Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
EHSAN ULLAH
 -- 1215 2023-11-13 12:14:58 |
2 layout
Jessie Wu
 Meta information modification 1215 2023-11-14 03:08:38 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Jiaduo, E.; Kibria, M.G.; Aspy, N.N.; Ullah, E.; Hossain, M.E. Variables Related to Environmental Sustainability. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51478 (accessed on 01 July 2024).
Jiaduo E, Kibria MG, Aspy NN, Ullah E, Hossain ME. Variables Related to Environmental Sustainability. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51478. Accessed July 01, 2024.
Jiaduo, Erti, Md. Golam Kibria, Nazhat Nury Aspy, Ehsan Ullah, Md. Emran Hossain. "Variables Related to Environmental Sustainability" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51478 (accessed July 01, 2024).
Jiaduo, E., Kibria, M.G., Aspy, N.N., Ullah, E., & Hossain, M.E. (2023, November 13). Variables Related to Environmental Sustainability. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/51478
Jiaduo, Erti, et al. "Variables Related to Environmental Sustainability." Encyclopedia. Web. 13 November, 2023.
Variables Related to Environmental Sustainability
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su152015083

Scholars have been concerned about the achievement of ecological sustainability due to the rapid degradation of the natural world. This pursuit involves the examination of the current condition of the environment, the identification of factors contributing to this degradation, and the implementation of corrective measures aimed at achieving environmental sustainability goals.

load capacity factor agricultural employment natural resource rent CO2

1. Renewable Energy and Environment Nexus

Previous studies extensively acknowledge the significance of renewable energy as a crucial factor in determining environmental sustainability. There is a growing body of research in favor of renewable energy transition policies on a worldwide scale. For instance, ref. [1] found that the environmental standard of BRICS-T (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and Turkey) countries increases as a result of increased use of renewable energy consumption, and it is positively associated with LCF. Samour et al. [2] reported similar findings for the 1990–2018 period and likewise concluded that the state of the environment can be improved by increasing the utilization of energy from renewable sources. Using three different models—PMG, MG, and PNARDL—Adebayo and Samour [3] demonstrated how the increased use of renewable energy in BRICS nations contributes to environmental sustainability as estimated by LCF. They also found a positive correlation between renewable energy and environmental conditions. A comparable study was conducted by Dogan and Pata [4], who analyzed the effect of renewable energy utilization on LCF for the G7 countries from 1986 to 2017. The empirical results show that using renewable energy sources is crucial for increasing the G7 countries’ LCF over the long term.
Similarly, Dam and Sarkodie [5] found that the usage of renewable energy stimulates the LCF and helps to achieve sustainability in selected OECD nations. This line of justification is also supported by Shang et al. [6] for ASEAN nations and Pata and Samour [7] for OECD countries. Another study confirmed that using renewable energy promotes environmental sustainability; the effect is magnified when renewable energy costs are combined with renewable energy usage [8]. However, ref. [9] showed that the use of renewable electricity did not affect the LCF or environmental sustainability. Hence, most of the literature supports the role of renewable energy in improving environmental sustainability.

2. Natural Resource Rent and Environment Nexus

Because of the potential for environmental damage during resource extraction, remediation, and consumption, several researchers have analyzed the consequences of natural resource rent on the environment. For instance, using CS-ARDL, Zhao et al. [10] analyzed its impact from an LCF perspective. According to their findings, the BRICS-T countries’ natural resource use has had a detrimental impact on the environment by lowering the LCF over the long and short term. Ni et al. [11] shared similar insights for high-resource-consuming countries. The long-term results of the ARDL approach show that excessive reliance on natural resources for growth significantly reduces the LCF and moves away from the goal of environmental sustainability. Under the load capacity curve (LCC) hypothesis in BRICS, Yang et al. [12] found that the resource rent factor negatively impacts the environment by lowering the LCF. Moreover, Li et al. [13] revealed that the total natural resource rent (i.e., the rent of minerals, natural gas, oil, and coal), along with globalization and economic growth, diminishes the LCF and thus stimulates the degradation of the environment in the Next-11 nations. In line with these studies, another investigation by Ibrahim and Ajide [14] on BRICS economies that included total natural resource rents, the development of financing, and regulatory effectiveness evidences an upsurge in degradation.
However, Pata and Ertugrul [15] demonstrated a counterintuitive comprehension for India, arguing that natural resource rent supports improvements in environmental quality through increasing the LCF over the 1988–2018 timeframe. Another study by Sun et al. [16] also found a positive association between natural resource rent and LCF for 17 Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries. Furthermore, the study of Balsalobre-Lorente et al. [17] claimed that natural resources replace highly emitting energy sources, paving the way toward environmental sustainability goals. Wang et al. [18] argued that increased natural resource rents promote ecological improvement via freer commerce. Their findings implied that the nation’s base of natural resources deserves to be taken into full account in the evolution of trade liberalization.

3. Agriculture and Environment Nexus

The involvement of agriculture in environmental degradation has been the subject of recent research. Some studies have focused on the consequences brought on by human activities, including fishing, dairy production, and agriculture, on the environment. Ridzuan et al. [19] demonstrated that the crops and fisheries segment of agriculture significantly reduced carbon emissions in the 1978–2016 period. Meanwhile, some other studies focus on the nexus between agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability. For instance, using DOLS and FMOLS methods and data from 1990 to 2014, Balsalobre-Lorente et al. [20] determined the negative effects of agriculture on the natural environment for BRICS economies. In the case of Bangladesh, Raihan et al. [21] found that CO2 emissions are reduced when agricultural productivity increases. Adapting the ARDL approach, Prastiyo et al. [22] found that CO2 emissions increase along with economic growth and urbanization, whereas value-added agriculture negatively impacts emissions and hence improves environmental conditions. According to Muoneke et al. [23], when it comes to addressing ecological sustainability, the farming sector performs beyond the threshold required to maximize the growth advantages provided by the agricultural system. However, Pata [24] found no significant effect of agriculture on the ecological footprint of BRICS countries.
The sustainable development of regions, food safety, and environmentally friendly agricultural production have all been the primary focus of prior agricultural research [25][26]. Beyond this, Jiang et al. [27] investigated the connection between agricultural employment and environmental pollution. Their empirical findings revealed that employment in agriculture exaggerates environmental damage by increasing the EF. Thus, the literature research reveals that the relationship between employment in agriculture and environmental deterioration is not as well studied as other topics in the field.

4. Technological Innovation and Environment Nexus

The impact of technological innovation on environmental sustainability objectives has been the subject of multiple studies. For example, taking LCF as a measure of environmental conditions, Mehmood et al. [28] utilized cross-section improved autoregressive distributed lag (CS-ARDL) estimation. The empirical results show that technological advances are good for the health of the environment. Ref. [29] examined the effect of technological development on the environmental impact of Brazil, India, China, and South Africa from 1990 to 2016; the results show that technological development has helped reduce environmental damage. Awosusi et al. [30] also support this trend of achieving environmental sustainability through technological adoption. A pair of recent studies [31][32] also acknowledged the role of technology in mitigating environmental degradation within G7 nations. Additionally, Wahab et al. [31] specifically highlighted that the adoption of technology has resulted in a reduction in consumption-based CO2 emissions. However, the ARDL estimation for the USA found no significant impact of clean energy technologies on LCF [33].
There exist opposing perspectives that technical advancements have a role in degrading environmental sustainability. Jahanger et al. [34] studied the nexus between technological innovation and environmental sustainability. Their findings indicate a negative correlation between the level of technological innovation and the LCF in the top SDG nations. Also, a study by Su et al. [35] provides evidence that the degradation of the Brazilian environment is a result of higher carbon emissions from new technologies. Similar insight was shared by Khan et al. [36] for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. The impact of technological innovation on environmental degradation is significant, boosting the combustion of energy and thus carbon emissions in these countries.

References

  1. Ullah, S.; Luo, R.; Adebayo, T.S.; Kartal, M.T. Paving the ways toward sustainable development: The asymmetric effect of economic complexity, renewable electricity, and foreign direct investment on the environmental sustainability in BRICS-T. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 1–25.
  2. Samour, A.; Adebayo, T.S.; Agyekum, E.B.; Khan, B.; Kamel, S. Insights from BRICS-T economies on the impact of human capital and renewable electricity consumption on environmental quality. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 5245.
  3. Adebayo, T.S.; Samour, A. Renewable energy, fiscal policy and load capacity factor in BRICS countries: Novel findings from panel nonlinear ARDL model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 1–25.
  4. Dogan, A.; Pata, U.K. The role of ICT, R&D spending and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Testing the LCC hypothesis for G7 countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 135038.
  5. Dam, M.M.; Sarkodie, S.A. Renewable energy consumption, real income, trade openness, and inverted load capacity factor nexus in Turkiye: Revisiting the EKC hypothesis with environmental sustainability. Sustain. Horiz. 2023, 8, 100063.
  6. Shang, Y.; Razzaq, A.; Chupradit, S.; An, N.B.; Abdul-Samad, Z. The role of renewable energy consumption and health expenditures in improving load capacity factor in ASEAN countries: Exploring new paradigm using advance panel models. Renew. Energy 2022, 191, 715–722.
  7. Pata, U.K.; Samour, A. Assessing the role of the insurance market and renewable energy in the load capacity factor of OECD countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 48604–48616.
  8. Usman, O. Renewable energy and CO2 emissions in G7 countries: Does the level of expenditure on green energy technologies matter? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 26050–26062.
  9. Jin, G.; Huang, Z. Asymmetric impact of renewable electricity consumption and industrialization on environmental sustainability: Evidence through the lens of load capacity factor. Renew. Energy 2023, 212, 514–522.
  10. Zhao, W.X.; Samour, A.; Yi, K.; Al-Faryan, M.A.S. Do technological innovation, natural resources and stock market development promote environmental sustainability? Novel evidence based on the load capacity factor. Resour. Policy 2023, 82, 103397.
  11. Ni, Z.; Yang, J.; Razzaq, A. How do natural resources, digitalization, and institutional governance contribute to ecological sustainability through load capacity factors in highly resource-consuming economies? Resour. Policy 2022, 79, 103068.
  12. Yang, M.; She, D.; Abbas, S.; Ai, F.; Adebayo, T.S. Environmental cost of financial development within the framework of the load capacity curve hypothesis in the BRICS economies: Do renewable energy consumption and natural resources mitigate some burden? Geol. J. 2023, 58, 3915–3927.
  13. Li, X.; Sun, Y.; Dai, J.; Mehmood, U. How do natural resources and economic growth impact load capacity factor in selected Next-11 countries? Assessing the role of digitalization and government stability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 85670–85684.
  14. Ibrahim, R.L.; Ajide, K.B. The dynamic heterogeneous impacts of nonrenewable energy, trade openness, total natural resource rents, financial development and regulatory quality on environmental quality: Evidence from BRICS economies. Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 102251.
  15. Pata, U.K.; Ertugrul, H.M. Do the Kyoto Protocol, geopolitical risks, human capital and natural resources affect the sustainability limit? A new environmental approach based on the LCC hypothesis. Resour. Policy 2023, 81, 103352.
  16. Sun, Y.; Usman, M.; Radulescu, M.; Pata, U.K.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D. New insights from the STIPART model on how environmental-related technologies, natural resources and the use of the renewable energy influence load capacity factor. Gondwana Res. 2023, in press.
  17. Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Shahbaz, M.; Roubaud, D.; Farhani, S. How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions? Energy Policy 2018, 113, 356–367.
  18. Wang, Q.; Sun, J.; Li, R.; Pata, U.K. Linking Trade Openness to Load Capacity Factor: The Threshold Effects of Natural Resource Rent and Corruption Control. Gondwana Res. 2023, in press.
  19. Ridzuan, N.H.A.M.; Marwan, N.F.; Khalid, N.; Ali, M.H.; Tseng, M.L. Effects of agriculture, renewable energy, and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 160, 104879.
  20. Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Driha, O.M.; Bekun, F.V.; Osundina, O.A. Do agricultural activities induce carbon emissions? The BRICS experience. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 25218–25234.
  21. Raihan, A.; Muhtasim, D.A.; Farhana, S.; Hasan, M.A.U.; Pavel, M.I.; Faruk, O.; Mahmood, A. Nexus between economic growth, energy use, urbanization, agricultural productivity, and carbon dioxide emissions: New insights from Bangladesh. Energy Nexus 2022, 8, 100144.
  22. Prastiyo, S.E.; Irham; Hardyastuti, S.; Jamhari, F. How agriculture, manufacture, and urbanization induced carbon emission? The case of Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 42092–42103.
  23. Muoneke, O.B.; Okere, K.I.; Nwaeze, C.N. Agriculture, globalization, and ecological footprint: The role of agriculture beyond the tipping point in the Philippines. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 54652–54676.
  24. Pata, U.K. Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renew. Energy 2021, 173, 197–208.
  25. Gong, Z.; Guo, W.; Słowinski, R. Transaction and interaction behavior-based consensus model and its application to optimal carbon emission reduction. Omega 2021, 104, 102491.
  26. Ma, Q.; Murshed, M.; Khan, Z. The nexuses between energy investments, technological innovations, emission taxes, and carbon emissions in China. Energy Policy 2021, 155, 112345.
  27. Jiang, G.; Alvarado, R.; Murshed, M.; Tillaguango, B.; Toledo, E.; Méndez, P.; Isik, C. Effect of agricultural employment and export diversification index on environmental pollution: Building the agenda towards sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 677.
  28. Mehmood, U.; Tariq, S.; Aslam, M.U.; Agyekum, E.B.; Uhunamure, S.E.; Shale, K.; Khan, M.F. Evaluating the impact of digitalization, renewable energy use, and technological innovation on load capacity factor in G8 nations. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 9131.
  29. Yang, B.; Jahanger, A.; Ali, M. Remittance inflows affect the ecological footprint in BICS countries: Do technological innovation and financial development matter? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 23482–23500.
  30. Awosusi, A.A.; Kutlay, K.; Altuntaş, M.; Khodjiev, B.; Agyekum, E.B.; Shouran, M.; Kamel, S. A roadmap toward achieving sustainable environment: Evaluating the impact of technological innovation and globalization on load capacity factor. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3288.
  31. Wahab, S.; Zhang, X.; Safi, A.; Wahab, Z.; Amin, M. Does energy productivity and technological innovation limit trade-adjusted carbon emissions? Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2021, 34, 1896–1912.
  32. Sharif, A.; Saqib, N.; Dong, K.; Khan, S.A.R. Nexus between green technology innovation, green financing, and CO2 emissions in the G7 countries: The moderating role of social globalisation. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 1934–1946.
  33. Pata, U.K.; Caglar, A.E.; Kartal, M.T.; Depren, S.K. Evaluation of the role of clean energy technologies, human capital, urbanization, and income on the environmental quality in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 402, 136802.
  34. Jahanger, A.; Ogwu, S.O.; Onwe, J.C.; Awan, A. The prominence of technological innovation and renewable energy for the ecological stainability in top SDGs nations: Insights from the load capacity factor. Gondwana Res. 2023, in press.
  35. Su, Z.W.; Umar, M.; Kirikkaleli, D.; Adebayo, T.S. Role of political risk to achieve carbon neutrality: Evidence from Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 298, 113463.
  36. Khan, A.; Chenggang, Y.; Hussain, J.; Kui, Z. Impact of technological innovation, financial development and foreign direct investment on renewable energy, non-renewable energy and the environment in belt & Road Initiative countries. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 479–491.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agricultural Economics & Policy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Erti Jiaduo
,
Md. Golam Kibria
,
Nazhat Nury Aspy
,
Ehsan Ullah
,
Md. Emran Hossain
View Times: 270
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 14 Nov 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback