SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 30

THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BIOCAPACITY ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN EU COUNTRIES

AB ÜLKELERİNDE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME VE BİYOKAPASİTENİN EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Yusuf Muratoğlu(HİTİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1495-924X
Serdar Varlık(HİTİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4712-3193
Pages
863–882
Publication Date
2025-11-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

By highlighting this dynamic, the study contributes to a nuanced understanding of the ecological implications of growth-oriented economic policies and underscores the need for integrated, sustainability-focused policy frameworks in the EU context.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Over the past three decades, the relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and environmental degradation has garnered significant scholarly attention, often framed within the context of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The primary aim of this study is to empirically investigate the effects of economic growth and biocapacity on the ecological footprint across 27 European Union member states over the period 1993–2023.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:By highlighting this dynamic, the study contributes to a nuanced understanding of the ecological implications of growth-oriented economic policies and underscores the need for integrated, sustainability-focused policy frameworks in the EU context.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekolojik Ayak Izi · Biyokapasite · Ekonomik Büyüme

Abstract

Over the past three decades, the relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and environmental degradation has garnered significant scholarly attention, often framed within the context of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. While earlier studies predominantly utilized carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions as a proxy for environmental pollution, recent research emphasizes the ecological footprint as a more comprehensive and multidimensional indicator. The ecological footprint measures the biologically productive land and water area required to sustain a population’s consumption and waste assimilation, whereas biocapacity reflects the regenerative capacity of ecosystems. When the ecological footprint per capita in a country or the world exceeds the biocapacity per capita, natural resources are used in an unsustainable way. The primary aim of this study is to empirically investigate the effects of economic growth and biocapacity on the ecological footprint across 27 European Union member states over the period 1993–2023. In the study, the effects of economic expansion and natural resource capacity on environmental sustainability are evaluated together. Panel data analysis reveals that both economic growth and biocapacity exert a positive and statistically significant impact on ecological footprint. These findings suggest that economic development, even when accompanied by increased biocapacity, may contribute to heightened environmental pressure, raising concerns about the sustainability of current growth trajectories. By highlighting this dynamic, the study contributes to a nuanced understanding of the ecological implications of growth-oriented economic policies and underscores the need for integrated, sustainability-focused policy frameworks in the EU context.

Özet

Son otuz yılda, ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi ve çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişki, özellikle Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) hipotezi çerçevesinde önemli ölçüde akademik ilgi görmüştür. Önceki çalışmalar çoğunlukla çevresel kirliliği ölçmek için karbondioksit (CO₂) emisyonlarını kullanırken, son dönemde ekolojik ayak izi, çevresel bozulmayı daha kapsamlı ve çok boyutlu şekilde temsil eden bir gösterge olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Ekolojik ayak izi, bir nüfusun tüketimini sürdürebilmek ve atıklarını bertaraf edebilmek için gerekli olan biyolojik olarak üretken kara ve su alanlarını ölçerken; biyolojik kapasite, bu kaynakların ekosistemler tarafından yenilenme kapasitesini yansıtır. Bir ülke ya da dünyada kişi başına düşen ekolojik ayak izi, kişi başına düşen biyokapasiteyi aştığında, doğal kaynaklar sürdürülemez bir şekilde kullanılıyor demektir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, 1993–2023 dönemi için 27 Avrupa Birliği üye ülkesinde ekonomik büyüme ve biyolojik kapasitenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkilerini ampirik olarak incelemektir. Çalışmada ekonomik genişleme ile doğal kaynak kapasitesinin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkileri birlikte değerlendirilmiştir. Panel veri analizi sonuçları, hem ekonomik büyümenin hem de biyolojik kapasitenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, artan biyolojik kapasiteye rağmen ekonomik büyümenin çevresel baskıyı artırabileceğine işaret etmekte ve mevcut büyüme eğilimlerinin sürdürülebilirliği konusunda soru işaretleri doğurmaktadır. Çalışma, büyüme odaklı ekonomi politikalarının ekolojik sonuçlarına ışık tutarak, Avrupa Birliği bağlamında sürdürülebilir kalkınma odaklı politika çerçevelerine duyulan gereksinimi vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Muratoğlu, Y., Varlık, S. (2025). THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BIOCAPACITY ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN EU COUNTRIES. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 30, 863–882. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1713073

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (75)

  1. Ahmed, K., Shahbaz, M., Qasim, A., & Long, W. (2015). The linkages between deforestation, energy and growth for environmental degradation in Pakistan. Ecological Indicators, 49, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.040.
  2. Ahmed, Z., Zhang, B., & Cary, M. (2021). Linking economic globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: Evidence from symmetric and asymmetric ARDL. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107060
  3. Antonakakis, N., Chatziantoniou, I., & Filis, G. (2017). Energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: An ethical dilemma. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 808–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.105.
  4. Asongu, S., El Montasser, G., & Toumi, H. (2016). Testing the relationships between energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in 24 African countries: A panel ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 6563–6573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5883-7.
  5. Aşici, A. A., & Acar, S. (2015). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecological Indicators, 61, 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.022
  6. Aydin, C., Esen, Ö., & Aydin, R. (2019). Is the ecological footprint related to the Kuznets curve a real process or rationalizing the ecological consequences of the affluence? Evidence from PSTR approach. Ecological Indicators, 98, 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.034
  7. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Nur, T., Topaloglu, E. E., & Evcimen, C. (2024). Assessing the impact of the economic complexity on the ecological footprint in G7 countries: Fresh evidence under human development and energy innovation processes. Gondwana Research, 127, 226-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.03.017
  8. Barbier, E. B. (2012). Progress and challenges in valuing coastal and marine ecosystem services. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy. 6(1), Winter 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer017
  9. Begum, R. A., Sohag, K., Abdullah, S. M. S., & Jaafar, M. (2015). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 594-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.205
  10. Bekhet, H. A., Matar, A., & Yasmin, T. (2017). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and financial development in GCC countries: Dynamic simultaneous equation models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 117–132.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.089
  11. Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.031
  12. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I.,. & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
  13. Cowan, W. N., Chang, T., Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Gupta, R. (2014). The nexus of electricity consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries. Energy Policy, 66, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.081
  14. Biyase, M., Masron, T. A., Zwane, T., Udimal, T. B., & Kirsten, F. (2023). Ecological footprint and population health outcomes: evidence from E7 countries. Sustainability, 15(10), 8224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108224
  15. Boluk, G., & Karaman, S. (2024). The impact of agriculture, energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: testing the agriculture-induced EKC for Türkiye. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04672-9
  16. Çakmak, E. E., & Acar, S. (2022). The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy and ecological footprint: An empirical evidence from most oil-producing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352,131548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131548
  17. Danish, S.T.H., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N., Zhang, J.W. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity, Sustainable Cities & Society. 47, (2019) 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516
  18. Dasgupta, P., & Treasury, H. M. (2022). The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. Odisha Economic Journal, 54(2), 170-176.
  19. Destek, M. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The role of energy and financial development. The Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2483–2489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.017
  20. European Commission (2018), A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy, Brussels, 10 April 2018. COM/2018/028 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:28:FIN
  21. European Commission (2019) The European Green Deal, COM(2019) 640 final, 11 December. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640
  22. European Commission. (2020a). A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe COM/2020/98 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0098
  23. European Commission. (2020b). EU biodiversity strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Brussels, 20.5.2020 COM(2020) 380 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380
  24. European Commission. (2021). Towards zero pollution action plan for air, water and soil. COM/2021/400 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021DC0400
  25. European Commission (2022) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on nature restoration, COM(2022) 304 final, 2022/0195 (COD). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0304
  26. European Commission. (2023). Proposal for a regulation establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism. COM/2021/564 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2021%3A564%3AFIN
  27. European Environment Agency. (2023a). 8th Environment Action Programme: Monitoring report on progress towards the 8th EAP objectives 2023 edition. EAA Report/11/2023. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/european-union-8th-environment-action-programme
  28. European Environment Agency (2023b). Consumption footprint (based on life cycle assessment) in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/consumption-footprint-based-on-life
  29. European Parliament and of the Council. (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/844 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the European Union. PE/4/2018/REV/1 https://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018L0844
  30. European Parliament and of the Council. (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 establishing the European Climate Law. Official Journal of the European Union. PE/27/2021/REV/1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1119
  31. European Parliament and of the Council. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, PE/106/2023/REV/1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32024R1781
  32. European Parliament and of the Council (2023). Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products. Official Journal of the European Union. PE/82/2022/REV/1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R1115 Georgescu, I., & Kinnunen, J. (2024). Effects of FDI, GDP and energy use on ecological footprint in Finland: An ARDL approach. World Development Sustainability, 4, 100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2024.100157
  33. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper No. 3914. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
  34. Javeed, S., Siddique, H. M. A., & Javed, F. (2023). Ecological footprint, globalization, and economic growth: evidence from Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(31), 77006-77021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27754-z
  35. Kasman, A., & Duman, Y. S. (2015). CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and candidate countries: a panel data analysis. Economic Modelling, 44, 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.10.022
  36. Katircioglu, S., Gokmenoglu, K. K., & Eren, B. M. (2018). Testing the role of tourism development in ecological footprint quality: evidence from top 10 tourist destinations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 33611-33619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3324-0
  37. Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., & Wackernagel, M. (2007). Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts. Science for Environment and Sustainable Society, 4(1), 1-9.
  38. Kazemzadeh, E., Fuinhas, J. A., Salehnia, N., Koengkan, M., & Silva, N. (2023). Assessing influential factors for ecological footprints: A complex solution approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 414, 137574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137574
  39. Lv, X., Zhu, Y., & Du, J. (2024). Can Regional Integration Policies Enhance the Win–Win Situation of Economic Growth and Environmental Protection? New Evidence for Achieving Carbon Neutrality Goals. Sustainability, 16(4), 1647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041647
  40. Mrabet, Z., & Alsamara, M. (2017). Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 70, 1366-1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.039
  41. Murshed, M., Ahmed, R., Kumpamool, C., Bassim, M., & Elheddad, M. (2021). The effects of regional trade integration and renewable energy transition on environmental quality: Evidence from South Asian neighbors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 4154–4170. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2862
  42. Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., & Saboori, B. (2016). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 1916–1928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5447-x
  43. Ozcan, B., & Ozturk, I. (2019). Renewable energy consumption-economic growth nexus in emerging countries: A bootstrap panel causality test. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 104, 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.020
  44. Özokcu, S., & Özdemir, Ö. (2017). Environmental Kuznets curve for Turkey: An empirical analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 639-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.059
  45. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. ILO Working Paper.
  46. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, No. 0435, University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
  47. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  48. Rehman, M. U., & Rashid, M. (2017). Energy consumption to environmental degradation, the growth appetite in SAARC nations. Renewable Energy, 111, 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.100
  49. Saboori, B., & Sulaiman, J. (2013). Environmental degradation, economic growth and energy consumption: Evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia. Energy policy, 60, 892-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.099
  50. Saboori, B., Sapri, M., & bin Baba, M. (2014). Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)’s transport sector: A fully modified bi-directional relationship approach. Energy, 66, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.048
  51. Selvanathan, E. A., Jayasinghe, M., & Selvanathan, S. (2021). Dynamic modelling of inter‐relationship between tourism, energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in South Asia. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(4), 597-610. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2429
  52. Sencer Atasoy, B. (2017). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across the U.S.: Evidence from panel mean group estimators. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.050
  53. Shah, M. I., AbdulKareem, H. K. K., Ishola, B. D., & Abbas, S. (2023). The roles of energy, natural resources, agriculture and regional integration on CO2 emissions in selected countries of ASEAN: Does political constraint matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(10), 26063–26077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23871-3
  54. Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q. M. A., Tiwari, A. K., & Leitão, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.009
  55. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H. T., & Gursoy, S. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: Evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(29), 73518–73533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27573-2
  56. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I. and Sinha, A. (2020). Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57, 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
  57. Sofuoğlu, E., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). The effect of mineral saving and energy on the ecological footprint in an emerging market: Evidence from novel Fourier based approaches. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 16(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-023-00328-w
  58. Solarin, S. A., & Al-Mulali, U. (2018). Influence of foreign direct investment on indicators of environmental degradation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 24845-24859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2562-5
  59. Solarin, S. A. (2019). Convergence in CO2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: Evidence from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 6167–6181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3993-8
  60. Solarin, S. A., Tiwari, A. K., & Bello, M. O. (2019). A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46, 101422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101422
  61. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2010). Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up. The New Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.26193269
  62. Szymczyk, K., Şahin, D., Bağcı, H., & Kaygın, C. Y. (2021). The Effect of Energy Usage, Economic Growth, and Financial Development on CO2 Emission Management: An Analysis of OECD Countries with a High Environmental Performance Index. Energies, 14(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154671
  63. Tan, F., Lean, H. H., & Khan, H. (2014). Growth and environmental quality in Singapore: Is there any trade-off? Ecological Indicators, 47, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.035
  64. 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
  65. Usman, O., Alola, A. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: Evidence from the US. Renewable Energy, 150, 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.151
  66. Zaidi, S. A. H., Danish, Hou, F., & Mirza, F. M. (2018). The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in CO 2 emissions: a disaggregate analysis of Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 31616-31629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3059-y
  67. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New Society Publishers. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M.,
  68. Kapos, V.,. & Randers, J. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 99(14), 9266-9271. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.142033699
  69. Wang, S., Li, Q., Fang, C., & Zhou, C. (2016). The relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment, 542, 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.027
  70. Wang, Z., Danish, Zhang, B., & Wang, B. (2018a). Renewable energy consumption, economic growth and human development index in Pakistan: Evidence form simultaneous equation model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 1081–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.260
  71. Wang, J., & Dong, K. (2019). What drives environmental degradation? Evidence from 14 Sub-Saharan African countries. Science of the Total Environment, 656, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.354
  72. Williams, M., Alrub, A. A., & Aga, M. (2022). Ecological footprint, economic uncertainty and foreign direct investment in South Africa: Evidence from asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL approach. SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221094607. https:// doi.org/10.1177/21582440221094607
  73. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. MIT Press.
  74. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I.,. & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
  75. Kapos, V.,. & Randers, J. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 99(14), 9266-9271. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.142033699