Exploring the impact of globalization, economic complexity, urbanization, and real income on environmental degradation in E-7 countries

Abstract

Current society has been centered on the edge of calamity induced by environmental degradation. Providing comprehensive scientific evidence and designing reliable and accurate policies have been irreparable initiatives to mitigate and reverse the effects of environmental degradation and harmonize the economy with nature. Within this addressed objective, the study explores the impact of globalization, economic complexity, urbanization, and real income on CO2 emissions, the ecological footprint, and the load capacity factor in 7 Emerging countries (E-7). The study provides comprehensive evidence regarding environmental degradation and environmental quality by handling three environmental-related indicators. The second-generation panel methods involving Durbin–Hausman panel cointegration LM Panel Bootstrap Cointegration Test AMG and CCEMG estimators and Dumitrescu and Hurlin Panel Causality Test are performed on the data spanning from 1995 to 2020. According to the investigation, the explanatory variables are cointegrated with three dependent variables. The study proves that renewable energy and globalization are pivotal factors in lessening environmental degradation and enriching environmental quality. However, urbanization and economic growth impair the environment of E-7 countries, while economic complexity is found to be a statistically significant factor for all environmental-related variables.

Keywords

• macroeconomics
• sustainable development
• ecological footprint
• load capacity factor
• globalization
• urbanization
• ecologic complexity index

References

1. Adebayo TS, Ullah S. (2024). Towards a sustainable future: The role of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and urbanization in limiting CO2 emissions in Sweden. J Sustain Dev. 32(1):244-259. doi: 10.1002/sd.2658.
2. Ahmad M, Ahmed Z, Majeed A, Huang B. (2021). An environmental impact assessment of economic complexity and energy consumption: Does institutional quality make a difference? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 89:106603. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106603.
3. Ali R, Bakhsh K, Yasin MA. (2019). Impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerging economy: evidence from Pakistan. Sustain Cities Soc. 48:101553. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101553.
4. Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I, Lean HH. (2015a). The influence of economic growth, urbanization, trade openness, financial development, and renewable energy on pollution in Europe. Nat Hazards. 79:621-644. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1865-9.
5. Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I. (2016). The investigation of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the advanced economies: The role of energy prices. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 54:1622-1631. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.131.
6. Al-Mulali U, Weng-Wai C, Sheau-Ting L, Mohammed AH. (2015b). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol Indic. 48:315-323. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.029.
7. Aluko OA, Opoku EEO, Acheampong AO. (2023). Economic complexity and environmental degradation: Evidence from OECD countries. Bus Strateg Environ. 32(6):2767-2788. doi: 10.1002/bse.3269.
8. Apergis N, Christou C, Gupta R. (2017). Are there environmental Kuznets curves for US state-level CO2 emissions? Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 69:551-558. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.219.

9. Apergis N, Payne JE. (2015). Renewable energy, output, carbon dioxide emissions, and oil prices: evidence from South America. Energy Source Part B. 10(3):281-287. doi: 10.1080/15567249.2013.853713.
10. Arı, F. (2023). Başlıca enerji kaynakları ve çevresel etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(26), 697-718.
11. Aydın M, Koc P, Sahpaz KI. (2023). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with nanotechnology, renewable energy consumption, economic growth and ecological footprint in G7 countries: Panel data analyses with structural breaks. Energy Source Part B. 18(1):2163724. doi: 10.1080/15567249.2022.2163724.
12. Balsalobre-Lorente D, Nur T, Topaloglu EE, Evcimen C. (2024). Assessing the impact of the economic complexity on the ecological footprint in G7 countries: Fresh evidence under human development and energy innovation processes. Gondwana Res. 127:226-245. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2023.03.017.
13. Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü. (2016). The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: A revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 54:838-845. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.080.
14. Bölük G, Mert M. (2014). Fossil & renewable energy consumption, GHGs (greenhouse gases) and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of EU (European Union) countries. Energy. 74:439-446. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.008.
15. Bozkurt C, Okumuş İ. (2017). Gelişmiş ülkelerde çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin test edilmesi: Kyoto Protokolünün rolü [Testing environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in developed countries: The role of Kyoto Protocol]. İşlet İktisat Çalış Derg. 5(4):57-67. Turkish.
16. Can M, Gozgor G. (2017). The impact of economic complexity on carbon emissions: evidence from France. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 24, 16364-16370. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9219-7
17. De Lassus St-Geniès G. (2024). The market mechanisms of the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol: a legal comparison. In: Zahar A, editor. Research handbook on the law of the Paris Agreement. Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 240-261.
18. Destek MA. (2020). Investigation on the role of economic, social, and political globalization on environment: evidence from CEECs. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 27(27):33601-33614. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-04698-x.
19. Doğan B, Saboori B, Can M. (2019). Does economic complexity matter for environmental degradation? An empirical analysis for different stages of development. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 26(31):31900-31912. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06333-1.
20. Dreher A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Appl Econ. 38(10):1091-1110. doi: 10.1080/00036840500392078.
21. Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model. 29(4):1450-1460. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014.
22. Edo GI, Itoje-akpokiniovo LO, Obasohan P, Ikpekoro VO, Samuel PO, Jikah AN, Nosu LC, Ekokotu HA, Ugbune U, Oghroro, EEA, et al. (2024). Impact of environmental pollution from human activities on water, air quality and climate change. Ecol Front. doi: 10.1080/0028825X.2022.2148544.
23. Erdoğan S, Pata UK. (2024). Uncovering time-, frequency- and quantile-based impacts of energy, fiscal policy instruments, and economic growth on sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 1-15. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2024.2398708.
24. Estoque RC, Wu J. (2024). The resilience–sustainability–quality of life nexus. Sci Total Environ. 912:169526. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169526.
25. FAOSTAT (2024). Temperature change on land. Food and Agriculture Organizaton. [accessed 2024 Jul 14]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/ET
26. Global Footprint Network (2024). National footprint accounts. [accessed 2024 Jul 24]. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
27. Grossman, Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The quarterly journal of economics, 110(2), 353-377.
28. Grunewald N, Martinez-Zarzoso I. (2016). Did the Kyoto Protocol fail? An evaluation of the effect of the Kyoto Protocol on CO2 emissions. Environ Dev Econ. 21(1):1-22. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X15000091.
29. Gygli S, Haelg F, Potrafke N, Sturm JE (2019). The KOF globalisation index–revisited. Rev Int Organ. 14:543-574. doi: 10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2.
30. Hakkak, M., Altintaş, N., Hakkak, S. (2023). Exploring the relationship between nuclear and renewable energy usage, ecological footprint, and load capacity factor: A study of the Russian Federation testing the EKC and LCC hypothesis. Renewable Energy Focus, 46, 356-366.
31. Hassan A, Haseeb M, Bekun FV, Yazdi AH, Ullah E, Hossain ME (2024). Does nuclear energy mitigate CO2 emissions in the USA? Testing IPAT and EKC hypotheses using dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Prog Nuclear Energy. 169:105059. doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2024.105059 Hausmann R, Hidalgo CA, Bustos S, Coscia M, Simoes A. (2014). The atlas of economic complexity: Mapping paths to prosperity. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
32. Holtz-Eakin D, Selden TM (1995). Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. J Public Econ. 57(1):85-101. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(94)01449-X.
33. IEA (2024). Total CO2 emissions. [accessed 2024 Jul 14]. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser?country=WORLD&fuel=CO2%20emissions&indicator=TotCO2. Kakar A, Khan A, Khan A. (2024). Analyzing the role of governance, ICT, and urbanization on environment in South Asian countries. J Knowl Econ. 15(1):2682-2703. doi: 10.1007/s13132-023-01288-8.
34. Kamacı A. (2024). Küreselleşme, hidroelektrik enerji, ekonomik büyüme, CO2 emisyonları ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi ilişkisinin ABD için analizi: Kesirli Fourier ADL eşbütünleşme yöntemi [The analysis of globalization, hydroelectric energy, economic growth, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint relationships for the USA: Fractional Fourier ADL cointegration method]. Sosyoekonomi. 32(59):249-267. Turkish. doi: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.01.11.
35. Kartal MT, Samour A, Adebayo TS, Depren SK. (2023). Do nuclear energy and renewable energy surge environmental quality in the United States? New insights from novel bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles approach. Prog Nuclear Energy. 155:104509. doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104509
36. Khoshnevis-Yazdi S, Golestani-Dariani A. (2019). CO2 emissions, urbanisation and economic growth: evidence from Asian countries. Econ Res-Ekon Istraz. 32(1):510-530. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1556107.
37. Kihombo S, Vaseer AI, Ahmed Z, Chen S, Kirikkaleli D, Adebayo TS. (2022). Is there a tradeoff between financial globalization, economic growth, and environmental sustainability? An advanced panel analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 29:3983-3993. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15878-z.
38. Kostakis I, Armaos S, Abeliotis K, Theodoropoulou E. (2023). The investigation of EKC within CO2 emissions framework: Empirical evidence from selected cross-correlated countries. Sustain Analytics Model. 3:100015. doi: 10.1016/j.samod.2023.100015.
39. Kumar, R., Singh, C. K., Misra, S., Singh, B. P., Bhardwaj, A. K., & Chandra, K. K. (2024). Water biodiversity: Ecosystem services, threats, and conservation. In Biodiversity and Bioeconomy (pp. 347-380). Elsevier.
40. Liu Y, Yan B, Zhou Y. (2016). Urbanization, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emissions in China: A panel cointegration and causality analysis. J Geogr Sci. 26:131-152. doi: 10.1007/s11442-016-1259-2.
41. López-Menéndez AJ, Pérez R, Moreno B. (2014). Environmental costs and renewable energy: Re-visiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve. J Environ Manage. 145:368-373. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.017.
42. Martinez-Zarzoso I, Maruotti A. (2011). The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: evidence from developing countries. Ecol Econ. 70(7):1344-1353. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.009.
43. Neagu O, Teodoru MC. (2019). The relationship between economic complexity, energy consumption structure and greenhouse gas emission: Heterogeneous panel evidence from the EU countries. Sustainability. 11(2):497. doi: 10.3390/su11020497.
44. Nguyen CP, Doytch N. (2022). Does knowledge matter for the environment? Global evidence of economic complexity and ecological footprints. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 29(54):82122-82139. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21547-6.
45. Nketiah, E., Song, H., Adjei, M., Obuobi, B., & Adu-Gyamfi, G. (2024). Assessing the influence of research and development, environmental policies, and green technology on ecological footprint for achieving environmental sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 199, 114508.
46. Nsabiyeze A, Ma R, Li J, Luo H, Zhao Q, Tomka J, Zhang M. (2024). Tackling climate change in agriculture: A global evaluation of the effectiveness of carbon emission reduction policies. J Clean Prod. 468:142973. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142973.
47. OEC. (2024). Economic complexity rankings. [Accessed 2024 Jul 21]. https://oec.world/en/rankings/eci/hs6/hs96?tab=ranking.
48. Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Saboori B. (2016). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 23:1916-1928. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-5447-x.
49. Pata UK, Kartal MT. (2023). Impact of nuclear and renewable energy sources on environment quality: Testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses for South Korea. Nucl Eng Technol. 55(2):587-594. doi: 10.1016/j.net.2022.10.027.
50. Pata UK. (2021). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO 2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: Testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 28:846-861. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10446-3.
51. Pesaran MH. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica. 74(4):967-1012. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x.
52. Pouikli, K. (2021, December). a short history of the climate change litigation boom across Europe. In era Forum (Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 569-586). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
53. Qing L, Usman M, Radulescu M, Haseeb M. (2024). Towards the vision of going green in South Asian region: The role of technological innovations, renewable energy and natural resources in ecological footprint during globalization mode. Resour Policy. 88:104506. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104506.
54. Raihan A, Bari, AM. (2024). Energy-economy-environment nexus in China: The role of renewable energies toward carbon neutrality. Innov Green Dev. 3(3):100139. doi: 10.1016/j.igd.2024.100139.
55. Raihan A, Rashid M, Voumik LC, Akter S, Esquivias MA. (2023). The dynamic impacts of economic growth, financial globalization, fossil fuel, renewable energy, and urbanization on load capacity factor in Mexico. Sustainability. 15(18):13462. doi: 10.3390/su151813462.
56. Rawat, A., Kumar, D., & Khati, B. S. (2024). A review on climate change impacts, models, and its consequences on different sectors: a systematic approach. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 15(1), 104-126.
57. Ren Y, Mo Y, You W. (2024). Economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and the mediating roles of energy structure and energy efficiency: A spatial panel analysis. Appl Econ. 1-15. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2024.2302930.
58. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: Time-series and cross-country evidence. Washington, D.C. (WASH): World Bank Publications; Vol. 904. Shahbaz M, Khan S, Ali A, Bhattacharya M. (2017). The impact of globalization on CO2 emissions in China. Singap Econ Rev. 62(04):929-957. doi: 10.1142/S0217590817400331.
59. Shahbaz M, Mallick H, Mahalik MK, Loganathan N. (2015). Does globalization impede environmental quality in India? Ecol Indic. 52: 379-393. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.025.
60. Sushinsky JR, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Gill TK, Fuller RA. (2013). How should we grow cities to minimize their biodiversity impacts? Glob Change Biol. 19(2):401-410. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12055.
61. Usman M, Jahanger A, Makhdum MSA, Balsalobre-Lorente D, Bashir A. (2022). How do financial development, energy consumption, natural resources, and globalization affect Arctic countries' economic growth and environmental quality? An advanced panel data simulation. Energy. 241:122515. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122515.
62. Wang Q, Wang X, Li R, Jiang X. (2024). Reinvestigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) of carbon emissions and ecological footprint in 147 countries: a matter of trade protectionism. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 11(1):1-17. doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02639-9.
63. Wang Z, Kim MK. (2024). Decoupling of CO2 emissions and income in the US: A new look from EKC. Clim Change. 177(3):52. doi: 10.1007/s10584-024-03706-5.
64. Westerlund J, Edgerton DL. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Econ Lett. 97(3):185-190. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003.
65. World Bank (2024a). International energy agence. [Accessed 2024 Jul 14]. https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=SP.URB.TOTL&country=#
66. World Bank (2024b). World development indicators online database. [Accessed 2024 Jul 04]. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
67. Yilanci V, Pata UK. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 27:32683–32694. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4.