Downloaded from https://iranpaper.

ir

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16110-8

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring the influence of economic freedom index on fishing

grounds footprint in environmental Kuznets curve framework
through spatial econometrics technique: evidence from Asia-Pacific
countries
Mohammad Sharif Karimi 1 & Mohsen Khezri 2,3 & Yousaf Ali Khan 4 & Somayeh Razzaghi 5

Received: 14 April 2021 / Accepted: 19 August 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Environmental challenges are as vast as the universe, allowing for numerous studies on their various dimensions. Using 17 data
sets from Asia-Pacific countries between 2000 and 2017, this study attempted to investigate the economic factors influencing the
ecological footprint of the fishing sector. The primary contribution of this study is to examine the effects of nine economic
freedom indicators, as well as other control variables, on the status of fishery resources due to environmental pressure. The
findings confirm the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in the fishing grounds footprint, indicating that GDP per
capita growth has a positive and significant effect, even though its squared form coefficient is negative. Other control variables,
including natural resource rents, urbanization, and energy intensity, do not significantly affect the fishing footprint. The different
components of economic freedom show different effects, while their cumulative effects in the form of the total economic freedom
index positively affect the footprint of fishing and lead to increased extraction from fishing resources. The results show that the
government integrity, tax burden, business freedom, and monetary freedom indices increase the fishing footprint. In contrast,
indices of trade freedom and investment freedom, by highlighting the adverse effects of fishing on the environment, help
countries reduce pressure on their aquatic resources. The findings of this study highlight the importance of examining how
various dimensions of economic freedom affect the ability to manage fishery resources effectively.

Keywords Fishing grounds footprint . Economic freedom .

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues Management of fishery resources . Spatial econometrics .
Asia-Pacific
* Yousaf Ali Khan
yousaf_hu@yahoo.com
Introduction
Mohammad Sharif Karimi
s.karimi@razi.ac.ir
Seafood is critical for human nutrition and global food secu-
Mohsen Khezri rity. Demand for seafood has decreased over the last two de-
m.khezri@basu.ac.ir
cades. Moreover, the fishing sector is considered a growth
Somayeh Razzaghi engine in many countries, such that the livelihood of more
s.razzaghi@basu.ac.ir than 12% of people worldwide depends on the fisheries’ in-
1 come (WWF 2018). Fish are one of the most traded food
Department of Economics, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
commodities (Clarck and Longo 2019), and in 2018, over
2
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, 220 states traded approximately 67 million tons of fish glob-
Hamedan, Iran
ally, accounting for 1% of total merchandise trade.
3
Department of Economics, University of Kurdistan Hewler, Additionally, the pattern of seafood exports indicates that fish-
Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
ing activities have shifted to the global south, with Asian
4
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Hazara University countries such as China, Vietnam, India, Thailand, and the
Mansehra, Mansehra 23010, Pakistan
rest of the Mekong Delta becoming major exporters of fish
5
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Bu-Ali Sina University, (Worm et al. 2009; Berkes et al. 2006).
Hamedan, Iran
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
On the other hand, average per capita fish consumption in
Asia has increased at a pace of 2% per year since 1961, owing
to growing urbanization, the rapid growth of developing coun-
tries’ populations, and their sizable percentage of middle-class
people with higher income. These developments underscore
Asia’s increasing importance in the global fish market’s pro-
duction and consumption. Fisheries in Asia and the Pacific
have a predominant role in economic earning. For example,
more than 2.2 million Indonesian people and approximately
one million Filipino people are employed in the fishing sector
(Sugiyama et al. 2004). Additionally, 80% of people in the
Lower Mekong River Basin rely on the river and its abundant
natural resources, and the coral triangle — the Amazon of the
seas — relies on marine and coastal resources to support more
than 120 million inhabitants.
However, according to the FAO report, in 2020, about 31%
of fishing grounds are experiencing overfishing, and 58% of
fish stocks are fully exploited. Industrial fishing techniques
such as cyanide and dynamite fishing are now carried out
thousands of miles beneath the sea. Because ocean floor crea-
tures have a long lifespan and grow slowly, they are highly
vulnerable to overfishing. The creation of marine deserts is a
new phenomenon that occurs in some parts of the world’s seas
and oceans. In these barrens, a part of the sea that has been
plowing by trawl nets becomes lifeless and loses its animal
diversity in the bottom and middle floor of seas, and fishing
activities generally become lean in these areas (Mulekom et al.
2006). In this context, despite the Asia and Pacific region’s
significant natural aquatic capital, new reports indicate that the
region’s biodiversity, particularly its ocean ecosystem, is de-
teriorating more than double that of the global average1
(Sugiyama et al. 2004).
Additionally, the Asia and Pacific region’s population and
consumption have multiplied, and environmental concerns are
outpacing economic development (Rockström et al. 2007).
Underwater biocapacity growth is slower than population
growth in Asia and the Pacific region, and this region faces
a biocapacity deficit that could cause social and economic
problems and threaten food security and welfare (WWF
2018).
This information warns of grave environmental concerns
regarding global fish stocks, and many scientists believe that
human-induced pressures on aquatic ecosystems are the pri-
mary cause of this problem. They derive the environmental
Kuznets curve (EKC), which shows how economic develop-
ment always results in environmental degradation. Economic
freedom is positively linked with economic growth, and there
is a pretty solid agreement. Economic freedom brings eco-
nomic growth and welfare; however, it stimulates demand
1 ecological footprint. Second, this study is the first to examine
Approximately 50% of coral reefs in Southeast Asia are at risk from
overfishing practices. The Gulf of Thailand and the east coast of Malaysia
had lost over 40% of fish stocks within 5 years.
Environ Sci Pollut Res
for food, safe water, energy, roads, railways, urban lands,
agricultural lands, coastal development, and other infrastruc-
tures. Economic freedom is frequently cited as a critical factor
in persuading more resource-intensive activities, and both
public and private sector activities increase the ecological
footprint and, as a result, the footprint of fishing grounds
(Dietz and Jorgenson 2013).
For instance, toxic material leakage from agricultural and
urban wastes into natural freshwater flows has decreased ag-
ricultural productivity and freshwater fish stocks. Overfishing,
water pollution, and biodiversity loss caused by extended eco-
nomic activities threaten the marine system’s sustainability
(Bilgili et al. 2020). However, a review of the theoretical
foundations indicates that economic freedom on various other
dimensions can also affect aquatic and fishing grounds, either
positively or negatively. According to Clark et al. (2018) and
Clausen and York (2008), economic development is associat-
ed with losses in aquatic biodiversity and increases in fishing
footprint. Frey (2003), Jorgenson (2009), and Jorgenson and
Rice (2012) have shown that richer countries tend to expand
their aggregate consumption of environmental space via sev-
eral means, including establishing advantageous economic
ties with less powerful, export-oriented states.
Additionally, peripheral areas and countries often serve as
sinks for various kinds of pollution. McMichael (2012) high-
lights that, in addition to industrial and textile globalization,
capitalist globalization has extended into the agri-food sys-
tems of less-affluent nations over the past few decades, deplet-
ing developing countries’ fish supplies. Longo et al. (2013)
show that increasing environmentally intensive aquaculture is
linked with economic development and integration into the
global food chain.
Similarly, Clark and Longo (2019) examined the effect of
economic development, region, and period on fisheries'
footprints. The findings indicated that the magnitude of
fisheries' footprints has increased in the last decade relative
to previous decades. Additionally, they demonstrated that
economic development has a more significant impact on
fisheries footprints in developing countries than in
developed countries. Moreover, Solarin et al. (2021) conduct-
ed a comparative analysis of the persistence and sustainability
of fishing grounds footprints in 89 countries and found that
fisheries footprints exhibit a sustainable and persistent pattern
in low-income countries.
This article examines the effect of the economic freedom
index on the footprint of fishing grounds in Asia-Pacific coun-
tries. This article contributes to the current body of knowledge
about the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) in three signif-
icant ways: first, there is no empirical research examining the
determinants of the fisheries footprint as a component of the
how various economic freedom variables affect the footprints
of fishing grounds in Asia and the Pacific. Third, on these
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
Environ Sci Pollut Res
grounds, the current study uses a spatial econometric model to
examine the spatial characteristics of fishing ground footprints
in the region and determine whether destructive fishing activ-
ities have spread to neighboring countries.
The following sections comprise the remainder of the es-
say: “Theoretical review” contains a review of the literature.
“Methodical approach and data” contains a discussion of the
methodology used and the data presented. “Empirical results”
discusses the empirical findings, while the “Conclusions and
remarks” section discusses the research's conclusions and
observations.
Theoretical review
This section discusses the ecological footprint indicators and
explains how these factors affect environmental quality.
Additionally, the most recent studies on each indicator have
been reviewed and summarized here, beginning with examin-
ing the effects of economic freedom on ecological footprints,
particularly those of fishing ground footprints. Afterward, we
analyzed the impact of urbanization, economic growth, energy
consumption, and trade openness on the ecological footprint.
Economic freedom and ecological footprint
Because economic freedom encourages a high rate of resource
waste, most studies supported the idea that economic freedom
has a negative effect on ecological footprints via three major
channels: efficiency channels, trade regulations, and stability
effects. On the one hand, they anticipate that economic free-
dom will make markets more efficient and competitive and
use resources more efficiently. On the other hand, they ob-
serve that efficient markets result in regulations, particularly
ecological regulations that require consumers to accept clean-
er produced goods and services and that economic freedom
may result in a reduction in ecological footprints. According
to the trade regulation channel, scientists refer to the concept
of the “pollution haven,” in which trade liberalization encour-
ages countries with a high concentration of capital-intensive
industries to specialize in dirty industries. Alola et al. (2019)
discuss the existence of many direct and indirect links be-
tween trade openness and ecological footprints.
On the one hand, trade openness could encourage the uti-
lization of renewable energy technologies (Khan et al. 2017)
and bring the advantages of economies of scale, and
consequently, it optimizes resource consumption and
improves ecological quality. On the other hand, Cole (2004)
explains the channels through which trade openness causes
environmental demolitions. He introduces the “pollution ha-
ven hypothesis” and explains how trade openness encourages
importing high energy-intensive products, especially in devel-
oping countries (with no solid environmental supportive
regulations) and accelerating ecological damages. Moreover,
Asghari (2013) refers to the “industrial flight hypothesis”
where firms in developing countries make an effort to maxi-
mize their profits while ignoring environmental costs. Trade
openness could lead to an increase in the size of the economy,
which increases pollution (Abdi 2017). Omri et al. (2015)
confirmed the destroying effect of trade openness on environ-
mental quality. Ozturk et al. (2016) found a positive relation-
ship between trade openness and ecological footprint. Zhang
et al. (2017) observed a negative relationship between trade
openness and CO2 emission in 10 newly industrialized
countries.
Additionally, according to stability effects, economic free-
dom can stabilize the macroeconomic environment over time,
enabling investors to make confident investment decisions. If
those countries’ economies become more reliant on natural
resources, their ecological footprints may increase
(Antweiler et al. 2001). Clarck and Lango (2019) provide a
more precise explanation of the channels through which eco-
nomic freedom results in fisheries footprints and demonstrate
how economic freedom and human activities degrade the ma-
rine system and jeopardize nations’ food security, particularly
in coastal regions. Additionally, the World Wide Fund for
Nature’s 2012 Living Planet Report (WWF 2012) identified
the following significant direct pressures on natural resources
such as seas and oceans caused by economic activities:
& Economic freedom and rapid economic development in-
crease the demand for additional energy, water, materials,
roads and railways, coastal developments, agricultural
lands, urban lands, industrial estates, and tourist destina-
tions; as a result, coastal areas are at risk of land-use
changes, ruination, and fragmentation due to human activ-
ities that result in coastal habitat loss and negatively im-
pact fishing activities.
& The high level of income growth and population growth
resulting from economic freedom stimulates resource con-
version to goods and services. It increases global demand
for seafood, resulting in the emergence of overfishing and
destructive fishing methods such as cyanide and dynamite
fishing to meet the global demand for seafood.
& Industrial and metropolitan area’s pollution and overuse of
agricultural pesticides and chemical fertilizers cause fresh-
water pollution. Freshwater pollution has severe economic
consequences, including the extinction of aquatic ecosys-
tems and food sources, primarily fish, and high treatment
costs to convert contaminated water to drinkable water.
Additionally, the treadmill of production academics sug-
gests that economic freedom results in increased environ-
mental destruction (Gould et al. 2004; Schnaiberg 1980)
and interrupt the cycle of the ecosystem, especially in
aquatic food systems (Holleman 2018; Longo et al.
2015; Foster et al. 2011; Foster 1999).
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
& The emission of greenhouse gasses from industrial parks
leads to climate changes that are harmful to sea and ocean
ecosystems and biodiversity (Chou et al. 2010).
& A capitalist world food system is more likely to be eco-
logically intensive (York and Gossard 2004; Longo et al.
2013), causing developed and wealthier countries to shift
the burden of fisheries to less developed countries through
imports of fish and luxury seafood from less developed
countries. This forces these developing countries to mod-
ernize and commercialize their fishing sectors and start
over.
& Regulations, allotments, monitoring, and fishing restric-
tions in developed countries are a result of economic free-
dom. They restrict access to developed countries’ inland
marine natural resources and shift the fishing burden to
areas of the global south, such as Asia (Worm et al. 2009;
Berkes et al. 2006)
& Economic freedom enabled the development of trans-
portation and long-term storage technologies, the
growth of the supply chain, and the expansion of con-
sumer choices. As a result, regions with limited or no
access to seafood can now demand and obtain various
seafoods produced far from their home countries at
reasonable prices. Then the pressure on globally avail-
able fish stocks would increase, making them more
susceptible to annihilation.
In this context, Akadırı et al. (2021) examined the ef-
fect of economic freedom on the ecological footprint in
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS)
countries and found that the environmental Kuznets curve
(EKC) was found in the long run, and the hypothesis was
confirmed. Bjørnskov (2020) demonstrated how economic
freedom and deregulation could contribute to environmen-
tal degradation or promote green technologies. Economic
freedom, he asserted, could spur innovation and increase
the adoption of green technologies capable of reducing
ecological footprints.
Additionally, he asserts that strict government controls
and regulations may constrain firms and individuals re-
garding pollution emissions. His study demonstrated that
economic freedom reduces CO2 and greenhouse gas emis-
sions, but it also shifted the environmental Kuznets curve
(EKC) to the left, and because it takes a long time to reach
the EKC’s turning point, reversing the detrimental effects
of economic freedom on the ecological footprint will take a
long time. Sharif et al. (2019) analyzed the impact of eco-
nomic globalization on ecological footprint among 10
globalized countries, and they report mixed and
contradictory results. You and Lv (2018) discovered the
adverse indirect effects of economic globalization on CO2
emissions across a panel of 83 countries using a spatial
panel data approach.
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Economic growth and ecological footprint
Grossman and Krueger (1991) presented an inverted U-
shaped curve that shows the relationship between economic
development and environmental quality. This curve indicated
that the environmental quality would deteriorate in the first
stages of development, and when the GDP per capita in the
country reached a threshold level, countries became aware of
the importance of environmental quality. They start to make
significant efforts to preserve the environment. Additionally,
the effects of GDP per capita on environmental quality were
ambiguous, and the findings of various studies were
inconsistent. In this context, Stern (1998) and Stokey (1998)
discussed three channels of (a) scale effects, (b) composition
effects, and (c) technique effects, through which economic
growth could affect environmental quality2. The consequence
of these three factors could determine the real effects of eco-
nomic growth on environmental quality. Therefore, while
Farhani et al. (2014), Jalil and Mahmud (2009), Tamazian
and Rao (2010), Al-Mulali (2011), Oshin and Oqundipe
(2014), among others, have confirmed the environmental
Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis, however, Ozturk and
Acaravci (2010), Perman and Stern (2003), and Hill and
Magnani (2002) failed to prove the environmental Kuznets
curve (EKC).
Moreover, Charfeddine and Mrabet (2017) investigated the
effects of economic development and social–political factors
on the ecological footprint in 15 oil-exporting and non-oil-
exporting Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.
The results validated the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC)
hypothesis in oil-exporting countries and across the sample
but not in non-oil-exporting countries. Additionally, they
demonstrated that energy consumption exacerbates ecological
footprints, whereas urbanization has a long-term beneficial
effect on the environment. Usman et al. (2020) investigated
the relationship among economic growth, energy consump-
tion, foreign direct investment, trade policy, and environmen-
tal impact in upper-middle-income countries. They discovered
a detrimental effect of economic development on Africa and
Europe’s ecological footprints; a detrimental effect of renew-
able energy use on Asia, Europe, and America; and a detri-
mental effect on Asia’s commercial openness. They have,
however, observed negative environmental consequences of
commercial liberalization in Africa and America.
Additionally, they recognized that foreign direct investment
and primary energy consumption contribute to Africa and
Asia’s ecological footprints. Yang et al. (2021b) investigated
the effects of industrialization, economic growth, and
globalization processes on the ecological footprint in 10
countries with the highest healthcare expenditure. They
2
For more information about the three channels, please refer to Charfeddine
and Mrabet (2017).
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
Environ Sci Pollut Res
realized that industrialization and economic growth are more
responsible for increasing the pollution level. Besides,
globalization and urbanization reduced environmental
damage. Abdouli and Hammami (2017) also confirmed the
environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in 17 coun-
tries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
Energy consumption and ecological footprint
Since energy consumption results in CO2 and SO2 emissions,
it contributes to the degradation of environmental quality.
Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to deter-
mine the effect of energy consumption on the ecological foot-
print, and the direct and significant effect of energy consump-
tion on environmental degradation has been established.
Danish and Wang (2018) argued that, on the one hand, the
primary sources of CO2 pollution in developing countries are
transportation, agriculture, industrial, and service sector, all
being energy intensive. On the other hand, developing coun-
tries have inadequate rules and regulations against pollution
activities, leading to an intensification of the ecological foot-
print, and these countries eventually transform into a haven for
carbon-intensive industries (Sarkodie and Strezov 2019).
Nathaniel and Iheonu (2019) and Saidi and Omri (2020)
argued against the adverse effects of renewable energy con-
sumption on environmental quality, arguing that using renew-
able energy generates waste residues from the combustion of
biomass materials and can contaminate land and water
resources. Usman et al. (2021a) discovered that the use of
renewable energy improved environmental quality, while the
use of non-renewable energy has a detrimental effect on envi-
ronmental quality in the 15 highest emitting countries. In an-
other research by Usman and Hammar (2021), they realized
that renewable energy consumption had significantly acceler-
ated the environmental quality in APEC countries from 1990
to 2017. In addition, Usman and Makhdum (2021) examined
the effects of renewable and non-renewable energy utilization
on the ecological footprint in BRICS-T countries. They real-
ized that a 1% increase in non-renewable energy leads to pro-
duce ecological footprint by 0.55%; in contrast, a 1% increase
in renewable energy consumption leads to a 0.22% reduction
in ecological footprint. Khalid et al. (2021) show that primary
energy consumption improves Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri
Lanka’s ecological footprint while demonstrating a reduction
in Bhutan. In all South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) nations except for Bangladesh, the
use of renewable energy substantially improves environmen-
tal quality.
Urbanization and ecological footprint
Urbanization is one of the consequences of economic free-
dom, rapidly increasing public demand for fast foods such
as fish products to eat away from home in cities.
Furthermore, healthy living styles and dietary preferences
in urban areas have increased global demand for fish prod-
ucts, placing increased pressure on fish stocks and poten-
tially affecting fisheries’ footprints, particularly in devel-
oping countries. Tsuchiya et al. (2021) showed that urban-
ization, population, and aging have a significant adverse
role in food ecological footprint per capita in Japan. In
general, the demand for natural resources to manufacture
manufactured goods is more significant in urban areas. The
speed of industrialization and its displacement with the
agriculture sector intensifies the ecological footprint. In
parallel with urbanization development, rural migration to
cities increases, and the demand for more gas, electricity,
gasoline, food, and other services eventually cause more
significant environmental pollution (York et al. 2003).
In this context, Cole and Newmayer (2004), Liddle and
Lung (2010), Kasman and Duman (2015), among others, have
confirmed the positive effect of the urbanization level on the
ecological footprint. In contrast to these findings, some re-
searchers, including Chikaraishi et al. (2015), Fan et al.
(2006), and Dodman (2009), have argued that urbanization
degrades environmental quality. They argue that a high level
of modernization in urban areas could help mitigate urbaniza-
tion’s environmental degradation.
Resource rent and ecological footprint
Only a few studies are examining the role of natural re-
sources in determining the quality of the environment.
According to Wu et al. (2017), natural resource extraction
has led to the destruction of the environment. Danish et al.
(2019a, b) argue that the intensity of natural resource rent’s
destructive effects on the environment is increasing due to
the emergence of environmental problems such as defores-
tation, water scarcity, and climate change. In addition, low
energy sources, and drastic natural resource extraction,
which are exacerbated in developing countries, cause en-
vironmental pollution (Danish et al. 2019a, b). Ahmed
et al. (2020) reviewed the impact of natural resource rents
on China’s ecological footprint and showed that a rise in
rent for natural resources leads to an increasing
environmental footprint. Ulucak and Ozcan (2020) also
found that the rent and the exploitation of natural
resources lead to increased CO 2 emissions, but its
function in the ecological footprint and carbon footprint
in OECD nations has no statistically significant impact.
Danish et al. (2019a, b) confirmed that the environmental
quality in BRICS nations is adversely affected by resource
rent. Nevertheless, by considering the importance of tech-
nological innovation, Khan et al. (2020) showed a negative
effect of natural resources on CO2 emissions for BRICS
nations.
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
Methodological approach and data
Methodological approach
Model specification
This section examines applying a spatial econometric model
to analyze fisheries’ financial freedom footprints, emphasiz-
ing the spatial dependence of determinants’ ecological foot-
prints in Asia-Pacific nations. In line with Carlsson and
Lundstrom (2003) and Ulucak and Khan (2020), this exam-
ines the experimental version of the ecological footprint as
follows:
lnEFPit ¼ β1 þ β 2 lnGDPit þ β3 lnGDP2it þ β 4 lnENERit
þ β5 lnURBit þ β 6 lnRENT it þ β7 lnFreeit
þ ci ðoptionalÞ þ αt ðoptionalÞ þ υit ð1Þ
The logarithm of the ecological footprint per capita
index (lnEFPit) is a function of several explanatory vari-
ables, including the logarithms of GDP per capita
(lnGDPP), energy intensity (lnENER), trade openness
(lnOPE), urbanization (lnURB), natural resource rents
(lnRENT), and the economic freedom indexes (lnFree)3.
The EKC concept remains a criterion for demonstrating
how economic growth drives environmental sustainabili-
ty. Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), an inverted U-
shaped curve, represents the environmental quality fol-
lowing this concept. Regardless, environmental popularity
will initially decline and increase as the economic system
expands (Grossman and Krueger 1991). As a result, the
poor coefficient of the squared form of GDP per capita is
technically mentioned and deserves to be studied within
the ecological footprints equation.
Spatial econometric model
According to Anselin et al. (2008), a spatial panel mod-
el could include a lagged dependent variable or follow a
spatially autoregressive process in the error term.
LeSage and Pace (2009) introduced the spatial Durbin
model, which includes spatially lagged independent var-
iables. The spatial lag model, the spatial error model,
and the spatial Durbin model are denoted by the follow-
ing formulas:
yit ¼ λ∑Nj¼1 wij
3
For further studies on the effects of GDP per capita, energy intensity, trade
openness, urbanization, and natural resource rents on ecological footprint in-
dex, please refer to Ahmed et.al. (2020), Kassouri and Altintash (2020),
Doytch (2020), Alola et al. (2019), Wang et al. (2013), Ekeocha (2021), and
Sharma et al. (2020).
Environ Sci Pollut Res
N
yity ¼þλ∑
φþj¼1xw ij yþ
it β jt þ
ci ðφoptional
þ xit β þ
Þþci ðαoptional Þ
t ðoptional Þ þ υit
jt
þ αt ðoptionalÞ þ uit ð3Þ
yit ¼ λ∑Nj¼1 wij yjt þ φ þ xit β þ ∑Nj¼1 wij xijt θ
þ ci ðoptionalÞ þ αt ðoptionalÞ þ υit ð4Þ
where yit represents a dependent variable for cross-
sectional unit i = 1, 2, …, N at time t = 1, 2, …, T. Also,
xit stands for a 1 × K vector of exogenous variables, while
β represents a K × 1 vector of parameters. It should be
noted that ∑Nj¼1 wij yjt accounts for the interaction effects
of dependent variables in the adjacent units on the depen-
dent one; wij denotes element i, j of an N × N matrix of
spatial weights; λ denotes the endogenous interaction ef-
fect response parameter; υit stands for an error term of
independent and identical distribution; ci is a particular
spatial effect; and αt accounts for the time-period particular
effect. A particular spatial effect accounts for all time-
invariant space-specific variables, whose omission would
result in biased estimations in a typical cross-sectional
study. On the other hand, a time-period-specific effect ac-
counts for all time-specific effects, the absence of which
can result in skewed estimations in common time-series
research (Baltagi 2005). The error term of unit i in the
spatial error model in Eq. (3) (i.e., uit ¼ ρ∑Nj¼1 wij ujt þ υit
Þ is considered to be dependent on the error terms of adja-
cent units j based on matrix W and an idiosyncratic com-
ponent υ i t . Furthermore, the spatial Durbin model
contained in Eq. (4) was suggested by LeSage and Pace
(2009). It would extend the spatial lag model with inde-
pendent variables of spatial lagging where θ is a K × 1
vector of parameters.
The long-run estimation using the PFMOLS model
According to Pedroni (2001), the OLS estimator is a biased
and inconsistent estimator when applied to cointegrated
panels. As a result, a new model known as the panel fully
modified OLS (FMOLS) estimator was developed. The
FMOLS estimator has the advantage of producing consis-
tent estimates of β in small samples while accounting for
the regressors’ possible endogeneity and resulting serial
correlation, allowing for standard normal inference
(Carlsson et al. 2007). Additionally, FMOLS can accom-
modate considerable heterogeneity among panel members
(i.e., countries in this case).
The cointegrated panel method in FMOLS allows re-
searchers to pool information on the panel selectively
while allowing the heterogeneity of short-term dynamics
and fixed effects among various panel members. Finally,
the FMOLS technique provides disturbance-free, typically
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

Environ Sci Pollut Res

standard distributions besides providing asymptotically 8. Funding freedom: funding freedom indicates no con-
unbiased estimators. straints on the float of funding capital. Individuals and
corporations are allowed to transport their resources into
and out of particular activities.
Data
9. Financial freedom: financial freedom is a way that people
get to make lifestyle decisions without being overly con-
Data were collected from 17 countries in the Asia-Pacific from
fused about the monetary effect because they may be
2000 to 20174. A summary of the constructed variables used
supported.
in the analysis is presented in Table 1. Also, Table 2 provides
the descriptive statistics of the data. Data used in this research
The summary statistics of the data are given in Table 2,
is taken from World Development Indicator (WDI), Global
showing that for most of the variables, the standard deviations
Footprint Network (GFN), and The Heritage Foundation
are significantly lower than the mean, showing a low level of
(Heritage)5. All variables are in a logarithmic form, and, there-
fluctuations in the model’s variables.
fore, the estimated coefficients are elasticities.
The economic freedom index quantifies the extent to which
individuals and organizations collaborate globally and has
been trending upward in recent years, while the international
Empirical results
economy operates in a moderately free environment (Miller
et al. 2020). The Heritage Foundation applies four major cat-
Regression results of the spatial econometric model
egories: a rule of law that governs property rights, governmen-
Two distinct likelihood ratio (LR) tests were used to determine
tal efficacy, and government integrity; plus the amount of
the probability of time-period and spatial fixed effects in the
government tax burden, government expenditure, and fiscal
health; plus regulatory efficiency in business, labor, and mon- model. To this end, the model with simultaneous spatial and
time-period fixed effects is compared to the model with time-
etary freedom; plus market openness. The time interval period
period fixed effects or the model with spatial fixed effects. In
of several freedom indices was constrained in this research to
allow for the use of only the indices defined as follows: the absence of a null hypothesis, the model with concurrent
spatial and time-period fixed effects is selected. If the null
hypothesis is accepted, on the other hand, the following model
1. Property rights denote the capacity to accumulate non-
public possessions and wealth. is selected. Table 3 summarizes the LR test data for the vari-
ous models. The test results indicate the significance of the LR
2. Integrity of authority: it refers to government practices
test statistics and reject the null hypothesis for only the time-
that oppose systemic corruption in government institu-
tions, such as bribery, nepotism, cronyism, patronage, period fixed effects in most models. Therefore, the spatial
fixed effects were selected as the best model to proceed with
embezzlement, and graft.
estimation. Table 3 represents the Hausman test results to
3. Tax burden refers to the economic burdens imposed on
financial sports by governments (in the form of direct and examine the possibility of replacing the fixed-effect model
with a random-effect model. The null hypothesis emphasizes
indirect taxes such as payroll, income, and excise taxes, as
the presence of random effects in the model in this test. At a
well as price lists and cost-delivered taxes).
4. Government spending: this metric indicates the cost, du- 1% significance level, the Hausman test rejects the assumption
of random effects in all models and confirms the presence of
ration, and intrusiveness of government.
fixed effects.
5. Commercial enterprise freedom demonstrates an individ-
ual’s ability to establish and operate a business without A subsequent test in Table 4 determines whether including
the spatial lag or error in the model in the absence of spatial
undue state interference.
interaction effects results in a statistically significant improve-
6. Monetary freedom: monetary freedom is a combination of
a degree of charge balance and an assessment of price ment. Thus, Lagrange multiplier (LM) tests are performed on
a spatially lagged dependent variable and spatial error
controls.
autoregressive model using the residuals from a non-spatial
7. Exchange freedom: alternate freedom is a composite mea-
model (Elhorst 2010). The test statistic has the chi-square
sure of the absence of tariff and non-tariff obstacles that
distribution. If the LM test rejects the null hypothesis, the
affect imports and exports of products and services.
spatial lagged and spatial error models are confirmed. Due
4
Including Australia, China, Indonesia, Korea, Rep., Malaysia, Japan, to the existence of spatial fixed effects being confirmed by
Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, the LR test, this study examines only the Lagrange multiplier
Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, and Sri Lanka
5 (LM) statistics for this model. The results in Table 4 indicate
Data is available online at www.datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-
development-indicators, www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/, and that the test statistic values in all models are statistically sig-
www.heritage.org/index/. nificant at the 1% level. Therefore, spatial lagged and spatial
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 1 Variables construction

Variable Variable constructed Source

lnFGFit lnFGFit = log(FGFit) GFN

FGFit= Fishing Grounds footprint in the country i in time t
lnGDPit lnGDPPit = log(GDPPit) WDI
GDPit= GDP per capita in 2010 prices$
lnENERit lENERit =log(ENERit) WDI
ENERit= Energy intensity level of primary energy
lnURBit lnURBit =log(URBit) WDI
URBit= Urban population (as a percentage of the total population)
lnRENTit lnRENTit = log(RENTit) WDI
RENTit= Total natural resources rents (as a percentage of GDP)
lnEFIit lnEFIit = log(EFIit) Heritage
EFIit= Total Economic Freedom Index
lnPRIit lnPRIit = log(PRIit) Heritage
PRIit= Property Rights Index
lnGIIit lnGIIit = log(GIIit) Heritage
GIIit= Government Integrity Index
lnTBIit lnTBIit = log(TBIit) Heritage
TBIit= Tax Burden Index
lnGSIit lnGSIit = log(GSIit) Heritage
GSIit= Government Spending Index
lnBFIit lnBFIit = log(BFIit) Heritage
BFIit= Business Freedom Index
lnMFIit lnMFIit = log(MFIit) Heritage
MFIit= Monetary Freedom Index
lnTFIit lnTFIit = log(TFIit) Heritage
TFIit= Trade Freedom Index
lnIFIit lnIFIit = log(IFIit) Heritage
IFIit= Investment Freedom Index
lnFFIit lnFFIit = log(FFIit) Heritage
FFIit= Financial Freedom Index

Table 2 Descriptive statistics

from 2000 to 2017 Variable Mean Median Maximum Minimum Std. dev. Observations

lnEFPit 1.988 5.419 4.00 −2.66 1.68 306

lnGDPit 8.389 8.120 10.957 6.121 1.443 306
lnENERit 1.660 1.685 2.533 0.657 0.384 306
lnURBit 3.840 3.840 4.605 2.595 0.539 306
lnRENTit 0.060 0.840 3.819 −8.075 2.802 306
lnEFIit 4.091 4.044 4.493 3.777 0.170 306
lnPRIit 3.743 3.912 4.500 2.303 0.553 306
lnGIIit 3.548 3.466 4.543 1.386 0.531 306
lnTBIit 4.320 4.329 4.517 3.987 0.114 306
lnGSIit 4.359 4.419 4.557 3.666 0.177 306
lnBFIit 4.173 4.217 4.605 3.570 0.238 306
lnMFIit 4.322 4.331 4.546 3.661 0.117 306
lnTFIit 4.216 4.285 4.500 2.976 0.240 306
lnIFIit 3.726 3.807 4.500 1.609 0.495 306
lnFFIit 3.763 3.689 4.500 2.303 0.373 306
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 3 The LR test for the

existence of the spatial and time- Spatial fixed effects Time-period fixed effects Hausman test statistic
period fixed-effect in the models
and Hausman test results Model 1 5.973 (0.996) 891.818*** (0.000) 55.498*** (0.000)

Model 2 8.865 (0.963) 854.576*** (0.000) 64.43*** (0.000)

Model 3 6.311 (0.995) 863.19*** (0.000) 50.683*** (0.000)
Model 4 6.079 (0.996) 870.599*** (0.000) 61.984*** (0.000)
Model 5 9.446 (0.949) 913.701*** (0.000) 72.258*** (0.000)
Model 6 6.006 (0.996) 828.285*** (0.000) 50.463*** (0.000)
Model 7 11.9 (0.852) 896.243*** (0.000) 60.974*** (0.000)
Model 8 11.073 (0.891) 903.612*** (0.000) 62.55*** (0.000)
Model 9 5.462 (0.998) 892.453*** (0.000) 67.669*** (0.000)
Model 10 8.757 (0.965) 894.828*** (0.000) 34.094*** (0.000)
Model 11 5.944 (0.996) 860.759*** (0.000) 53.034*** (0.000)

Note: p value, ***, **, and * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively
Source: Authors’ estimations

error effects should be ignored in the model. As a result, the experimental studies on the factors affecting fishing grounds’
model’s lack of spatial interaction effects emphasizes the im- footprints.
portance of ignoring such effects when conducting This result is consistent with Khizran et al. (2020), where
they revealed a fragile spatial environmental effect of financial

Table 4 The LM test for the

existence of the spatial lag or the Spatial fixed effects Time-period fixed Spatial and time-period
spatial error in the models effects fixed effects

Model 1 LM spatial lag 0.331 (0.565) 0.645 (0.422) 0.135 (0.713)

LM spatial error 0.137 (0.712) 0.31 (0.577) 14.663*** (0.000)
Model 2 LM spatial lag 5.421** (0.02) 1.153 (0.283) 9.762*** (0.002)
LM spatial error 23.71*** (0.000) 0.34 (0.56) 0.202 (0.653)
Model 3 LM spatial lag 0.476 (0.49) 0.748 (0.387) 0.312 (0.577)
LM spatial error 3.37* (0.066) 0.53 (0.466) 13.957*** (0.000)
Model 4 LM spatial lag 1.433 (0.231) 0.82 (0.365) 1.685 (0.194)
LM spatial error 7.65*** (0.006) 0.188 (0.664) 4.002** (0.045)
Model 5 LM spatial lag 0.159 (0.69) 0.967 (0.326) 0.151 (0.698)
LM spatial error 0.163 (0.686) 1.056 (0.304) 14.373*** (0.000)
Model 6 LM spatial lag 2.828* (0.093) 0.648 (0.421) 4.79** (0.029)
LM spatial error 1.409 (0.235) 0.317 (0.573) 27.863*** (0.000)
Model 7 LM spatial lag 0.294 (0.588) 1.46 (0.227) 0.127 (0.721)
LM spatial error 0.1 (0.752) 0.565 (0.452) 12.34*** (0.000)
Model 8 LM spatial lag 0.224 (0.636) 0.508 (0.476) 0.404 (0.525)
LM spatial error 0.024 (0.876) 0.033 (0.857) 12.036*** (0.001)
Model 9 LM spatial lag 4.876** (0.027) 0.161 (0.688) 2.902* (0.088)
LM spatial error 0.026 (0.872) 1.004 (0.316) 9.773*** (0.002)
Model 10 LM spatial lag 0.338 (0.561) 1.063 (0.303) 0.055 (0.815)
LM spatial error 1.387 (0.239) 0.02 (0.888) 9.948*** (0.002)
Model 11 LM spatial lag 5.065** (0.024) 0.638 (0.425) 5.277** (0.022)
LM spatial error 11.203*** (0.001) 0.285 (0.594) 0.973 (0.324)

Note: p value, ***, **, and * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively
Source: Authors’ estimations
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

Environ Sci Pollut Res

development in a panel of SAARC countries from 1990–
2017. They confirmed the existence of country-specific envi-
ronmental quality characteristics in their sample countries.
Tables 5 and 6 present the results of estimating different
models. The control variables of all 11 estimation models are
identical, and the difference is in the existence of 9 different
components of economic freedom in each model. The reason
for such a distinction is the possibility of collinearity between
different indicators of economic freedom. According to the
results, each percentage growth in GDP per capita leads to
significant growth of approximately 3.6% in the fishing foot-
print index. The coefficient of the squared form of the loga-
rithm of GDP per capita is also negative and significant. A
value of −1.9 indicates that the Kuznets (EKC) hypothesis
holds for fishing grounds and that economics follows an
inverted U-shape.
This finding is consistent with those of Tsuchiya et al.
(2021), Nathaniel and Khan (2020), and Clark and Longo
(2019). They conclude that the effect of GDP per capita on
the fisheries footprint varies according to income level and
that developing countries prioritize economic development
over environmental quality.
In contrast, developed countries prioritize activities that are
more detrimental to the environment. Other control variables,
including the logarithm of energy intensity as an indicator of
energy efficiency, rent of resources, and urbanization, do not
significantly affect the fishing grounds’ footprint. This result
conforms with Usman and Hammar (2021) and Khalid et al.
(2021), where they observed that renewable energy consump-
tion significantly improved the environmental quality in
APEC countries and most SAARC countries. Moreover, our
results are inconsistent with the results of Usman et al. (2021b)
and Majeed et al. (2021), where they observed that the use of
non-renewable energy has a devastating effect on environ-
mental quality in their sample countries.
In terms of urbanization’s impact on environmental quality,
our findings are consistent with those of Chikaraishi et al.
(2015), Fan et al. (2006), and Dodman (2009). They conclud-
ed that an elevated level of modernization in urban areas could
help mitigate environmental degradation caused by urbaniza-
tion. Our findings, however, contradict the observations by
Tsuchiya et al. (2021), who found that urbanization has a
significant adverse effect on the ecological food footprint per
capita in Japan.

Table 5 Estimation results for models 1A to 6A

Model 1A Model 2A Model 3A Model 4A Model 5A Model 6A

lnGDPit 3.638*** 3.461*** 3.647*** 3.835*** 3.482*** 3.629***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
lnGDP2it −0.188*** −0.177*** −0.19*** −0.192*** −0.189*** −0.187***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
lnENERit 0.175 0.164 0.214 0.248 0.116 0.177
(0.316) (0.342) (0.228) (0.155) (0.497) (0.315)
lnRENTit −0.005 0.01 −0.016 0.012 0.001 −0.005
(0.873) (0.745) (0.63) (0.692) (0.964) (0.878)
lnURBit −0.355 −0.416 −0.382 −0.733** −0.173 −0.354
(0.236) (0.16) (0.203) (0.024) (0.556) (0.239)
lnEFIit 0.991***
(0.002)
−0.1
(0.237)
lnGIIit 0.201***
(0.004)
lnTBIit 0.912***
(0.000)
lnGSIit 0.016
(0.929)
LogL 47.178 51.978 47.889 51.292 56.398 47.182
R2 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.985

Note: p value, ***, **, and * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively
Source: Authors’ estimations
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 6 Estimation results for models 7A to 11A

Model 7A Model 8A Model 9A Model 10A Model 11A

lnGDPit 3.643*** 3.621*** 4.415*** 3.22*** 3.687***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
lnGDP2it −0.192*** −0.185*** −0.226*** −0.163*** −0.191***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
lnENERit 0.107 0.213 0.165 0.226 0.175
(0.54) (0.219) (0.331) (0.185) (0.316)
lnRENTit −0.014 0.007 −0.001 −0.014 −0.004
(0.652) (0.825) (0.984) (0.649) (0.901)
lnURBit −0.407 −0.262 −0.364 −0.424 −0.373
(0.17) (0.381) (0.213) (0.147) (0.217)
lnBFIit 0.318***
(0.005)
lnMFIit 0.462***
(0.008)
lnTFIit −0.402***
(0.000)
lnIFIit −0.179***
(0.000)
lnFFIit 0.038
(0.61)
LogL 51.161 50.781 55.353 55.173 47.311
R2 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.985

Note: p value, ***, **, and * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Source: Authors’ estimations

The total economic freedom index in model 2A shows a
positive and significant effect so that each percentage increase
leads to a 0.991% increase in the fishing grounds footprint.
This result is consistent with the results of Akadırı et al.
(2021), Bjørnskov (2020), Clark and Lango (2019),
Holleman (2018), Longo et al. (2015), Foster et al. (2011),
and Carlsson and Lundstrom (2003), where they confirm the
positive effect of economic freedom on ecological footprints.
However, the different components of the economic free-
dom index showed controversial effects, such that the govern-
ment integrity, tax burden, business freedom, and monetary
freedom indices, respectively, with coefficients of 0.2, 0.912,
0.318, and 0.462, have positive and significant effects on the
dependent variable, and these results are inconsistent with
Baloch et al. (2018) and Sun et al. (2019). The trade freedom
index with a coefficient of −0.402 and the investment freedom
index with a coefficient of 0.179 showed adverse and signif-
icant effects on the fishing grounds footprint. This result is
consistent with Yang et al. (2021a, b), Doytch (2020),
Zhang et al. (2017), Khan et al. (2017), and Carlsson and
Lundstorm (2003), whom all confirmed a negative and signif-
icant effect of trade openness on ecological footprint.
Additionally, our findings corroborate those of Zafar et al.
(2019), Liu et al. (2018), Solarin and Al-Mulali (2018), and
Asghari (2013), all of which confirmed a negative relationship
between FDI and ecological footprint in the US, China, devel-
oped countries, and MENA countries, respectively.
Although scientists confirm the positive effects of econom-
ic freedom on economic growth and welfare, they argue that
economic freedom stimulates demand for food, safe water,
energy, roads, railways, urban lands, agricultural lands, coast-
al development, and other infrastructures. Then economic ac-
tivities in public and private sectors exacerbate the ecological
footprint (Dietz and Jorgenson 2013). Additionally, economic
freedom promotes a high rate of resource waste. As a result,
most studies supported the idea that economic freedom harms
ecological footprints. These contradictory findings for various
economic freedom indices are also confirmed in this study.
Regression results of the PFMOLS model
Additionally, we investigated the model variables’ long-run
effects on the fishing grounds footprint using cointegrating
panel estimators, specifically, the panel fully modified OLS
(PFMOLS) provided by Phillips and Moon (2000). The pos-
sible non-stationarity of the model variables and the
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

Environ Sci Pollut Res

possibility of a long-run relationship led to the re-estimation of
the models in Tables 7 and 8 using a different econometric
model that allowed the long-term effects of the variables to be
examined. The sign and significance of the coefficients of
Tables 7 and 8 are in line with Tables 5 and 6, and only the
magnitude of the coefficients is somehow different. Therefore,
the results can be viewed with more confidence.
Conclusions and remarks
This study examined the effectiveness of determinants of fish-
ing footprints using data from 17 countries in Asia-Pacific
countries from 2000 to 2017. In nine different models, nine
indices of economic freedom were combined with control
variables. Diagnostic tests ruled out the existence of spatial
effects on the way variables affect each other, indicating that
fishing footprint management policies should be based on
national rather than regional policies. The study’s findings
confirm the Kuznets curve hypothesis in the studied countries’
fisheries sectors. Significance of the level and squared form
coefficients of the logarithm of GDP per capita indicate that in
the early stages of economic development, new technologies
for harvesting aquatic resources and expanding seafood
consumption standards lead to more extraction from fishing
resources.
This upward trend in fish extraction is reversing, and ex-
traction intensity gradually decreases to the point where it may
eventually cease entirely. The intensity of energy consump-
tion as an indicator for production efficiency has no discern-
ible effect on the footprint of fishing, implying that the chal-
lenges associated with extracting fishery resources take prece-
dence over improving production procedures and efficiency in
this field. Rents from natural resources, which in most studies
have harmed ecological footprints, do not significantly affect
fishing footprints. The expansion of natural resource rents,
such as oil, leads to the emergence of windfall revenues for
countries. This incentivizes production and alleviates eco-
nomic pressure on other environmental resources, and a sub-
stitute exists. The findings indicate that the presence of earned
income from other natural resources does not affect the envi-
ronmental pressures associated with the extraction of fishery
resources and alternatives, implying that fish consumption
patterns take precedence over earned income from other nat-
ural resource extraction.
Urbanization also facilitates migration from rural to urban
areas and alleviates the environmental pressures of natural
resource consumption in rural areas. Only a few models

Table 7 Long-run estimation of fisheries footprint using PFMOLS for models 1B to 6B

Model 1B Model 2B Model 3B Model 4B Model 5B Model 6B

lnGDPit 5.079*** 4.707*** 6.793*** 5.232*** 4.753*** 5.155***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
lnGDP2it −0.269*** −0.247*** −0.373*** −0.268*** −0.265*** −0.275***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
lnENERit 0.461 0.422 0.428 0.565* 0.287 0.417
(0.173) (0.201) (0.31) (0.092) (0.38) (0.217)
lnRENTit −0.019 −0.004 −0.041 0 −0.014 −0.021
(0.713) (0.939) (0.559) (0.993) (0.784) (0.682)
lnURBit −0.551 −0.575 −0.865 −1.044* −0.297 −0.536
(0.294) (0.263) (0.153) (0.064) (0.56) (0.305)
lnEFIit 1.023*
(0.051)
lnPRIit −0.179
(0.309)
lnGIIit 0.228**
(0.045)
lnTBIit 0.976***
(0.005)
lnGSIit −0.124
(0.672)
R2 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.987 0.987 0.986

Note: p value, ***, **, and * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively
Source: Authors’ estimations
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 8 Long-run estimation of fisheries footprint using PFMOLS for models 7B to 11B

Model 7B Model 8B Model 9B Model 10B Model 11B

lnGDPit 5.074*** 5.309*** 6.126*** 4.434*** 4.429***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
lnGDP2it −0.275*** −0.28*** −0.322*** −0.232*** −0.215***
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.003)
lnENERit 0.344 0.595* 0.488 0.493 0.787**
(0.302) (0.076) (0.139) (0.129) (0.042)
lnRENTit −0.035 −0.005 −0.015 −0.03 −0.013
(0.493) (0.927) (0.765) (0.551) (0.821)
lnURBit −0.652 −0.396 −0.571 −0.572 −1.187*
(0.205) (0.45) (0.262) (0.255) (0.048)
lnBFIit 0.43**
(0.022)
lnMFIit 0.824***
(0.009)
lnTFIit −0.497***
(0.003)
lnIFIit −0.187**
(0.01)
lnFFIit 0.125
(0.378)
R2 0.987 0.987 0.987 0.987 0.986

Note: p value, ***, **, and * show significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively
Source: Authors’ estimations

demonstrate an adverse effect of urbanization on fishing foot-
print, indicating that the trend toward urbanization has had
little effect on reducing fishing resource extraction.
Primarily based on the outcomes, the economic freedom
outcomes on fishery footprint are tremendous for indices, in-
cluding government integrity, tax burden, commercial enter-
prise freedom, and monetary freedom. These outcomes can be
traced back to their subsequent effects on economic growth,
which resulted in increased population and consumption and
simplified access to goods and services within nations.
Improved government integrity through the elimination of
systemic corruption, results in increased economic growth,
as corruption undermines the transparency necessary for the
green functioning of a free market. Additionally, the higher
the tax load, the smaller the return for an individual’s mone-
tary passion and the lower the motivation to work at all. On the
other hand, increased tax rates impede people and businesses
from pursuing their objectives in the marketplace, lowering
the total level of non-public area recreation. Commercial en-
terprise freedom is another indication of economic expansion
since redundant laws are the most pervasive impediment to
unrestrained entrepreneurial activity, driving up production
costs and making it harder for entrepreneurs to succeed in
the marketplace.
On the other hand, economic freedom is another factor in
economic growth, placing additional strain on manufacturing
and fishing resource consumption. Market behavior is
distorted by both inflation and fee controls. With a fiscal pol-
icy that seeks to contain inflation, maintain fee equilibrium,
and preserve national wealth, humans can rely on market
prices soon, and investments, financial savings, and other
long-term goals may be undertaken with a greater degree of
optimism. Through assessment, an inflationary policy seizes
money in the form of an invisible tax, distorts costs, and mis-
allocates resources and increases the cost of doing business.
Additionally, a few financial freedom indices, such as
change and investment freedom, reduce environmental strain
and reduce fisheries’ footprint. These effects may be attributed
to the fantastic outcomes of such freedoms at the business
level, which fosters investment in industries focused on export
expansion or in industries no longer associated with the fish-
eries zone, allowing for alternative production forms within
the production quarter. The degree to which authorities ob-
struct the free flow of international commerce has an imme-
diate effect on people’s capacity to achieve their financial
goals and optimize their productivity and well-being. In many
cases, alternate obstacles also placed superior-era services and
products past the reach of neighborhood marketers, restricting
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
their product improvement. Additionally, some unfastened
and open investment surroundings provide maximum entre-
preneurial opportunities and incentives for high economic in-
terest, extra productivity, and process creation.
The findings of this study provide new insights for
policymakers in the Asia-Pacific region as they develop com-
prehensive economic and environmental policies aimed at
sustaining long-term economic growth while improving envi-
ronmental quality. It is recommended that special consider-
ation be given to the environmental consequences of various
dimensions of economic freedom, which are typically consid-
ered when countries assess their economic development pros-
pects. Policymakers must prioritize foreign direct investment
and free trade when addressing the consequences of depleted
fishery resources. Given these findings, authorities should pri-
oritize investments in environmental quality through foreign
direct investment and the exchange of environmentally friend-
ly technologies via trade policies such as tax exemptions, ini-
tial tariff reductions, and subsidies. The governments of these
countries must promote conventional capital, which benefits
human life by preserving a clean environment.
Author contribution MS Karimi and M Khezri: conceptualization and
methodology; YA Khan: software, validation, and formal analysis; M
Khezri, S Razzaghi, and YA Khan: writing — original draft, writing —
review and editing, and visualization.
Data Availability All results reported in this research were carried out in
R Studio computational environment. Data used in this research are taken
from World Bank available at https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/
world-development-indicators.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate This article does not contain
any studies with human participants performed by the author.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abdouli M, Hammami S (2017) Exploring links between FDI inflows,
energy consumption, and economic growth: further evidence from
MENA countries. J Econ Dev 42(1):95–117
Abdi M (2017) Does economic, financial and institutional developments
matter for environmental quality? A comparative analysis of EU and
MEA countries. J Environ Manag 188:183–194
Ahmed Z, Asghar MM, Malik MN, Nawaz K (2020) Moving towards a
sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage between natural re-
sources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecolog-
ical footprint in China. Res Policy 67:101677
Akadırı SS, Alola AA, Usman O (2021) Energy mix outlook and the
EKC hypothesis in BRICS countries: a perspective of economic
Environ Sci Pollut Res
freedom vs. economic growth. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(7):8922–
8926
Al-Mulali U (2011) Oil consumption, CO2 emission and economic
growth in MENA countries. Energy 36(10):6165–6171
Alola AA, Bekun FV, Sarkodie SA (2019) Dynamic impact of trade
policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-
renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe.
Sci Total Environ 685:702–709
Anselin L, Le Gallo J, Jayet H. (2008). Spatial panel econometrics. In The
econometrics of panel data (pp. 625–660). Springer
Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the
environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908
Asghari M (2013) Does FDI promote MENA region’s environment qual-
ity? Pollution halo or pollution haven hypothesis. Int J Sci Res
Environ Sci 1(6):92–100
Baloch A, Shah SZ, Noor ZM, Magsi HB (2018) The nexus between
income inequality, economic growth and environmental degradation
in Pakistan. GeoJournal 83(2):207–222
Baltagi, BH (2005) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. 3rd Edition,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York
Berkes F, Hughes TP, Steneck RS, Wilson JA, Bellwood DR, Crona B,
Folke C, Gunderson L, Leslie H, Norberg J (2006) Globalization,
roving bandits, and marine resources. Science 311(5767):1557–
1558
Bilgili F, Ulucak R, Koçak E, İlkay SÇ (2020) Does globalization matter
for environmental sustainability? Empirical investigation for Turkey
by Markov regime switching models. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(1):
1087–1100
Bjørnskov C (2020) Economic freedom and the CO2 Kuznets Curve.
Available at SSRN 3508271
Carlsson F, Lundström S (2003) The effects of economic and political
freedom on CO2 emissions. Economic Studies, Department of
Economics, School of Economics and Commercial Law, Göteborg
University: Gothenburg, Sweden:79
Carlsson F, Nam PK, Linde-Rahr M, Martinsson P (2007) Are
Vietnamese farmers concerned with their relative position in socie-
ty? J Dev Stud 43(7):1177–1188
Charfeddine L, Mrabet Z (2017) The impact of economic development
and social-political factors on ecological footprint: a panel data anal-
ysis for 15 MENA countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 76:138–154
Chikaraishi M, Fujiwara A, Kaneko S, Poumanyvong P, Komatsu S,
Kalugin A (2015) The moderating effects of urbanization on carbon
dioxide emissions: a latent class modeling approach. Technol
Forecast Soc Chang 90:302–317
Chou Y-H, Spletter ML, Yaksi E, Leong JC, Wilson RI, Luo L (2010)
Diversity and wiring variability of olfactory local interneurons in the
drosophila antennal lobe. Nat Neurosci 13(4):439–449
Clark TP, Longo SB (2019) Examining the effect of economic develop-
ment, region, and time period on the fisheries footprints of nations
(1961–2010). Int J Comp Sociol 60(4):225–248
Clark TP, Longo SB, Clark B, Jorgenson AK (2018) Socio-structural
drivers, fisheries footprints, and seafood consumption: a compara-
tive international study, 1961-2012. J Rural Stud 57:140–146
Clausen R, York R (2008) Global biodiversity decline of marine and
freshwater fish: a cross-national analysis of economic, demographic,
and ecological influences. Soc Sci Res 37(4):1310–1320
Cole MA (2004) Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environ-
mental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. Ecol Econ 48(1):71–
81
Cole MA, Neumayer E (2004) Examining the impact of demographic
factors on air pollution. Popul Environ 26(1):5–21
Danish, Baloch MA, Mahmood N, Zhang JW (2019a) Effect of natural
resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2
emissions in BRICS countries. Sci Total Environ 678:632–638
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Danish, Hassan ST, Baloch MA, Mahmood N, Zhang J (2019b) Linking
economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital
and biocapacity. Sustain Cities Soc 47:101516
Danish, Wang Z (2018) Dynamic relationship between tourism, econom-
ic growth, and environmental quality. J Sustain Tour 26(11):1928–
1943
Dietz T, Jorgenson A (2013) Structural human ecology: new essays in
risk, energy, and sustainability. Washington State University Press
Dodman D (2009) Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of
urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environ Urban 21(1):
185–201
Doytch N (2020) The impact of foreign direct investment on the ecolog-
ical footprints of nations. Environ Sustain Indicators 8:100085
Ekeocha DO (2021) Urbanization, inequality, economic development
and ecological footprint: searching for turning points and regional
homogeneity in Africa. J Clean Prod 291:125244
Elhorst JP (2010) Applied spatial econometrics: raising the bar. Spatial
economic analysis, 5(1):9–28
Fan Y, Liu L-C, Wu G, Wei Y-M (2006) Analyzing impact factors of
CO2 emissions using the STIRPAT model. Environ Impact Assess
Rev 26(4):377–395
FAO (2020) The state of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020.
Sustainability in action, Rome
Farhani S, Shahbaz M, Sbia R, Chaibi A (2014) What does MENA region
initially need: grow output or mitigate CO2 emissions? Econ Model
38:270–281
Foster JB (1999) Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: classical foundations for
environmental sociology. Am J Sociol 105(2):366–405
Foster JB, Clark B, York R (2011) The ecological rift: capitalism’s war on
the earth. NYU Press
Frey RS (2003) The transfer of core-based hazardous production process-
es to the export processing zones of the periphery: the Maquiladora
Centers of Northern Mexico. J World-Syst Res 9(2):317–354
Gould KA, Pellow DN, Schnaiberg A (2004) Interrogating the treadmill
of production: everything you wanted to know about the treadmill
but were afraid to ask. Organ Environ 17(3):296–316
Grossman GM, Krueger AB. (1991) Environmental Impacts of a North
American Free Trade Agreement (No. 3914). National Bureau of
Economic Research, Inc
Hill RJ, Magnani E (2002) An exploration of the conceptual and empir-
ical basis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Aust Econ Pap 41(2):
239–254
Holleman H (2018) Dust bowls of empire: imperialism, environmental
politics, and the injustice of green capitalism. Yale University Press
Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emis-
sions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37(12):
5167–5172
Jorgenson AK (2009) The sociology of unequal exchange in ecological
context: a panel study of lower-income countries, 1975–2000 1.
Sociol Forum 24:22–46
Jorgenson AK, Rice P (2012) The sociology of ecologically unequal
exchange and carbon dioxide emissions, 1960–2005. Soc Sci Res
41(2):242–252
Kasman A, Duman YS (2015) CO2 emissions, economic growth, energy
consumption, trade and urbanization in new EU member and can-
didate countries: a panel data analysis. Econ Model 44:97–103
Kassouri Y, Altıntaş H (2020) Human well-being versus ecological foot-
print in MENA countries: a trade-off? J Environ Manag 263:110405
Khalid K, Usman M, Mehdi MA (2021) The determinants of environ-
mental quality in the SAARC region: a spatial heterogeneous panel
data approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(6):6422–6436
Khan A, Muhammad F, Chenggang Y, Hussain J, Bano S, Khan MA
(2020) The impression of technological innovations and natural re-
sources in energy-growth-environment nexus: a new look into
BRICS economies. Sci Total Environ 727:138265
Khan MTI, Yaseen MR, Ali Q (2017) Dynamic relationship between
financial development, energy consumption, trade and greenhouse
gas: comparison of upper middle income countries from Asia,
Europe, Africa and America. J Clean Prod 161:567–580
LeSage J, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. Chapman
and Hall/CRC
Liddle B, Lung S (2010) Age-structure, urbanization, and climate change
in developed countries: revisiting STIRPAT for disaggregated pop-
ulation and consumption-related environmental impacts. Popul
Environ 31(5):317–343
Liu Q, Wang S, Zhang W, Zhan D, Li J (2018) Does foreign direct
investment affect environmental pollution in China's cities? A spa-
tial econometric perspective. Sci Total Environ 613:521–529
Longo SB, Clark B, York R (2013) The globalization of ecologically
intensive aquaculture (1984–2008). J Environ Stud Sci 3(3):297–
305
Longo SB, Clausen R, Clark B (2015) The tragedy of the commodity:
oceans, fisheries, and aquaculture. Rutgers University Press
Majeed MT, Tauqir A, Mazhar M, Samreen I (2021) Asymmetric effects
of energy consumption and economic growth on ecological foot-
print: new evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–17
McMichael P (2012) Food regime crisis and revaluing the agrarian ques-
tion. In: In Rethinking agricultural policy regimes: food security,
climate change and the future resilience of global agriculture.
Emerald Group Publishing, Limited
Miller T, Kim AB, Roberts JM, Tyrrell P (2020) 2020 Index of economic
freedom. Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Mulekom L, Axelsson A, Batungbacal EP, Baxter D, Siregar R, de la
Torre I, for Justice S (2006) Trade and export orientation of fisheries
in Southeast Asia: under-priced export at the expense of domestic
food security and local economies. Ocean Coast Manag 49(9-10):
546-561.
Nathaniel S, Khan SAR (2020) The nexus between urbanization, renew-
able energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. J
Clean Prod 272:122709
Nathaniel SP, Iheonu CO (2019) Carbon dioxide abatement in Africa: the
role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. Sci Total
Environ 679:337–345
Omri A, Daly S, Rault C, Chaibi A (2015) Financial development, envi-
ronmental quality, trade and economic growth: what causes what in
MENA countries. Energy Econ 48:242–252
Oshin S, Ogundipe A (2014) An empirical examination of environmental
Kuznets curve (EKC) in West Africa. Euro-Asia J Econ Finance
3(1):18–28
Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and
economic growth in Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(9):3220–
3225
Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Saboori B (2016) Investigating the environmental
Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological foot-
print. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1916–1928
Pedroni P (2001) Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels.
Rev Econ Stat 83(4):727–731
Perman R, Stern DI (2003) Evidence from panel unit root and
cointegration tests that the environmental Kuznets curve does not
exist. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 47(3):325–347
Phillips PC, Moon HR (2000) Nonstationary panel data analysis: an
overview of some recent developments. Econ Rev 19(3):263–286
Rockström J, Lannerstad M, Falkenmark M (2007) Assessing the water
challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries. Proc
Natl Acad Sci 104(15):6253–6260
Saidi K, Omri A (2020) The impact of renewable energy on carbon
emissions and economic growth in 15 major renewable energy-
consuming countries. Environ Res 186:109567
Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019) Effect of foreign direct investments, eco-
nomic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas
emissions in developing countries. Sci Total Environ 646:862–871
Downloaded from https://iranpaper.ir
Schnaiberg A (1980) The environment: from surplus to scarcity. Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press
Sharif A, Afshan S, Qureshi MA (2019) Idolization and ramification
between globalization and ecological footprints: evidence from
quantile-on-quantile approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(11):
11191–11211
Sharma R, Sinha A, Kautish P (2020) Examining the impacts of econom-
ic and demographic aspects on the ecological footprint in South and
Southeast Asian countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(29):36970–
36982
Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U (2018) Influence of foreign direct investment on
indicators of environmental degradation. Environ Sci Pollut Res
25(25):24845–24859
Solarin SA, Gil-Alana LA, Lafuente C (2021) Persistence and sustain-
ability of fishing grounds footprint: evidence from 89 countries. Sci
Total Environ 751:141594
Stern DI (1998) Progress on the environmental Kuznets curve? Environ
Dev Econ 3(2):173–196
Stokey N (1998) Are there limits to growth? Int Econ Rev 39(1):1–31
Sugiyama S, Staples DJ, Smith SF (2004) Status and potential of fisheries
and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and
the Pacific
Sun CC, Royle JA, Fuller AK (2019) Incorporating citizen science data in
spatially explicit integrated population models. Ecology 100(9):
e02777
Tamazian A, Rao BB (2010) Do economic, financial and institutional
developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from
transitional economies. Energy Econ 32(1):137–145
Tsuchiya K, Iha K, Murthy A, Lin D, Altiok S, Rupprecht CD, Kiyono H,
McGreevy SR (2021) Decentralization & local food: Japan’s region-
al ecological footprints indicate localized sustainability strategies. J
Clean Prod 292:126043
Ulucak R, Khan SUD (2020) Relationship between energy intensity and
CO2 emissions: does economic policy matter? Sustain Dev 28(5):
1457–1464
Ulucak R, Ozcan B (2020) Relationship between energy consumption
and environmental sustainability in OECD countries: the role of
natural resources rents. Res Policy 69:101803
Usman M, Hammar N (2021) Dynamic relationship between technolog-
ical innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and eco-
logical footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 28(12):15519–15536
Usman M, Khalid K, Mehdi MA (2021a) What determines environmen-
tal deficit in Asia? Embossing the role of renewable and non-
renewable energy utilization. Renew Energy 168:1165–1176
Usman M, Kousar R, Yaseen MR, Makhdum MSA (2020) An empirical
nexus between economic growth, energy utilization, trade policy,
and ecological footprint: a continent-wise comparison in upper-
middle-income countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(31):38995–
39018
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Usman M, Makhdum MSA, Kousar R (2021b) Does financial inclusion,
renewable and non-renewable energy utilization accelerate ecologi-
cal footprints and economic growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest
emitting countries. Sustain Cities Soc 65:102590
Usman M, Makhdum MSA (2021) What abates ecological footprint in
BRICS-T region? Exploring the influence of renewable energy,
non-renewable energy, agriculture, forest area and financial devel-
opment. Renew Energy 179:12–28
Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C,
Fogarty MJ, Fulton EA, Hutchings JA, Jennings S (2009)
Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325(5940):578–585
Wang Y, Kang L, Wu X, Xiao Y (2013) Estimating the environmental
Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: A spatial
econometric approach. Ecological Indicators 34:15–21
Wu R, Geng Y, Liu W (2017) Trends of natural resource footprints in the
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries. J Clean Prod 142:
775–782
WWF (2018) The living planet report: biodiversity, biocapacity and de-
velopment. WWF-International, Gland, Switzerland. https://www.
worldwildlife.org/publications/living-planet-report-2018
WWF (2012) The living planet report: biodiversity, biocapacity and de-
velopment. WWF-International, Gland, Switzerland. https://www.
worldwildlife.org/publications/living-planet-report-2012-
biodiversity-biocapacity-and-better-choices
Yang B, Jahanger A, Usman M, Khan MA (2021a) The dynamic linkage
between globalization, financial development, energy utilization,
and environmental sustainability in GCC countries. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 28(13):16568–16588
Yang B, Jahanger A, Usman M, Atif J (2021b) Do industrialization,
economic growth and globalization processes influence the ecolog-
ical footprint and healthcare expenditures? Fresh insights based on
the STIRPAT model for countries with the highest healthcare ex-
penditures. Sustain Product Consump 28:893–910
York R, Gossard MH (2004) Cross-national meat and fish consumption:
exploring the effects of modernization and ecological context. Ecol
Econ 48(3):293–302
York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: ana-
lytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental im-
pacts. Ecol Econ 46(3):351–365
You W, Lv Z (2018) Spillover effects of economic globalization on CO2
emissions: a spatial panel approach. Energy Econ 73:248–257
Zafar MW, Zaidi SAH, Khan NR, Mirza FM, Hou F, Kirmani SAA
(2019) The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign
direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the United
States. Res Policy 63:101428
Zhang Q, Yang J, Sun Z, Wu F (2017) Analyzing the impact factors of
energy-related CO2 emissions in China: what can spatial panel re-
gressions tell us? J Clean Prod 161:1085–1093
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.