The rapid growth experienced by the Gulf Council countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) has placed significant strain on their ecological footprint due to extensive energy consumption. Consequently, it becomes necessary to examine the factors contributing to the high ecological footprint and explore potential solutions for its reduction. This study aims to analyze the key factors influencing the ecological footprint in the GCC countries from 1995 to 2020. Through an extensive review of existing literature, it is evident that economic growth, urbanization, and trade can disturb ecological balance, while environmental technology and renewable energy offer potential remedies for environmental challenges. Thus, these variables have been selected as independent factors for investigation. The results obtained from advanced panel techniques emphasize the significance of adopting environmental technologies and increasing the utilization of renewable energy sources in order to decrease the ecological footprint. Conversely, economic growth, urbanization, and trade are identified as crucial drivers of environmental degradation. Considering that the GCC countries heavily rely on oil and petroleum exports, as well as non-renewable energy sources for their economic activities, the positive relationship between economic growth and trade is to be expected. The results propose multifold recommendations: (i) providing incentives for renewable energy and (ii) prioritizing the implementation of clean technology over traditional technologies.
SyrovátkaM. On sustainability interpretations of the Ecological Footprint. Ecol Econ2020; 169: 106543.
2.
OmriADalySRaultC, et al.Financial development, environmental quality, trade and economic growth: what causes what in MENA countries. Energy Econ2015; 48: 242–252.
SalahuddinMGowJOzturkI. Is the long-run relationship between economic growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and financial development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust?Renew Sustain Energy Rev2015; 51: 317–326.
5.
SalahuddinMGowJ. Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Gulf cooperation council countries. Energy2014; 73: 44–58.
6.
YangBUsmanMJahangerA. Do industrialization, economic growth and globalization processes influence the ecological footprint and healthcare expenditures? Fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for countries with the highest healthcare expenditures. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 28: 893–910.
7.
AnsariMAAhmadMRSiddiqueS, et al.An environment Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: evidence from GCC countries. Carbon Manag2020; 11: 355–368.
8.
El SolhM. The role of science and technology in enhancing food security in arab countries. J Exp Biol Agric Sci2017; 5: 1–14.
9.
SaabNSadikA-K. Sustainable development. How can Arab countries achieve sustainable development goals by 2030. 2016.
10.
SaqibNDuranIAHashmiN. Impact of financial deepening, energy consumption and total natural resource rent on CO2 emission in the GCC countries: evidence from advanced panel data simulation. Int J Energy Econ Policy2022; 12: 400–409.
11.
AdekoyaOBOliyideJAFasanyaIO. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption – ecological footprint nexus in net-oil exporting and net-oil importing countries: policy implications for a sustainable environment. Renew Energy2022; 189: 524–534.
12.
ÇakmakEEAcarS. The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy and ecological footprint: an empirical evidence from most oil-producing countries. J Clean Prod2022; 352: 131548.
13.
JahangerAUsmanMMurshedM, et al.The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: the moderating role of technological innovations. Resour Policy2022; 76: 102569.
14.
SalmanMWangGZhaD. Modeling the convergence analysis of sustainable production and consumption in terms of ecological footprints and human development index in Belt and Road Initiative countries. Sustain Prod Consum2022; 30: 233–254.
15.
AL-BarakaniABinLZhangX, et al.Spatial analysis of financial development’s effect on the ecological footprint of belt and road initiative countries: mitigation options through renewable energy consumption and institutional quality. J Clean Prod2022; 366: 132696.
16.
AshrafANguyenCPDoytchN. The impact of financial development on ecological footprints of nations. J Environ Manage2022; 322: 116062.
17.
GuptaMSainiSSahooM. Determinants of ecological footprint and PM2.5: role of urbanization, natural resources and technological innovation. Environ Challenges2022; 7: 100467.
18.
OlucIBen JebliMCanM, et al.The productive capacity and environment: evidence from OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 3453–3466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22341-0
19.
CanMAhmedZ. Towards sustainable development in the European Union countries: Does economic complexity affect renewable and non-renewable energy consumption?Sustain Dev2022; 31: 439–451.
20.
CanMBrusselaersJMercanM. The effect of export composition on energy demand: a fresh evidence in the context of economic complexity. Rev Dev Econ2022; 26: 687–703.
21.
CanMBen JebliMBrusselaersJ. Can green trade save the environment? Introducing the Green (Trade) Openness Index. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 44091–44102.
22.
RamdhaniMAAulawiHIkhwanaA, et al.Model of green technology adaptation in small and medium-sized tannery industry. J Eng Appl Sci2017; 12: 954–962.
23.
KeHYangWLiuX, et al.Does innovation efficiency suppress the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from 280 Chinese cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 1–23. doi:10.3390/ijerph17186826
24.
ZhouRAbbasiKRSalemS, et al.Do natural resources, economic growth, human capital, and urbanization affect the ecological footprint? A modified dynamic ARDL and KRLS approach. Resour Policy2022; 78: 102782.
25.
SalmanMZhaDWangG. Interplay between urbanization and ecological footprints: differential roles of indigenous and foreign innovations in ASEAN-4. Environ Sci Policy2022; 127: 161–180.
26.
KizilgolÖÖndesH. Factors affecting the ecological footprint: A study on the OECD countries. SSRN Electron J; 849. Epub ahead of print 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4090301.
27.
KassouriY. Monitoring the spatial spillover effects of urbanization on water, built-up land and ecological footprints in sub-Saharan Africa. J Environ Manage2021; 300: 113690.
28.
MikayilovJIGaleottiMHasanovFJ. The impact of economic growth on CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan. J Clean Prod2018; 197: 1558–1572.
29.
DuQZhouJPanT, et al.Relationship of carbon emissions and economic growth in China’s construction industry. J Clean Prod2019; 220: 99–109.
30.
HuMLiRYouW, et al.Spatiotemporal evolution of decoupling and driving forces of CO2 emissions on economic growth along the Belt and Road. J Clean Prod2020; 277: 123272.
31.
RidzuanNHAMMarwanNFKhalidN, et al.Effects of agriculture, renewable energy, and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions: evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve. Resour Conserv Recycl2020; 160: 104879.
32.
LiuYSadiqFAliW, et al.Does tourism development, energy consumption, trade openness and economic growth matters for ecological footprint: testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve and pollution haven hypothesis for Pakistan. Energy2022; 245: 123208.
33.
IslamMSHossainMEKhanMA, et al.Heading towards sustainable environment: exploring the dynamic linkage among selected macroeconomic variables and ecological footprint using a novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 22260–22279.
34.
HanifIFaraz RazaSMGago-de-SantosP, et al.Fossil fuels, foreign direct investment, and economic growth have triggered CO2 emissions in emerging Asian economies: some empirical evidence. Energy2019; 171: 493–501.
35.
WuHXuLRenS, et al.How do energy consumption and environmental regulation affect carbon emissions in China? New evidence from a dynamic threshold panel model. Resour Policy2020; 67: 101678.
36.
MensahIASunMGaoC, et al.Analysis on the nexus of economic growth, fossil fuel energy consumption, CO2 emissions and oil price in Africa based on a PMG panel ARDL approach. J Clean Prod2019; 228: 161–174.
37.
AwanAAbbasiKRRejS, et al.The impact of renewable energy, internet use and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions: a method of moments quantile analysis. Renew Energy2022; 189: 454–466.
38.
CaglarAEMertMBolukG. Testing the role of information and communication technologies and renewable energy consumption in ecological footprint quality: evidence from world top 10 pollutant footprint countries. J Clean Prod2021; 298: 126784.
39.
AbidMSakrafiHGheraiaZ, et al.Does renewable energy consumption affect ecological footprints in Saudi Arabia? A bootstrap causality test. Renew Energy2022; 189: 813–821.
40.
RaghutlaCPadmagirisanPSakthivelP, et al.The effect of renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in N-11 countries : evidence from panel quantile regression approach. Renew Energy2022; 197: 125–137.
41.
NathanielSP. Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal2021; 86: 2057–2070.
42.
AlvaradoROrtizCJiménezN, et al.Ecological footprint, air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international trade. J Clean Prod; 288. Epub ahead of print 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125589.
43.
NathanielSKhanSAR. The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. J Clean Prod2020; 272: 122709.
44.
AliSYusopZKaliappanSR, et al.Trade-environment nexus in OIC countries: fresh insights from environmental kuznets curve using GHG emissions and ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 4531–4548.
45.
DoganETaspinarNGokmenogluKK. Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy Environ2019; 30: 1065–1086.
46.
HuGCanMParamatiSR, et al.The effect of import product diversification on carbon emissions: new evidence for sustainable economic policies. Econ Anal Policy2020; 65: 198–210.
47.
AhmadMJiangPMajeedA, et al.The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Resour Policy2020; 69: 101817.
48.
EnrlichPHoldrenJ. The impact of population growth. Am Assoc Adv Sci1971; 171: 1212–1217.
49.
YorkRRosaEADietzT. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ2003; 46: 351–365.
50.
LohwasserJSchafferABriedenA. The role of demographic and economic drivers on the environment in traditional and standardized STIRPAT analysis. Ecol Econ2020; 178: 106811.
51.
HoekstraAYChapagainAK. Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resour Manag2007; 21: 35–48.
52.
SubrahmanyaMHBKumarRS. Technological innovations and energy intensity of machine tool SMEs in Bangalore: do process innovations contribute to energy efficiency?Int J Energy Technol Policy2011; 7: 519–536.
53.
SarkodieSAStrezovV. Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Sci Total Environ2019; 646: 862–871.
Hashem PesaranMYamagataT. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J Econom2008; 142: 50–93.
56.
BlomquistJWesterlundJ. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Econ Lett2013; 121: 374–378.
57.
WesterlundJ. Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. J Appl Econom2008; 23: 193–233.
58.
MachadoJAFSantos SilvaJMC. Quantiles via moments. J Econom2019; 213: 145–173.
59.
RaoASharmaGDRadulescuM, et al.What drives ecological footprint in OECD+Brics nations? Evidence from advanced panel techniques. SSRN Electron J. Epub ahead of print 26 August 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.4200292
60.
SharifABaris-tuzemenOUzunerG, et al.Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustain Cities Soc2020; 57: 102–138.
61.
JuodisAKaraviasYSarafidisV. A homogeneous approach to testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Empir Econ2021; 60: 93–112.
62.
XiaoJJuodisAKaraviasY, et al.Improved tests for granger non-causality in panel data. Munich Pers RePEc Arch2021: 1–11.
63.
SahooMSethiN. The dynamic impact of urbanization, structural transformation, and technological innovation on ecological footprint and PM2.5: evidence from newly industrialized countries. Environ Dev Sustain2022; 24: 4244–4277.
64.
ZhaoHLiYHaoF, et al.Role of green energy technology on ecological footprint in China: evidence from Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 1–12.
65.
ShafieiSSalimRA. Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy2014; 66: 547–556.
66.
RehmanARaufAAhmadM, et al.The effect of carbon dioxide emission and the consumption of electrical energy, fossil fuel energy, and renewable energy, on economic performance: evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res. Epub ahead of print May 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05550-y
67.
MahmoodHMurshedM. Oil price and economic growth nexus in Saudi arabia: asymmetry analysis. Int J Energy Econ Policy2021; 11: 29–33. doi:10.32479/ijeep.10382
68.
ShahbazMNasreenSAhmedK, et al.Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: the importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Econ2017; 61: 221–232.
