skip to main content

Unveiling impact of financial development, renewable energy, and technological innovation on ecological footprint in major remittance-receiving economies – A PQARDL approach

1Department of Business Administration, College of Business Administration, Majmaah University, Al- Majmaah 11952, Saudi Arabia

2MODILS Research Laboratory, University of Economics and Management of Sfax, Street of airport km 4.5, Sfax 3018, Sfax, LP 1088, Tunisia

Received: 4 Oct 2024; Revised: 17 Nov 2024; Accepted: 16 Dec 2024; Available online: 28 Dec 2024; Published: 1 Jan 2025.
Editor(s): Grigorios Kyriakopoulos
Open Access Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Centre of Biomass and Renewable Energy (CBIORE)
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract

A nation's financing system is pivotal in fulfilling the demands of sustainable development. Domestic funding sources and international financial flows make substantial contributions to both economic growth and environmental quality, with their influence being of paramount significance. The objective of this study is to analyze the complex linkage between financial development, renewable energy consumption, technological innovation, on ecological footprint in top remittance-receiving economies, namely Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan, Egypt, Mexico, Philippines, China, and India, over the period 1990-2022. Using Panel Quantile Autoregressive Distributed Lag (PQARDL) method, our findings challenge the universal applicability of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis and reveal complex interactions among variables. The long-term empirical results reveal inconsistent relationships between environmental degradation across different quantiles, challenging the universal applicability of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. Therefore, financial development reveals a mixed impact on ecological footprint across different quantiles, renewable energy consumption advertises a consistently negative association, suggesting its potential as a sustainable development lever. Moreover, technological innovation's influence varies across quantiles, indicating heterogeneous effects on ecological footprint reduction. Therefore, the validity of an inverted U-shaped or N-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve pointed complexity of income's impact on environmental outcomes. The validity of the N-shaped EKC in all quantiles, acclaiming that policymakers should incorporating renewable energy and technology innovation into respect when formulating environmental calends.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Sustainability; Financial development; Technology innovation; Remittances PQARDL.

Article Metrics:

  1. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations, and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy, 69, 101817.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817
  2. Ahmad, M., Ul Haq, Z., Khan, Z., Khattak, S. I., Rahman, Z. U., & Khan, S. (2019). Does the inflow of remittances cause environmental degradation? Empirical evidence from China. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 32(1), 2099-2121.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1642783
  3. Aljadani, A., Toumi, H., & Hsini, M. (2023). Exploring the interactive effects of environmental quality and financial development in top ten remittance-receiving countries: do technological effect matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(19), 56930-56945.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26256-2
  4. Allard, A., Takman, J., Uddin, G. S., & Ahmed, A. (2018). The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 5848-5861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0907-0
  5. Alqaralleh, H. (2024). On the factors influencing the ecological footprint: using an asymmetric quantile regression approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(1), 220-247.‏ https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-04-2023-0128
  6. Anwar, A., Gao, Y., Alam, M. A., Mughal, M. A., & Khan, M. A. (2021). Analyzing the impact of renewable energy consumption on the economic growth, environmental quality, and carbon emissions nexus: A case study of Pakistan. Energy Reports, 7, 3174–3184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.239
  7. Awosusi, A. A., Adebayo, T. S., Kirikkaleli, D., & Altuntaş, M. (2022). Role of technological innovation and globalization in BRICS economies: policy towards environmental sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(7), 593-610. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2022.2059032
  8. Aydin, M., Koc, P., & Sahpaz, K. I. (2023). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with nanotechnology, renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and ecological footprint in G7 countries: panel data analyses with structural breaks. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 18(1), 2163724.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2022.2163724
  9. Azam, M., Khan, A. Q., Zaman, K., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Renewable energy, non-renewable energy, carbon emissions, economic growth, and trade: new insights from OIC countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(31), 41641–41654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14771-z
  10. Bera, A. K., Galvao Jr, A. F., Montes-Rojas, G. V., & Park, S. Y. 2016. Asymmetric laplace regression: maximum likelihood, maximum entropy, and quantile regression. Journal of Econometric Methods, 51, 79-101.‏ https://doi.org/10.1515/jem-2014-0018
  11. Bildirici, M. 2022. Refugees, governance, and sustainable environment: PQARDL method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2926, 39295-39309.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18823-w
  12. Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R., 1980. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud. 47, 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
  13. Canay, I. A. (2011). A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. The econometrics journal, 14(3), 368-386.‏ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2011.00349.x
  14. Chien, F., Ajaz, T., Andlib, Z., Chau, K. Y., Ahmad, P., & Sharif, A. (2021). The role of technology innovation, renewable energy, and globalization in reducing environmental degradation in Pakistan: a step towards sustainable environment. Renewable Energy, 177, 308-317 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.10 .‏
  15. Cho, J. S., Kim, T. H., & Shin, Y. 2015. Quantile cointegration in the autoregressive distributed-lag modeling framework. Journal of econometrics, 1881, 281-300.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.05.003
  16. Choi, I. (2001), Unit Root Tests for Panel Data, Journal of International Money, and Finance, 20, 249-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
  17. Dai, J., Ahmed, Z., Sinha, A., Pata, U. K., & Alvarado, R. (2023). Sustainable green electricity, technological innovation, and ecological footprint: Does democratic accountability moderate the nexus? Utilities Policy, 82, 101541.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2023.101541
  18. Dam, M. M., Kaya, F., & Bekun, F. V. (2024). How does technological innovation affect the ecological footprint? Evidence from E-7 countries in the background of the SDGs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141020.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141020
  19. Dash, R. K., Gupta, D. J., & Singh, N. (2024). Remittances and environment quality: Asymmetric evidence from South Asia. Research in Globalization, 8, 100182.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100182
  20. De, P. K., & Ratha, D. (2012). Impact of remittances on household income, asset, and human capital: evidence from Sri Lanka. Migration Dev, 1(1), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2012.719348
  21. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, reindustrialization, and environmental degradation: Evidence from ecological footprint of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126612.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126612
  22. Dilanchiev, A., Sharif, A., Ayad, H., & Nuta, A. C. (2024). The interaction between remittance, FDI, renewable energy, and environmental quality: a panel data analysis for the top remittance-receiving countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32150-2
  23. Galli, A., Iha, K., Moreno Pires, S., Mancini, M. S., Alves, A., Zokai, G., ... & Wackernagel, M. (2020). Assessing the ecological footprint and biocapacity of Portuguese cities: Critical results for environmental awareness and local management. Cities, 96, 102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102442
  24. Hadri, K. 2000, Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data, Econometrics Journal, 3, 148–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043
  25. Harris, R.D.F. and E. Tzavalis 1999, Inference for Unit Roots in Dynamic Panels where the Time Dimension is Fixed, Journal of Econometrics, 91, 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00076-1
  26. Hassan, A. S. (2023). Modeling the linkage between coal mining and ecological footprint in South Africa: does technological innovation matter? Mineral Economics, 36(1), 123-138.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-022-00330-6
  27. Henin, P. Y., Jolivaldt, P., & Nguyen, A. (2001). Testing for unit roots on heterogeneous panels: A sequential approach. CEPREMAP.‏
  28. Husnain, M. I. U., Beyene, S. D., & Aruga, K. (2023). Investigating the energy-environmental Kuznets curve under panel quantile regression: A global perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 20527-20546.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23542-3
  29. Im, K.S., M.H. Pesaran, and Y. Shin 1995, Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogenous Panels, DAE Working Papers Amalgamated Series No. 9526, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
  30. Im, K.S., M.H. Pesaran, and Y. Shin 2003, Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogenous Panels, Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
  31. Işık, C., Ahmad, M., Ongan, S., Ozdemir, D., Irfan, M., & Alvarado, R. (2021). Convergence analysis of the ecological footprint: theory and empirical evidence from the USMCA countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 32648-32659.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12993-9
  32. Javed, A., Rapposelli, A., Khan, F., & Javed, A. (2023). The impact of green technology innovation, environmental taxes, and renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Italy: Fresh evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, 122534.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122534
  33. Jiang C, Ma X (2019) The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: A Global Perspective. Sustainability, 11(19):5241. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195241
  34. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with appucations to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 52(2), 169-210.‏ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1990.mp52002003.x
  35. Kao, C., Chiang, M.-H., Chen, B., 1999. International R&D spillovers: an application of estimation and inference in panel cointegration. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 61, 691–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1691
  36. Khan, A., Khan, M. A., Zaman, K., & Ahmad, M. (2021). The dynamic impact of renewable energy, innovation, and environmental quality on economic development: A global perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(2), 1602–1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10544-3
  37. Kirikkaleli, D., Awosusi, A. A., Adebayo, T. S., & Otrakçı, C. (2023). Enhancing environmental quality in Portugal: can CO2 intensity of GDP and renewable energy consumption be the solution? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(18), 53796-53806.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26191-2
  38. Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. 1978. Regression quantiles. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 33-50.‏ https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
  39. Koenker, R. (2004). Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of multivariate analysis, 91(1), 74-89.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2004.05.006
  40. Koutroumanidis, T., Ioannou, K and Arabatzis, G. (2009). "Predicting fuelwood prices in Greece with the use of ARIMA models, artificial neural networks and a hybrid ARIMA - ΑΝΝ model". Energy Policy, 37, (9): 3627-3634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.024
  41. Levin, A., C. Lin, and C.J. Chu 2002, Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-sample Properties, Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
  42. Levin, A., Lin, C.F., 1992. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Mimeo, University of California, San Diego
  43. Li, R., & Wang, Q. (2023). Does renewable energy reduce per capita carbon emissions and per capita ecological footprint? New evidence from 130 countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.101121
  44. Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., Neill, E., ... & Wackernagel, M. (2018). Ecological footprint accounting for countries: updates and results of the National Footprint Accounts, 2012–2018. Resources, 7(3), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058
  45. Lorente, D. B., & Álvarez-Herranz, A. (2016). Economic growth and energy regulation in the environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 16478-16494.‏‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6773-3
  46. Losada-Puente, L., Blanco, J. A., Dumitru, A., Sebos, I., Tsakanikas, A., Liosi, I., Psomas, S., Merrone, M., Quiñoy, D., & Rodríguez, E. (2023) Cross-Case Analysis of the Energy Communities in Spain, Italy, and Greece: Progress, Barriers, and the Road Ahead. Sustainability 15, 14016. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151814016
  47. Maddala, G.S. and Wu, S. 1999, A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a new simple test, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61, 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
  48. Martín-Ortega, J. L. et al (2024). Enhancing Transparency of Climate Efforts: MITICA’s Integrated Approach to Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Sustainability, 16(10), 4219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104219
  49. Mazhar, M., Majeed, M. T., & Hussain, Z. 2022. Remittance inflows, technological innovations, financial development, and ecological footprint: A global analysis using PSQR approach. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences PJCSS, 163, 424-451.‏ https://hdl.handle.net/10419/266382
  50. Moutinho, V., Fuinhas, J. A., Marques, A. C., & Santiago, R. (2018). Assessing eco-efficiency through the DEA analysis and decoupling index in the Latin America countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 512-524.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.322
  51. Opoku, E. E. O., Adams, S., & Aluko, O. A. (2021). The foreign direct investment-environment nexus: does emission disaggregation matter? Energy Rep, 7, 778–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.035
  52. Papadogiannaki et al (2023). Evaluating the Impact of COVID-19 on the Carbon Footprint of Two Research Projects: A Comparative Analysis. Atmosphere, 14(9), 1365. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14091365
  53. Pedroni, P., 2004. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP. Hypothesis 20, 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073
  54. Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. 1995. An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis Vol. 9514. Cambridge, UK: Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge.‏
  55. Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
  56. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., 1998. An autoregressive distributed lag Modelling approach to cointegration analysis. In: Strøm, S. Ed., Econometrics and Economic Theory in The Twentieth Century: The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 371–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00065
  57. Phillips, P.C.B. and H.R. Moon 1999, Linear Regression Limit Theory for Nonstationary Panel Data, Econometrica, 67, 1057–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00070
  58. Progiou et al (2023). Measures and Policies for Reducing PM Exceedances through the Use of Air Quality Modeling: The Case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Sustainability, 15(2), 930. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020930
  59. Qing, L., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., & Haseeb, M. (2024). Towards the vision of going green in South Asian region: The role of technological innovations, renewable energy, and natural resources in ecological footprint during globalization mode. Resources Policy, 88, 104506.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104506
  60. Qingquan, J., Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M., & Ping, L. (2020). A new approach to environmental sustainability: assessing the impact of monetary policy on CO2 emissions in Asian economies. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1331-1346.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2087
  61. Quocviet Bui, Zhaohua Wang, Bin Zhang, Hoang Phong Le, and Kim Dung Vu, 2021. Revisiting the biomass energy-economic growth linkage of BRICS countries: A panel quantile regression with fixed effects approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 316 2021 128382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128382
  62. Rani, T., Amjad, M. A., Asghar, N., & Rehman, H. U. (2023). Exploring the moderating effect of globalization, financial development, and environmental degradation nexus: a roadmap to sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(12), 14499-14517.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02676-x
  63. Raza, S. A., Qamar, S., & Ahmed, M. (2023). Asymmetric role of non-renewable energy consumption, ICT, and financial development on ecological footprints: evidence from QARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 20746-20764.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23549-w
  64. Roy, A. (2024). The impact of foreign direct investment, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and natural resources on ecological footprint: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-06-2021-0021
  65. Saqib, N., Duran, I. A., & Ozturk, I. (2023). Unraveling the interrelationship of digitalization, renewable energy, and ecological footprints within the EKC framework: Empirical insights from the United States. Sustainability, 15(13), 10663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310663
  66. Saqib, N., Usman, M., Ozturk, I., & Sharif, A. (2024). Harnessing the synergistic impacts of environmental innovations, financial development, green growth, and ecological footprint through the lens of SDGs policies for countries exhibiting high ecological footprints. Energy Policy, 184, 113863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111863
  67. Shahnazi, R., & Shabani, Z. D. (2021). The effects of renewable energy, spatial spillover of CO2 emissions and economic freedom on CO2 emissions in the EU. Renew Energy, 169, 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.01.016
  68. Sharma, K., Bhattarai, B., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Aid, growth, remittances, and carbon emissions in Nepal. Energy J, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.40.1.ksha
  69. Solarin, S. A., & Bello, M. O. (2018). Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: the case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecological indicators, 89, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064
  70. Tampakis, S., Arabatzis, G., Tsantopoulos, G and Rerras, I. (2017). Citizens' views on electricity use, savings and production from renewable energy sources: A case study from a Greek Island. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79: 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.036
  71. Tsepi, E., et al (2024). Decomposition Analysis of CO2 Emissions in Greece from 1996 to 2020. Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, 517-544. https://doi.org/10.13052/spee1048-5236.4332
  72. Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high-, middle- and low-income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
  73. Usman M, Kousar R, YaseenMR, MakhdumMSA (2020c) An empirical nexus between economic growth, energy utilization, trade policy, and ecological footprint: a continent-wise comparison in uppermiddle-income countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(31), 38995– https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09772-3
  74. Usman, M., & Hammar, N. (2020). Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 28(12), 15519–15536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11640-z
  75. Usman, M., & Jahanger, A. (2021). Heterogeneous effects of remittances and institutional quality in reducing environmental deficit in the presence of EKC hypothesis: a global study with the application of panel quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 28, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13216-x
  76. Usman, M., Anwar, S., Yaseen, M. R., Makhdum, M. S. A., Kousar, R., & Jahanger, A. (2021c). Modeling financial development, tourism, energy consumption, and environmental quality: Is there any discrepancy between developing and developed countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14837-y
  77. van den Bergh, J. C., & Grazi, F. (2014). Ecological footprint policy? Land use as an environmental indicator. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12045
  78. Wang, Q., Ge, Y., & Li, R. (2023). Does improving economic efficiency reduce ecological footprint? The role of financial development, renewable energy, and industrialization. Energy & Environment, 0958305X231183914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231183914
  79. Wang, Q., Wang, X., Li, R., & Jiang, X. (2024). Reinvestigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) of carbon emissions and ecological footprint in 147 countries: a matter of trade protectionism. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-17.‏ https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02639-9
  80. Westerlund, J., Edgerton, D.L., 2007. A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Econ. Lett. 97, 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
  81. World Bank (2023): https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
  82. Yadou, B. A., Ntang, P. B., & Baida, L. A. (2024). Remittances-ecological footprint nexus in Africa: Do ICTs matter? Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 139866.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139866
  83. Yang B, Jahanger A, Khan MA (2020a) Does the inflow of remittances and energy consumption increase CO2 emissions in the era of globalization? A global perspective. Air Qual Atmos Health 13(11), 1313–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-020-00885-9
  84. Yang, B., Jahanger, A., & Ali, M. (2021). Remittance inflows affect the ecological footprint in BICS countries: do technological innovation and financial development matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 23482-23500.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12400-3
  85. Yang, B., Jahanger, A., & Khan, M. A. (2020). Does the inflow of remittances and energy consumption increase CO2 emissions in the era of globalization? A global perspective. Air Qual Atmos Health, 13(11), 1313–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-020-00885-9
  86. Yang, B., Jahanger, A., Usman, M., & Khan, M. A. (2021a). The dynamic linkage between globalization, financial development, energy utilization, and environmental sustainability in GCC countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 28, 21–16588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11576-4
  87. Yuan, K., Qin, Y., Wang, C., Li, Z., & Bai, T. (2023). Balance between Smog Control and Economic Growth in China: Mechanism Analysis Based on the Effect of Green Technology Innovation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1475.‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021475
  88. Zafeiriou, E., Spinthiropoulos, K., Tsanaktsidis, C., Garefalakis, S., Panitsidis, K.. Garefalakis, A. and Arabatzis, G. (2022). Energy and Mineral Resources Exploitation in the Delignitization Era: The Case of Greek Peripheries. Energies, 2022, 15(13), 4732. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134732
  89. Zhang, L., Yang, B., & Jahanger, A. (2022). The role of remittance inflow and renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in the environment: Accounting ecological footprint indicator for top remittance-receiving countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(11), 15915-15930.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16545-z

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2025-02-09 05:31:29

No citation recorded.