OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Environmental science and pollution research international
Jan, 2021;28 (2): 2031-2051.

Renewable energy, economic development, and ecological footprint nexus: fresh evidence of renewable energy environment Kuznets curve (RKC) from income groups.

Syed Asif Ali Naqvi, Syed Ale Raza Shah, Sofia Anwar, Hassan Raza
Author Information
  1. Syed Asif Ali Naqvi: Department of Economics, Government College University, Faisalabad, 38000, Pakistan.
  2. Syed Ale Raza Shah: Department of Economics, Government College University, Faisalabad, 38000, Pakistan. syedaaleraza56@gmail.com.
  3. Sofia Anwar: Department of Economics, Government College University, Faisalabad, 38000, Pakistan.
  4. Hassan Raza: Department of Economics, Government College University, Faisalabad, 38000, Pakistan.
PMID: 32869180 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10485-w

Abstract

This study aims to measure the association of real economic growth per capita, renewable energy consumption, and financial development with ecological footprints (EFP) across the 155 countries of four different income groups over the period of 1990-2017. For the analysis, the unit root tests allowing cross-sectional dependency, Westerlund cointegration test, common correlated effect of mean group, augmented mean group, mean group, and Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test are used. The results verify both the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and renewable energy environment Kuznets curve (RKC) hypotheses in the high-income group; however, other groups have not shown reliable results. Moreover, it is observed that the existence of RKC is a turning point for high-income countries, and it takes place before the turning point of the forthcoming EKC. Besides, empirical outcomes endorse the presence of long-run equilibrium and indicate that financial development has a negative and significant effect on the EFP in the case of the high-income group. In contrast, upper-middle- and lower-middle-income groups show the insignificant relationship with the dependent variable. Likewise, financial development has a positive and significant association with EFP for the low-income group. Conversely, biomass energy has a negative relationship with EFP in high- and lower-middle-income groups, while a positive association has been observed for the remaining two groups. We suppose that the study outcomes would guide the policymakers in decision-making regarding the development and usage of renewable energy to prevent environmental damages.

Keywords

Biomass energy Ecological footprint Economic development RKC

References

  1. Acaravci A, Ozturk I (2010) On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35(12):5412–5420
  2. Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2016) The investigation of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the advanced economies: the role of energy prices. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:1622–1631
  3. Al-Mulali U, Weng-Wai C, Sheau-Ting L, Mohammed AH (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol Indic 48:315–323
  4. Alola AA, Bekun FV, Sarkodie SA (2019) Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci Total Environ 685:702–709
  5. Anton SG, Nucu AEA (2020) The effect of financial development on renewable energy consumption. A panel data approach. Renew Energ 147:330–338
  6. Apergis N, Payne JE (2009) CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energ Policy 37(8):3282–3286
  7. Atasoy BS (2017) Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across the US: evidence from panel mean group estimators. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77:731–747
  8. Aung TS, Saboori B, Rasoulinezhad E (2017) Economic growth and environmental pollution in Myanmar: an analysis of environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut R 24(25):20487–20501
  9. Bader Y, Ganguli S (2019) Analysis of the association between economic growth, environmental quality and health standards in the Gulf Cooperation Council during 1980-2012. Manag Environ Qual 30(5):1050–1071
  10. Baek J (2016) Do nuclear and renewable energy improve the environment? Empirical evidence from the United States. Ecol Indic 66:352–356
  11. Balado-Naves R, Baños-Pino JF, Mayor M (2018) Do countries influence neighbouring pollution? A spatial analysis of the EKC for CO2 emissions. Energ Policy 123:266–279
  12. Baležentis T, Streimikiene D, Zhang T, Liobikiene G (2019) The role of bioenergy in greenhouse gas emission reduction in EU countries: an environmental Kuznets curve modelling. Resour Conserv Recy 142:225–231
  13. Baloch MA, Zhang J, Iqbal K, Iqbal Z (2019) The effect of financial development on ecological footprint in BRI countries: evidence from panel data estimation. Environ Sci Pollut R 26(6):6199–6208
  14. Balsalobre-Lorente D, Shahbaz M, Roubaud D, Farhani S (2018) How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions? Energ Policy 113:356–367
  15. Bekhet HA, Othman NS (2018) The role of renewable energy to validate dynamic interaction between CO2 emissions and GDP toward sustainable development in Malaysia. Energ Econ 72:47–61
  16. Bhattacharya M, Paramati SR, Ozturk I, Bhattacharya S (2016) The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: evidence from top 38 countries. Appl Energ 162:733–741
  17. Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü (2016) The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:838–845
  18. Blazquez J, Fuentes-Bracamontes R, Bollino CA, Nezamuddin N (2018) The renewable energy policy paradox. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:1–5
  19. 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
  20. Bölük G, Mert M (2015) The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: an ARDL approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:587–595
  21. Bond S, Eberhardt M (2013) Accounting for unobserved heterogeneity in panel time series models. University of Oxford. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e60/ef67b62aaeb2e6db945cb8d59001b587c5c3.pdf . Accessed on: January 02, 2020
  22. Charfeddine L (2017) The impact of energy consumption and economic development on ecological footprint and CO2 emissions: evidence from a Markov switching equilibrium correction model. Energ Econ 65:355–374
  23. Charfeddine L, Khediri KB (2016) Financial development and environmental quality in UAE: cointegration with structural breaks. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:1322–1335
  24. Chen Y, Wang Z, Zhong Z (2019) CO2 emissions, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy production and foreign trade in China. Renew Energ 131:208–216
  25. Chudik A, Pesaran MH, Tosetti E (2011) Weak and strong cross-section dependence and estimation of large panels. Economet J 14(1):C45–C90
  26. Churchill SA, Inekwe J, Ivanovski K, Smyth R (2018) The environmental Kuznets curve in the OECD: 1870–2014. Energ Econ 75:389–399
  27. Coxhead I (2019) Environmentalism with Chinese characteristics—a review of Matthew E. Kahn and Siqi Zheng’s blue skies over Beijing: economic growth and the environment in China. J Econ Lit 57(1):161–179
  28. Destek MA, Sarkodie SA (2019) Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Sci Total Environ 650:2483–2489
  29. Destek MA, Sinha A (2020) Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. J Clean Prod 242:118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537]
  30. Diputra EM, Baek J (2018) Is growth good or bad for the environment in Indonesia? Int J Energy Econ Policy 8(1):1–4
  31. Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut R 23(2):1203–1213
  32. Dong K, Sun R, Hochman G (2017) Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy 141:1466–1478
  33. Dong K, Sun R, Dong X (2018a) CO2 emissions, natural gas and renewables, economic growth: assessing the evidence from China. Sci Total Environ 640:293–302
  34. Dong K, Sun R, Li H, Liao H (2018b) Does natural gas consumption mitigate CO2 emissions: testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for 14 Asia-Pacific countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 94:419–429
  35. Dumitrescu EI, Hurlin C (2012) Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model 29(4):1450–1460
  36. Eberhardt M (2012) Estimating panel time-series models with heterogeneous slopes. STATA J 12(1):61–71
  37. Eberhardt M, Bond S (2009) Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator. MPRA Paper 17692, University Library of Munich. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/17692/1/MPRA_paper_17692.pdf . Accessed on: January 02, 2020.
  38. Frankel JA (2008) Global environmental policy and global trade policy (October 29, 2008). HKS Working Paper No. RWP08-058, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1354671 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1354671
  39. Frees EW (1995) Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. J Econometrics 69(2):393–414
  40. Friedman M (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J Am Stat Assoc 32(200):675–701
  41. Gao J, Zhang L (2020) Does biomass energy consumption mitigate CO2 emissions? The role of economic growth and urbanization: evidence from developing Asia. J Asia Pac Econ 1-20. 10.1080/13547860.2020.1717902
  42. Garshasbi S, Santamouris M (2019) Using advanced thermochromic technologies in the built environment: recent development and potential to decrease the energy consumption and fight urban overheating. Sol Energy Mater Sol 191:21–32
  43. Ghosh S (2019) Environmental pollution, income inequality, and household energy consumption: evidence from the United Kingdom. J Intl Econ Comm Policy 10(02):1950008. https://doi.org/10.1142/S179399331950008X [DOI: 10.1142/S179399331950008X]
  44. Gielen D, Boshell F, Saygin D, Bazilian MD, Wagner N, Gorini R (2019) The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strateg Rev 24:38–50
  45. Gil AR, Vishwanathan KK, Hassan S (2019) Effects of governance on the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) in South and South East Asian countries. Pak J Soc Sci 39(3):1101–1114
  46. Gill AR, Viswanathan KK, Hassan S (2018) The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and the environmental problem of the day. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:1636–1642
  47. Giovanis E (2013) Environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from the British household panel survey. Econ Model 30:602–611
  48. Harjanne A, Korhonen JM (2019) Abandoning the concept of renewable energy. Energ Policy 127:330–340
  49. Hassine MB, Harrathi N (2017) The causal links between economic growth, renewable energy, financial development and foreign trade in gulf cooperation council countries. Int J Energy Econ Policy 7(2):76–85
  50. Hu H, Xie N, Fang D, Zhang X (2018) The role of renewable energy consumption and commercial services trade in carbon dioxide reduction: evidence from 25 developing countries. Appl Energ 211:1229–1244
  51. Inglesi-Lotz R, Dogan E (2018) The role of renewable versus non-renewable energy to the level of CO2 emissions a panel analysis of sub-Saharan Africa’s big 10 electricity generators. Renew Energ 123:36–43
  52. Işık C, Ongan S, Özdemir D (2019) Testing the EKC hypothesis for ten US states: an application of heterogeneous panel estimation method. Environ Sci Pollut R 26(11):10846–10853
  53. Isman M, Archambault M, Racette P, Konga CN, Llaque RM, Lin D, Iha K, Ouellet-Plamondon CM (2018) Ecological footprint assessment for targeting climate change mitigation in cities: a case study of 15 Canadian cities according to census metropolitan areas. J Clean Prod 174:1032–1043
  54. Jebli MB, Youssef SB (2015) The environmental Kuznets curve, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 47:173–185
  55. Kahia M, Jebli MB, Belloumi M (2019) Analysis of the impact of renewable energy consumption and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions in 12 MENA countries. Clean Technol Envir 21(4):871–885
  56. Kapetanios G, Pesaran MH, Yamagata T (2011) Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures. J Econometrics 160(2):326–348
  57. Karl TR, Arguez A, Huang B, Lawrimore JH, McMahon JR, Menne MJ et al (2015) Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. Science 348(6242):1469–1472
  58. Lau LS, Choong CK, Ng CF, Liew FM, Ching SL (2019) Is nuclear energy clean? Revisit of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in OECD countries. Econ Model 77:12–20
  59. Liu X, Zhang S, Bae J (2017) The impact of renewable energy and agriculture on carbon dioxide emissions: investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in four selected ASEAN countries. J Clean Prod 164:1239–1247
  60. Liu W, Zhang X, Feng S (2019) Does renewable energy policy work? Evidence from a panel data analysis. Renew Energ 135:635–642
  61. Markandya A, Golub A, Pedroso-Galinato S (2006) Empirical analysis of national income and SO emissions in selected European countries. Environ Resour Econ 35(3):221–257
  62. Menegaki AN, Tsagarakis KP (2015) Rich enough to go renewable, but too early to leave fossil energy? Renew Sust Energ Rev 41:1465–1477
  63. Naqvi SAA, Shah SAR, Mehdi MA (2020) Revealing empirical association among ecological footprints, renewable energy consumption, real income, and financial development: a global perspective. Environ Sci Pollut R:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09958-9
  64. Nguyen KH, Kakinaka M (2019) Renewable energy consumption, carbon emissions, and development stages: some evidence from panel cointegration analysis. Renew Energ 132:1049–1057
  65. Obeng-Darko NA (2019) Why Ghana will not achieve its renewable energy target for electricity. Policy, legal and regulatory implications. Energ Policy 128:75–83
  66. Özokcu S, Özdemir Ö (2017) Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:639–647
  67. Pakhtigian EL, Jeuland M (2019) Valuing the environmental costs of local development: evidence from households in Western Nepal. Ecol Econ 158:158–167
  68. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (No. 992927783402676). International Labour Organization. Available at http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1993/93B09_31_engl.pdf
  69. Pao HT, Chen CC (2019) Decoupling strategies: CO2 emissions, energy resources, and economic growth in the Group of Twenty. J Clean Prod 206:907–919
  70. Pata UK (2018) Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. J Clean Prod 187:770–779
  71. Persyn D, Westerlund J (2008) Error-correction–based cointegration tests for panel data. STATA J 8(2):232–241
  72. Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229, and IZA Discussion Paper No.1240
  73. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Economet 22(2):265–312
  74. Pesaran MH, Smith R (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Econometrics 68(1):79–113
  75. Phillips PC, Sul D (2007) Bias in dynamic panel estimation with fixed effects, incidental trends and cross section dependence. J Econometrics 137(1):162–188
  76. Rahman MM, Velayutham E (2020) Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus: new evidence from South Asia. Renew Energ 147:399–408
  77. Rana R, Sharma M (2019) Dynamic causality testing for EKC hypothesis, pollution haven hypothesis and international trade in India. J Int Trade Econ Dev 28(3):348–364
  78. Richmond AK, Kaufmann RK (2006) Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecol Econ 56(2):176–189
  79. Robaina-Alves M, Moutinho V, Costa R (2016) Change in energy-related CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions in Portuguese tourism: a decomposition analysis from 2000 to 2008. J Clean Prod 111:520–528
  80. Saidi K, Mbarek MB (2017) The impact of income, trade, urbanization, and financial development on CO 2 emissions in 19 emerging economies. Environ Sci Pollut R 24(14):12748–12757
  81. Sarkodie SA (2018) The invisible hand and EKC hypothesis: what are the drivers of environmental degradation and pollution in Africa? Environ Sci Pollut R 25(22):21993–22022
  82. Sarkodie SA, Adams S (2018) Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Sci Total Environ 643:1590–1601
  83. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2018) Empirical study of the environmental Kuznets curve and environmental sustainability curve hypothesis for Australia, China, Ghana and USA. J Clean Prod 201:98–110
  84. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V, Weldekidan H, Asamoah EF, Owusu PA, Doyi INY (2019) Environmental sustainability assessment using dynamic autoregressive-distributed lag simulations—nexus between greenhouse gas emissions, biomass energy, food and economic growth. Sci Total Environ 668:318–332
  85. Saud S, Chen S, Haseeb A (2019a) Impact of financial development and economic growth on environmental quality: an empirical analysis from Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. Environ Sci Pollut R 26(3):2253–2269
  86. Saud S, Chen S, Haseeb A, Khan K, Imran M (2019b) The nexus between financial development, income level, and environment in central and eastern European countries: a perspective on belt and road initiative. Environ Sci Pollut R 26(16):16053–16075
  87. Saud S, Chen S, Haseeb A (2020) The role of financial development and globalization in the environment: accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries. J Clean Prod 250:119518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119518 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119518]
  88. Shah SAR, Naqvi SAA, Anwar S (2020) Exploring the linkage among energy intensity, carbon emission and urbanization in Pakistan: fresh evidence from ecological modernization and environment transition theories. Environ Sci Pollut R:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09227-9
  89. Shahbaz M, Balsalobre D, Shahzad SJH (2019) The influencing factors of CO emissions and the role of biomass energy consumption: statistical experience from G-7 countries. Environ Model Assess 24(2):143–161
  90. Sharif A, Raza SA, Ozturk I, Afshan S (2019) The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: a global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renew Energ 133:685–691
  91. Sharif A, Baris-Tuzemen O, Uzuner G, Ozturk I, Sinha A (2020) Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustain Cities Soc 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
  92. Sinha A, Shahbaz M, Balsalobre D (2017) Exploring the relationship between energy usage segregation and environmental degradation in N-11 countries. J Clean Prod 168:1217–1229
  93. Sinha A, Shahbaz M, Sengupta T (2018) Renewable energy policies and contradictions in causality: a case of Next 11 countries. J Clean Prod 197:73–84
  94. Solarin SA, Bello MO (2019) Interfuel substitution, biomass consumption, economic growth, and sustainable development: evidence from Brazil. J Clean Prod 211:1357–1366
  95. Sovacool BK (2016) How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 13:202–215
  96. Sugiawan Y, Managi S (2016) The environmental Kuznets curve in Indonesia: exploring the potential of renewable energy. Energ Policy 98:187–198
  97. Topcu M, Payne JE (2018) Further evidence on the trade-energy consumption nexus in OECD countries. Energ Policy 117:160–165
  98. Wang Z (2019) Does biomass energy consumption help to control environmental pollution? Evidence from BRICS countries. Sci Total Environ 670:1075–1083
  99. Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford B Econ Stat 69(6):709–748
  100. Westerlund J, Edgerton DL (2008) A simple test for cointegration in dependent panels with structural breaks. Oxford B Econ Stat 70(5):665–704
  101. Xie Q, Xu X, Liu X (2019) Is there an EKC between economic growth and smog pollution in China? New evidence from semiparametric spatial autoregressive models. J Clean Prod 220:873–883
  102. Yao S, Zhang S, Zhang X (2019) Renewable energy, carbon emission and economic growth: a revised environmental Kuznets curve perspective. J Clean Prod 235:1338–1352
  103. Zambrano-Monserrate MA, Silva-Zambrano CA, Davalos-Penafiel JL, Zambrano-Monserrate A, Ruano MA (2018) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Peru: the role of renewable electricity, petroleum and dry natural gas. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:4170–4178
  104. Zhang XP, Cheng XM (2009) Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic growth in China. Ecol Econ 68(10):2706–2712
  105. Zhang B, Wang B, Wang Z (2017) Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan. J Clean Prod 156:855–864
  106. Zhou S, Matisoff DC, Kingsley GA, Brown MA (2019) Understanding renewable energy policy adoption and evolution in Europe: the impact of coercion, normative emulation, competition, and learning. Energy Research Social Science 51:1–11
  107. Zoundi Z (2017) CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the environmental Kuznets curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:1067–1075

MeSH Term

Carbon Dioxide
Cross-Sectional Studies
Economic Development
Income
Renewable Energy

Chemicals

Carbon Dioxide
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0energydevelopmentgroupsgrouprenewableEFPRKCassociationfinancialmeanKuznetscurvehigh-incomestudyeconomicecologicalcountriesincometesteffectresultsenvironmentalEKCenvironmentobservedturningpointoutcomesnegativesignificantlower-middle-incomerelationshippositivefootprintaimsmeasurerealgrowthpercapitaconsumptionfootprintsacross155fourdifferentperiod1990-2017analysisunitroottestsallowingcross-sectionaldependencyWesterlundcointegrationcommoncorrelatedaugmentedDumitrescu-HurlinpanelcausalityusedverifyhypotheseshowevershownreliableMoreoverexistencetakesplaceforthcomingBesidesempiricalendorsepresencelong-runequilibriumindicatecasecontrastupper-middle-showinsignificantdependentvariableLikewiselow-incomeConverselybiomasshigh-remainingtwosupposeguidepolicymakersdecision-makingregardingusagepreventdamagesRenewablenexus:freshevidenceBiomassEcologicalEconomic

Similar Articles

Cited By (8)