The relationship between institutional quality and ecological footprint: Is there a connection?

Abstract

Although researchers have made significant efforts to explain the influence of institutions on environmental indicators such as CO2 emissions, the relationship between institutional quality and the ecological footprint has been neglected. The gap in the literature reveals an outstanding question: can institutions reduce their countryʼs ecological footprint? As a result, this study aims to investigate the effects of institutional quality and control variables on the ecological footprint for the period 1992–2015 in E‐7 countries through the AMG and CCEMG estimators. The findings show that institutional quality reduces the ecological footprint for the entire panel. Conversely, economic growth and energy consumption increase ecological pressure on E‐7 countries. In addition, the impact of institutional quality on the ecological footprint demonstrates heterogeneity at the country level. While institutions decrease the ecological footprint in China, India, Indonesia, and Russia, the study does not find such a relationship in other countries. Besides, energy consumption seems to be the most important factor in increasing ecological pressure in all countries. As drawn from the results, it can be said that improving institutional quality and increasing renewable resources in the energy portfolio are strategic actions in terms of improving environmental quality in E‐7 countries.

The effect of mineral saving and energy on the ecological footprint in an emerging market: evidence from novel Fourier based approaches

“…As reported in Table 4, the effect of economic growth on the ecological footprint in Turkey over the period of 1975-2017 is statistically significant and positive. These findings show resemblance with the findings of (Danish et al 2019;Udemba 2020;Ahmad 2021;Uzar 2021). This is because as well know due to Turkey's growing economy and energy demand.…”

“…Ahmed et al (2022a) also found that decreasing financial risk leads to lower EF in India. Uzar (2021) examined the relationship between economic growth and EF through institutional quality. According to the findings, while institutional quality reduces EF, economic growth and energy consumption increase it.…”

Does income inequality increase the ecological footprint in the US: evidence from FARDL test?

“…A 1% increase in ENE increases the ECO by 0.761%. Uzar (2021) states that emissions from ENE damage biodiversity and they have a polluting effect on air, water, and soil. Kazemzadeh et al (2021) and Ehigiamusoe et al (2022) also found that ENE is an important determinant of the ECO.…”

“…Undoubtedly, the environmental indicator chosen to comprehensively investigate the effect of GINI on the environment is also very critical. Most of the studies in the literature use carbon dioxide emissions (CO 2 ) as an environmental indicator (Uzar 2021). However, the widespread use of CO 2 causes some criticism.…”

Does Tourism Lead to Environmental Impact? Cross-National Static and Dynamic Evidence from the Ecological Footprint

“…Several environmental indicators, such as CO 2 / greenhouse gas (GHG) emission (Narayan & Narayan, 2010;Zafar et al 2019), threatened species (Din et al, 2014;Habibullah et al, 2016;Habibullah et al, 2018), deforestation (Habibullah et al, 2019;Ahmed et al, 2015;Arshad et al, 2020), water and air pollution (Gedik & Mugan-Ertugral, 2019;Saenz-de-Miera & Rosselló, 2014), land degradation (Garcia & Servera, 2003;Bajocco et al, 2012), species richness (Laiolo & Rolando, 2005;Huhta & Sulkava, 2014), carrying capacity (Armono et al, 2017) as well as trampling effect (Lynn & Brown, 2003;Pinn & Rodgers, 2005;Rossi et al, 2006) have been used to illustrate this relationship. Ozturk et al (2016) and Uzar (2021) state that it is important to utilise a detailed assessment in quantifying environmental impact. Because it combines the multi-dimensional impact of environmental deterioration, ecological footprint is a powerful indicator in gauging sustainability and environmental quality (Neumayer, 2004).…”