4.7 Article

Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries?

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 6719-6732

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10786-0

关键词

Ecological footprint; Renewable energy; Globalization; Heterogeneity; Cross-sectional dependence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study estimates the dynamic impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, globalization, urbanization, and economic growth on environmental quality. It finds a positive impact of economic growth and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint, while a negative impact is observed with renewable energy consumption, globalization, and urbanization. Based on empirical findings, some policy implications have been provided.
This paper aims at estimating the dynamic impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, globalization, urbanization, and economic growth on the environmental quality. Unlike previous study, this study used multi-dimensional indicator of environmental quality that is ecological footprint. Given the importance of renewable energy, a sample of top renewable energy consuming countries has been selected for analysis spanning the period 1991-2016. The analysis is carried out in panel data framework that considers the issues of cross sectional dependence and heterogeneity. The results of cointegration test show the existence of long-run equilibrium relationship among the variables. The long-run elasticity of pooled mean group shows positive impact of economic growth and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint while negative impact is observed in case of renewable energy consumption, globalization and urbanization. The sensitivity of long-run elasticity has been checked with the help of fully modified ordinary least square and dynamic ordinary least square. Based on empirical findings, some policy implication has also been provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据