| Literature DB >> 35624364 |
Binlin Li1, Salah Ud-Din Khan2, Nils Haneklaus3,4.
Abstract
Mitigating the effects of environmental deterioration requires a focus on not just CO2 emissions from energy consumption, but also environmental pollution from industry sectors. To reach this goal, recent studies have extended ecological footprint (EF) analysis to identify the ecological drivers of various key industry sectors. The role of the phosphorus (P) industry on the EF within the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) framework for China is the emphasis of this study. Autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) as well as the impulse response function and robustness analysis were used to consider a time from 1985 to 2018. The study verifies the EKC hypothesis for China in both the long and the short run, and indispensable determinants are proposed to be included to assure the model's fitness and robustness when conducting EF analysis of industry sectors. Energy consumption-based carbon emissions have been verified as the dominant contributor to EF, but P use and urbanization have a significant lagged positive influence on EF in the short run. P exports, in particular, have been highlighted as a critical driver of the EF of China's P industry. The conducted frequency domain causality test reinforced the above findings and demonstrated bidirectional causality at different frequencies. This work suggests that formulating plausible P export policies to alleviate the conflict between the output of China's P industry and the environmental sustainability of this industry are necessary. In this context, "multidisciplinary, multidimensional, and practical solutions" are most desirable for sustainable P management.Entities:
Keywords: Autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL); China; Ecological footprint; Phosphorus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35624364 PMCID: PMC9522747 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20878-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Summary of ecological footprint (EF) analysis of different industry sectors within the EKC framework
| Sectors | Authors | Countries/Region | Included variables |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liu et al. ( | Pakistan | Tourism, EF, foreign direct investment, Energy, trade | |
| Lee and Chen ( | 123 countries | Tourism revenue, EF, GDP, country risk ratings | |
| Kongbuamai et al. ( | ASEAN countries | Tourism, EF, GDP, energy consumption, natural resources | |
| Kongbuamai et al. ( | Thailand | Tourism, EF, GDP, energy consumption, tradeopeness | |
| Katircioglu et al. ( | 10 tourist countries | Tourism development, EF, GDP urbanization | |
| Abbasi et al. ( | Pakistan | Financial development, energy use, economic globalization index (EGI), GDP per capita, and technological innovation | |
| Destek and Sinha ( | 11 newly industrialized countries | Financial development, EF, GDP, energy consumption | |
| Saud et al. ( | One belt one road initiative countries | Financial development, EF, globalization | |
| Baloch et al. ( | One belt one road initiative countries | EF, GDP, financial development, energy consumption, foreign direct investment, urbanization | |
| Udemba ( | India | EF, GDP, FDI agriculture, energy use, population | |
| Abdunnur ( | Indonesia | EF, fisheries production, agriculture production, urban development | |
| Pata ( | BRIC countries | EF, CO2, renewable energy, globalization, agriculture | |
| Wang et al. ( | G7 countries | EF, biomass energy production | |
| Yasmeen et al. | 52 Belt & Road panel count | EF, biomass energy consumption, | |
| Danish et al. ( | China | EF, nuclear energy, CO2 | |
| Langnel and Amegavi ( | Ghana | EF, electricity consumption, GDP urbanization | |
| Ahmed et al. ( | India | EF, human capitals energy consumption, GDP | |
| Khan et al. ( | 18 Asian developing countries | EF; poverty; income inequality; GDP; forest area; inflation | |
| Charfeddine and Mrabet ( | 15 MENA countries | EF, fertility rate, life expectancy, political institutional index | |
| Pata and Aydin ( | Top six hydropower-consuming counties | EF, hydropower energy consumption, GDP |
Fig. 1Sources of GHG emissions of PF production in China
Summary of detailed variables and source
| Indicators | Abbrev | Unit | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecological footprint | In global hectares | GFNa | |
| Economic growth | GD | Constant 2010 US dollars | WDIb |
| Energy consumption-based carbon emissions | ECO | million t | BP statisticsc |
| P use | PU | t | NBSd |
| P exports | PE | Thousand t of grand total P2O5 | IFAe |
| Urbanization | U | % | WDI |
GFN, Global Footprint Network; NBS, National Bureau of Statistics; WDI, World Development Indicators
ahttps://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/.
bhttps://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators.
chttps://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/xlsx/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-all-data.xlsx.
dhttps://www.qianzhan.com/.
ehttps://www.ifastat.org/.
Preliminary statistics of logarithmic variables
| LNEF | LNGD | LNECO | LNPU | LNPE | LNU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 0.8529 | 7.7626 | 8.4837 | 6.5428 | 6.2116 | 3.6725 |
| Maximum | 1.3122 | 8.9020 | 9.1376 | 6.7397 | 8.5885 | 4.0694 |
| Minimum | 0.3926 | 6.5683 | 7.7449 | 6.0376 | 2.5096 | 3.2661 |
| Std. dev | 0.3292 | 0.7399 | 0.5178 | 0.1881 | 1.8026 | 0.2697 |
| Skewness | 0.1293 | -0.0315 | 0.0295 | -1.1957 | -0.4020 | -0.1137 |
| Kurtosis | 1.4697 | 1.7511 | 1.3598 | 3.6075 | 2.1435 | 1.6144 |
| Jarque–Bera | 2.9104 | 1.8895 | 3.2551 | 7.3562 | 1.6675 | 2.3823 |
| Obs | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 |
Fig. 2Scatter matrix graph of the logarithmic variables
Unit root test results by DF-GLS and ZA structural break test
| DF-GLS | ZA structural break | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | 1st | Level | 1st | |||
| LNEF | − 0.2089 | − 2.999a | − 4.9576a | 1996 | − 3.6838a | 2001 |
| LNGDP | − 0.3565 | − 2.551b | − 3.5489 | 2006 | − 4.9077b | 2011 |
| LNGDP2 | − 0.4260 | − 2.2963b | − 4.0537 | 2002 | − 4.5791b | 2011 |
| LNCO2 | − 0.5638 | − 2.1794b | − 5.4936 | 2003 | − 3.9920a | 2002 |
| LNPU | 0.7215 | − 4.1137a | − 1.49566 | 2013 | − 5.7889b | 2004 |
| LNPE | − 0.9094 | − 7.3120a | − 4.9694a | 2013 | − 5.3252b | 2002 |
| LNU | − 0.186 | − 2.0121b | − 3.0926 | 2013 | − 7.8198a | 1996 |
a, b, c represent the significance of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively
Lag lengths selection are crucial for cointegrating models. Table 5 shows the result for lag order selection, and five criteria: likelihood ratio (LR), final prediction error (FPF), Akaike information criterion (AIC), Schwarz information criterion (SC), and Hannan-Quinn information criterion (HQ) that supports the maximum lag length of 3 for conducting cointegration in the next steps
The result of lag selection technique
| Lag | LogL | LR | FPE | AIC | SC | HQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 171.8825 | NA | 5.66e-14 | − 10.6376 | − 10.3139 | − 10.5320 |
| 1 | 550.7862 | 562.2442 | 3.51e-23 | − 31.9217 | − 29.3313 | − 31.0773 |
| 2 | 630.5712 | 82.3587 | 8.23e-24 | − 33.9078 | − 29.0508 | − 32.3245 |
| 3 | 750.5512 | 69.6658* | 5.41e-25* | − 38.4872* | − 31.3635* | − 36.1650* |
Bounds test for cointegration results
| Model | Conclusion | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARDL (1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3) | 9.2072 | Cointegration | ||
| Critical values | 1% | 2.50% | 5% | 10% |
| Lower bounds I(0) | 2.88 | 2.55 | 2.27 | 1.99 |
| Upper bounds I(1) | 3.99 | 3.61 | 3.28 | 2.94 |
Results of the diagnostic tests
| Diagnostic test | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Breusch-Godfrey LM | 14.5885 | 0.1999 | √ |
| Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey | 1.3995 | 0.3098 | √ |
| J-B test | 0.7660 | 0.6818 | √ |
| Ramsey RESET | 1.6122 | 0.2399 | √ |
Fig. 3Graphs of the stability test from CUSUM/CUSUMQ stability test
Results for long-run and short-run relationship
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Prob |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long run | ||||
| LNGD | 7.1802 | 0.7718 | 9.3027 | 0.0000 |
| LNGD2 | − 0.3387 | 0.0380 | − 8.9205 | 0.0000 |
| LNECO | 0.2264 | 0.0679 | 3.3365 | 0.0087 |
| LNPU | − 1.7254 | 0.1853 | − 9.3122 | 0.0000 |
| LNPE | 0.0435 | 0.0167 | 2.6027 | 0.0286 |
| LNU | − 3.6657 | 0.3045 | − 12.0389 | 0.0000 |
| C | − 25.8270 | 2.8378 | − 9.1010 | 0.0000 |
| Short run | ||||
| DLN (GD) | 2.8698 | 0.8636 | 3.3230 | 0.0089 |
| DLN (GD(− 1)) | − 1.0001 | 1.1372 | − 0.8794 | 0.4020 |
| DLN (GD(− 2)) | − 6.1223 | 0.9583 | − 6.3891 | 0.0001 |
| DLN(GD2) | − 0.1260 | 0.0599 | − 2.1054 | 0.0645 |
| DLNGD2 (− 1) | 0.0213 | 0.0778 | 0.2736 | 0.7905 |
| DLNGD2 (− 2) | 0.3212 | 0.0616 | 5.2146 | 0.0006 |
| DLNECO | 0.5081 | 0.0436 | 11.6632 | 0.0000 |
| DLNPU | − 0.0747 | 0.0592 | − 1.2609 | 0.2390 |
| DLNPU (− 1) | 0.8905 | 0.1220 | 7.3017 | 0.0000 |
| DLNPE | − 0.0043 | 0.0045 | − 0.9654 | 0.3596 |
| DLNPE (− 1) | − 0.0317 | 0.0050 | − 6.3379 | 0.0001 |
| DLNU | − 3.2860 | 0.3267 | − 10.0583 | 0.0000 |
| DLNU (− 1) | 0.5848 | 0.2895 | 2.0202 | 0.0741 |
| DLNU (− 2) | 0.9752 | 0.2550 | 3.8247 | 0.0041 |
| − 0.7862 | 0.0687 | − 11.4432 | 0.0000 |
Fig. 4Actual value of EF and static forecasted EF (EFF) during 1985–2018 via ARDL estimation
Fig. 5Graphs of the IRF test results
The long-run relationship results from FMOS, CCR, and DOLS
| FMOLS | CCR | DOLS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | Prob | Coefficient | Prob | Coefficient | Prob |
| LNGD | 1.0962 | 0.0000 | 1.0031 | 0.0000 | 6.1649 | 0.0000 |
| LNGD2 | − 0.0300 | 0.0000 | − 0.0143 | 0.0000 | − 0.2918 | 0.0000 |
| LNECO | 0.3273 | 0.0000 | − 0.0234 | 0.0000 | 0.3830 | 0.0009 |
| LNPU | − 0.4356 | 0.0000 | − 0.5049 | 0.0000 | − 1.5044 | 0.0000 |
| LNPE | 0.0181 | 0.0000 | 0.0645 | 0.0000 | 0.0665 | 0.0316 |
| LNU | − 0.8994 | 0.0000 | − 0.9617 | 0.0000 | − 3.3421 | 0.0000 |
| C | − 2.8965 | 0.0000 | − 4.1666 | 0.0000 | − 21.5545 | 0.0000 |
| 0.9939 | 0.9772 | 0.9998 | ||||
| Adjusted | 0.9924 | 0.9720 | 0.9989 | |||
| S.E. of regression | 0.0305 | 0.0587 | 0.0112 | |||
Fig. 6Spectral BC causality between GD, GD2, PU, PE, U, and EF