Oszacowanie roli globalizacji, rozwoju technologicznego i poziomu konsumpcji gospodarstw domowych na ślad ekologiczny w krajach Grupy Wyszehradzkiej
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Numer Tom 20 Nr 1 (2025)
-
Czasopismo Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development jako polska platforma dla międzynarodowego interdyscyplinarnego dyskursu naukowego
Artur Pawłowski1-5
-
Od etyki środowiskowej do etyki zrównoważonego rozwoju
Hong Du6-14
-
Rola chrześcijaństwa w przebudzeniu ekologicznym: podstawy zrównoważonego zachowania chrześcijan wobec przyrody
Ryszard Sadowski15-24
-
Gandhijska interpretacja Bhagavad Gity: rozwiązanie dla zrównoważonego życia
Namarta Sharma25-33
-
Nowe podejście do wartości – ważny warunek rozwoju zrównoważonej gospodarki
Eva Pechociakova Svitacova34-42
-
Ocena realizacji zrównoważonego rozwoju i alternatywnych koncepcji w grupie krajów rozwiniętych w Europie
Magdaléna Drastichová, Peter Filzmoser43-73
-
Resilencja po COVID-19: globalny przegląd strategii odbudowy i ich wpływu na sektory demograficzne i gospodarcze
Jhoana Romero, Monica Mesa, Cesar Minoli, Juan Aristizabal74-95
-
Nierówności cyfrowe i rozwój zrównoważony
Paweł Rydzewski96-108
-
Handel cyfrowy i regionalna odporność gospodarcza: studium przypadku z Chin
Paijie Wan, Feng He109-128
-
Badanie związku między globalizacją a zrównoważonością migracji w krajach OECD
Mehmet Şükrü Nar, Mehmet Nar129-142
-
Oszacowanie roli globalizacji, rozwoju technologicznego i poziomu konsumpcji gospodarstw domowych na ślad ekologiczny w krajach Grupy Wyszehradzkiej
Orhan Cengiz, Fatma İdil Baktemur, Meltem Canoglu143-158
-
Związek pomiędzy ekspansją ekologicznych gruntów rolnych a emisją gazów cieplarnianych w Europie w kontekście wdrażania Celów zrównoważonego rozwoju
Serhii Kozlovskyi, Ivan Zayukov, Volodymyr Kozlovskyi, Oleksandr Tregubov, Sviatoslav Storchak, Viktor Mishchenko, Ruslan Lavrov159-173
-
Czasoprzestrzenny rozkład wpływu zmian klimatycznych i działalności człowieka na NDVI w Chinach
Shuyi Dong, Wen Zhuang, Shuting Zhang, Shanshan Xie174-189
-
Jak niepewność polityki gospodarczej i monetarnej wpływa na przewidywalność polityki klimatycznej w Stanach Zjednoczonych?
Ahmet Tayfur Akcan, Muhammad Shahbaz, Cuneyt Kılıç, Hasan Kazak190-207
-
Ramy modelowania dekarbonizacji gospodarki w oparciu o innowacje energetyczne w kontekście Przemysłu 5.0 i zrównoważonego rozwoju: perspektywa międzynarodowa
Maryna Kravchenko, Kateryna Kopishynska, Olena Trofymenko, Ivan Pyshnograiev, Kateryna Boiarynova207-220
-
Ocena poziomu bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Chin: dowody z metody wagowej entropii TOPSIS
Li Pan221-235
-
Zrównoważony rozwój w kontekście energii geotermalnej: przykład Niemiec, Włoch, Turcji, Islandii i Francji
Ignas Mikalauskas, Gabija Stanislovaitytė236-244
-
Wpływ zmian klimatycznych na wzmocnienie pozycji politycznej kobiet: perspektywa zrównoważonego rozwoju
Chun-Ling Ding, Yan Ma, Guo-Hua Ni, Chun-Ping Chang245-260
-
Przywództwo kobiet wsparciem dla zrównoważonego rozwoju: etyka opieki w czasie transformacji
Purnima Lenka, Diptiranjan Khatua261-270
-
Makroekonomiczne i instytucjonalne czynniki determinujące zagraniczne inwestycje bezpośrednie w krajach SAARC
Jai Kumar, Chen Xi, Joti Kumari, Jinyan Huang271-287
-
Wzrost gospodarczy i zrównoważony rozwój w Azji: rola instytucji politycznych i zasobów naturalnych
Li Guo, Romanus Osabohien, Armand Fréjuis Akpa Akpa, Mamdouh Abdulaziz Saleh Al-Faryan288-309
-
Wpływ wielowymiarowej odległości na współpracę finansową: studium przypadku Chin i krajów sąsiednich
Fuchang Li, Han Wang, Xiaohui Hu, Wenli Ding310-328
Archiwum
-
Tom 21 Nr 2
2026-07-01 24
-
Tom 21 Nr 1
2026-01-10 21
-
Tom 20 Nr 2
2025-07-10 19
-
Tom 20 Nr 1
2025-01-10 22
-
Tom 19 Nr 2
2024-07-01 24
-
Tom 19 Nr 1
2024-01-08 27
-
Tom 18 Nr 2
2023-07-10 25
-
Tom 18 Nr 1
2023-01-01 25
-
Tom 16 Nr 2
2021-07-01 26
-
Tom 16 Nr 1
2021-01-04 24
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Authors
Abstrakt
Jakość środowiska jest kluczowym tematem zarówno dla krajów rozwiniętych, jak i rozwijających się. Wraz z globalizacją kraje rozwijające się dążą do dogonienia krajów rozwiniętych. Jednak proces globalizacji w krajach rozwijających się może również powodować skutki dla środowiska. Dlatego też niniejszy artykuł ma na celu analizę wpływu globalizacji, rozwoju technologicznego (TD) i konsumpcji gospodarstw domowych na ślad ekologiczny (EF) w krajach Grupy Wyszehradzkiej (V4), Czechach, na Węgrzech, w Polsce i na Słowacji w latach 1996-2021 poprzez kontrolowanie wzrostu gospodarczego, zużycia energii odnawialnej i emisji CO2. Aby osiągnąć ten cel, wykorzystujemy estymator średniej rozszerzonej (AMG), który uwzględnia zależność przekrojową (CSD). Wyniki empiryczne pokazują, że globalizacja, zużycie energii odnawialnej i emisje CO2 znacząco pozytywnie wpływają na EF. Jednak wzrost gospodarczy (EG) jest nieznacznie dodatni, a TD i konsumpcja gospodarstw domowych mają nieznacznie negatywny wpływ na EF w całym panelu. Ponadto wyniki dla poszczególnych krajów dostarczają zróżnicowanych rezultatów. Na przykład EG ma znacząco pozytywny wpływ na EF na Słowacji i Węgrzech oraz nieistotnie pozytywny wpływ na EF w Polsce i Czechach. Globalizacja znacząco pozytywnie wpływa na EF w Czechach i na Słowacji oraz ma nieistotnie pozytywny wpływ na EF w Polsce i na Węgrzech. Rozwój technologiczny (TD) ma znacząco negatywny wpływ na EF w Polsce, Czechach i Słowacji oraz pozytywny na Węgrzech. Konsumpcja gospodarstw domowych ma negatywny znaczący wpływ na EF na Węgrzech, nieistotny negatywny wpływ na Słowacji oraz pozytywny nieistotny wpływ w Polsce i Czechach. Ponadto zużycie energii odnawialnej pozytywnie wpływa na EF w Czechach i na Węgrzech oraz ma nieistotnie pozytywny wpływ w Polsce i na Słowacji. Wreszcie emisja CO2 ma znacząco pozytywny wpływ na EF w Polsce, Czechach i na Słowacji oraz nieistotnie pozytywny wpływ na Węgrzech. W związku z tym ustalenia empiryczne mogą pomóc decydentom w opracowaniu nowych polityk zwalczania degradacji środowiska poprzez uwzględnienie roli globalizacji, udoskonalenia technologicznego i emisji CO2.
Słowa kluczowe:
Bibliografia
1. ABEYSEKERA I., MANALANG L., DAVID R., GRACE GUIAO B., 2022, Accounting for environmental awareness on green purchase intention and behaviour: Evidence from the Philippines, Sustainability 14(19): 12565, https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912565.
2. ACAR S., AŞICI A. A., 2017, Nature and economic growth in Turkey: what does ecological footprint imply?, Middle East Development Journal 9(1): 101-115, https://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2017.1288475.
3. ADEBAYO T. S., KIRIKKALELI D., 2021, Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: application of wavelet tools, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 16057-16082, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01322-2.
4. AHMED Z., WANG Z., MAHMOOD F., HAFEEZ M., ALI N., 2019, Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26: 18565-18582, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9.
5. ALOLA A. A., ADEBAYO T. S., ONIFADE S. T., 2021, Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral Granger causality and quantile-on-quantile approaches, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29(3): 263-276, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1990158.
6. AMEGAVI G. B., LANGNEL Z., AHENKAN A., BUABENG T., 2022, The dynamic relationship between economic globalisation, institutional quality, and ecological footprint: evidence from Ghana, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 31(6): 876-893, https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2022.2033303.
7. ANSARI M. A., AHMAD M. R., SIDDIQUE S., MANSOOR K., 2020, An environment Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: evidence from GCC countries, Carbon Management 11(4): 355-368, https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2020.1790242.
8. ANSARI M. A., HAIDER S., MASOOD T., 2021, Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries?, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28: 6719-6732, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10786-0.
9. AWOSUSI A. A., ADEBAYO T. S., KIRIKKALELI D., ALTUNTAŞ M., 2022, Role of technological innovation and globalization in BRICS economies: policy towards environmental sustainability, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29(7): 593-610, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2059032.
10. AYDIN M., KOC P., SAHPAZ K. I., 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 Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 18(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2022.2163724.
11. AYTUN C., ERDOGAN S., PATA U. K., CENGIZ O., 2024, Associating environmental quality, human capital, financial development and technological innovation in 19 middle-income countries: a disaggregated ecological footprint approach, Technology in Society 76: 102445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102445.
12. BALSALOBRE-LORENTE, D., GOKMENOGLU, K. K., TASPINAR, N., CANTOS-CANTOS, J. M., 2019, An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26: 23010-26, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05446-x.
13. BALTAGI B. H., FENG Q., KAO C., 2012, A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model, Journal of Econometrics 170(1): 164-177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004.
14. BAZ K., XU D., ALI H., ALI I., KHAN I., KHAN M. M., CHENG J., 2020, Asymmetric impact of energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: using asymmetric and nonlinear approach, Science of the Total Environment 718: 137364, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137364.
15. BEKELE M., SASSI M., JEMAL K., AHMED B., 2024, Human capital development and economic sustainability linkage in Sub-Saharan African countries: novel evidence from augmented mean group approach, Heliyon 10: e24323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24323
16. BEŞE E., FRIDAY H. S., 2022, The relationship between external debt and emissions and ecological footprint through economic growth: Turkey, Cogent Economics & Finance 10(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2063525.
17. BOISCHIO A., SÁNCHEZ A., OROSZ Z., CHARRON D., 2009, Health and sustainable development: challenges and opportunities of ecosystem approaches in the prevention and control of dengue and Chagas disease, Cadernos de saúde pública 25: S149-S154, https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-311x2009001300014.
18. BOUKHELKHAL A., 2022, Impact of economic growth, natural resources and trade on ecological footprint: do education and longevity promote sustainable development in Algeria?, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29(8): 875-887, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2112784.
19. BREUSCH T. S., PAGAN A. R., 1980, The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics, The Review of Economic Studies 47(1): 239-253, https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111.
20. BULUT U., 2020, Environmental sustainability in Turkey: an environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 28(3): 227-237, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1793425.
21. CAIADO R. G. G., FILHO W. L., QUELHAS O. L. G., NASCIMENTO D. L. D. M., ÃVILA L. V., 2018, A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in implementing the sustainable development goals, Journal of Cleaner Production 198: 1276-1288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.102.
22. CENGIZ O., MANGA M., 2023, Towards a political economy of renewable energy: does democracy and globalization matter for central and eastern European countries (CEECs), Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development 18(2): 86-101, https://doi.org/10.35784/preko.3947.
23. CHEN Y., LEE C. C., 2020, Does technological innovation reduce CO2 emissions? Cross-country evidence, Journal of Cleaner Production 263: 121550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121550.
24. HENG C., REN X., WANG, Z., 2019, The impact of renewable energy and innovation on carbon emission: an empirical analysis for OECD countries, Energy Procedia 158: 3506-3512.
25. CHENG Y., LIU H., WANG S., CUI X., LI Q., 2021, Global action on SDGs: policy review and outlook in a post-pandemic era, Sustainability 13(11): 6461, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116461.
26. DELANKA-PEDIGE H. M. K., MUNASINGHE-ARACHCHIGE S. P., ABEYSIRIWARDANA-ARACHCHIGE I. S. A., NIRMALAKHANDAN N., 2020, Wastewater infrastructure for sustainable cities: assessment based on UN sustainable development goals (SDGs), International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 28(3): 203-209, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1795006.
27. DRITSAKI M., DRITSAKI C., 2024, The relationship between health expenditure, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in G7: evidence from heterogeneous panel data, Journal of the Knowledge Economy 15: 4886-4911, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01349-y.
28. EBERHARDT M., BOND S., 2009, Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: a novel estimator, MPRA Paper 17692, University Library of Munich, Germany.
29. ELIAS A., SANDERS K., HU J., 2023, The Sustainable Human Resource Practices and Employee Outcomes Link: An HR Process Lens, Sustainability 15(13): 10124, https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310124.
30. FEI W., OPOKU A., AGYEKUM K., OPPON J A., AHMED V., CHEN C., LOK K. L., 2021, The critical role of the construction industry in achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs): delivering projects for the common good, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute 13(16): 9112-9112, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169112
31. GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK, 2024, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/ (5.08.2024).
32. GOI C. L., 2017, The impact of technological innovation on building a sustainable city, International Journal of Quality Innovation 3(6): 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40887-017-0014-9.
33. GRAINGER-BROWN J., MALEKPOUR S., 2019, Implementing the sustainable development goals: A review of strategic tools and frameworks available to organisations, Sustainability 11(5), 1381, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051381.
34. GU G., WANG Z., 2018, Research on global carbon abatement driven by R&D investment in the context of INDCs, Energy 148: 662-675, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.142.
35. GUAN C., RANI T., YUEQIANG Z., AJAZ T., HASEKI M. I., 2022, Impact of tourism industry, globalization, and technology innovation on ecological footprints in G-10 countries, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 35(1): 6688-6704, https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2052337.
36. GUO L., 2017, Income inequality, household consumption and CO2 emissions in China, The Singapore Economic Review 62(2): 531-553, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217590817400239.
37. GYAMFI B. A., ONIFADE S. T., ERDOGAN S., ALI E. B., 2023, Colligating ecological footprint and economic globalization after COP21: insights from agricultural value-added and natural resources rents in the E7 economies, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 30(5): 500-514, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2166141.
38. GYGLI S., HAELG F., POTRAFKE N., STURM J. E., 2019, The KOF globalisation index-revisited, The Review of International Organizations 14: 543-574, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2.
39. HAIDER M., SHANNON R., MOSCHIS G. P., 2022, Sustainable consumption research and the role of marketing: a review of the literature (1976-2021), Sustainability 14(7): 3999, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073999.
40. HASAN M. M., NAN S., WARIS U., 2024, Assessing the dynamics among oil consumption, ecological footprint, and renewable energy: role of institutional quality in major oil-consuming countries, Resources Policy 90: 104843, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104843.
41. HIRSCHNITZ-GARBERS M., TAN A. R., GRADMANN A., SREBOTNJAK T., 2016, Key drivers for unsustainable resource use-categories, effects and policy pointers, Journal of Cleaner Production 132: 13-31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.038.
42. HUMBATOVA S. I., HAJIYEVA N., FODOR M. G., SOOD K., GRIMA S., 2024, The impact of economic growth on the ecological environment and renewable energy production: evidence from Azerbaijan and Hungary, Journal of Risk and Financial Management 17(7): 275, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17070275.
43. IBRAHIEM D. M., HANAFY S. A., 2020, Dynamic linkages amongst ecological footprints, fossil fuel energy consumption and globalization: an empirical analysis, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 31(6): 1549-1568, https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-02-2020-0029.
44. JOOF F., SAMOUR A., ALI M., REHMAN M. A., TURSOY T., 2024, Economic complexity, renewable energy and ecological footprint: the role of the housing market in the USA, Energy and Buildings 311: 114131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114131.
45. KALINAUSKAITE I., BRANKAERT R., LU Y., BEKKER T., BROMBACHER A., VOS, S., 2021, Facing societal challenges in living labs: towards a conceptual framework to facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations, Sustainability 13(2): 614, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020614.
46. KAYMAZ Ç. K., BIRINCI S., KIZILKAN Y., 2022, Sustainable development goals assessment of Erzurum province with SWOT-AHP analysis, Environ Dev Sustain 24: 2986-3012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01584-w.
47. KHAN A., IDREES A. S., 2023, Environmental impact of multidimensional eco-innovation adoption: an empirical evidence from European Union, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 13(1): 17-33, https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2023.2197626.
48. KHAN A., MUHAMMAD F., CHENGGANG Y., HUSSAIN J., BANO S., KHAN M. A., 2020, The impression of technological innovations and natural resources in energy-growth-environment nexus: a new look into BRICS economies, Science of The Total Environment 727: 138265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138265.
49. KHIZAR H. M. U., IQBAL M. J., RASHEED M. I., 2021, Business orientation and sustainable development: a systematic review of sustainability orientation literature and future research avenues, Sustainable Development 29(5): 1001-1017, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2190.
50. KHOI N. H., LE N. H., NGOC B. H., 2021, The effect of tourism development on the ecological footprint in Singapore: evidence from asymmetric ARDL method, Current Issues in Tourism 25(15): 2500-2517, https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1971165.
51. KIRIKKALELI D., ADEBAYO T. S., KHAN Z., ALI S., 2021, Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28: 14009-14017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11654-7.
52. KIRIKKALELI D., SOFUOGLU E., OJEKEMI O., 2023, Does patents on environmental technologies matter for the ecological footprint in the USA? Evidence from the novel Fourier ARDL approach, Geoscience Frontiers 14(4): 101564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101564.
53. KIZILKAYA O., KIZILKAYA O., AKAR G., MIKE F., 2024, The role of energy consumption and economic growth on human development in emerging (E-7) countries: fresh evidence from second-generation panel data analyses, Problemy Ekorozwoju/ Problems of Sustainable Development 19(2): 186-202, https://doi.org/10.35784/preko.5798.
54. KLEESPIES M.W., DIERKESP. W., 2022, The importance of the Sustainable Development Goals to students of environmental and sustainability studies-a global survey in 41 countries, Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 218, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01242-0.
55. KOSTAKIS I., ARAUZO-CAROD J. M., 2023, The key roles of renewable energy and economic growth in disaggregated environmental degradation: evidence from highly developed, heterogeneous and cross-correlated countries, Renewable Energy 206: 1315-1325, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.106.
56. KOZIK N., 2020, Sustainable packaging as a tool for global sustainable development, SHS Web of Conferences 74: 4012, https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207404012.
57. LI B., DANISH KHAN S. U. D., HANEKLAUS N., 2022, Ecological footprint analysis of the phosphorus industry in China, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29: 73461-73479, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20878-8.
58. LI R., WANG Q., LI L., 2023, Does renewable energy reduce per capita carbon emissions and per capita ecological footprint? New evidence from 130 countries, Energy Strategy Reviews 49: 101121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101121.
59. LIU J., MURSHED M., CHEN F., SHAHBAZ M., KIRIKKALELI D., KHAN Z., 2021, An empirical analysis of the household consumption-induced carbon emissions in China, Sustainable Production and Consumption 26: 943-957, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.01.006.
60. LOREK S., SPANGENBERG J. H., 2001, Indicators for environmentally sustainable household consumption, International Journal of Sustainable Development (IJSD) 4(1): 101-101, https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsd.2001.001549.
61. LV J., WANG N., JU H., CUI X., 2022, Influence of green technology, tourism, and inclusive financial development on ecological sustainability: exploring the path toward green revolution, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 36(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2116349.
62. MENSAH C. N., LONG X., BOAMAH K. B., BEDIAKO I. A., DAUDA L., SALMAN M., 2018, The effect of innovation on CO2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25: 29678-29698, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2968-0.
63. MOHAMED E. F., ABDULLAH A., JAAFFAR A. H., OSABOHIEN R., 2024, Reinvestigating the EKC hypothesis: does renewable energy in power generation reduce carbon emissions and ecological footprint?, Energy Strategy Reviews 53: 101387, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101387.
64. MUÑOZ L. A., TAMAYO L. P., MARULANDA D. P., PELÁEZ G. C., PÉREZ M. H., 2021, Integral diagnosis on the use of sustainable water treatment technologies, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1203(3): 032001, IOP Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1203/3/032001.
65. MURSHED M., ALI S. R., BANERJEE S., 2021, Consumption of liquefied petroleum gas and the EKC hypothesis in South Asia: evidence from cross-sectionally dependent heterogeneous panel data with structural breaks, Energy, Ecology and Environment 6(4): 353-377, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00185-z.
66. MURSHED M., NURMAKHANOVA M., AL-TAL R., MAHMOOD H., ELHEDDAD M., AHMED R., 2022, Can intra-regional trade, renewable energy use, foreign direct investments, and economic growth mitigate ecological footprints in South Asia?, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 17(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2022.2038730.
67. NKETIAH E., SONG H., OBUOBI B., ADU-GYAMFI G., ADJEI M., CUDJOE D., 2022, The impact of ecological footprint in West Africa: the role of biocapacity and renewable energy, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29(6): 514-529, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2051637.
68. OHCHR 2024, COVID-19 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. OHCHR and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://www.ohchr.org/en/sdgs/covid-19-and-2030-agenda-sustainable-development (1.10.2024).
69. OUR WORLD IN DATA, 2024, https://ourworldindata.org/ (6.08.2024).
70. PATA U. K., NAIMOGLU M., KARLILAR S., KARTAL M. T., 2024, Analyzing the EKC hypothesis for the top 10 energy-importing countries: a perspective for the COP27 targets, Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 17: 953-966, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-023-01490-2.
71. PESARAN M. H., YAMAGATA T., 2008, Testing slope homogeneity in large panels, Journal of Econometrics 142(1): 50-93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.
72. PESARAN M. H., 2004, General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240, The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Germany, https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf (6.08.2024).
73. 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, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.
74. PRADHAN P., COSTA L., RYBSKI D., LUCHT W., KROPP J. P., 2017, A systematic study of Sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions, Earth’s Future 5: 1169-1179, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ef000632.
75. 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, Resources Policy 88: 104506, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104506.
76. QIU H., WAN Q., 2023, Inclusivity between digital trade, human development, and environmental quality: moderating role of green innovations in BRICS countries, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 36(3), https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2150872.
77. RABBI M. F., ABDULLAH M., 2024, Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions and economic growth in the Visegrád region: a study based on the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis, Climate 12(8): 115, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli12080115.
78. RAHMANE A., BENELBAR M., TRAICH M., 2021, The nexus between sustainable energy and ecological footprint: evidence from Algeria, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 17(1): 323-333, https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2021.1946298.
79. RAIHAN A., VOUMIK L. C., ZIMON G., SADOWSKA B., RASHID M., AKTER S., 2024, Prioritising sustainability: how economic growth, energy use, forest area, and globalization impact on greenhouse gas emissions and load capacity in Poland?, International Journal of Sustainable Energy 43(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2024.2361410.
80. RAZA A., HABIB Y., HASHMI S. H., 2023, Impact of technological innovation and renewable energy on ecological footprint in G20 countries: the moderating role of institutional quality, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30: 95376-95393, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29011-9.
81. REHMAN A., RADULESCU M., MA H., DAGAR V., HUSSAIN I., KHAN M. K., 2021, The impact of globalization, energy use, and trade on ecological footprint in Pakistan: does environmental sustainability exist?, Energies 14: 5234, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14175234.
82. SHAYANMEHR S., RADMEHR R., ALI E. B., OFORI E. K., ADEBAYO T. S., GYAMFI B. A., 2023, How do environmental tax and renewable energy contribute to ecological sustainability? New evidence from top renewable energy countries, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 30(6): 650-670, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2186961.
83. SILVA F. C., SHIBAO F. Y., KRUGLIANSKAS I., BARBIERI J. C., SINISGALLI P. A. A., 2019, Circular economy: analysis of the implementation of practices in the Brazilian network, Revista de Gestão 26(1): 39-60, https://doi.org/10.1108/rege-03-2018-0044.
84. SOHAG K., BEGUM R. A., ABDULLAH S. M. S., 2015, Dynamic impact of household consumption on its CO2 emissions in Malaysia, Environment, Development and Sustainability 17: 1031-1043, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9588-8.
85. STANOJEVIC S., 2020, Embracing sustainability in the drive from ordinary to outstanding: case examples from Emirates, Jumeirah and Rotana, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 12(5): 575-586, https://doi.org/10.1108/whatt-06-2020-0050.
86. SULICH A., SOŁODUCHO-PELC L., 2021, Renewable energy producers’ strategies in the Visegrád group countries, Energies 14(11): 3048, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113048.
87. SUN Y., GUAN W., MEHMOOD U., YANG X., 2022, Asymmetric impacts of natural resources on ecological footprints: exploring the role of economic growth, FDI and renewable energy in G-11 countries, Resources Policy 79: 103026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103026.
88. SWAMY P. A. V. B., 1970, Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model, Econometrica 38(2): 311-323.
89. THACH N. N., NGOC B. H., 2023, Nexus between tourism and ecological footprint in RCEP: fresh evidence from Bayesian MCMC random-effects sampling, Cogent Business & Management 10(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2208703.
90. TUGCU C. T., 2018, Panel data analysis in the energy-growth nexus (EGN), The economics and econometrics of the energy-growth nexus, ed. Menegaki A. N., Academic Press: 255-271.
91. ULUCAK Z. S., ILKAY S. Ç., OZCAN B., GEDIKLI A., 2020, Financial globalization and environmental degradation nexus: evidence from emerging economies, Resources Policy 67: 101698, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101698.
92. VÁZQUEZ-BURGUETE J. L., LANERO-CARRIZO A., SAHELICES-PINTO C., VÁZQUEZ-GARCIA J. L., VÁZQUEZ-GARCIA J. M., 2023, Responsible production and consumption as a requirement for sustainable development, SHS Web of Conferences 176: 02001, https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202317602001.
93. WORLD BANK, 2024, https://data.worldbank.org/ (5.08.2024).
94. WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION, 2024, State of the Global Climate 2023, WMO-No. 1347.
95. YU Z., GUO X. D., 2022, Integration of ecological innovation, institutional governance, and human capital development for a sustainable environment in Asian Countries, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 36(3), https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2155681.
96. ZHANG Q., SHAH S. A. R., YANG L., 2022, Modeling the effect of disaggregated renewable energies on ecological footprint in E5 economies: do economic growth and R&D matter?, Applied Energy 310: 118522, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118522.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Abstract views: 719
Downloads: 221

