4.7 Relationship between HDI Score and Individual Environmental Groups

For analyzing the relationship between the HDI score and
composite indicator of individual environmental groups, we estimate
different specifications of multivariate OLS regression models by assuming
the presence of non-linearity. In addition, apart from HDI score, various
other explanatory variables are introduced. From Tables 7a and 7b,
summarizing the regression results for different variants of the models, it
is observed that non-linearity exist for all the eight environmental groups
(SeeAppendixSforgraphicaI representation of the obtained relationships
between HDI score and various environmental groups). The results show
that investment in human development will have both direct and cumulative
impacts on the natural resources conservation. In addition, with respect
to controlling variables, it is observed that share of primary sector in
GSDP (PRISHARE) is negatively related to most of the environmental
groups, but positively related to INDOOR. The exception can be explained
by the fact that the fall in PRISHARE leads to sophistication in domestic
energy use, thereby improving INDOOR. With the rise in share Ofsecondary
sector in GSDP (SECSHARE), ENRGY and WATER score fall and the same
for LAND and NPS increase. As the share Oftertiary sector improves, the
scores of GHGs, LAND and NPS improve. The findings indicate that
composition of income of a State significantly influence its EQ. Like the
EKC result, increased share Ofworkers in agriculture (AGRWRK) shows a
mixed trend (positive for FOREST, GHGS and INDOOR and negative for
AIRPOL). Share of workers in non-agriculture (NAGRWRK) is negatively
related to AIRPOL. Population density (POPD) generally shows a negative
relationship with EQ (exception: ENERGY). The relationship between level
of urbanisation (URB) and EQ however shows a mixed trend (positive for
INDOOR, LAND and NPS and negative for ENERGY and FOREST).

38

INDOOR

I Coeff.

-0.0311
(0 122)

2.2598 *
(0.436)

-1.9498 *
(0.437)

-0.0001

(0.0001)

0.0077 *
(0.0027)

0.0039 *
(0.0017)

0.8359

28.5053

1.6831

INDOOR

I Coeff. I

-0.1518

(0.1536)

1.7530 *
(0.4173)

-1.5379 *
(0.4299)

0.0062 *
(0.0025)

-0.0002 *
(0.0001)

0.0127 *
(0.0038)

0.8375 I

28.8319 I

1.5498 I

GHGS

I Coeff. I

-1.0008 *
(0.254)

3.0151 *
(0.9611)

-6.1352 *
(2.2971)

3.9813 *
(1.4975)

0.0172 *
(0.0045)

0.0118 *
(0.0025)

0.4317

L∩"

1.4486

FOREST

I Coeff. I

0.3321 *
(0.1214)

1.3688
(0 69)

-1.3020 *
(0.5882)

-0.0112

(0.0063)

0.0097
(0.0056)

0.4291

6.0731

I 1.9056

ENERGY

I Coeff. I

0.1977 *
(0.0919)

3.2469 *
(0.648)

-8.8858 *
(1.5277)

5.8978 *
(1.0053)

0.0003 *
(0.0001)

0.4904

I 7.4961

I 1.7509

ENERGY

I Coeff. I

1.4238 *
(0.3788)

2.7629 *
(1.2293)

-5.8169 *
(2.7605)

3.3176
(!■751)

-0.0127 *
(0.0049)

-0.0188 *
(0.0071)

-0.0123

(0.0067)

0.5455

6.4004

co
O
O
∞

AIR

I Coeff.

1.4445 *
(0.2587)

4.2322 *
(1.3751)

-7.2035 *
(2.8178)

5.0476 *
(1.8388)

-0.0003

(0.0002)

-0.0078 *
(0.0037)

-0.0330 *
(0.0078)

0.5425

I 6.3366

I 2.2089

Dependent Variable

I ExpIanatoryVariabIeI

Constant

HDI

HDI^2

HDI^3

Prishare

SECSHARE

TERSHARE

POPD

URB

AGRWRK

NAGRWRK

I Adj. R² I

I F-Stat I

I D-W stat I

Note: Figure in the parenthesis shows the White Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Standard Errors
* -implies coefficient is significant at most at 0.10 level.

CorPapers

The name is absent

38

39

More intriguing information