Abstract
One of the most critical problems of today is the environmental policies with the focus on economy. Despite the many efforts of global organizations, environmental pollution is the subject of human beings. For this, the most polluting countries attract the attention of researchers. Many studies produce economy-centered environmental policies for the USA. However, the asymmetric effect of natural resources on environmental pollution has been neglected in the literature. In this paper, the effects of economic growth, renewable energy, biocapacity, and natural resources on the ecological footprint are addressed within the framework of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis over the period 1980–2017. Empirical findings confirm that economic growth and biocapacity increase environmental degradation, while renewable energy consumption helps reduce environmental damage. More specifically, when the results are analyzed in terms of natural resources, positive shocks in natural resources contribute to reducing environmental damage, while negative shocks in it negatively affect the environmental quality. The paper presents important policy implications for economy-centered environmental issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current paper are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Notes
The effect of 2008 crisis cannot be ignored while environmental economics policies are being produced for the USA (Caglar et al. 2021b). Although the DU08 is insignificant, excluding it from the model may cause the omitted variable bias.
References
Ahmad M, Jiang P, Majeed A, Umar M, Khan Z, Muhammad S (2020) The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Res Policy 69:101817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817
Ahmed Z, Asghar MM, Malik MN, Nawaz K (2020) Moving towards a sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Res Policy 67:101677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101677
Al-Mulali U, Solarin SA, Sheau-Ting L, Ozturk I (2016) Does moving towards renewable energy cause water and land inefficiency? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy 93:303–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.023
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.029
Anoruo E (2011) Testing for linear and nonlinear causality between crude oil price changes and stock market returns. Int J Econ Sci Appl Res 4(3):75–92
Arrow K, Bolin B, Costanza R, Dasgupta P, Folke C, Holling CS, Jansson BO, Lewin S, Maler KG, Perrings C, Pimentel D (1995) Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecol Econ 2(15):91–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00059-3
Aşıcı AA, Acar S (2016) Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecol Indic 61(Part 2):707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.022
Aslan A, Destek MA, Okumus I (2018) Bootstrap rolling window estimation approach to analysis of the Environment Kuznets Curve hypothesis: evidence from the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(3):2402–2408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0548-3
Aziz N, Sharif A, Raza A, Jermsittiparsert K (2021) The role of natural resources, globalization, and renewable energy in testing the EKC hypothesis in MINT countries: new evidence from Method of Moments Quantile Regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(11):13454–13468
Bagliani M, Bravo G, Dalmazzone S (2008) A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecol Econ 65(3):650–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.010
Bekun FV, Alola AA, Sarkodie SA (2019) Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Sci Total Environ 657:1023–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.104
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.080
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
Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J, Lazarus E, Morales JC, Wackarnagel M, Galli A (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Indic 24:518–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
Bulut U (2019) Testing environmental Kuznets curve for the USA under a regime shift: the role of renewable energy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(14):14562–14569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04835-6
Caglar AE (2020) The importance of renewable energy consumption and FDI inflows in reducing environmental degradation: bootstrap ARDL bound test in selected 9 countries. J Clean Prod 264:121663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121663
Caglar AE, Mert M, Boluk G (2021a) Testing the role of information and communication technologies and renewable energy consumption in ecological footprint quality: evidence from world top 10 pollutant footprint countries. J Clean Prod 298:126784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126784
Caglar AE, Balsalobre-Lorente D, Akin CS (2021b) Analysing the ecological footprint in EU-5 countries under a scenario of carbon neutrality: evidence from newly developed sharp and smooth structural breaks in unit root testing. J Environ Manag 295:113155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113155
Çakar ND, Gedikli A, Erdoğan S, & Yıldırım DÇ (2021). A comparative analysis of the relationship between innovation and transport sector carbon emissions in developed and developing Mediterranean countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1-21.
Caviglia-Harris JL, Chambers D, Kahn JR (2009) Taking the “U” out of Kuznets: a comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecol Econ 68(4):1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.006
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, (2020). Renewable Energy. https://www.c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/ [Accessed: 10.10.2020].
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. Energy Econ 65:355–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.05.009
Climate Center, (2012). The hottest U.S. year on record. https://www.climatecentral.org//pdfs/warmest2012v3.pdf [Accessed: 11.12.2020].
Congregado E, Feria-Gallardo J, Golpe AA, Iglesias J (2016) The environmental Kuznets curve and CO2 emissions in the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(18):18407–18420
Danish, Baloch MA, Mahmood N, Zhang JW (2019a) Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Sci Total Environ 678:632–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.028
Danish, Hassan ST, Baloch MA, Mahmood N, Zhang J (2019b) Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustain Cities Soc 47:101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516
Danish, Ulucak R, Khan SUD (2020) Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustain Cities Soc 54:101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
Destek MA, Sinha A (2020) Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from organization for economic co-operation and development countries. J Clean Prod 242:118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537
Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
Dogan E, Ulucak R, Kocak E, Isik C (2020) The use of ecological footprint in estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Sci Total Environ 723:138063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138063
Dogan E, Ozturk I (2017) The influence of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and real income on CO 2 emissions in the USA: evidence from structural break tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(11):10846–10854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8786-y
Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO 2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5323-8
EIA, (2020). Renewable energy production and consumption by source https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/?tbl=T10.01#/?f=A&start=1949&end=2018&charted=6-7-8-9-14 (accessed 11.12.2020).
Engle RF, Granger CW (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society 55:251–276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236
Erdoğan S, Yıldırım S, Yıldırım DÇ, Gedikli A (2020) The effects of innovation on sectoral carbon emissions: evidence from G20 countries. J Environ Manag 267:110637
Fareed Z, Meo MS, Zulfiqar B, Shahzad F, Wang N (2018) Nexus of tourism, terrorism, and economic growth in Thailand: new evidence from asymmetric ARDL cointegration approach. Asia Pac J Tour Res 23(12):1129–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2018.1528289
Global Footprint Network, (2020). World footprint accounts. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.133565902.1160030786.1611397568-2001035722.1611397568#/countryTrends?type=BCpc,EFCpc&cn=5001 (Accessed: 10.11.2021).
Gómez M, Rodríguez JC (2020) The ecological footprint and kuznets environmental curve in the USMCA countries: a method of moments quantile regression analysis. Energies 13(24):6650. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246650
Granger CW, & Yoon G (2002). Hidden cointegration. U of California, Economics Working Paper, (2002-02). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.313831
Grossman GM, & Krueger AB (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research, Work. Pap. Ser. No. 3914. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
Hassan ST, Xia E, Khan NH, Shah SMA (2019) Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(3):2929–2938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3803-3
Hervieux MS, & Darné O (2013). Environmental Kuznets Curve and ecological footprint: a time series analysis. LEMNA, Universite de Nantes, Working Paper EA4272, HAL Id: hal-00781958.
IEA (2015) Energy and climate change. World Energy Outlook Special Report, Paris
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 Res 26(11):10846–10853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04514-6
Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37:5167–5172
Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 52(2):169–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1990.mp52002003.x
Khan A, Chenggang Y, Hussain J, Bano S, Nawaz A (2020) Natural resources, tourism development, and energy-growth-CO2 emission nexus: a simultaneity modeling analysis of BRI countries. Res Policy 68:101751
Khan I, Hou F, Le HP (2021) The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: fresh evidence from the United States of America. Sci Total Environ 754:142222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142222
Kongbuamai N, Bui Q, Yousaf HMAU, Liu Y (2020) The impact of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint: a case study of ASEAN countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(16):19251–19264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08582-x
Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 49:1–28
Lee J, Strazicich MC (2003) Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. Rev Econ Stat 85(4):1082–1089
Lee J, Strazicich MC (2013) Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Econ Bull 33(4):2483–2492
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P., Gustafson, A., Ballew, M., & Goldberg, M. (2019). Politics & global warming, November 2019. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven: Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k63gs
Majeed MT, Mazhar M (2020) Reexamination of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of biocapacity, human capital, and trade. Pak J Commer Soc Sci 14(1):202–254. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3580586
Meadows DH, Randers J, Meadows DL, Behrens WW (1972) The limits to growth: a report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books, New York
Mert M, Caglar AE (2020) Testing pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses for Turkey: a new perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09469-7
Miranda RA, Hausler R, Romero Lopez R, Glaus M, Pasillas-Diaz JR (2020) Testing the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in North America’s free trade agreement (NAFTA) countries. Energies 13(12):3104. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123104
Mrabet Z, Alsamara M (2017) Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: a comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renew Sust Energ Rev 70:1366–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.039
Murshed M, & Dao NTT (2020). Revisiting the CO 2 emission-induced EKC hypothesis in South Asia: the role of export quality improvement. GeoJ 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10270-9
Narayan PK (2005) The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl Econ 37(17):1979–1990
NASA (2020). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, global climate change: vital signs of the planet data. https://climate.nasa.gov/ (Accessed: 10.12.2021)
Nathaniel SP, Yalçiner K, Bekun FV (2021) Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor: linking natural resources, renewable energy, human capital, and ecological footprint in BRICS. Res Policy 70:101924
Ng S, Perron P (2001) Lag length selection and the construction of unit root test with good size and power. Econometrica 69:1519–1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3__9
Niccolucci V, Tiezzi E, Pulselli FM, Capineri C (2012) Biocapacity vs ecological footprint of world regions: a geopolitical interpretation. Ecol Indic 16:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.002
OECD, (2020). Data indicator. https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm (Accessed: 10.11.2020).
Ozcan B, Ulucak R, Dogan E (2019) Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: evidence from low, middle and high income economies. Sustain Cities Soc 44:130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.025
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5447-x
Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. International Labour Organization, Geneva
Pata UK (2020) Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10446-3
Pata UK, Caglar AE (2021) Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy 216:119220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119220
Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16(3):289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
Sarkodie SA (2018) The invisible hand and EKC hypothesis: what are the drivers of environmental degradation and pollution in Africa? Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(22):21993–22022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2347-x
Shafik N (1994) Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxford economic papers, Oxford, pp 757–773
Shahbaz M, Nasir MA, Roubaud D (2018) Environmental degradation in France: the effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations. Energy Econ 74:843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.07.020
Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt. Springer, New York, pp 281–314. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1807745
Shujah-ur-Rahman, Chen S, Saud S, Saleem N, Bari MW (2019) Nexus between financial development, energy consumption, income level, and ecological footprint in CEE countries: do human capital and biocapacity matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:31856–31872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06343-z
Uddin GA, Salahuddin M, Alam K, Gow J (2017) Ecological footprint and real income: panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecol Indic 77:166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.003
Ulucak R, Bilgili F (2018) A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. J Clean Prod 188:144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
Ulucak R, Lin D (2017) Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecol Indic 80:337–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.020
UNFCCC, (2015). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, Bonn. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/ Published%20Documents/United%20States%20of%20America/1/U.S.%20Cover%20Note%20INDC%20and%20Accompanying%20Information.pdf (Accessed: 12.12.2020).
United Nations (2017) World Economic and Social Survey 2017, Reflecting on seventy years of development policy analysis. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York
Usman O, Akadiri SS, Adeshola I (2020a) Role of renewable energy and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: implications for environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09170-9
Usman O, Alola AA, Sarkodie SA (2020b) Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: evidence from the US. Renew Energy 150:266–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.151
Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).
Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island
Wang Y, Kang L, Wu X, Xiao Y (2013) Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: a spatial econometric approach. Ecol Indic 34:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.021
WEO (2020) World Economic Outlook database, October. International Monetary Fund, Washington
WDI (2020) World development indicators database. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
World Bank, (2021a). National accounts data, and OECD national accounts data files https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?end=2016&locations=OE-EU-1W&start=1980 (Accessed: 01.02.2021).
World Bank, (2021b). World Bank country and lending groups, country classification https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups#:~:text=For%20the%20current%202021%20fiscal,those%20with%20a%20GNI%20per (Accessed: 01.02.2021).
World Bank, (2021c). Renewable energy consumption, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.FEC.RNEW.ZS?locations=OE-EU-1W-US (Accessed: 01.03.2021).
World Bank, (2021d). Total natural resources rents https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.TOTL.RT.ZS?end=2016&start=1996 (Accessed: 01.05.2021).
Wu R, Geng Y, Liu W (2017) Trends of natural resource footprints in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries. J Clean Prod 142:775–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.130
Zafar MW, Zaidi SAH, Khan NR, Mirza FM, Hou F, Kirmani SAA (2019b) The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the United States. Res Policy 63:101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101428
Zafar MW, Zaidi SAH, Sinha A, Gedikli A, Hou F (2019a) The role of stock market and banking sector development, and renewable energy consumption in carbon emissions: Insights from G-7 and N-11 countries. Res Policy 62:427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.05.003
Zhang L, Godil DI, Bibi M, Khan MK, Sarwat S, Anser MK (2021) Caring for the environment: how human capital, natural resources, and economic growth interact with environmental degradation in Pakistan? A dynamic ARDL approach. Sci Total Environ 774:145553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145553
Zivot E, Andrews DWK (1992) Further evidence of the great crush, the oil price shock and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 10:251e270
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AEC: conceptualization, software, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review & editing, supervision, project administration; EY: writing—original draft, investigation; MM: writing—original draft, writing—review & editing; EK: methodology, writing—original draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable for this section.
Consent for publication
Not applicable for this section.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Eyup Dogan
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Highlights
• Provides novel findings on the effects of natural resources on the ecological footprint.
• Follows the methodology of asymmetric ARDL with structural break.
• Reveals an inverted U-shaped link between economic growth and ecological footprint via asymmetric approach.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caglar, A.E., Yavuz, E., Mert, M. et al. The ecological footprint facing asymmetric natural resources challenges: evidence from the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 10521–10534 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16406-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16406-9