Determinants of Renewable Energy Consumption in Africa: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Camila Xu and Version 1 by Adedoyin Isola Lawal.

The adoption of renewable energy remains Sub-Saharan Africa’s best option to achieve sustainable growth and mitigate climate change. Over the past decades, advocacy has identified renewable energy (RE) sources as reliable alternative sources of energy to conventional fossil energy sources such as crude oil, coal, and natural gas, stressing that they have some added advantages of being environmental-friendly, readily available, among others.

  • renewable energy
  • climate change
  • carbon emission
  • economic growth
  • Africa

1. Introduction

Top on the agenda of global policymakers is defining and designing suitable energy, economic, and environmental policies that can mitigate increasing global carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) [1,2,3,4,5][1][2][3][4][5]. This is premised on the fact that increasing CO2 emission negatively impacts human wellbeing and health and poses a threat to handing over a secure and sustainable environment to the future generation [6,7][6][7]. Achieving sustainable environmental policies capable of reducing CO2 emissions requires a comprehensive and robust understanding of its causes [8,9,10,11,12,13][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Extant literature suggests that to keep humanity and prevent negative alteration of man’s state; concerted efforts must be taken to reduce and mitigate the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and keep the average global temperature at the pre-industrial state of less than 2° C (IPCC 2007, Kyoto Protocol 1997) [4,14,15,16][4][14][15][16].
Evidence such as continuous occurrences of super droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes, among others that suggest the intensification of extreme weather events and natural disasters occurring in higher numbers or frequencies as well as magnitude across the globe call for urgent attention from governmental and non-governmental organizations, bilateral and multilateral institutions, to mitigate climate change/CO2 to avert global disaster [4,5,17,18][4][5][17][18]. Several actions and policies have been canvassed by various international institutions to curb the negative impact of CO2 emissions over the years [19,20,21][19][20][21]. Some of these policies often center on improving energy efficiency, conserving energy, and designing energy strategies [22]. The main drivers of these policies are reducing the high levels of CO2 emission from intense nonrenewable energy sources and reducing the high percentage of nonrenewable energy in the total energy component (nonrenewable accounts for more than 80% of the global total energy components). At the center of these two policies is the need to increase the world component of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
Over the past decades, advocacy has identified renewable energy (RE) sources as reliable alternative sources of energy to conventional fossil energy sources such as crude oil, coal, and natural gas, stressing that they have some added advantages of being environmental-friendly, readily available, among others [23]. As noted by [22], there is a rapid decline in the generation cost of renewable energy. There has been strong advocacy for its usage by international organizations such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the 2016 Paris agreement (COP21), the International Energy Agency, and the United Nations, just to mention a few, as it is environmentally friendly and possess the ability to mitigate climate change, produces either no or minimal global warming emissions [24,25][24][25]. Essentially, RE promotes economic growth in a number of ways. (i.) RE technologies support the diversification of the energy mix and support energy security via the provision of a reliable, vast supply of renewable energy necessary to achieve sustainable economic growth. (ii.) RE advances both social and environmental benefits as it reduces the amount of CO2 emission into the environment, hence reducing the cost of addressing environmental pollution. (iii.) Developing RE sources assist economies in becoming self-reliant for energy and avoiding energy shortages arising from external shocks. (iv.) RE creates job opportunities, among others. It is also worth noting that the continuous shocks or upsurge in oil prices and prices of other fossil fuels against the continuous fall in RE technologies are incentives to shifts towards RE sources adoption [26].
Despite the strength of RE as a source of energy, its universal adoption has been relatively slow. For instance, 80% of the world’s energy mix is still comprised of nonrenewable energy. This will have a negative effect on the effort to switch toward a green and sustainable energy system. Hence there is a need to explore the drivers of the deployment of RE to know what factors maximize the achievement of sustainable energy. According to [27], factors that can influence the adaption of RE can be classified into nine strands: political, institutional, economic, social, environmental, regulatory, technical, technological, and logistics.
Extant literature on the determinants of RE adoption is multi-dimensional, focusing on energy indicators, environmental factors, explanatory variables, regions and countries, time periods, econometric models, and estimation techniques [27]; for instance, [8,28,29,30,31][8][28][29][30][31]. In terms of the methodology adopted, ref. [32] canvassed for strong modeling techniques, ref. [33] employed panel data estimation techniques, ref. [34] employed panel autoregressive distributed lag (P-ARDL), and ref. [35] employed bootstrap ARDL, among others. A closer look at most of the extant studies suggests that though Africa has a huge reserve of renewable energy, few studies have been conducted on the possibility of switching toward the adoption of renewable energy. There are few appreciable studies on the determinants of drivers of RE adoption on the continent.
A major factor in mitigating increased emission rates is adopting RE in the production and consumption life. RE is healthy for public health, the environment, and the economy; hence, focusing on adopting RE is key to achieving environmentally sustainable economic growth. RE, among others, helps in diversifying the energy mix, increases energy security as it provides a reliable, vast, and renewable supply of energy needed for sustainable growth, and reduces environmental costs owing to addressing issues related to CO2 emissions. Specifically, RE can be influenced by three main constructs: economic, environmental, and socio-political factors [36,37,38][36][37][38]. The impact of economic growth on RE adoption could be explained by the influence of macroeconomic variables such as real gross domestic product (RGDP), foreign direct investment (FDI), financial development (FD), and trade openness (TRD), among others. Similar to every source of energy, four possibilities exist in explaining the linkages between economic growth and RE. They are RE-leading, economic growth following hypothesis; economic growth leading, RE following hypothesis; feedback hypothesis where a bilateral relationship exists between RE and economic growth; the fourth possibility is the neutrality hypothesis, where no causality exists between economic growth and RE [20,39,40][20][39][40].
The impact of environmental factors on RE adoption is essentially influenced by two models: the environmental Kuznets hypothesis (EKC); and the pollutant haven models. The EKC noted that a U-shape relationship exists between economic growth and environmental pollution. The theory simply described a non-linear relationship between growth and environmental degradation. The pollutant haven model stressed that the existence of legislation to punish the deployment of environmentally harmful energy sources would motivate the adoption of RE [41,42,43][41][42][43].
The socio-political strands focus on the ability of governance structure, government policies, and urbanization, among others, to influence the adoption of RE [44,45,46][44][45][46]. Urbanization as a socioeconomic factor impacts energy consumption and environmental condition as it may induce the enlargement of energy-intensive industries such as steel and concrete, the power industry, and the transport sector, thereby provoking upward shocks to the environment [47]. Another dimension to the contributions of urbanization to energy consumption and the environment suggests that urbanization might improve the environmental quality, provided man is willing to be environmentally conscious and friendly. As important as these constructs are to the adoption of RE, few studies have accounted for them in RE adoption works. For instance, refs. [1,2][1][2] did not account for the impact of socio-political factors, and [48,49,50,51][48][49][50][51] only focused on environmental factors. Refs. [52,53,54][52][53][54] focused on both economic and environment but did not address socio-political factors.
Air pollution and CO2 emissions account for environmental degradation in the region more than other types of pollution, such as water or land pollution. The region is reported to have one of the most prolonged CO2 emission growth rates in the world, with more than a 123% growth rate between 1979 and 2017, surpassing the global average of 60% [57,58][55][56]. With the current trend in CO2 emission growth rate, Africa will, by the year 2030, have a 30% CO2 emission growth rate.

2. Determinants of Renewable Energy Consumption in Africa

The theoretical note that governs this study is threefold: cointegration (economic growth-related), environmental, and impact. The cointegration (economic growth) strands are further divided into four hypotheses that explain the possibility of causality between RE and economic growth. These hypotheses are energy-leading growth following hypothesis, which states that it is the demand for energy that spurs economic growth; hence, conservative measures to conserve the environment will have negative consequences on economic growth. The second leg of this strand is the economic growth-leading following hypothesis that suggests that it is growth that drives energy demand. The third strand is the feedback hypothesis which states that a bilateral relationship exists between economic growth and energy consumption. The fourth hypothesis is the neutrality hypothesis which suggests that no causality exists between economic growth and energy consumption. Hence, any policy introduced to manipulate either of the two will have little or no effect on the other [20,66,67][20][57][58]. The discussion of the extant literature on the impact of macroeconomic variables on energy behavior remains inconclusive; for instance, ref. [2] examined the dynamic effect of nonrenewable energy, renewable energy, economic growth, and foreign direct investment on the environment based on data sourced from the year 2000 to 2015 for some selected African economies. The study employed panel ARDL that calibrates the pooled mean group, mean group, and dynamic fixed effect estimator to examine the validity of both the environmental Kuznets curve and/or pollution haven hypothesis. The result attained shows that while a negative and significant relationship exists between renewable energy and CO2 emissions, the relationship between CO2 and other explanatory variables is positive and significant, both in the short and long runs, except for FDI, which is positive only in the long run. The study noted that EKC does not hold for the studied economy; as a result, it tilts towards the pollution haven hypothesis. This suggests that African economies are less concerned about their environment but place a high premium on growth. A major difference between ref. [2] and the current study is the fact that whereas the former does not discuss socio-political factors, the latter calibrated it into their model; the current study accounts for single-country analysis. For some selected 55 economies, ref. [68][59] employed a two-system GMM procedure to examine the nexus between financial development and renewable energy adoption based on data sourced from 2005 to 2014. The study noted that a positive and significant relationship exists between financial development and renewable energy for high-income economies though the relationship is insignificant for low-income economies. The study noted that sophisticated financing is key to achieving RE in the studied economies. The study also noted that the impact of trade openness and carbon emission are statistically insignificant for the economies studied, suggesting that trade has no impact on RE adoption. The results from the impact of carbon emission on RE adoption are intriguing, especially for high-income economies. The authors concluded that the EKC model is valid for the studied economies. In a related development, ref. [69][60] noted that financial development is key to achieving the adoption of RE in China. The study emphasized the role of green financing and a green reputation in achieving the deployment of renewable energy that will support growth. The study employed several econometric techniques to analyze both micro and macro data on the Chinese economy from 2015 to 2020. The study identified oil price volatility and geopolitical risk as key obstacles to adopting RE in China. In a related development, ref. [70][61] noted that financial development is key to achieving RE consumption in Africa based on the study estimation of the generated method of moments (GMM) and quantitative regression (QR) in analyzing data sourced from 2004 to 2014. The study noted that financial inequality is a major setback to progress in RE consumption in Africa. Ref. [71][62] noted that financial development, agriculture, and economic growth are key to the adoption of RE in Africa, while corruption and bad governance negatively affects Africa’s adoption of RE. The study analyzed case studies, research articles, policy briefs, and project reports across and beyond Africa. It noted that for Africa to achieve the SGDs, the operations of Power Africa, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative, concerted efforts must be put in place to address corruption on the continent. Ref. [72][63] noted that FDI negatively impacts the environment on the one hand and RE consumption on the other hand for China based on the results obtained on the deployment of systems GMM, random effect, and fixed effect on the annual date from 2011 to 2016. The study noted that the pollution haven hypothesis is valid for the study economy. Ref. [73][64] noted that RE and nonrenewable energy (N-RE) are key determinants of FDI inflows. Trade, tourism, and market size play positive but less significant roles in attracting FDI for the BRICS, stressing that a negative relationship exists between FDI and inflation rate. Ref. [74][65] noted that RE has a neutral effect on FDI. Instead, the institutional environment and land availability are the core factors that stimulate FDI. Ref. [75][66] noted that a long-run relationship exists between FDI, RE, and economic growth for some selected nine countries identified in the Climate Change Performance Index 2018 report Ref. [76][67] estimation of data from G-C economies based on data sourced from 1978 to 2014 shows that capital market expansion and trade openness are the leading drivers of CO2 emission. The results further noted that CO2 is respectively related to RE adoption (see also ref. [77][68]. Their results tilt toward the pollution haven hypothesis In agriculture, ref. [78][69] shows that a long-run relationship exists between agricultural land expansion and CO2 emission in Peru though RE improves environmental quality by reducing CO2 emission. Ref. [79][70] noted that a positive relationship exists between agriculture and RE, but no such relationship is found to exist between agriculture and CO2 for the economies of the US, Canada, China, and Poland. Ref. [80][71] noted that a bidirectional relationship exists between energy and agriculture for the EU. Ref. [81][72] noted that agriculture, RE, trade, and globalization negatively impact CO2 emissions in Turkey. The study tilts toward the pollution haven hypothesis for Turkey. The theoretical note from the environmental strands can be classified into two main types: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and the pollution haven hypotheses. The EKC opined that the relationship between economic growth and environmental pollution is in the form of an inverted U-shaped, such that at the early stage of a nation’s economic growth, environmental pollution deepens, and after reaching a certain threshold level, environmental pollution begins to decline. The proponents of this hypothesis are of the view that at the initial stage of development, economies are concerned with achieving economic growth with less concern for protecting the environment, but with time and advancement in economic growth comes a surge in environmental pollution, and attention begins to shift towards achieving clean energy [41,42,82,83][41][42][73][74]. A variety of these models has been canvassed in the literature focusing on CO2 emissions as indicators of environmental pollution [42,84][42][75]. Some have calibrated the ecological footprint [49,85][49][76]. Recent studies have calibrated macroeconomic and finance-related variables to the studies on EKC [86][77]. The discussion on the relevance of EKC is continuous and yet to be concluded. The pollution haven hypothesis (PHH) is the view that multinational companies that engage in rigorous pollution fields prefer to move to developing countries with fewer environmental/ecological protection laws. The reverse of the pollution haven hypothesis is the pollution halo hypothesis, which states that FDI could induce a downward trend in CO2 emission, hence promoting energy-efficient technology usage that revolved around sustainability methods. Accordingly, it is believed that FDI can positively impact the ecosystem of an economy in three channels: scale effect (economic size), technical effect (improved technology), and structural effect (improvement in manufacturing design). The interaction of these effects will improve growth and reduce CO2 emissions. The proponent of this hypothesis has identified FDI and yawning for development as the key drivers of CO2 emissions in developing economies [7,42,47][7][42][47]. Closeness to colonial masters by former colonies and globalization, among others, are the reasons that account for the movement of multinational firms with toxic production outlets to less developing economies [72][63]. The studies on the impact of ecological footprints suggest that a functional relationship exists between the ecological footprint and several variables. For instance, ref. [86][77] noted that financial debt and renewable energy help reduce environmental degradation and that financial debt, RE, and NRE positively impact the growth of the 15 highest emitting economies. Ref. [86][77] noted that economic growth and national resources advance the ecological footprint and that human capital in the current state cannot mitigate environmental deterioration. Though RE does decrease ecological footprint, the study established the existence of feedback causality between human capital, urbanization, and ecological footprint. Ref. [31] noted that RE decreases ecological footprint in the long run in Turkey and that a bi-directional relationship exists between RE and economic growth and ecological footprint. The theoretical note on impact assessment focuses on the role of governance and other socio-political factors in shaping the choice of energy usage to achieve carbon neutrality. The proponents of this thought believe that climate change is a global public issue and requires effective climate governance to address it [87,88,89,90][78][79][80][81]. As noted by ref. [91][82], energy governance is key to decoupling carbon emissions as it is vital to promoting RE adoption. For a sample of 36 emerging economies, ref. [92][83] observed that good governance especially economic and institutional governance is key to mitigating CO2 emission and progressive adoption of RE. Ref. [93][84] designed a novel, holistic analytical approach to examine energy access governance for the Southern African economies of Uganda and Zambia by employing three data collection methods: qualitative document analysis, semi-structured stakeholder interviews, and closed surveys. The study noted that the rule of law, transparency standards, accountability, and inclusiveness are key to accessing RE for the studied economies. The study also noted that competing regulatory frameworks distort access to RE. Ref. [90][81] cautioned on the danger of monopolized power in designing and implementing RE for the economies of Nepal and Indonesia. The authors noted that RE designed in the studied economies was bedeviled with the inability to carry the major stakeholders along in its design and running. Ref. [94][85] calibrated the role of corruption perception and political governance in energy consumption-economic growth nexus for a team of 49 economies using a dynamic data environment analysis model based on data sourced from 2007 to 2016. The study noted that political governance proxied by political stability, bureaucratic quality, personal safety and security of private property, and legal and regulatory frameworks positively impact energy consumption. Ref. [89][80] employed machine learning techniques to analyze the impact of green governance on renewable energy consumption in India and noted that governance structure influences the adoption of energy choices. The study further noted that the taxonomy of green governance proxy by global governance, adaptive governance, climate governance, ecological governance, self-governance, energy governance, and information technology governance are related and work on the same objectives by pursuing different activities. For Switzerland, ref. [95][86] examined the role of public awareness and governance structure in the effective transition from nonrenewable energy consumption to renewable energy sources. The study noted that public awareness and good governance are crucial to the effective transition and adoption of RE (see also ref. [88][79]. Ref. [96][87] explored the role of both internal and external governance structures in the adoption of renewable energy for some selected 1027 firms spread across 47 economies/regions. The study noted that internal governance structure tends to have a negative influence on RE adoption as it often induces a declining influence on RE, whereas external governance has a negative impact. In Brazil, ref. [97][88] employed quantitative measures to access the nexus between water, energy, food, and land as it affects the adoption of biofuels emanating from sugarcane. The study concluded that each of these factors is key to achieving sustainable/green energy adoption in the studied economy. A study by ref. [97][88] was further expanded by ref. [98][89], who calibrated the role of geopolitics in adopting RE in Mexico. The study employed an external multi-regional input-output model (EMRIO) that calibrates import dependence and governance quality into the RE adoption framework for the Mexican economy. The study noted that better governance is key to the successful adoption and implementation of RE in the studied economy. Ref. [50] noted that for governance structure and effectiveness to influence the adoption of RE positively, there is a need to have a holistic view of the consequences of RE adoption by calibrating natural resources extortion into the equation. The study argued that evidence abounds to show that the transition from a fossil-dominated system towards RE will have negative consequences on metal by more than a fraction of 7 by 2050 when compared with the 2015 levels, especially in economies with weak, poor, and failing resource governance up to between 32 and 40%. Ref. [99][90] noted that political interference in environmental management, poor or lack of effective implementation, and lack of political independence of environmental agencies, which increases the risk of consumption, are the main factors militating against the adoption of RE in Brazil (see also ref. [100][91]).

References

  1. Pueyo, A. What constrains renewable energy investment in Sub-Saharan Africa? A comparison of Kenya and Ghana. World Dev. 2018, 109, 85–100.
  2. Djellouli, N.; Abdelli, L.; Elheddad, M.; Ahmed, R. The effects of non-renewable energy, renewable energy, economic growth, and foreign direct investment on the sustainability of African countries. Renew. Energy 2022, 183, 676–686.
  3. Mungai, E.M.; Ndiritu, S.W.; Da, I. Resources, Environment and Sustainability Unlocking climate finance potential and policy barriers—A case of renewable energy and energy efficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 7, 100043.
  4. Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z. Estimating smart energy inputs packages using hybrid optimisation technique to mitigate environmental emissions of commercial fish farms. Appl. Energy 2022, 326, 119602.
  5. Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z.; Zubair, M.; Zhang, H.; Lirong, X. Technovation Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan. Technovation 2022, 117, 102255.
  6. Schwerho, G.; Sy, M. Financing renewable energy in Africa—Key challenge of the sustainable development goals. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 393–401.
  7. Opeyemi, A.; Uchenna, E.; Simplice, A.; Evans, O. Renewable energy, trade performance and the conditional role of fi nance and institutional capacity in sub-Sahara African countries. Energy Policy 2019, 132, 490–498.
  8. Krupa, J.; Poudineh, R.; Harvey, L.D.D. Renewable electricity fi nance in the resource-rich countries of the Middle East and North Africa: A case study on the Gulf Cooperation Council. Energy 2019, 166, 1047–1062.
  9. Njoh, A.J. Renewable energy as a determinant of inter-country differentials in CO 2 emissions in Africa. Renew. Energy 2021, 172, 1225–1232.
  10. Đaković, D.D.; Gvozdenac-Urošević, B.D.; Vasić, G.M. Multi-criteria analysis as a support for national energy policy regarding the use of biomass: Case study of Serbia. Therm. Sci. 2016, 20, 371–380.
  11. Alasinrin Babatunde, K.; Mahmoud, M.A.; Ibrahim, N.; Said, F.F. Malaysia’s Electricity Decarbonisation Pathways: Exploring the Role of Renewable Energy Policies Using Agent-Based Modelling. Energies 2023, 16, 1720.
  12. Enescu, D.; Ciocia, A.; Galappaththi, U.I.K.; Wickramasinghe, H.; Alagna, F.; Amato, A.; Francisco, D.; Spertino, F.; Cocina, V. Energy Tariff Policies for Renewable Energy Development: Comparison between Selected European Countries and Sri Lanka. Energies 2023, 16, 1727.
  13. Zhang, N.; Kang, C.; Du, E.; Wang, Y. Generation Expansion Planning. In Analytics and Optimization for Renewable Energy Integration, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; Chapter 15; pp. 327–344.
  14. Anantharajah, K.; Setyowati, A.B. Energy Research & Social Science Beyond promises: Realities of climate finance justice and energy transitions in Asia and the Pacific. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 89, 102550.
  15. Stoeglehner, G. Integrated spatial and energy planning in Styria—A role model for local and regional energy transition and climate protection policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 165, 112587.
  16. Lawal, A.I. The Nexus between Economic Growth, Energy Consumption, Agricultural Output, and CO 2 in Africa: Evidence from Frequency Domain Estimates. Energies 2023, 16, 1239.
  17. Naderi, A.; Marriner, N.; Shari, A.; Azizpour, J.; Kabiri, K.; Djamali, M.; Kirman, A. Heliyon Climate change: A driver of future con fl icts in the Persian Gulf Region? Heliyon 2021, 7, e06288.
  18. Ikhuoso, O.A.; Adegbeye, M.J.; Elghandour, M.M.Y.; Mellado, M.; Al-dobaib, S.N.; Salem, A.Z.M. Climate change and agriculture: The competition for limited resources amidst crop farmers-livestock herding con fl ict in Nigeria—A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 123104.
  19. Adeleye, B.N.; Id, R.O.; Lawal, A.I.; Alwis, T. De Energy use and the role of per capita income on carbon emissions in African countries. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259488.
  20. Isola, A.; Ozturk, I.; Olanipekun, I.O.; John, A. Examining the linkages between electricity consumption and economic growth in African economies. Energy 2020, 208, 118363.
  21. Fatai, F.; Ozturk, I.; Oluwatoyin, M.; Agboola, P.O.; Victor, F. The implications of renewable and non-renewable energy generating in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of economic policy uncertainties. Energy Policy 2021, 150, 112115.
  22. Charfeddine, L.; Kahia, M. Do information and communication technology and renewable energy use matter for carbon dioxide emissions reduction? Evidence from the Middle East and North Africa region. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 327, 129410.
  23. Wesseh, P.K., Jr.; Lin, B. Can African countries ef fi ciently build their economies on renewable energy? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 161–173.
  24. Chris, C.; Odikpo, F.; Adesoji, A.; Mayowa, E. Renewable energy in Nigeria: Potentials and challenges. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2021, 56, 528–539.
  25. Ajayi, O.O.; Mokryani, G.; Edun, B.M. Sustainable energy for national climate change, food security and employment opportunities: Implications for Nigeria. Fuel Commun. 2022, 10, 100045.
  26. Le, T.; Nguyen, C.P.; Park, D. Energy Research & Social Science Financing renewable energy development: Insights from 55 countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101537.
  27. Ibrahiem, D.M.; Hanafy, S.A. Do energy security and environmental quality contribute to renewable energy? The role of trade openness and energy use in North African countries. Renew. Energy 2021, 179, 667–678.
  28. Ma, M.; Velayutham, E. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus: New evidence from South Asia. Renew. Energy 2022, 147, 399–408.
  29. Zaman, K.; Shahbaz, M.; Loganathan, N.; Ali, S. Tourism development, energy consumption and Environmental Kuznets Curve: Trivariate analysis in the panel of developed and developing countries. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 275–283.
  30. Bhattacharya, M.; Reddy, S.; Ozturk, I.; Bhattacharya, S. The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Evidence from top 38 countries. Appl. Energy 2016, 162, 733–741.
  31. Sharif, A.; Baris-tuzemen, O.; Uzuner, G.; Ozturk, I.; Sinha, A. Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’ s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 57, 102138.
  32. Akintande, O.J.; Olubusoye, O.E.; Adenikinju, A.F.; Olanrewaju, B.T. Modeling the determinants of renewable energy consumption: Evidence from the fi ve most populous nations in Africa. Energy 2020, 206, 117992.
  33. Anton, S.; Nucu, A.E. The effect of financial development on renewable energy consumption. A panel data approach. Renew. Energy 2019, 147, 330–338.
  34. Assi, A.F.; Isiksal, A.Z.; Tursoy, T. Renewable energy consumption, fi nancial development, environmental pollution, and innovations in the ASEAN þ 3 group: Evidence from (P-ARDL) model. Renew. Energy 2021, 165, 689–700.
  35. Ghazouani, T.; Boukhatem, J.; Yan, C. Causal interactions between trade openness, renewable electricity consumption, and economic growth in Asia-Pacific countries: Fresh evidence from a bootstrap ARDL approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110094.
  36. Saidi, K.; Omri, A. The impact of renewable energy on carbon emissions and economic growth in 15 major renewable energy-consuming countries. Environ. Res. 2020, 186, 109567.
  37. Nassani, A.A.; Moinuddin, M.; Abro, Q.; Batool, R.; Haider, S.; Shah, A.; Hyder, S.; Zaman, K. Go-for-green policies: The role of finance and trade for sustainable development. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2020, 26, 1409–1423.
  38. Ansari, M.A.; Haider, S.; Khan, N.A. Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 115, 106416.
  39. Sharif, A.; Ali, S.; Ozturk, I.; Afshan, S. The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: A global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renew. Energy 2019, 133, 685–691.
  40. Ozcan, B.; Ozturk, I. Renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus in emerging countries: A bootstrap panel causality test. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 30–37.
  41. Cai, H.; Mei, Y.; Chen, J.; Wu, Z.; Lan, L.; Zhu, D. An analysis of the relation between water pollution and economic growth in China by considering the contemporaneous correlation of water pollutants. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 122783.
  42. Jiang, W.; Cole, M.; Sun, J.; Wang, S. Innovation, carbon emissions and the pollution haven hypothesis: Climate capitalism and global re-interpretations. J. Environ. Manage. 2022, 307, 114465.
  43. Hilfa, N.; Mohamad, A.; Fakhzan, N.; Khalid, N.; Helmi, M. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Effects of agriculture, renewable energy, and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 160, 104879.
  44. Komendantova, N.; Neumueller, S.; Nkoana, E. Public attitudes, co-production and polycentric governance in energy policy. Energy Policy 2021, 153, 112241.
  45. Müller, F.; Claar, S. Energy Research & Social Science Is green a Pan-African colour? Mapping African renewable energy policies and transitions in 34 countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 68, 101551.
  46. Falchetta, G.; Dagnachew, A.G.; Hof, A.F.; Milne, D.J. Energy for Sustainable Development The role of regulatory, market and governance risk for electricity access investment in sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2021, 62, 136–150.
  47. Li, W.; Qiao, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, Y. Energy consumption, pollution haven hypothesis, and Environmental Kuznets Curve: Examining the environment e economy link in belt and road initiative countries. Energy 2022, 239, 122559.
  48. Sharma, R.; Sinha, A.; Kautish, P. Does renewable energy consumption reduce ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 124867.
  49. Yilanci, V.; Korkut, U. Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: Evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106178.
  50. Watari, T.; Nansai, K.; Nakajima, K.; Giurco, D. Sustainable energy transitions require enhanced resource governance. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127698.
  51. Hdom, A.D. Examining carbon dioxide emissions, fossil & renewable electricity generation and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of South American countries. Renew. Energy 2019, 139, 186–197.
  52. Alam, M.; Murad, W.; Hanifa, A.; Ozturk, I. Relationships among carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth: Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 70, 466–479.
  53. Bekun, F.V.; Agboola, M.O. Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth Nexus: Evidence from Maki Cointegration. Eng. Econ. 2019, 30, 14–23.
  54. Emir, F.; Bekun, F.V. Energy intensity, carbon emissions, renewable energy, and economic growth nexus: New insights from Romania. Energy Environ. 2019, 30, 427–443.
  55. Huang, Y.; Hsu, J.; Sun, L. A Study of Energy Efficiency and Mitigation of Carbon Emission: Implication of Decomposing Energy Intensity of Manufacturing Sector in Taiwan. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2017, 7, 26–33.
  56. Asumadu, S.; Ozturk, I. Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Kenya: A multivariate analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 117, 109481.
  57. Foon, C.; Wah, B.; Ozturk, I. Energy consumption and economic growth in Vietnam. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1506–1514.
  58. Adelaja, A.O. Barriers to national renewable energy policy adoption: Insights from a case study of Nigeria. Energy Strateg. Rev. 2020, 30, 100519.
  59. Le, T.; Le, H.; Taghizadeh-hesary, F. Does financial inclusion impact CO 2 emissions? Evidence from Asia. Financ. Res. Lett. 2020, 34, 101451.
  60. Li, Z.; Kuo, T.; Siao-yun, W.; The, L. Role of green finance, volatility and risk in promoting the investments in Renewable Energy Resources in the post-covid-19. Resour. Policy 2022, 76, 102563.
  61. Asongu, S.A.; Odhiambo, N.M. Inequality, fi nance and renewable energy consumption in Sub- Saharan Africa. Renew. Energy 2021, 165, 678–688.
  62. Chirambo, D. Towards the achievement of SDG 7 in sub-Saharan Africa: Creating synergies between Power Africa, Sustainable Energy for All and climate fi nance in-order to achieve universal energy access before 2030. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 600–608.
  63. Wang, H.; Luo, Q. Can a colonial legacy explain the pollution haven hypothesis? A city-level panel analysis. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2022, 60, 482–495.
  64. Azam, M.; Haseeb, M. Determinants of foreign direct investment in BRICS- does renewable and non-renewable energy matter? Energy Strateg. Rev. 2021, 35, 100638.
  65. Mahbub, T.; Faisal, M.; Tarba, S.Y.; Mallick, S.M.Y. Factors encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI) in the wind and solar energy sector in an emerging country. Energy Strateg. Rev. 2022, 41, 100865.
  66. Caglar, A.E. The importance of renewable energy consumption and FDI in fl ows in reducing environmental degradation: Bootstrap ARDL bound test in selected 9 countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121663.
  67. Khuong, D.; Luu, T.; Huynh, D.; Ali, M. Carbon emissions determinants and forecasting: Evidence from G6 countries. J. Environ. Manage. 2021, 285, 111988.
  68. Banerjee, S. Investigating India’s pollution-intensive ‘dirty’ trade specialisation: Analysis with ‘revealed symmetric comparative advantage’ index. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 30153–30167.
  69. Raihan, A.; Tuspekova, A. The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy use, agricultural land expansion, and carbon emissions: New insights from Peru. Energy Nexus 2022, 6, 100067.
  70. Saleem, M. Heliyon Possibility of utilizing agriculture biomass as a renewable and sustainable future energy source. Heliyon 2022, 8, e08905.
  71. Paris, B.; Vandorou, F.; Balafoutis, A.T.; Vaiopoulos, K.; Kyriakarakos, G.; Manolakos, D.; Papadakis, G. Energy use in open-field agriculture in the EU: A critical review recommending energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources adoption. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 158, 112098.
  72. Yurtkuran, S. The effect of agriculture, renewable energy production, and globalization on CO 2 emissions in Turkey: A bootstrap ARDL approach. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 1236–1245.
  73. Ozturk, I.; Al-mulali, U. Investigating the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Cambodia. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 324–330.
  74. Yao, S.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, X. Renewable energy, carbon emission and economic growth: A revised environmental Kuznets Curve perspective *. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1338–1352.
  75. Streimikien, D.; Sun, K.; Bale, T. The impact of income inequality on consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions at the global level: A partially linear approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 267, 110635.
  76. Usman, M.; Sohail, M.; Makhdum, A.; Kousar, R. Does financial inclusion, renewable and non-renewable energy utilization accelerate ecological footprints and economic growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest emitting countries. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 65, 102590.
  77. Nathaniel, S.P.; Yalçiner, K.; Bekun, F.V. Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor: Linking natural resources, renewable energy, human capital, and ecological footprint in BRICS. Resour. Policy 2021, 70, 101924.
  78. Debbarma, J.; Choi, Y. A taxonomy of green governance: A qualitative and quantitative analysis towards sustainable development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 79, 103693.
  79. Ha, Y.; Sapkota, S. Energy Research & Social Science Investigating decentralized renewable energy systems under different governance approaches in Nepal and Indonesia: How does governance fail? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 80, 102214.
  80. Barrera-santana, J.; Marrero, G.A.; Ramos-real, F.J. Income, energy and the role of energy efficiency governance. Energy Econ. 2022, 108, 105882.
  81. Omri, A.; Belaïd, F. Does renewable energy modulate the negative effect of environmental issues on the socio-economic welfare? J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 278, 111483.
  82. Stritzke, S.; Trotter, P.A.; Twesigye, P. Towards responsive energy governance: Lessons from a holistic analysis of energy access in Uganda and Zambia. Energy Policy 2021, 148, 111934.
  83. Lu, W.; Long, Q.; Nourani, M.; Lin, C. Political governance, corruption perceptions index, and national dynamic energy ef fi ciency. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126505.
  84. Ruef, F.; Ejderyan, O. Rowing, steering or anchoring? Public values for geothermal energy governance. Energy Policy 2021, 158, 112577.
  85. Zhang, D.; Zhang, Z.; Ji, Q.; Lucey, B.; Liu, J. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money Board characteristics, external governance and the use of renewable energy: International evidence. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 2021, 72, 101317.
  86. Luz, L.; Lazaro, B.; Luiz, L.; Bermann, C.; Giarolla, A.; Ometto, J. Policy and governance dynamics in the water-energy-food-land nexus of biofuels: Proposing a qualitative analysis model. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 149, 111384.
  87. Escribano, G.; Lilliestam, J.; Rosa, A.; Lech, Y.; Lara, L. Assessing dependence and governance as value chain risks: Natural Gas versus Concentrated Solar power plants in Mexico. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 93, 106708.
  88. Abreu, M.; Soares, I.; Silva, S. ScienceDirect Governance quality and environmental policy on emergent, resource-rich economies: The case of Brazil. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 70–75.
  89. Tan, X.; Kong, L.; Gu, B.; Zeng, A.; Niu, M. ScienceDirect Research on the carbon neutrality governance under a polycentric approach. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 2022, 13, 159–168.
  90. Aydin, M. Natural gas consumption and economic growth nexus for top 10 natural Gas e Consuming countries: A granger causality analysis in the frequency domain. Energy 2018, 165, 179–186.
  91. Pereira, P.; Cerqueira, P.A. Assessing the determinants of household electricity prices in the EU: A system-GMM panel data approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 1131–1137.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback