageningen Universiteit, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/147512 (accessed on 2 February 2022).
- European Court of Auditors. It Is the Support for the Agro-Environment Well Designed and Well Managed? 2011; Special Report no.7. Available online: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/News/NEWS1109_19/NEWS1109_19_RO.PDF (accessed on 3 February 2022).
- Science for Environment Policy. Agri-Environmental Schemes: How to Enhance the Agriculture-Environment Relationship; Thematic Issue 57; Issue produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit; UWE: Bristol, UK, 2017; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environmentpolicy (accessed on 3 February 2022).
- INSSE. Available online: https://insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/com_presa/com_pdf/somaj_2020r.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2022).
- Ruttan, V. Productivity Growth in World Agriculture: Sources and Constraints. J. Econ. Perspect. 2002, 16, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blandford, D. The Contribution of Agriculture to Green Growth; Report to the OECD; OECD: Paris, France, 2011; pp. 1–36. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/tad/sustainable-agriculture/48258861.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2022).
- Buckwell, A.; Heissenhuber, A.; Blum, W. Sustainable Intensification of European Agriculture; RISE Foundation: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; Available online: https://risefoundation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2014_-SI_RISE_FULL_EN.pdf. (accessed on 6 February 2022).
- Jezierska-Thöle, A.; Gwiaździńska-Goraj, M.; Dudzińska, M. Environmental, Social, and Economic Aspects of the Green Economy in Polish Rural Areas—A Spatial Analysis. Energies 2022, 15, 3332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollin, D.; Hansen, C.H.; Wingender, A.M. When Agriculture Drives Development: Lessons from the Green Revolution. 2021. Available online: https://voxeu.org/article/when-agriculture-drives-development (accessed on 6 February 2022).
- Pîrvu, R.; Dragomir, L.; Budică, B.; Bratu, R.; Dinulescu, S.; Țenea, L. The Impact of RDP Measures on the Rural Development: The Case of Romania. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the Food, Natural Resources and Territorial Challenges of the Future. COM(2010) 672 Final, 18 November. 2010. Brussels. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011IP0297&rid=1 (accessed on 6 February 2022).
- Zhang, W.; Ricketts, T.; Kremen, C.; Carne, K.; Swinton, S. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hezri, A.A.; Ghazali, R. A Fair Green Economy? Studies of Agriculture, Energy and Waste Initiatives in Malaysia; Occasional Paper Two Social Dimensions of Green Economy and Sustainable Development; UNRISD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Fridman, D.; Kissinger, M. An integrated biophysical and ecosystem approach as a base for ecosystem analysis across regions. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tubiello, F.N.; Salvatore, M.; Cóndor Golec, R.D.; Ferrara, R.; Rossi, S.; Biancalani, R.; Federici, S.; Jacobs, H.; Flammini, A. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks 1990–2011 Analysis; FAO Statistics Division Working Paper Series ESS/14-02; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, W.; Lin, M.; Zhou, H.; Wu, H.; Li, Z.; Lin, W. The effects of chemical and organic fertilizer usage on rhizosphere soil in tea orchards. PLoS ONE. 2019, 14, e0217018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, A.; Dinu, A.T.; Stoian, E.; Șerban, V. The Use of Chemical Fertilizers in Romania’s Agriculture. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2021, 21, 469–476. [Google Scholar]
- Cucu, M.C.; Panait, I. Agricultural Chemistration in the Context of Sustainable Development of Romanian Agriculture. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 52, 32–38. [Google Scholar]
- Smedescu, D.I.; Tudor, V.C.; Micu, M.M.; Carbarău, C.A. Evolution of the amount of chemical and natural fertilizers used in Romania between 2007 and 2016, Agrarian Economy and Rural Development—Realities and Perspectives for Romania. In Proceedings of the 9th Edition of the International Symposium, Bucharest, Romania, 15 November 2018; The Research Institute for Agricultural Economy and Rural Development (ICEADR): Bucharest, Romania, 2018; pp. 323–329. [Google Scholar]
- Valipour, M.; Krasilnikof, J.; Yannopoulos, S.; Kumar, R.; Deng, J.; Roccaro, P.; Mays, L.; Grismer, M.E.; Angelakis, A.N. The Evolution of Agricultural Drainage from the Earliest Times to the Present. Sustainability 2020, 12, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sojka, M.; Kozłowski, M.; Stasik, R.; Napierała, M.; Kęsicka, B.; Wróżyński, R.; Jaskuła, J.; Liberacki, D.; Bykowski, J. Sustainable Water Management in Agriculture—The Impact of Drainage Water Management on Groundwater Table Dynamics and Subsurface Outflow. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahtiainen, H.; Pouta, E.; Liski, E.; Myyrä, S.; Assmuth, A. Importance of economic, social, and environmental objectives of agriculture for stakeholders. A Meta-Analysis. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2015, 39, 1047–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Future of Food and Agriculture. Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2022).
- Steinhoff-Knopp, B.; Burkhard, B. Mapping control of erosion rates: Comparing model and monitoring data for croplands in Northern Germany. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e26382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasztelan, A. Green growth, green economy and sustainable development: Terminological and relational discourse. Prague Econ. Pap. 2017, 26, 487–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Panagos, P.; Lugato, E.; Yang, J.E.; Alewell, C.; Wuepper, D.; Montanarella, L.; Ballabio, C. Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015–2070). PNAS 2020, 117, 21994–22001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mihalache, M.; Ilie, L.; Marin, D.I. Romanian Soil Resources—“Healthy Soils For A Healthy Life”. AgroLife Sci. J. 2015, 4, 101–110. [Google Scholar]
- Popescu, A.; Tindeche, C.; Mărcuță, A.; Mărcuță, L.; Honțuș, A. Pesticides—A Problem in Romania’s Agriculture? Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2021, 21, 477–486. [Google Scholar]
- Amerasinghe, F.; Boelee, E. Assessing the impact of irrigation development on the environment and human health. Presented at the Inception Workshop on IWMI-BOKU-Sieberdorf-EARO-Arbamintch University Collaborative Study on the Impact of Irrigation Development on Poverty and the Environment, ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 26–30 April 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, K. Expansion, Environmental Impacts of Irrigation by 2050 Greatly Underestimated, Princeton Environmental Institute. 2020. Available online: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/05/05/expansion-environmental-impacts-irrigation-2050-greatly-underestimated (accessed on 19 October 2022).
- Chen, X.; Thorp, R.K.; Van Oel, P.R.; Xu, Z.; Zhou, B.; Li, Y. Environmental impact assessment of water-saving irrigation systems across 60 irrigation construction projects in northern China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aceleanu, M.I.; Molănescu, A.G.; Crăciun, L.; Voicu, C. The status of Romanian agriculture and some measures to take. Theor. Appl. Econ. 2015, 2, 123–138. [Google Scholar]
- INSSE—National Institute of Statistics. Land Surface Arranged with Irrigation Works and Irrigated Agricultural Surface, by Categories of Land Use, Macro-Regions, Development Regions and Counties. 2019. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/ (accessed on 19 October 2022).
- Florea, N.V.; Duică, M.C.; Ionescu, C.A.; Duică, A.; Ibinceanu, M.C.O.; Stanescu, S.G. An Analysis of the Influencing Factors of the Romanian Agricultural Output within the Context of Green Economy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeBoe, G. Impacts of Agricultural Policies on Productivity and Sustainability Performance in Agriculture: A Literature Review; OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 141; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nor Diana, M.I.; Nurul, A.; Zulkepli, C.S.; Zainol, M.R. Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirchner, M.; Schmidt, J.; Kindermann, G.; Kulmer, V.; Mitter, H.; Prettenthaler, F.; Rüdisser, J.; Schauppenlehner, T.; Strauss, F.; Schönhart, M.; et al. Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes—The impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 109, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merckx, T.; Pereira, H. Reshaping agri-environmental subsidies: From marginal farming to large-scale rewilding. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2015, 16, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bethwell, C.; Burkhard, B.; Daedlow, K.; Sattler, C.; Reckling, M.; Zander, P. Towards an enhanced indication of provisioning ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Mainstreaming Biodiversity for Sustainable Development; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batáry, P.; Dicks, V.L.; Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1006–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Šumrada, T.; Kmecl, P.; Erjavec, E. Do the EU’s Common agricultural policy funds negatively affect the diversity of farmland birds? Evidence from Slovenia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 306, 107200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biffi, S.; Traldi, R.; Crezee, B.; Beckmann, M.; Egli, L.; Epp Schmidt, D.; Motzer, N.; Okumah, M.; Seppelt, R.; Slabbert, E.L.; et al. Aligning agri-environmental subsidies and environmental needs: A comparative analysis between the US and EU. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 054067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhutta, A.; Riaz, A.; Sultan, J.; Sheikh, M.F.; Ullah, M. Impact of Green Energy Production, Green Innovation, Financial Development on Environment Quality: A Role of Country Governance in Pakistan. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2022, 12, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesirov, E.; Karimov, M.; Zeynalli, E. The Impact Of Chemical Fertilizer Consumption on Agricultural Carbon Emissions in Azerbaijan. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2022, 6, 52–58. [Google Scholar]
- Zafeiriou, E.; Azam, M.; Garefalakis, A. Exploring environmental–economic performance linkages in EU agriculture: Evidence from a panel cointegration framework. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Praveen, B.; Kumar, P.; Baig, I.A.; Bhardwaj, M.; Singh, K.; Yadav, A.K. Impact of environmental degradation on agricultural efficiency in India: Evidence from robust econometric models. J. Bioecon. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badîrcea, R.M.; Manta, A.G.; Florea, N.M.; Puiu, S.; Manta, L.F.; Doran, M.D. Connecting Blue Economy and Economic Growth to Climate Change: Evidence from European Union Countries. Energies 2021, 14, 4600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balogh, J. The impact of agricultural subsidies on environmental pollution in the European Union. Res. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2022. Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/321223/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- Engle, R.; Granger, C. Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing. Econometrica 1987, 55, 251–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, P.C.; Hansen, B.E. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1990, 57, 99–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Micu, M.M.; Dinu, T.A.; Fintineru, G.; Tudor, V.C.; Stoian, E.; Dumitru, E.A.; Stoicea, P.; Iorga, A. Climate Change—Between “Myth and Truth” in Romanian Farmers’ Perception. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Ecological Food System. Available online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022).
- European Chemical Agency (ECHA). Report on the Operation of REACH and CLP. 2016. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13634/operation_reach_clp_2016_en.pdf/4c958d7a-3158-447b-9e81-d8bae9a7e7f9 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
Variable | Indicator | Unit of Measure | Details |
---|---|---|---|
Economic Growth (GDP) | Annual GDP growth | percentage | Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local currency. Aggregates are based on constant 2015 prices, expressed in USD. GDP is the sum of the gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for the depreciation of fabricated assets or for the depletion and degradation of natural resources. |
Environmental degradation (ED) | CO2 emissions | kilotonnes | Carbon dioxide emissions are those stemming from the burning of fossil fuels and the manufacture of cement. They include carbon dioxide produced during the consumption of solid, liquid, and gas fuels and gas flaring. |
Environmental sustainability (ES) | Adjusted net savings | % of GNI | Adjusted net savings are equal to net national savings plus the education expenditure and minus the energy depletion, mineral depletion, net forest depletion, and carbon dioxide. This series excludes particulate emissions damage. |
Variable | Indicator | Unit of Measure | Details |
---|---|---|---|
AE1 Irrigation arrangement | The agricultural area arranged with irrigation | hectares | Represents the ensemble of works carried out in order to ensure the controlled supply of water, of the agricultural crops in order to increase the agricultural production and to ensure its independence from the meteorological conditions. |
AE2 Drainage arrangements | The agricultural area arranged with drainage works | hectares | Represents the totality of the hydrotechnical works carried out for the cut of the excess water from the surface of the lowlands in order to cultivate them or for sanitary prophylactic reasons. |
AE3 Improving and combating soil erosion | Agricultural area arranged with works of combating erosion and land improvement | hectares | Represents the complex of hydrotechnical works performed to reduce or to stop the degradation of the soil surface by removing its fertile layer under the action of external geographical agents, and carrying out regularization works to avoid rainwater runoff from the slopes to avoid damage caused by floods on the land of the slope. |
AE4 Drainage arrangement | The agricultural area arranged with drainage works | hectares | Represents the totality of hydrotechnical works for the removal of excess moisture and consolidation of a land on an agricultural or non-agricultural surface through a network of drains that are underground pipes or channels open to the surface. |
AE5 Chemical fertilizers used in agriculture | Quantity of chemical fertilizers used in agriculture | tons of active substance | Industrial products that according to their content can be nitrogen, phosphate, or potassium, and they can also be mixed as complex fertilizers; they are expressed in the active substance. |
AE6 Natural fertilizers used in agriculture | The quantity of natural fertilizers used in agriculture | tons of active substance | Includes manure from all species of animals and birds (fresh or fermented) and manure in liquid form; they are expressed in gross weight. |
AE7 Pesticides used in agriculture | Amount of pesticides applied in agriculture | kilograms of active substance | Any substance or mixture of substances, including mixtures thereof with ingredients intended for: use in agriculture, forestry, storage, and other activities; for the purpose of preventing, reducing, removing or destroying pests, pathogens, weeds and other forms of animal or plant life, including viruses harmful to plants and domestic animals and insects and rodents carrying diseases infectious to humans; and products for regulating plant growth, defoliation or splitting. They are reported in the active substance. |
GDP | ED | ES | AE1 | AE2 | AE3 | AE4 | AE5 | AE6 | AE7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | 3.203524 | 86,540.43 | −0.088598 | 3,062,052 | 2,922,847 | 2,138,644 | 242,868.6 | 451,465.6 | 15,090,391 | 7,753,977 |
Median | 3.770962 | 85,500.00 | 1.817528 | 3,057,047 | 2,909,177 | 2,137,828 | 249,765.0 | 426,207.0 | 15,231,715 | 6,778,183 |
Maximum | 10.42811 | 113,420.0 | 8.521318 | 3,089,065 | 2,952,174 | 2,145,656 | 249,955.0 | 749,551.0 | 17,748,826 | 15,349,466 |
Minimum | −5.517394 | 71,140.00 | −12.12447 | 3,045,114 | 2,901,003 | 2,131,524 | 214,196.0 | 326,123.0 | 11,748,140 | 5,242,655 |
Std. Dev. | 4.262231 | 12,029.72 | 6.947009 | 16,314.28 | 23,287.25 | 4976.868 | 13,421.11 | 112,420.9 | 1,495,624 | 2,511,951 |
Skewness | −0.511692 | 0.265891 | −0.463185 | 0.343191 | 0.381434 | 0.127028 | −1.682727 | 1.349309 | −0.366317 | 2.001159 |
Kurtosis | 2.697116 | 2.081902 | 1.777727 | 1.424972 | 1.221576 | 1.639862 | 3.894702 | 4.307029 | 2.634269 | 6.065172 |
Jarque–Bera | 1.091592 | 1.078791 | 2.254109 | 2.828841 | 3.588730 | 1.834749 | 11.62149 | 8.616239 | 0.642573 | 24.35492 |
Probability | 0.579380 | 0.583101 | 0.323986 | 0.243066 | 0.166233 | 0.399567 | 0.002995 | 0.013459 | 0.725216 | 0.000005 |
ADF Test | PP Test | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level | First Difference | I(d) | Level | First Difference | I(d) | |
GDP | −3.3384 ** | - | I(0) | −3.3195 ** | - | I(0) |
ED | −2.1808 | −4.1036 *** | I(1) | −2.1808 | −7.0995 *** | I(1) |
ES | −1.5008 | −4.0560 *** | I(1) | −1.5008 | −4.0520 *** | I(1) |
AE1 | −1.5215 | −4.3498 *** | I(1) | −1.6195 | −4.3453 *** | I(1) |
AE2 | −0.8793 | −4.0857 *** | I(1) | −0.8793 | −4.0857 *** | I(1) |
AE3 | −0.8060 | −4.3459 *** | I(1) | −0.5816 | −5.0780 *** | I(1) |
AE4 | −3.4405 ** | - | I(0) | −2.7524 * | - | I(0) |
AE5 | 1.5543 | −5.2795 *** | I(1) | 1.3250 | −5.2795 *** | I(1) |
AE6 | −2.4337 | −4.7596 *** | I(1) | −2.4841 | −4.6569 ** | I(1) |
AE7 | −5.0093 *** | - | I(0) | −7.5667 *** | - | I(0) |
Covariance Analysis: Ordinary | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample: 1997–2019 | ||||||||||
Correlation | ||||||||||
Probability | GDP | ED | ES | AE1 | AE2 | AE3 | AE4 | AE5 | AE6 | AE7 |
GDP | 1.000 | |||||||||
- | ||||||||||
ED | −0.007 | 1.000 | ||||||||
0.9733 | - | |||||||||
ES | 0.190 | −0.700 | 1.000 | |||||||
0.3831 | 0.0002 | - | ||||||||
AE1 | −0.188 | 0.796 | −0.921 | 1.000 | ||||||
0.3888 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | - | |||||||
AE2 | −0.091 | 0.740 | −0.925 | 0.978 | 1.000 | |||||
0.6786 | 0.0001 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | - | ||||||
AE3 | 0.137 | −0.863 | 0.774 | −0.853 | −0.793 | 1.000 | ||||
0.5318 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | - | |||||
AE4 | 0.451 | −0.468 | 0.783 | −0.721 | −0.645 | 0.655 | 1.000 | |||
0.0304 | 0.0242 | 0.0000 | 0.0001 | 0.0009 | 0.0007 | - | ||||
AE5 | 0.055 | −0.655 | 0.535 | −0.666 | −0.650 | 0.819 | 0.415 | 1.000 | ||
0.8009 | 0.0007 | 0.0084 | 0.0005 | 0.0008 | 0.0000 | 0.0486 | - | |||
AE6 | −0.180 | 0.329 | −0.654 | 0.613 | 0.678 | −0.347 | −0.406 | −0.252 | 1.000 | |
0.4107 | 0.1251 | 0.0007 | 0.0019 | 0.0004 | 0.1045 | 0.0543 | 0.2449 | - | ||
AE7 | −0.521 | 0.584 | −0.745 | 0.723 | 0.625 | −0.658 | −0.898 | −0.446 | 0.360 | 1.000 |
0.0107 | 0.0034 | 0.0000 | 0.0001 | 0.0014 | 0.0006 | 0.0000 | 0.0328 | 0.0912 | - |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value | Prob. * | Value | Prob. * | Value | Prob. * | |
Engle–Granger tau-statistic | −4.2806 | 0.0500 | −4.7000 | 0.0347 | −5.4352 | 0.0156 |
Engle–Granger z-statistic | −20.5469 | 0.0485 | −21.7349 | 0.0393 | −25.8365 | 0.0138 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Doran, N.M.; Bădîrcea, R.M.; Doran, M.D. Financing the Agri-Environmental Policy: Consequences on the Economic Growth and Environmental Quality in Romania. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13908. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113908
Doran NM, Bădîrcea RM, Doran MD. Financing the Agri-Environmental Policy: Consequences on the Economic Growth and Environmental Quality in Romania. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):13908. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113908
Chicago/Turabian StyleDoran, Nicoleta Mihaela, Roxana Maria Bădîrcea, and Marius Dalian Doran. 2022. "Financing the Agri-Environmental Policy: Consequences on the Economic Growth and Environmental Quality in Romania" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 13908. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113908