| Literature DB >> 32837614 |
Muhammad Khalid Anser1, Zahid Yousaf2, Muhammad Azhar Khan3, Xuan Hinh Voo4, Abdelmohsen A Nassani5, Saad M Alotaibi5, Muhammad Moinuddin Qazi Abro5, Khalid Zaman6.
Abstract
The study aims to examine the effects of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) measures on global environment and fertility rate by using the data of 1980 to 2019. The results show that communicable diseases including COVID-19 measures decrease carbon emissions and increase the chances of fertility rates in an account of city-wide lockdown. The knowledge spillover substantially decreases carbon emissions, while high energy demand increases carbon emissions. Poverty incidence increases fertility rate in the short-run; however, in the long-run, the result only supported with vulnerable employment and food prices that lead to increase fertility rates worldwide. The study concludes that besides some high negative externalities associated with COVID-19 pandemic in the form of increasing death tolls and rising healthcare costs, the global world should have to know how to direct high mass carbon emissions and population growth through acceptance of preventive measures, which would be helpful to contain coronavirus pandemic at a global scale. © Springer Nature B.V. 2020.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Carbon emissions; Energy demand; Fertility rate; Knowledge spillover; World aggregated data
Year: 2020 PMID: 32837614 PMCID: PMC7353826 DOI: 10.1007/s11869-020-00865-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Air Qual Atmos Health ISSN: 1873-9318 Impact factor: 3.763
Fig. 1Research methodology flow chart
Estimates of unit root test
| Variables | Level | First difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | Constant + Trend | Constant | Constant + Trend | |
| CO2 | − 0.534 (0.873) | − 1.807 (0.681) | − 4.481 (0.001) | − 4.332 (0.007) |
| FR | − 5.205 (0.000) | − 1.307 (0.851) | − 1.440 (0.551) | − 5.048 (0.001) |
| COMDIS | − 0.402 (0.898) | − 2.401 (0.373) | − 6.337 (0.000) | − 6.306 (0.000) |
| ECR | 1.395 (0.998) | − 2.403 (0.372) | − 4.819 (0.000) | − 4.392 (0.001) |
| EPC | − 0.723 (0.828) | − 1.881 (0.645) | − 5.637 (0.000) | − 5.619 (0;000) |
| FPI | − 0.397 (0.899) | − 1.130 (0.910) | − 4.572 (0.000) | − 4.505 (0.004) |
| FPRICE | − 2.440 (0.136) | − 3.454 (0.058) | − 5.902(0.000) | − 5.894 (0.000) |
| KSO | − 2.699 (0.083) | − 3.626 (0.041) | − 5.774(0.000) | − 5.418 (0.000) |
| PDEN | − 1.882 (0.336) | − 0.199 (0.990) | − 0.506 (0.879) | − 0.770 (0.959) |
| POVHCRa | 0.947 (0.995) | − 1.424 (0.837) | − 6.439 (0.000) | − 7.136 (0.000) |
| VEMP | − 3.364 (0.019) | − 1.778 (0.695) | − 2.030 (0.273) | − 2.493 (0.325) |
aPhillips Perron unit root estimates. Small bracket shows probability values
ARDL-Bounds testing estimates for model I
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. error | Prob. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∆ln(CO2) | 0.134 | 0.106 | 1.261 | 0.231 |
| ∆ln(CO2) | 0.585 | 0.115 | 5.065 | 0.000 |
| ∆ln(CO2) | 0.504 | 0.130 | 3.873 | 0.002 |
| ∆ln(COMDIS)t | − 0.146 | 0.030 | − 4.800 | 0.000 |
| ∆ln(COMDIS) | 0.025 | 0.026 | 0.958 | 0.356 |
| ∆ln(KSO) | − 0.012 | 0.030 | − 0.406 | 0.691 |
| ∆ln(KSO) | − 0.196 | 0.039 | − 4.984 | 0.000 |
| ∆ln(KSO) | − 0.085 | 0.033 | − 2.582 | 0.024 |
| ∆ln(KSO) | − 0.096 | 0.032 | − 2.985 | 0.011 |
| ∆ln(EPC) | 0.199 | 0.056 | 3.510 | 0.004 |
| ∆ln(ECR) | 0.323 | 0.113 | 2.861 | 0.014 |
| ∆ln(ECR) | − 0.069 | 0.197 | − 0.354 | 0.729 |
| ∆ln(ECR) | − 0.016 | 0.189 | − 0.086 | 0.932 |
| ∆ln(ECR) | − 0.802 | 0.184 | − 4.349 | 0.000 |
| ∆ln(PDEN) | 0.628 | 0.590 | 1.063 | 0.308 |
| ∆ln(PDEN) | − 15.419 | 8.464 | − 1.821 | 0.093 |
| ∆ln(PDEN) | 34.830 | 8.847 | 3.936 | 0.002 |
| ∆ln(PDEN) | − 11.568 | 4.492 | − 2.575 | 0.024 |
| CointEq | − 1.070 | 0.127 | − 8.397 | 0.000 |
| Long-run coefficients | ||||
| ln(COMDIS) | − 0.108 | 0.023 | − 4.590 | 0.000 |
| ln(KSO) | 0.459 | 0.051 | 8.872 | 0.000 |
| ln(EPC) | 0.186 | 0.048 | 3.874 | 0.002 |
| ln(ECR) | 1.201 | 0.081 | 14.794 | 0.000 |
| ln(PDEN) | − 0.808 | 0.122 | − 6.594 | 0.000 |
| | − 8.277 | 0.524 | − 15.792 | 0.000 |
| Diagnostic tests | ||||
| Wald | 9.327* | J.B Test | 1.529 | Prob. value: 0.465 |
| Breusch–Godfrey serial correlation LM test | 1.165 | Prob. value: 0.303 | ||
| Heteroskedasticity test: Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey | 0.659 | Prob. value: 0.811 | ||
| Ramsey RESET test: | 1.566 | Prob. value: 0.145 | ||
ln(CO2) is the dependent variable. The asterisk indicates 99% significance level
ARDL-Bounds testing estimates: Model II
| Variables | Coefficient | Std. error | Prob. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∆ln(FR) | 0.583 | 0.188 | 3.094 | 0.007 |
| ∆ln (FR) | 0.770 | 0.260 | 2.957 | 0.010 |
| ∆ln (COMDIS)t | 0.018 | 0.009 | 1.907 | 0.077 |
| ∆ln (COMDIS) | 0.017 | 0.014 | 1.183 | 0.256 |
| ∆ln (COMDIS) | − 0.014 | 0.009 | − 1.558 | 0.141 |
| ∆ln (FPI) | − 0.079 | 0.042 | − 1.856 | 0.084 |
| ∆ln (FPI) | − 0.024 | 0.030 | − 0.820 | 0.425 |
| ∆ln (FPI) | − 0.013 | 0.031 | − 0.437 | 0.668 |
| ∆ln (FPRICE)t | 0.0007 | 0.001 | 0.483 | 0.636 |
| ∆ln (FPRICE) | − 0.0065 | 0.001 | − 3.414 | 0.004 |
| ∆ln (FPRICE) | − 0.003 | 0.001 | − 1.878 | 0.081 |
| ∆ln (VEMP) | − 0.769 | 0.221 | − 3.468 | 0.003 |
| ∆ln (VEMP) | − 0.026 | 0.369 | − 0.070 | 0.944 |
| ∆ln (VEMP) | 0.234 | 0.216 | 1.082 | 0.297 |
| ∆ln (POVHCR) | 0.122 | 0.035 | 3.491 | 0.003 |
| ∆ln (POVHCR) | 0.047 | 0.032 | 1.446 | 0.170 |
| ∆ln (POVHCR) | 0.139 | 0.027 | 5.146 | 0.000 |
| CointEq | − 0.117 | 0.053 | − 2.212 | 0.044 |
| Long-run coefficients | ||||
| ln(COMDIS)t | − 0.243457 | 0.138314 | − 1.760178 | 0.1002 |
| ln(FPI) | − 0.349750 | 0.092775 | − 3.769899 | 0.0021 |
| ln(FPRICE) | 0.114237 | 0.050166 | 2.277183 | 0.0390 |
| ln(VEMP) | 1.494382 | 0.244641 | 6.108473 | 0.0000 |
| ln(POVHCR) | − 0.614636 | 0.211730 | − 2.902929 | 0.0116 |
| Diagnostic tests | ||||
| Wald | 5.375* | J.B Test | 0.182 | Prob. value:0.912 |
| Heteroskedasticity test: Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey | 0.188 | Prob. value: 0.999 | ||
| Ramsey RESET test: | 0.645 | Prob. value: 0.529 | ||
Dependent variable is ln(FR). The asterisk indicates 99% significance level