Protected areas are a natural instrument for preserving biodiversity and a major defence against climate change. This paper uses an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) perspective to examine the relationship between the percentage of national territory under protection (PA%) and per capita GDP (GDPpc) in European countries. Building on the results of a previous study (Bimonte, 2002) that found a U-shaped relationship between GDPpc and PA%, it explores fate of this relationship two decades later, after two economic crises and a pandemic. It also investigates the effect of the European Union (EU) enlargement. In a dynamic perspective, it analyses the effect, if any, on national conservation policy. Due to the characteristics of the indicator chosen, which is stock-sensitive and subject to saturation effect, it verifies whether the relationship between income level and PA% is still an EKC, or whether a convergence in conservation policy has emerged and PA% is tending to a steady state. This is done by running regression models on the countries to test said EKC and -convergence hypotheses. The results confute the persistence of an EKC and show a convergence in conservation policy in the last two decades, albeit with interesting differences between groups of countries, in particular latecomers as opposed to old member states of the EU. The results have important policy implications: when dealing with public or collective goods, or goods that produce externalities, centralised (federal) guidance is more effective than local and decentralised approaches (subsidiarity principle).

中文翻译：

---

欧洲国家的保护区和环境库兹涅茨曲线

保护区是保护生物多样性的天然工具，也是应对气候变化的主要防御手段。本文采用环境库兹涅茨曲线（EKC）视角考察欧洲国家受保护国家领土百分比（PA%）与人均GDP（GDPpc）之间的关系。之前的一项研究（Bimonte，2002）发现 GDPpc 和 PA% 之间存在 U 形关系，在此基础上，本文探讨了二十年后、两次经济危机和一场大流行之后这种关系的命运。它还调查了欧盟（EU）扩大的影响。它从动态的角度分析了对国家保护政策的影响（如果有的话）。由于所选指标对存量敏感且受饱和效应影响的特点，它验证了收入水平与PA%之间的关系是否仍然是EKC，或者保护政策是否已经出现收敛且PA%是否趋于趋于一致。达到稳定状态。这是通过对国家运行回归模型来测试所述 EKC 和收敛假设来完成的。结果驳斥了 EKC 的持久性，并显示了过去二十年中保护政策的趋同，尽管国家组之间存在有趣的差异，特别是与欧盟老成员国相比的后来者。结果具有重要的政策含义：在处理公共或集体物品或产生外部性的物品时，集中（联邦）指导比地方和分散的方法（辅助原则）更有效。