| Literature DB >> 31790491 |
Haider Mahmood1, Tarek Tawfik Yousef Alkhateeb1,2, Maleeha Mohammed Zaaf Al-Qahtani3, Zafrul Allam1, Nawaz Ahmad4, Maham Furqan5.
Abstract
The agriculture sector may help to improve the environment of any country. The purpose of this research is to test the existence of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis while keeping the energy consumption and agriculture share in income into account and analyze their effects on the CO2 emissions per capita of Saudi Arabia. We test both symmetrical, asymmetrical and quadratic effects of agriculture sector on the CO2 emissions. An inverted U-shaped relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and CO2 emissions per capita is found. Hence, EKC hypothesis is validated with a turning point at GDP per capita of 77,068 constant Saudi Riyal. Further, a negative and significant effect of agriculture sector on the CO2 emissions per capita has been found both in symmetrical and asymmetrical analyses. The magnitudes of effects of increasing and decreasing agriculture share are found statistically different on the CO2 emissions, and rising agriculture share in GDP has larger effect than that of decreasing agriculture share. An inverted U-shaped relationship is also found between agriculture share in GDP and CO2 emissions per capita with a turning point at 3.22% agriculture share in GDP.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31790491 PMCID: PMC6886762 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Trends of LARGI and LCOPC.
Literature summary.
| Authors | Data Coverage | Region | Methods | Major Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grossman and Krueger [ | 1977-1988 | 42 countries | Fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) | Pollution is increasing with increasing income at a low level of income and vice versa. EKC hypothesis was proved. |
| Selden and Song [ | 1973-1984 | 30 countries | FE and RE | The EKC hypothesis was found in relationships of 4 types of pollution emissions and economic growth. |
| de Bruyn et al. [ | 1960-1993 | UK, USA, Western Germany and the Netherlands | Reduced form Regression | Pollution emissions are positively related to economic growth and negatively related to structural changes and technological advances. |
| Dogan and Tarkekul [ | 1960-2010 | USA | ARDL and Granger causality | EKC was not found. The CO2 emission is caused by energy consumption, urbanization, real income, trade openness and energy consumption. |
| Mahmood et al. [ | 1991-2014 | 6 East Asian countries | Spatial FE and RE | EKC was validated. Spillover and local effects of FMD, FDI, trade openness were found on CO2 emissions. |
| Shujah-Ur-Rahman et al. [ | 1970-2016 | Pakistan | ARDL and Granger causality | EKC was found. FMD has negative effect on CO2 emissions. Bi-directional causality was found between income and CO2 emissions. |
| Churchill et al. [ | 1870-2014 | 20 OECD countries | Panel cointegration tests | EKC holds in the panel and 9 out of 20 countries’ time series analyses. |
| Albulescu et al. [ | 1980-2010 | 14 Latin American countries | Quantile regression analysis | Partial evidence of EKC hypothesis was found and unclear effect of FDI on the pollution was found. |
| Ullah et al. [ | 1972-2014 | Pakistan | Cointegration tests | Biomass burned crop had positive effect on pollution emissions. Bidirectional causality between CO2 emissions and most of crops analyzed. |
| Long et al. [ | 1997-2014 | China | First and second-stage least square | FDI positively affected innovation and innovation reduced the CO2 emissions. |
| Ravindra et al. [ | 2003-04 to 2016-17 | India | Ratio and identities | Burning of agricultural crop residue positively contributed to GHGs emissions. |
| Leitao [ | 1960-2015 | Portugal | Granger causality | Labor, land productivity and raw material exports positively contributed to CO2 emissions and bidirectional causality among climate change and the productivity of agriculture was found. |
| Chandio et al. [ | 1980-2016 | Pakistan | ARDL | FDI and financial development negatively affected the CO2 emissions in the agriculture sector. |
| Ahmad et al. [ | 1980-2008 | Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan | Cointegration | Industrial and population growth positively affected the CO2 emissions. |
| Shahbaz et al. [ | 1985Q1- | Pakistan | Nonlinear ARDL | Energy consumption and FMD had the positive and asymmetrical effects on the CO2 emissions. |
| Mahmood et al. [ | 1971-2014 | Tunisia | Nonlinear ARDL | EKC was found valid. Increasing and decreasing trade openness has the positive and insignificant effects on CO2 emissions respectively. |
| Alkhateeb and Mahmood [ | 1971-2014 | Egypt | Nonlinear ARDL | Economic growth and increasing trade openness had positive effects on the energy consumption. |
| Mahmood and Alkhateeb [ | 1970-2016 | Saudi Arabia | ARDL | EKC was found valid and trade openness had a negative effect on the CO2 emissions |
| Mahmood et al. [ | 1971-2014 | Saudi Arabia | Nonlinear ARDL | EKC was found valid and decreasing FMD and energy consumption helped in decreasing CO2 emissions. |
| Alsamara et al. [ | 1980-2017 | GCC region | Panel cointegration and causality | EKC was found valid and FMD had negative and energy consumption and exports had positive effects on CO2 emissions. |
| Raggad [ | 1971-2014 | Saudi Arabia | ARDL | EKC was not found and energy use (urbanization) show a positive (negative) effects on CO2 emissions. |
The reviewed literature signifies the importance of the agriculture sector in the environment. Further, the effect of agriculture is not certain, and it is an empirical question for any country and testing environmental effects of the agriculture sector is missing in the Saudi literature. Further, previous Saudi literature showed the mix evidence of the EKC hypothesis. The present study is exploring, for the first time, the role of the agriculture sector in shaping the EKC in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it considers the possible asymmetrical environmental effects of agriculture sector for a claim of contribution in Saudi literature.
Unit root test’s results.
| Variables | MZa | MZt | MSB | MPT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -13.7765 | -2.6137 | 0.1897 | 6.6769 | |
| -3.1465 | -1.2507 | 0.3975 | 28.8770 | |
| -6.0584 | -1.7171 | 0.2834 | 15.0183 | |
| -4.1588 | -1.3332 | 0.3206 | 20.7900 | |
| -4.1447 | -1.4281 | 0.3421 | 21.6524 | |
| -2.7809 | -1.1281 | 0.4057 | 31.1944 | |
| -20.7058 | -3.2054 | 0.1548 | 4.4746 | |
| -20.3545 | -3.1889 | 0.1567 | 4.4848 | |
| -20.1978 | -3.1768 | 0.1573 | 4.5181 | |
| -18.1948 | -3.0158 | 0.1658 | 5.0105 | |
| -18.5324 | -3.0450 | 0.1638 | 4.9255 | |
| -15.3313 | -2.7683 | 0.1806 | 5.9463 |
Note:
** and * show stationarity at 5% and 10% level of significance. MPT, MSB, MZt and MZa are modified versions of PT, SB, Zt and Za test respectively.
Estimates from linear and nonlinear ARDL models.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long Run Results | |||
| 31.0937 | 0.6835 | 34.2187 | |
| -1.3787 | -1.5205 | ||
| -0.2424 | 0.3404 | ||
| -0.1457 | |||
| -0.3153 | |||
| -0.1998 | |||
| Wald Test | 3.6749 | ||
| 0.1282 | 0.3256 | 0.3376 | |
| Intercept | -173.3340 | -7.8576 | -192.4240 |
| Short Run Results | |||
| 0.1736 | |||
| 1.0786 | 0.3916 | 0.0659 | |
| -0.0189 | 0.0317 | ||
| 0.0109 | |||
| -0.0031 | 0.1950 | ||
| -0.0835 | |||
| 0.2084 | |||
| -0.0997 | |||
| Wald Test | 3.3403 | ||
| 0.7247 | 0.1865 | 0.7769 | |
| -0.5672 | -0.5729 | -0.4988 | |
| Bound Test | 3.1783 | 2.6883 | 3.4112 |
| Critical Bound F-values with level of significance | |||
| At 1% | 3.2778-4.3109 | 3.2778-4.3109 | At 1% 3.0379-4.1121 |
| At 5% | 2.5448-3.4712 | 2.5448-3.4712 | At 5% 2.3851-3.3551 |
| At 10% | 2.2001-3.0679 | 2.2001-3.0679 | At 10% 2.0766-2.9892 |
| Diagnostic tests | |||
| 1.6498 | 1.1814 | 1.4374 | |
| 0.0316 | 1.7864 | 0.1768 | |
| 0.4971 | 0.0232 | 0.0003 | |
| 0.7292 | 2.2954 | 3.3710 | |
Note: () carries probability values.
*, ** and *** show the statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.
Residuals from estimated models.
| Model | ADF test on level of residuals [without intercept and trend] |
|---|---|
| 1 | -7.0880 |
| 2 | -5.5864 |
| 3 | -6.3007 |
Note:
*** shows stationarity at 1% level of significance.