THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NATURAL RESOURCES RENTS, TRADE OPENNESS, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION: EVIDENCE FROM MIST COUNTRIES

Abstract

Increasing production with the Industrial Revolution boosted the energy demand, which increased the importance of using natural resources. The use of natural resources, which is an important component of economic growth, directly affects the production process and plays an important role in the economic growth process. However, rapid production and growth not only deplete natural resource stocks but also harm the environment by worsening ecological sustainability. This study aims to test the impact of natural resource rents and trade openness on environmental degradation for MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey) countries. The non-carbon footprint is used as a proxy for environmental degradation. To do this, using annual data for the period 1970- 2021, we apply the Pedroni (2004) and Westerlund (2007) cointegration tests and the fully modified least squares (FMOLS) and the dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) methods. According to Pedroni (2004) and Westerlund (2007) cointegration tests, there is cointegration between variables in the long run. The results also show that there is a positive and significant relationship between natural resource rents and non-carbon footprint in MIST countries. Besides, there is a negative and significant relationship between trade openness and non-carbon footprint. Finally, economic growth increases the non-carbon footprint. In other words, while an increase in natural resource rents and economic growth in MIST countries increases environmental degradation, trade openness contributes to environmental quality.

Keywords

• Non-Carbon Footprint
• Natural Resource Rents
• Trade Openness
• Economic Growth the FMOLS
• the DOLS.

DOĞAL KAYNAK GELİRİ, TİCARİ AÇIKLIK, EKONOMİK BÜYÜME VE ÇEVRESEL BOZULMA İLİŞKİSİ: MIST ÜLKELERİNDEN BULGULAR

Öz

Sanayi Devrimi ile birlikte artan üretim daha fazla enerji talebini ortaya çıkarmış ve bu durum doğal kaynak kullanımının önemini artmıştır. Ekonomik büyümenin önemli bir bileşeni olan doğal kaynak kullanımı doğrudan üretim sürecini etkilemekte ve ekonomik büyüme süreci içerisinde önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Ancak hızlı üretim ve büyüme yalnızca doğal kaynak stokunu tüketmekle kalmayıp aynı zamanda ekolojik sürdürülebilirliği kötüleştirerek çevreye de zarar vermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı MIST (Meksika, Endonezya, G. Kore ve Türkiye) ülkelerinde doğal kaynak geliri, ticari açıklık ve ekonomik büyümenin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkisini test etmektir. Çalışmada çevresel bozulmanın bir göstergesi olarak karbonsuz ayak izi değişkeni kullanılmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda 1970-2021 dönemine ait yıllık veriler kullanılarak Pedroni (2004) ve Westerlund (2007) eş bütünleşme testi ve tam modifiye edilmiş en küçük kareler (FMOLS) ve dinamik en küçük kareler (DOLS) yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Pedroni (2004) ve Westerlund (2007) eş bütünleşme testlerine göre değişkenler arasında uzun dönemde eş bütünleşme ilişkisi bulunmaktadır. Elde edilen diğer bulgulara göre MIST ülkelerinde doğal kaynak geliri ile karbonsuz ayak izi arasında pozitif yönlü ve anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca ticari açıklık ile karbonsuz ayak izi arasında negatif ve anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Son olarak ekonomik büyüme karbonsuz ayak izini artırmaktadır. Diğer bir ifadeyle MIST ülkelerinde doğal kaynak gelirleri ve ekonomik büyümedeki artış çevresel bozulmayı artırırken; ticari açıklıktaki artış çevresel kaliteye katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbonsuz Ayak İzi
• Doğal Kaynak Gelirleri
• Ticari Açıklık
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• FMOLS
• DOLS

Kaynakça

1. Acar, S., Altıntaş, N. & Haziyev, V. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint in Azerbaijan: an ARDL bound test approach with structural breaks. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 30(1), 41-59.
2. Adekoya, O. B., Ajayi, G. E., Suhrab, M., & Oliyide, J. A. (2022). How critical are resource rents, agriculture, growth, and renewable energy to environmental degradation in the resource-rich african countries? the role of institutional quality. Energy Policy, 164, 112888.
3. Ağır, H., & Türkmen, S. (2020). Ekonomik büyümeye etkisi bakımından doğal kaynaklar: dinamik panel veri analizi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(3), 840-852.
4. Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N., & Nawaz, K. (2020). Moving towards a sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resources Policy, 67, 101677.
5. Aladejare, S. A. (2022). Natural resource rents, globalisation and environmental degradation: new insight from 5 richest African economies. Resources Policy, 78, 102909.
6. Ali, A., Audi, M., & Roussel, Y. (2021). Natural resources depletion, renewable energy consumption and environmental degradation: a comparative analysis of developed and developing world. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(3), 251-260.
7. Al-Mulali, U., & Sheau-Ting, L. (2014). Econometric analysis of trade, exports, imports, energy consumption and CO2 emission in six regions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 484-498.
8. Al-Mulali, U., Solarin, S.A., Sheau-Ting, L., Ozturk, I. (2016). Does moving towards renewable energy causes water and land inefficiency? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy 93, 303e314

9. Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., & Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological indicators, 48, 315-323.
10. Apergis, N. & Payne, J. E. (2010). The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the commonwealth of independent states. Energy policy, 38(1), 650-655.
11. Aslan, A., & Altinoz, B. (2021). The impact of natural resources and gross capital formation on economic growth in the context of globalization: evidence from developing countries on the continent of Europe, Asia, Africa, and America. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 33794-33805.
12. Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2018). How does environmental regulation affect production location of non-carbon ecological footprint?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 927-936.
13. Aşıcı, A. A., Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecol. Indicat. 61, 707e714.
14. Aytun, C. (2014). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi: Panel veri analizi. Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (44).
15. Balaguer, J., & Cantavella, M. (2016). Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for Spain by considering fuel oil prices (1874–2011). Ecological Indicators, 60, 853-859
16. Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N., & Zhang, J. W. (2019). Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on co2 emissions in BRICS countries. Science of the Total Environment, 678, 632-638.
17. Boz, F. Ç., Gültekin, Ö. F., & Bayramoğlu, T. (2019). BRICS ve MIST ülkelerinde ar-ge harcamaları ile yüksek teknolojili ürün ihracatı arasındaki ilişki üzerine bir araştırma. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 1111-1124.
18. Bulut, U., Ucler, G., Aksoz-Yilmaz, H., & Basaran, D. N. (2022). Is there a trade-off between financing current account deficits and environmental deterioration in developing countries? an empirical investigation for the validity of the pollution haven hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(37), 56090-56097.
19. Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic literature, 42(1), 7-71.
20. Çamkaya, S. (2023). Doğal kaynaklar ve beşeri sermaye ekonomik büyüme üzerinde etkili mi? mint ülkeleri için kaynak laneti hipotezi bakımından bir inceleme. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(4), 729-748.
21. Demir, Y. (2020). OECD ülkelerine ait çeşitli enerji tüketimleri ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkinin panel eşbütünleşme analizi ile incelenmesi. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, (32), 15-33
22. Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(29), 29387-29396.
23. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4):431–55.
24. Dogan, E., & Seker, F. (2016). An investigation on the determinants of carbon emissions for OECD countries: empirical evidence from panel models robust to heterogeneity and cross-sectional dependence. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 14646-14655.
25. Dogan, E., & Turkekul, B. (2016). CO 2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 1203-1213.
26. Dou, Y., Zhao, J., Malik, M. N. & Dong, K. (2021). Assessing the impact of trade openness on CO2 emissions: Evidence from China-Japan- ROK FTA countries. J Environ Manag 296:113241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvm an. 2021. 113241
27. Erataş, F. ve Uysal, D. (2014). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Yaklaşımının “BRICT” Ülkeleri Kapsamında Değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 64(1).
28. Erdoğan, L., Tiryaki, A., & Ceylan, R. (2018). Türkiye’de uzun dönem ekonomik büyümenin belirleyicilerinin ARDL, FMOLS, DOLS ve CCR yöntemleriyle tahmini. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(4), 39-57.
29. Erdoğan, S., Çakar, N. D., Ulucak, R., & Danish Kassouri, Y. (2021). The role of natural resources abundance and dependence in achieving environmental sustainability: evidence from resource‐based economies. Sustainable Development, 29(1), 143-154.
30. Ergün, S., & Polat, M. A. (2017). G7 Ülkelerinde CO2 Emisyonu, Elektrik Tüketimi ve Büyüme İlişkisi. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2):257- 272.
31. Farhani, S., & Ben Rejeb, J. (2012). Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions: Evidence from panel data for MENA region. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy (IJEEP), 2(2), 71-81
32. Ganda, F. (2022). The nexus of financial development, natural resource rents, technological innovation, foreign direct investment, energy consumption, human capital, and trade on environmental degradation in the new BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(49), 74442-74457
33. Gozgor, G. (2017). Does trade matter for carbon emissions in OECD countries? Evidence from a new trade openness measure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 27813–27821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017- 0361-z.
34. Güllü, M., & Yakışık, H. (2017). Karbon emisyonu ve enerji tüketiminin büyüme üzerindeki etkileri: MIST ülkeleri karşılaştırması. Sosyoekonomi, 25(32), 239-253.
35. Gülmez, A., & Yardımcıoğlu, F. (2012). OECD ülkelerinde Ar-Ge harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Panel eşbütünleşme ve panel nedensellik analizi (1990-2010). Maliye Dergisi, 163(1), 335-353.
36. Hassan, S. T., Xia, E., Khan, N. H., & Shah, S. M. A. (2019). Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science And Pollution Research, 26, 2929-2938.
37. Heidari, H., Katircioğlu, S. T., & Saeidpour, L. (2015). Economic growth, CO2 emissions, and energy consumption in the five ASEAN countries. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 64, 785-791.
38. Huber, J. (2000). Towards industrial ecology: sustainable development as a concept of ecological modernization. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2(4), 269-285.
39. Iwata, H., Okada, K., & Samreth, S. (2010). Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: the role of nuclear energy. Energy policy, 38(8), 4057-4063.
40. İsaoğlu, A., & Arvas, M. A. (2022). The Relationship Between Growth, Co2 Emission and Energy Consumption: A Panel Cointegration Approach for Selected Country Groups. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 17(66), 558- 573.
41. Kander, A. & Lindmark, M. (2005). Foreign trade and declining pollution in Sweden: adecomposition analysis of long- term structural and technical effects. Energy Policy, 34(13), 1590-1599
42. Keho, Y. (2016). Trade openness and the environment: a time series study of ECOWAS countries. Journal of Economics and Development Studies, 4(4), 61-69.
43. Ketenci, N. (2021). Environmental Kuznets curve in the presence of structural breaks: New evidence for individual European Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 31520-31538.
44. Khan, H., Weili, L., Khan, I., & Khamphengxay, S. (2021). Renewable energy consumption, trade openness, and environmental degradation: a panel data analysis of developing and developed countries. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 1-13.
45. Khan, M. W. A., Panigrahi, S. K., Almuniri, K. S. N., Soomro, M. I., Mirjat, N. H., & Alqaydi, E. S. (2019). Investigating the dynamic impact of co2 emissions and economic growth on renewable energy production: evidence from FMOLS and DOLS tests. Processes, 7(8), 496.
46. Koc, S., Bulus, G.C. (2020). Testing validity of the EKC Hypothesis in South Korea: role of renewable energy and trade openness. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27, 29043–29054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020- 09172-7.
47. Kotroni, E., Kaika, D., & Zervas, E. (2020). Environmental Kuznets curve in Greece in the period 1960-2014. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(4), 364-370.
48. Kuo, Y., Maneengam, A., The, C. P., An, N. B., Nassani, A. A., Haffar, M., & Qadus, A. (2022). Fresh evidence on environmental quality measures using natural resources, renewable energy, non-renewable energy and economic growth for 10 Asian nations from CS-ARDL technique. Fuel, 320, 123914.
49. Ling, T. Y., Ab-Rahim, R., & Mohd-Kamal, K. A. (2020). Trade openness and environmental degradation in Asean-5 countries. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(2), 691-707.
50. Magazzino, C., Mele, M., Drago, C., Kuşkaya, S., Pozzi, C., & Monarca, U. (2023). The trilemma among CO2 emissions, energy use, and economic growth in Russia. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 10225.
51. Majeed, A., Wang, L., Zhang, X., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Modeling the dynamic links among natural resources, economic globalization, disaggregated energy consumption, and environmental quality: fresh evidence from GCC economies. Resources Policy, 73, 102204.
52. Majeed, A., Ye, C., Chenyun, Y., Wei, X., & Muniba. (2022). Roles of natural resources, globalization, and technological innovations in mitigation of environmental degradation in BRI economies. PLoS One, 17(6), e0265755.
53. Managi, S., Hibiki, A., & Tsurumi, T. (2009). Does trade openness improve environmental quality?. Journal of environmental economics and management, 58(3), 346-363.
54. Muhammad, B., Khan, M. K., Khan, M. I., & Khan, S. (2021). Impact of foreign direct investment, natural resources, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth on environmental degradation: evidence from BRICS, developing, developed and global countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 21789-21798.
55. Naseem, S., Mohsin, M., Zia-UR-Rehman, M., Baig, S. A., & Sarfraz, M. (2022). The Influence of energy consumption and economic growth on environmental degradation in BRICS countries: an application of the ARDL model and decoupling index. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
56. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Environmental degradation in ASEAN: assessing the criticality of natural resources abundance, economic growth and human capital. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(17), 21766-21778.
57. Nathaniel, S. P., Nwulu, N., & Bekun, F. (2021). Natural resource, globalization, urbanization, human capital, and environmental degradation in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 6207-6221.
58. Oluç, İ. (2023). İnsani kalkınma ile karbonsuz ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: sürdürülebilir kalkınmaya farklı bir bakış açısı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(2), 271-293.
59. Onifade, S. T., Gyamfi, B. A., Haouas, I., & Bekun, F. V. (2021). Re-Examining the roles of economic globalization and natural resources consequences on environmental degradation in E7 economies: are human capital and urbanization essential components?. Resources Policy, 74, 102435.
60. Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., 2016. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 23 (2), 1916e1928
61. Örnek, İ., & Türkmen, S. (2019). Gelişmiş Ve Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerinde Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi'nin Analizi. Journal of the Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences, 28.
62. Özcan, B. (2015). ÇKE hipotezi yükselen piyasa ekonomileri için geçerli mi? Panel veri analizi. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 16 (1):1-14.
63. Özsoy, C. E., & Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve ekolojik ayak izi. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, (619), 35-55.
64. Pala, F., & Barut, A. (2021). Finansal gelişme, ekonomik büyüme ve enerji tüketiminin çevresel kalite üzerindeki etkisi: E-7 ülkeleri örneği. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 347-366.
65. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory, 20(3), 597-625.
66. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
67. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The econometrics journal, 11(1), 105-127.
68. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
69. Phillips, P. C., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The review of economic studies, 57(1), 99-125.
70. Rahman M. Z. (2013). Relationship between Trade Openness and Carbon Emission: A Case of Bangladesh. Journal of Empirical Economics, 1(4), 126-134.
71. Ren, S., Yuan, B., Ma, X., & Chen, X. (2014). International trade, FDI (foreign direct investment) and embodied CO2 emissions: a case study of Chinas industrial sectors. China Economic Review, 28, 123-134.
72. Selden, T. M., ve Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 27(2), 147-162.
73. Shabani, Z. D., & Shahnazi, R. (2019). Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, information and communications technology, and gross domestic product in Iranian economic sectors: a panel causality analysis. Energy, 169, 1064-1078.
74. Shahbaz, M., Mallick, H., Mahalik, M. K., & Loganathan, N. (2015). Does globalization impede environmental quality in India?. Ecological Indicators, 52, 379-393.
75. Shahbaz, M., Tiwari, A.K., Nasir, M., 2013. The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO2 emissions in South Africa. Energy Pol. 61, 1452–1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.006
76. Shahid, R., Shahid, H., Shijie, L., & Jian, G. (2024). Developing nexus between economic opening-up, environmental regulations, rent of natural resources, green innovation, and environmental upgrading of China-empirical analysis using ARDL bound-testing approach. Innovation and Green Development, 3(1), 100088.
77. Shittu, W., Adedoyin, F. F., Shah, M. I., & Musibau, H. O. (2021). An investigation of the nexus between natural resources, environmental performance, energy security and environmental degradation: evidence from Asia. Resources Policy, 73, 102227.
78. Sun, H., Enna, L., Monney, A., Tran, D.K., Rasoulinezhad, E., Taghizadeh- Hesary, F. (2020.) The Long-Run Effects of Trade Openness on Carbon Emissions in Sub-Saharan African Countries. Energies 13(20). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ en132 05295
79. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 783-820.
80. Şeker, F., Ertugrul, H. M., & Cetin, M. (2015). The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 347- 356.
81. Topcu, B. A. (2022). Türkiye’de sürdürülebilir çevre: finansal gelişme, yenilenebilir ve yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve doğal kaynak gelirlerinin rolü. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 10 (129), 43-60.
82. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., & Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855.
83. Ulucak, R., & Khan, S. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996.
84. Uzar, U., & Eyuboglu, K. (2021). Do natural resources heal the environment? empirical evidence from Turkey. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 14(1), 37-46.
85. Wang, Q., & Zhang, F. (2021). The effects of trade openness on decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth–evidence from 182 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123838.
86. Wang, Q., & Zhang, F. (2021). The effects of trade openness on decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth–evidence from 182 countries. Journal of cleaner production, 279, 123838.
87. Wen, J., Mughal, N., Zhao, J., Shabbir, M. S., Niedbała, G., Jain, V., & Anwar, A. (2021). Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? nexus among energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission. Energy Policy, 153, 112230.
88. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 69(6), 709-748
89. Xiaoman, W., Majeed, A., Vasbieva, D. G., Yameogo, C., & Hussain, N. (2021). Natural resources abundance, economic globalization, and carbon emissions: advancing sustainable development agenda. Sustainable Development, 29(5), 1037-1048.
90. Xue, J., Rasool, Z., Nazar, R., Khan, A. I., Bhatti, S. H., & Ali, S. (2021). Revisiting natural resources— globalization-environmental quality nexus: fresh insights from South Asian countries. Sustainability, 13(8), 4224.
91. You C, Khattak SI, Ahmad M (2021) Do international collaborations in environmental-related technology development in the U.S. pay off in combating carbon dioxide emissions? Role of domestic environmental innovation, renewable energy consumption, and trade openness. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11356- 021- 17146-6
92. Zhang, L., Godil, D. I., Bibi, M., Khan, M. K., Sarwat, S., & Anser, M. K. (2021). Caring for the environment: how human capital, natural resources, and economic growth interact with environmental degradation in Pakistan? A dynamic ARDL approach. Science of The Total Environment, 774, 145553.
93. Zoundi, Z. (2017). CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 1067-1075.