Existing research results on the impact of financial development on ecological footprint are inconsistent or even opposite. In order to better understand the impact of financial development on ecological footprint, this study explores the relationship between financial development and ecological footprint from the perspectives of population aging, GDP per capita, and technological innovation. The results show that when the population aging level is below the threshold, the coefficient of financial development on ecological footprint is 0.285, but when the aging level exceeds the second threshold, the coefficient of financial development on ecological footprint becomes faint negative. Similarly, after per capita GDP crosses the threshold, the correlation coefficient between financial development and ecological footprint turns from positive to faint negative. Compared to this, when the level of technological innovation is below the threshold, the coefficient of financial development and ecological footprint is 0.155, while when the level of technological innovation is above the threshold, the coefficient of financial development and ecological footprint is −0.597. The above results indicates that the impact of financial development on the ecological footprint is affected by other factors. Compared with changes in population structure (aging) and social wealth (GDP per capita), technological innovation has a greater impact on the relationship between financial development and ecological footprint.
AlqarallehH. On the factors influencing the ecological footprint: using an asymmetric quantile regression approach. Manag Environ Qual2023; ahead-of-print. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-04-2023-0128.
2.
WackernagelMHanscomLJayasingheP, et al.The importance of resource security for poverty eradication. Nat Sustain2021; 4: 731–738.
3.
WangQSunJPataUK, et al.Digital economy and carbon dioxide emissions: examining the role of threshold variables. Geosci Front2023: 101644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101644
4.
LiRWangQLiuY, et al.Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: the effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 27: 1149–1164.
5.
DestekMAUlucakRDoganE. Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2018; 25: 29387–29396.
6.
ReesWE. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban1992; 4: 121–130.
7.
WackernagelM. Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia, 1994.
8.
SarkodieSA. Environmental performance, biocapacity, carbon & ecological footprint of nations: drivers, trends and mitigation options. Sci Total Environ2021; 751: 141912.
9.
MajeedMT. Financial development and ecological footprint: a global panel data analysis. Pak J Commer Soc Sci2019; 13: 487–514.
10.
AdebayoTSKartalMTAğaM, et al.Role of country risks and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: evidence from MINT countries. J Environ Manag2023; 327: 116884.
11.
MujtabaAJenaPKBekunFV, et al.Symmetric and asymmetric impact of economic growth, capital formation, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on environment in OECD countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2022; 160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112300
12.
JahangerAHossainMRAwanA, et al.Linking tourist's footprint and environmental tragedy through transportation, globalization and energy choice in BIMSTEC region: directions for a sustainable solution using novel GMM-PVAR approach. J Environ Manag2023; 345: 118551.
13.
WangQSuMLiR, et al.The effects of energy prices, urbanization and economic growth on energy consumption per capita in 186 countries. J Cleaner Prod2019; 225: 1017–1032.
14.
BertoldiPEconomidouMPalermoV, et al.How to finance energy renovation of residential buildings: review of current and emerging financing instruments in the EU. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ2021; 10: e384.
15.
JalilAFeridunM. The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: a cointegration analysis. Energy Econ2011; 33: 284–291.
16.
IdreesMMajeedMT. Income inequality, financial development, and ecological footprint: fresh evidence from an asymmetric analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 27924–27938.
17.
AlolaAAAdebayoTS. The potency of resource efficiency and environmental technologies in carbon neutrality target for Finland. J Cleaner Prod2023; 389: 136127.
18.
TamazianAChousaJPVadlamannatiKC. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy2009; 37: 246–253.
19.
IslamFShahbazMAhmedAU, et al.Financial development and energy consumption nexus in Malaysia: a multivariate time series analysis. Econ Model2013; 30: 435–441.
20.
YaoXYasmeenRHussainJ, et al.The repercussions of financial development and corruption on energy efficiency and ecological footprint: evidence from BRICS and next 11 countries. Energy2021; 223: 120063.
21.
LiRLiLWangQ. The impact of energy efficiency on carbon emissions: evidence from the transportation sector in Chinese 30 provinces. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 82: 103880.
22.
CaoJLawSHBin Abdul SamadAR, et al.Effect of financial development and technological innovation on green growth—Analysis based on spatial Durbin model. J Cleaner Prod2022; 365: 132865.
23.
KizilgolOOndesH. Factors affecting the ecological footprint: a study on the OECD countries. Sci Total Environ2022; 849: 157757.
24.
YilanciVGorusMSAydinM. Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary?J Cleaner Prod2019; 212: 270–301.
25.
HassanSTBatoolBWangP, et al.Impact of economic complexity index, globalization, and nuclear energy consumption on ecological footprint: First insights in OECD context. Energy2023; 263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125628
26.
ChuLK. Determinants of ecological footprint in OCED countries: do environmental-related technologies reduce environmental degradation?Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2022; 29: 23779–23793.
27.
RafiqueMZFareedZFerrazD, et al.Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: An empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy2022; 238. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121753
28.
AhmadMAhmedZGavurovaB, et al.Financial Risk, Renewable Energy Technology Budgets, and Environmental Sustainability: Is Going Green Possible?Front Environ Sci2022; 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.909190
29.
CanMBen JebliMBrusselaersJ. Can green trade save the environment? Introducing the Green (Trade) Openness Index. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2022; 29: 44091–44102.
30.
IbrahimMVoXV. Exploring the relationships among innovation, financial sector development and environmental pollution in selected industrialized countries. J Environ Manage2021; 284: 112057.
31.
CanhNPThanhSD. Financial development and the shadow economy: a multi-dimensional analysis. Econ Anal Policy2020; 67: 37–54.
32.
AshrafADoytchN. Does investing abroad reduce the ecological footprints at home? Analysis of outward GFDI and M&A from developed and developing countries. Environ Dev Sustain2023; 25: 6689–6710.
33.
AdebayoTSUllahS. Formulating sustainable development policies for China within the framework of socioeconomic conditions and government stability. Environ Pollut2023; 328: 121673.
34.
YangBJahangerAAliM. Remittance inflows affect the ecological footprint in BICS countries: do technological innovation and financial development matter?Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2021; 28: 23482–23500.
35.
KihomboSAhmedZChenS, et al.Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: what is the role of technological innovation?Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2021; 28: 61235–61245.
36.
AhmedZZhangBCaryM. Linking economic globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: evidence from symmetric and asymmetric ARDL. Ecol Indic2021; 121: 107060.
37.
AhmadMJiangPMajeedA, et al.Does financial development and foreign direct investment improve environmental quality? Evidence from belt and road countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2020; 27: 23586–23601.
38.
UsmanMMakhdumMSAKousarR. Does financial inclusion, renewable and non-renewable energy utilization accelerate ecological footprints and economic growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest emitting countries. Sustain Cities Soc2021; 65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102590
39.
UsmanMHammarN. 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 Int2021; 28: 15519–15536.
40.
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 Cleaner Prod2021; 298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126784
41.
PataUKYilanciV. Financial development, globalization and ecological footprint in G7: further evidence from threshold cointegration and fractional frequency causality tests. Environ Ecol Stat2020; 27: 803–825.
42.
UllahSAdebayoTSIrfanM, et al.Environmental quality and energy transition prospects for G-7 economies: the prominence of environment-related ICT innovations, financial and human development. J Environ Manag2023; 342: 118120.
43.
DestekMASarkodieSA. Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Sci Total Environ2019; 650: 2483–2489.
44.
SaudSChenSHaseebA, et al.The role of financial development and globalization in the environment: Accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119518
45.
EhigiamusoeKULeanHHBabalolaSJ, et al.The roles of financial development and urbanization in degrading environment in Africa: unravelling non-linear and moderating impacts. Energy Reports2022; 8: 1665–1677.
46.
ZamanKMoemenM-e. Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and economic development: evaluating alternative and plausible environmental hypothesis for sustainable growth. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 74: 1119–1130.
47.
AlolaAAAdebayoTS. Analysing the waste management, industrial and agriculture greenhouse gas emissions of biomass, fossil fuel, and metallic ores utilization in Iceland. Sci Total Environ2023; 887: 164115.
48.
AdebayoTSAğaMKartalMT. Analyzing the co-movement between CO2 emissions and disaggregated nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption in BRICS: evidence through the lens of wavelet coherence. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 38921–38938.
49.
WangQWangXLiR. Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets curve? An empirical analysis of 134 countries. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 76: 103382.
50.
Al-MulaliUOzturkI. The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy2015; 84: 382–389.
51.
KhanAMuhammadFChenggangY, et al.The impression of technological innovations and natural resources in energy-growth-environment nexus: a new look into BRICS economies. Sci Total Environ2020; 727: 138265.
52.
WangQZhangFLiR. Revisiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: the roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environ Res2023; 216: 114637.
53.
LiXXiaoLTianC, et al.Impacts of the ecological footprint on sustainable development: Evidence from China. J Cleaner Prod2022; 352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131472
54.
AngJB. CO2 Emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy2007; 35: 4772–4778.
55.
Yang ZhangMAAliSAAbbasQ,et al.The eco-innovative technologies, human capital, and energy pricing: evidence of sustainable energy transition in developed economies. Appl Energy2022; 325: 119729.
56.
AshrafANguyenCPDoytchN. The impact of financial development on ecological footprints of nations. J Environ Manage2022; 322: 116062.
57.
BakhshSYinHShabirM. Foreign investment and CO2 emissions: do technological innovation and institutional quality matter? Evidence from system GMM approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2021; 28: 19424–19438.
58.
JianguoDAliKAlnoriF, et al.The nexus of financial development, technological innovation, institutional quality, and environmental quality: evidence from OECD economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2022; 29: 58179–58200.
59.
UllahSOzturkIMajeedMT, et al.Do technological innovations have symmetric or asymmetric effects on environmental quality? Evidence from Pakistan. J Cleaner Prod2021; 316: 128239.
60.
AhmedAUddinGSSohagK. Biomass energy, technological progress and the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from selected European countries. Biomass Bioenergy2016; 90: 202–208.
61.
YiiK-JGeethaC. The nexus between technology innovation and CO 2 emissions in Malaysia: evidence from granger causality test. Energy Procedia2017; 105: 3118–3124.
62.
AbbasiFRiazK. CO2 Emissions and financial development in an emerging economy: an augmented VAR approach. Energy Policy2016; 90: 102–114.
63.
WangQWang LLi R. Trade openness helps move towards carbon neutrality—Insight from 114 countries. Sustain. Dev.2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2720
64.
Balsalobre-LorenteDSinhaADrihaOM, et al.Assessing the impacts of ageing and natural resource extraction on carbon emissions: A proposed policy framework for European economies. J Cleaner Prod2021; 296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126470
65.
FanJZhouLZhangY, et al.How does population aging affect household carbon emissions? Evidence from Chinese urban and rural areas. Energy Econ2021; 100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105356
66.
HassanKSalimR. Population ageing, income growth and CO2emission. J Econ Stud2015; 42: 54–67.
67.
KimJLimHHHJ. Do aging and low fertility reduce carbon emissions in Korea? Evidence from IPAT augmented EKC analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 2972.
68.
ZhangCTanZ. The relationships between population factors and China's carbon emissions: does population aging matter?Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 65: 1018–1025.
69.
WangQYangTLiR. Does income inequality reshape the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis? A nonlinear panel data analysis. Environ Res2023; 216: 114575.
70.
HansenBE. Threshold e!ects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference. J Econom1999; 93: 345–368.
71.
AlqarallehH. On the nexus of CO2 emissions and renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption in Europe: a new insight from panel smooth transition. Energy Environ2021; 32: 443–457.
72.
AhmedZWangZMahmoodF, et al.Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2019; 26: 18565–18582.
73.
KongbuamaiNZafarMWZaidiSAH, et al.Determinants of the ecological footprint in Thailand: the influences of tourism, trade openness, and population density. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2020; 27: 40171–40186.
74.
DanishZWang. Investigation of the ecological footprint’s driving factors: What we learn from the experience of emerging economies. Sustain Cities Soc2019; 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101626
75.
WangQWangL. Renewable energy consumption and economic growth in OECD countries: a nonlinear panel data analysis. Energy2020; 207: 118200.
76.
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: 102138.
77.
AdebayoTSAlolaAA. Examining the (non)symmetric environmental quality effect of material productivity and environmental-related technologies in Iceland. Sustain Energy Technol Assess2023; 57: 103192.
78.
WangQZhangF. The effects of trade openness on decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth – Evidence from 182 countries. J Cleaner Prod2021; 279: 123838.
79.
ZhangWWangZAdebayoTS, et al.Asymmetric linkages between renewable energy consumption, financial integration, and ecological sustainability: moderating role of technology innovation and urbanization. Renewable Energy2022; 197: 1233–1243.
80.
LiRWangXWangQ. Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. J Cleaner Prod2022; 346: 131207.
81.
LiuXAdebayoTSRamzanM, et al.Do coal efficiency, climate policy uncertainty and green energy consumption promote environmental sustainability in the United States? An application of novel wavelet tools. J Cleaner Prod2023; 417: 137851.
