Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20431-7

APPLIED ECONOMICS OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT IN SUSTAINABILITY

Impact of coal rents, transportation, electricity consumption,

and economic globalization on ecological footprint in the USA
Zheng Wenlong1 · Muhammad Atif Nawaz2   · Amena Sibghatullah3 · Syed Ehsan Ullah4 · Supat Chupradit5   ·
Vu Minh Hieu6 

Received: 15 October 2021 / Accepted: 20 April 2022 / Published online: 2 May 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Over the last three decades, the world has been facing the phenomenon of the ecological deficit as the ecological footprint
is continuously rising due to the persistent decline of the per-capita bio-capacity. Moreover, there is a substantial increase in
globalization and electricity consumption for the same period, and transportation is contributing to economic prosperity at
the cost of environmental sustainability. Understanding the determinants of ecological footprint is thus critical for suggesting
appropriate policies for environmental sustainability. As a result, this study analyzes the impacts of economic globalization,
transportation, coal rents, and electricity consumption in ecological footprint in the context of the USA over the period
1995 to 2018. The data have been extracted from “Global Footprint Network,” “Swiss Economic Institute,” and “World
Development Indicators.” The current study has also applied the flexible Fourier form nonlinear unit root test to examine the
stationarity among variables. For the empirical estimation, a novel technique, the “quantile auto-regressive distributive lag
model,” is applied in the study to deal with the nonlinear associations of the variables and to evaluate the long-term stability
of variables across quantiles. The study’s findings indicate that coal rents, transportation, and globalization significantly
and positively contribute to the deterioration of ecological footprints at different quantile ranges in the short and long run.
Electricity consumption is found to have a positive and significant impact at lower quantile ranges in the long run but not
have a significant impact in the short run. The study suggested that lowering the dependence of the transport sector on fossil
fuels, more use of hydroelectricity, and stringent strategies to curb coal consumption would be helpful to reduce the positive
influence of these variables on ecological footprints in the USA.

Keywords  Ecological footprints · Economic globalization · Transportation · Coal rents · QARDL · USA

Responsible Editor: Eyup Dogan 1

School of Economics and Management, Chang’an
University Middle-Section of Nan’er Huan Road Xi’an,
* Vu Minh Hieu Shaanxi Province 710064, China
hieu.vm@vlu.edu.vn 2
Department of Economics, The Islamia University
Zheng Wenlong of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
1556236510@qq.com 3
College of Management Sciences, KIET University, Karachi,
Muhammad Atif Nawaz Pakistan
atif.nawaz.baloch@gmail.com 4
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Changlun, Malaysia
Amena Sibghatullah 5
Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty
amena@kiet.edu.pk
of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University,
Syed Ehsan Ullah Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
syed_ehsan_ullah@oyagsb.uum.edu.my 6
Faculty of Business Administration, Van Lang University,
Supat Chupradit 69/68 Dang Thuy Tram, Ward 13, Binh Thanh Dist.,
supat.c@cmu.ac.th Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
Introduction
One of the greatest issues in today’s world is environmen-
tal degradation. Greenhouse gases (GHG), the thinning of
the ozone layer, and global warming are all severe risks to
human life. The quality of the air and water is frequently
deteriorating. In this regard, several scholars have used vari-
ous measurements to estimate the environmental deteriora-
tion depending on the variables chosen, e.g., C ­ O2 emission
and GHG emission. The use of C ­ O2 emissions as a proxy
for environmental degradation has a herding behavior. Car-
bon dioxide emission selection is partially faulty as it only
considers data on comprehensive environmental degrada-
tion due to consumption of energy and ignores intermediate
consequences and larger environmental considerations (Al-
Mulali et al. 2015). Therefore, the ecological footprint (EFP)
provides a unique indicator of environmental sustainability
as it measures the reliance of human economies on natural
assets. To put it another way, it assesses the societal and
technical influences on the Earth’s ecosystem (Nawaz et al.
2021a; Zhan et al. 2021).
The concept of ecological footprints (EFP) was first intro-
duced by Wackernagel and Rees (1998) as the usage of land
and water to produce all human-consumed resources and the
removal of waste produced by the population (Hassan et al.
2019). Global Footprint Network defines the term ecologi-
cal footprint (EFP) as “a measurement of how much natural
resources we are currently having and how much we have
consumed” (Sun et al. 2020; Ullah et al. 2021). The EFP
serves as a framework for contrasting human demands for
ecological assets with natural ecological capacities to supply
these demands while also absorbing waste generated in the
process (Xue et al. 2021).
The total EFP is divided into three categories: EFP of
production, EFP of consumption, and net EFP embodied in
international commerce (Xue et al. 2021). All the renewable
resources utilized in the production process are included in the
EFP.1 Agriculture footprint, for example, refers to the natural
assets used in agriculture (the land required to grow all crops,
including livestock/animal feeds, oil, fish foods, crops, and
rubber). The annual primary production required to obtain
marine species is measured by the fishing grounds’ footprint.
The land needed by different industries, transportation, or any
other activity associated with the construction of infrastructural
facilities is measured by the construction land footprint. The
forest area necessary to absorb carbon emissions induced by
1
  Six categories of EFP are estimated based on the nature of human
ecological demand: grazing land EFP, cropland EFP, forestland
EFP, fishing grounds EFP, built-up land EFP, and carbon EFP. The
aggregate of these six types yields the overall EFP figures (Xue et al.
2021).
43041
human actions is measured by carbon footprint and forest land
footprint (Ullah et al. 2021; Zhuang et al. 2021).
Various factors affecting EFP have been identified
through research, such as economic growth, natural
resources, tourism, foreign direct investment, and resource
rents (Ahmad et al. 2021; Hassan et al. 2019; Kongbuamai
et al. 2020; H. Liu and Kim 2018; Ozturk et al. 2016; Ulucak
and Khan 2020; Zeraibi et al. 2021). However, the literature
has not extensively researched some important factors that
contribute to environmental sustainability in the context of
EFP. One of these factors is “globalization,” which refers to
the growing economic, social, and political interconnection
of economies as a result of trade across the border, mobility
of the population, investment, technology, and information
flows (Z. A. Baloch et al. 2021; Chien et al. 2021b). It can
be defined as a transition from isolated countries character-
ized by different regulations, restrictions, and cultural differ-
ences to interconnected and globally interrelated economies
(Chien et al. 2021a). The KOF index developed by Dreher
(2006) is commonly used to gauge globalization having
three dimensions: economic, political, and social globaliza-
tion. Out of these three dimensions, since the 1990s, eco-
nomic globalization has accelerated, resulting in significant
shifts in capital flows and foreign trade liberalization. Eco-
nomic globalization boosts the total productivity of the fac-
tors of production, expands investment opportunities, and
strengthens financial markets. Various advantages accrue to
the countries through economic globalization such as FDI,
trade, and portfolio investment choices which are helpful in
their economic development (Pata 2021).
Moreover, as a result of increased transportation and
industrial output, globalization enhances human activities,
which raises pollution levels. On the other hand, it may have
positive effects on the environment through different chan-
nels. Firstly, foreign investors frequently employ efficient
and innovative technologies to reduce the consumption of
resources and the cost of production. Even local firms use
the same technology to be competitive, which encourages
environmental sustainability. Second, through structural
change, trade openness can aid in the development of a
knowledge-based service economy. Third, the technique
effect of trade in industrialized countries can provide green
technologies and more environmentally friendly regulations
(Ahmed et al. 2021a). Some of the studies have analyzed the
impact of globalization on environmental quality in terms
of ­CO2 emission (Destek 2020; Shahbaz et al. 2017; You
and Lv 2018), and there is a need to estimate its effect in
terms of ecological footprints, a far comprehensive measure
of environmental quality than ­CO2 emission.
Similarly, the heavy reliance on coal by coal-consuming
countries, as well as the high amounts of carbon emission,
needs a comprehension of the link between coal rents and
long-term sustainable development. Coal rents or resource
43042
rent from the production of coal incentivize coal explor-
ing companies to use coal as an energy source. It is a fact
that coal production is mostly used for energy consumption
that is a source of ­CO2 emission. Literature reveals that coal
rents, like oil rents and other natural resource rents, have an
important role in the economies of both industrialized and
underdeveloped countries, and it is necessary to demonstrate
how natural assets can affect long-term growth and envi-
ronmental sustainability (Adedoyin et al. 2020). The same
is the case with the transportation sector. The provision of
good transportation services is an essential element in any
economy’s growth and development (Godil et al. 2020a).
But growth in transportation services has some environmen-
tal disadvantages as well (Adams et al. 2020). The transport
sector consumes a significant proportion of petroleum and
other liquid fuels and causes an increase in (GHG) and other
environmental pollutant emissions. Previous research has
largely shown that transportation services have had a nega-
tive impact on environmental standards in terms of carbon
dioxide emissions (Aggarwal and Jain 2016; Baloch and
Suad 2018; Cai et al. 2012). The impact of the services pro-
vided by the transport sector has traditionally been quanti-
fied in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. So, the primary
goal of the study is to determine the effect of transportation
in the USA, specifically on EFP.
The present study examines the impacts of electricity
consumption, coal rents, transportation, and globalization
on EFP in the USA. The work is particularly important in
the context of the USA, having the second-largest EFP in
the world (Zafar et al. 2019). There are numerous reasons to
study the country. In terms of economic statistics, the USA
has the largest economy in the world, having an income level
of 20.544 trillion current US dollars (17.856 trillion constant
US dollars) in 2018 (FocusEconomics 2019). Furthermore,
with 1.4 trillion dollars in exports in the year 2017, the
USA is the second-largest exporter after China. The exports
share 12% of US GDP approx. (FocusEconomics 2019). Fur-
thermore, the USA is ranked 7th in terms of ECI. Looking
at the globalization history in the USA, after World War
II, business in the united areas was keen to increase their
profits soon by relocating their manufacturing services to
regions with the lowest salaries and weaker labor unions.
This laid the foundation for the process of globalization that
accelerated at a fast pace in the following years. The USA
played a key role in efforts to establish a global economic
system based on universally agreed principles (Wu et al.
2018). As per the globalization index (2016), the USA had
a globalization of 82 out of 100, which is higher than Japan
and China. The levels of political and social globalization
in the USA were greater than economic globalization levels
at the disaggregated level (93% and 85%, respectively). The
largest percentage increase in the submetrics resulted from
the levels of economic globalization, which increased by a
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
whopping seventy-three per cent between 1970 and 2016
(WilsonCenter 2018).
In ecological terms, the USA has the world’s 2nd larg-
est total EFP (2.611 billion global hectares) and C ­ O2 emis-
sion (5144 million tons) (EnvironmetalProtectionAgency
2019). The USA has an ecological deficit both in overall
and per capita EFP data. As a result, the factors impacting
environmental pollution in the USA should be recognized,
and more actions to improve environmental quality should
be taken (EnvironmetalProtectionAgency 2019). Regarding
the usage of energy, the USA is among the world’s most
renewable and fossil fuel-consuming countries. In 2018,
the USA accounted for 18% of global ­CO2 emissions but
managed to reduce it by 2% in 2016 (UnitedStatesGeologi-
calSurvey 2019). Simultaneously, in recent years, the USA
has been successful in lowering per capita EFP. As the high
pollution level begins to subside, it is worthwhile to study
environmental sustainability in the USA (UnitedStatesGeo-
logicalSurvey 2019).
In the USA, transportation consists of road, rail, water-
ways (via boats), and air transport. For short distances,
mostly the passenger travelling is done by automobiles,
while for the longer distances, rail road or airplanes are used.
Most cargo travelling is done by truck, railroad, pipeline,
and boating. For perishables and premium shipments, air
shipping is usually used. In the USA, transportation is the
major source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG
emissions from USA transportation cover about 29% of the
country’s total GHG emissions. GHG emissions in the trans-
portation industry exceed any other sector in absolute terms
from 1990 to 2019. The use of electricity and other energy
sources like coal is increasing rapidly both at the economic
and home levels. US consumption of electricity is 3.8 tril-
lion kilowatthours (kWh) according to 2020 statistics. Total
fossil fuel use in the USA, which includes petroleum, natural
gas, and coal, decreased to 72.9 quadrillion British thermal
units (Btu) according to 2020 statistics. It shows a decrease
of 9% from 2019 and the lowest level since 1990. The use
of energy in all the economic sectors and social activities
contribute to the country’s GHG emission with more or less
volume.
The use of energy resources for different purposes is
increasing at a consistent rate in all the economic and social
sectors in the USA, and the pollution emissions from the
USA are also increasing. As the environment is a crucial
factor in some countries’ overall development, the present
article is going to pay attention to this aspect. The main
objective of the study is to examine the influences of elec-
tricity consumption, coal rents, transportation, and globali-
zation on EFP. The present study is a great contribution to
the literature. First, in previously presented articles, there
is an estimation of the influences of electricity consump-
tion, coal rents, transportation, and globalization on EFP
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
but not through single comprehensive research. The present
study contributes to the literature as it estimates the impacts
of these variables on EFP collectively through the same
research survey. Second, it is also a great theoretical contri-
bution of the present study that distributes the energy into
electricity and coal. Moreover, it talks both about energy
consumption and production characteristics like coal rents.
Third, the present study contributes to the body of knowl-
edge by offering an empirical analysis of a developed coun-
try like the USA because the role of electricity consumption,
coal rents, and transportation in EFP in the USA has largely
been ignored in the literature.
The remaining four sections of the study are organized
as follows: in the second section, the review of the existing
literature is presented. Model specification, data sources,
and methodologies used in the study are provided in the
third section. The fourth section provides and discusses the
findings. And the final section summarizes conclusions and
policy recommendations.
Literature review
The energy economics literature is empirically estimating
the different nexuses between environment and economic
factors from the twentieth century’s last quarter. Some recent
studies have estimated the impact of a variety of variables,
e.g., globalization, energy consumption, and transportation,
on environmental pollution (Mohsin et al. 2021; Nawaz et al.
2021b; Shair et al. 2021). Following the work of Al-Mulali
and Ozturk (2015), who believe that EFP is an adequately
broad metric to comprehend the ecological impacts of
human activities, EFP is now being used as an environmen-
tal indicator.
Numerous researches have studied the globalization-
environment nexus (Chien et al. 2021c; Li et al. 2021). Glo-
balization affects economic development by increasing fac-
tor productivity, foreign direct investment, and commerce,
but it also has an indirect impact on the consumption of
energy and environmental deterioration. Various measures
of globalization have been employed in the literature to ana-
lyze its environmental impact (Sabir and Gorus 2019). Of
these studies, Figge et al. (2017) analyzed the relationship
between several kinds of EFP and types of globalization in
one hundred and seventy-one nations. According to the find-
ings of correlation analysis and multivariate regression, the
study concluded that increased economic globalization led
to increased consumption and imports of EFP (Figge et al.
2017). Rudolph and Figge (2017) also examined the asso-
ciation between EFP and forms of globalization in a group
of 146 countries from 1981 to 2009. The empirical find-
ings showed that the more globalization an economy had,
the higher were the levels of footprints in terms of output,
43043
consumption, exports and imports. Furthermore, it was also
observed that within the period studied, economic globaliza-
tion Granger caused ecological footprints, but no causality
was found from environmental deterioration towards eco-
nomic globalization (Rudolph and Figge 2017).
In the context of Malaysia, Ahmed et al. (2019) attempted
to estimate the association between globalization and the
EFPS from 1971 to 2014 but Bayer and Hanck test for
cointegration and the ARDL bound estimations indicated
that globalization had an insignificant impact on EFPS in
Malaysia but had a significant impact on carbon footprints
(Ahmed et al. 2019). In the same vein, the findings of Sabir
and Gorus (2019) indicated that the per capita eco-footprint
was increased due to an increase in the KOF index in South
Asian economies during the period 1975 to 2017. Moreo-
ver, a unidirectional causality was found from globalization
toward environmental deterioration (Sabir and Gorus 2019).
The study of Yilanci and Gorus (2020) highlighted the fact
that eco-footprint granger caused financial trade and eco-
nomic globalization for a group of MENA countries and
found that financial globalization had the ability to anticipate
future levels of environmental deterioration in the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA) (Yilanci and Gorus 2020).
Most recently, in the context of Turkey, Kirikkaleli et al.
(2021) tried to investigate the impact of globalization on
EFP, controlling for economic growth, consumption of
energy, and trade liberalization. The findings revealed that
globalization had a positive impact on EFP in the long run,
while trade openness had a negative impact on EFP in the
short run. However, GDP growth had a negative impact on
EFP in short as well as in the long run (Kirikkaleli et al.
2021). Ahmed et al. (2021a) analyzed the long-run asym-
metric effect of overall globalization and political, social,
and economic globalization on ecological footprints in the
USA. It was found that negative changes in economics and
overall globalization increased EFP, but positive changes in
social globalization mitigated the EFPs in the USA (Ahmed
et al. 2021b). The same attempt was made by Ahmed et al.
(2021a) in the context of Japan, who found that there was
a reduction in ecological footprint by positive and negative
changes in economic globalization (Ahmed et al. 2021b).
Likewise, there is a set of studies that focus on electric-
ity consumption and its environmental impacts in terms
of ­CO2 emission or ecological footprints. For instance,
Asongu et al. (2020) analyzed the causal link between eco-
nomic growth, consumption of electricity, and ­CO2 emission
in African economies for the period 1980–2014, and the
results through ARDL PMG evidenced that consumption
of electricity Granger caused carbon dioxide emissions in
most of the African countries and deteriorates the environ-
mental condition. Zhang (2018) explored the link between
consumption of electricity, industrialization, trade openness,
carbon dioxide emissions, and environmental quality in
43044
South Korea over the 1971–2013 period. Findings of ARDL
bound testing evidenced that consumption of electricity
significantly contributed to the emission of ­CO2 in South
Korea, and Granger causality analysis indicated that con-
sumption of electricity granger caused pollutant emission,
financial development, and growth of the industrial sector.
A similar study was conducted by Aqilah et al. (2021) in
the context of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and it was found
that bi-directional causality was present between consump-
tion of electricity and C ­ O2 emission in the short run. In
contrast, Lin and Li (2020) concluded that by incorporat-
ing clean electricity-based energy, the electricity consump-
tion reduced C ­ O2 emissions (Lin and Li 2020). Similarly,
in EU economies, it is suggested that the use of renewable
energy-based electricity improved environmental sustain-
ability (Balsalobre-Lorente et al. 2018).
Ikram et al. (2020) examined electricity consumption,
financial development, agriculture, and C ­ O2 emission.
According to study findings, electricity consumption is one
of the reasons for environmental degradation through the
ecological footprint of SAARC economies. The objective of
the study of Bello et al. (2018) was to estimate the impact
of consumption of hydroelectricity on ecological footprint,
water footprint, carbon footprint, and C ­ O2 emission in
Malaysia over the 1971 to 2016 period. It was found that
hydroelectricity reduced environmental deterioration. The
results of VECM Granger causality evidenced that a unidi-
rectional causal relationship existed between the consump-
tion of fossil fuels and hydroelectricity towards all forms of
environmental deterioration (Bello et al. 2018). Likewise,
the study of Figge et al. (2017) found that globalization
and electricity consumption Granger caused ecological
footprints, and both significantly increased the ecological
footprints.
Like electricity consumption, transportation services
also affect environmental sustainability in a significant way.
Different indicators for environmental quality have been
adopted by previous researchers, and ­CO2 emission is widely
used. For instance, the study of Rothman et al. (2021) exam-
ines transportation and environmental quality in Canadian
cities. The study concluded that subsidizing fuel prices was
inefficient as demand for transport services was found to be
non-responsive to the prices. The authors further concluded
that the investment in infrastructure could cause a reduction
in carbon dioxide emissions by the transport sector. Rizk-
Allah et al. (2018) also explored the bi-directional linkage
between energy usage, carbon dioxide emission, and eco-
nomic growth in OECD economies, and their findings estab-
lished that the level of carbon emissions could be reduced by
effective consumption of energy in OECD economies.  Prior
studies investigate the relationship between the consumption
of energy by the transport sector and economic growth with
the level of carbon dioxide emission. The findings indicated
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
that ­CO2 emission was greatly affected by the amount of
energy consumed by the transport sector (Baloch and Suad
2018). In the context of Sweden, Hu et al. (2019) attempted
to test the effect of the consumption of products and services
on the level of carbon emission by transportation services,
and it was found that the carbon emission of transporta-
tion services accounted for fourteen per cent of EFP (Hu
et al. 2019). Godil et al. (2020b) analyzed the nexus between
carbon emission and passenger automobiles and logistics
providers. The findings were sufficient to prove the presence
of the negative link. However, in the context of freight trans-
portation, it mostly appeared in the lower quantiles when it
came to passenger vehicles (Godil et al. 2020a).
There has been just a small number of studies on the
influence of the transportation sector on the environment
that have used EFP as an environmental indicator. Das
and Roy (2019) researched in Michigan’s Houghton
County, and the findings predicted that, despite planned
improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, in coming years,
a rise in EFP in the transportation sector will be seen
because of an increase in travel volume. According to
Asher et al. (2020), rural road development had a minor
influence on areas covered by forests. However, highway
expansion had a significant detrimental impact on areas
covered by forests in terms of EFP (Asher et al. 2020).
Georgatzi et  al. (2020) found in 12 EU countries from
1994 to 2014 that the footprint of transportation-related
activities included fuel usage by transportation and
built-up regions for transportation setups. Furthermore,
they claimed transportation as a component of the overall
EFP and supported the idea that cities imposed ancillary
environmental issues on the city’s localities.
The empirical studies also provide evidence for the
impact of coal rents on C ­ O2 emissions. For example, by
introducing coal rents as a proxy for the coal sector, Bhat-
tacharya et al. (2017) found that a long-run relationship was
present between carbon dioxide emission and economic
growth in India and coal rents had a feedback impact on car-
bon dioxide emission (Bhattacharya et al. 2017). Adedoyin
et al. (2020) studied the nexus between economic growth,
coal rents, and carbon emission for a panel of BRICS nations
over the period 1990–2014. The findings of pooled mean
group (PMG) and dynamic autoregressive distributed lag
model (ARDL) revealed that for BRICS nations, coal rents
had a negative and significant effect on ­CO2 emissions. Reg-
ulating coal rents in the form of carbon damage prices were
also found to have a positive and significant impact on C ­ O2
emissions, contrary to expectations (Adedoyin et al. 2020).
Gyamfi et al. (2021) explored the nexus between coal rent,
energy, and the environment in E7 countries. For this pur-
pose, the study adopted POLS (panel ordinary least squares)
and panel quantile regression analysis. It was found that
GDP and coal rents had a significant and positive impact on
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
­ O2 emissions. Furthermore, the results showed that regu-
C place and selected for the analysis. The selection of the
lating coal consumption by rent, in addition to the cost of
carbon damage, will raise ­CO2 emissions in E7 countries
even more (Gyamfi et al. 2021). In the same way, Adedoyin
et al. (2021) considered ECI (economic complexities index),
international travelling, and coal rents to see their impact
on the environment for a panel of 119 countries (from dif-
ferent income groups) for the period 1995–2016 and from
the empirical estimation of system GMM, the researchers
concluded that increased coal rents and energy consumption
led to more carbon content emission in all the income groups
(Adedoyin et al. 2021).
The literature reviewed above reveals many literary gaps
that the present study fulfils. In previous literature, conflict-
ing outcomes regarding the relationship between coal rents,
transportation, globalization, and electricity consumption on
EFP have been found. The present study, after reviewing the
literature and making an empirical analysis, gives the notion
that coal rents, transportation, globalization, and electric-
ity consumption are bound with ecological footprints in a
positive relationship. In previous literature, a single study
has examined one or two of the variables like coal rents,
transportation, globalization, and electricity consumption
for analysis of EFP. The current research removes this liter-
ary gap by analyzing the role of all variables like coal rents,
transportation, globalization, and electricity consumption
in EFP. Long empirical research has been done in order to
explore the globalization impacts on EFP. That research
has dealt with globalization as a whole, including social,
economic, and political globalization. But the present study
makes a distinction as it examines only economic globali-
zation, which is a major cause of EFP. The present article
also carries a great contribution to literature as it initiates
to examine of the impacts of coal rents, transportation, glo-
balization, and electricity consumption on EFP in the USA
for an extended period of 1995–2018 using the QARDL
estimator.
Methodology
Model construction
The study aims to analyze the impact of coal rents,
transportation, globalization, and electricity consumption
on ecological footprints in the USA for the period
1995–2018. The current study examined the time
span from 1995 to 2018 because during this time span
major changes has been watched in transportation,
globalization, electricity consumption, and coal rents
that may significant factors for ecological footprints. In
addition, USA economy has considered major country
where the changes in abovementioned factors have taken
43045
variables is made based on the empirical studies and data
availability. The ecological footprint (EFP) is taken as
the dependent variable, which is defined as “a metric for
measuring the arable land and ocean required to support
human consumption and to assimilate/ingest its waste,
given current technology and management strategies.”
Independent variables include coal rents, transportation,
globalization, and electricity consumption. The role
of coal rents on EFP is introduced for the first time in
this study, especially in the context of the USA. Coal
rents are the difference between the value of both hard
and soft coal production at world prices and their total
costs of production. Globalization has three dimensions:
economic, social, and political. Out of these three, only
economic globalization is taken into consideration because
the major aim of the study is to explore the economic
aspect impact on the EFP. In addition, the availability of
data issues related to the social and political dimension of
globalization is also the reason to adopt only economic
globalization in the study. This study is an expectation
that economic globalization may help the environment by
structurally transforming the economy and introducing
more resourceful cleaning technology, particularly in high-
income countries with rigorous environmental regulations
(Zhang et al. 2017). Transportation and consumption of
electricity are also included in the model as the previous
literature indicates them to be the significant contributors
to ecological deterioration (Bello et al. 2018; Charfeddine
and Khediri 2016; Godil et al. 2021.
The empirical literature (Ahmed et al. 2019; Sabir and Gorus
2019; Bello et al. 2018; Godil et al. 2021, 2020b; Lin and Li
2020) supported the construction of the following model to
estimate the impacts of coal rent, transportation, globalization,
and electricity consumption on the ecological footprints.
EFPt = 𝛼0 + 𝛼1 COALt + 𝛼2 TRAt +𝛼 3 EGLOt + 𝛼4 EPCt (1)
where EFP = ecological foot print; COAL = coal rents;
TRA = transportation; EGLO = economic globalization; and
EPC = electricity consumption. The data of the study spans
1995 to 2018. Following Table 1 provides the detailed meas-
urements and the data sources of the variables of the study.
Econometric methodology (QARDL approach)
To evaluate the relationship between transportation, coal
rents, economic globalization, electricity consumption, and
EFP, we have applied the QARDL model proposed by Cho
et al. (2015). The quantile long-run equilibrium effect of
transportation, coal rents, economic globalization, and elec-
tricity consumption on EFP is tested through this model. The
43046 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055

Table 1  Operational description of the variables

Variable name Abbreviation Measurement Data sources

Ecological footprints EFP Global hectares per capita GFN

Economic globalization EGLO Index based on actual flows of FDI, trade, portfolio investments and SEI
restrictions, e.g., tariffs, import barriers, and taxes
Coal rents COAL Coal rents (% of GDP) WDI
Transportation TRA​ Transport services (% of commercial services export) WDI
Electricity consumption EPC Electric power consumption (kWh per capita) WDI

GNF Global Footprint Network, SEI KOF Swiss Economic Institute, WDI The World Development Indicators

QARDL is a sophisticated and latest form of ARDL estima- In the above equation, 𝜎 shows that the coefficient 𝜖[t is the
tion that enables testing non-linearities and asymmetries
]
error disturbance term which is specified as EFPt − E  ,
EFPt

between transportation, coal rents, economic globalization, wt−1

electricity consumption, and EFP. It has several other advan-
tages over other conventional time series techniques. First,
an unbiased estimator in various orders of integration under
various quantiles of the explained variable is provided by the
ARDL approach. Second, the problem of asymmetric distri-
bution of the variables can easily be overcome by QARDL.
Third, the traditional ARDL quantile regressions can easily
be synthesized through this approach. Hence, ARDL pro-
vides short-run and long-run estimates along with the rate
convergence under multiple quantiles. Finally, to overwhelm
a monotonic conditional mean over the time horizon, multiple
integrating associations are considered by QARDL. The fol-
lowing Eq. (1) indicates the basic form of the ARDL model.
∑p ∑q
EFPt = 𝜇 + i=1 𝜎EFPi EFPt−1 + i=0 𝜎COALi COALt−i
∑r ∑s
+ i=0 𝜎TRAi TRAt−i + i=0 𝜎EGLOi EGLOt−i (2)
∑u
+ i=0 𝜎EPCi EPCt−i + 𝜀t
where wt−1 is taken as the smallest υ field formed by ­EFPt,
­COALt, TRA​t, ­EGLOt, ­EPCt, ­EFPt − 1, ­COALt − 1, TRA​t − 1,
­EGLOt − 1, and E ­ PCt-1, and p, q, r, s, and u are the orders of
lags given by the Schwarz Information Criterion (SIC) due
to the time series data.
The QARDL form of Eq. (1) developed by Cho et al.
(2015) is specified in Eq. (2) below. QARDL (p, q, r, s, u)
model:
∑p ∑q
QΔEFPt = 𝜇(𝜏) + i=1 𝜎EFPi (𝜏)EFPt−i + i=0 𝜎COALi (𝜏)COALt−i
(3)
∑r ∑s
+ i=0 𝜎TRAi (𝜏)TRAt−i + i=0 𝜎EGLOi (𝜏)EGLOt−i
∑u
+ i=0 𝜎EPCi (𝜏)EPCt−i + 𝜀t (𝜏)
where 𝜎 shows the coefficient 𝜀t ( 𝜏 ) = EFPt − QEFPt ( 𝛿 𝜏  )
t−1
(Kim & White, 2003) and 0 > τ < 1 refers quantile and 𝛿t−1
shows unit impulse function. In addition, because of the
issue of serial correlation in the error term, the QARDL in
Eq. (2) is generalized as follows:

Q = 𝜇 + 𝜋COAL COALt−1 + 𝜋TRA TRAt−1 + 𝜋EGLO EGLOt−1 +𝜋 EPC EPCt−1 +

∑ΔEFPt
(4)
p ∑q ∑r ∑s
𝜎 ΔEFPt−i + i=0 𝜎COALi COALt−i + i=0 𝜎TRAi TRAt−i + i=0 𝜎EGLOi EGLOt−i +
∑ui=0 EFPi
𝜎
i=0 EPCi
EPCt−i + 𝜀t (𝜏)

Equation (3) can regenerate and extended for error cor-

rection term of QARDL as follows:

QΔEFPt = 𝜇(𝜏) + 𝜇(𝜏) + 𝜌(𝜏) + (EFPt−1 − 𝛽COAL (𝜏)COALt−1 − 𝛽TRA (𝜏)TRAt−1 −

∑p ∑q (5)
𝛽 (𝜏)EGLOt−1 − 𝛽EPC (𝜏)EPCt−1 i=1 𝜎EFPi (𝜏)ΔEFPt−i + i=0 𝜎COALi (𝜏)ΔCOALt−i +
∑EGLO
r ∑ s ∑ u
i=0 TRAi (𝜏)ΔTRAt−i
𝜎 + i=0 𝜎EGLOi (𝜏)ΔEGLOt−i + i=0 𝜎EPCi (𝜏)ΔEPCt−i + 𝜀t (𝜏)
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055 43047

The delta method is used to compute the short-run effect Table 2  Descriptive statistics
of the prior EFP on current EFP through 𝜎 ∗ = i=1 𝜎EFPi ,
∑p
Variables Mean Min Max Std. dev J-B stats
whereas collective short-run impact of current and prior
levels of COAL, TRA, EGLO, and EPC is estimated by EFP 0.752 0.072 1.001 0.052 16.024***
, TRA = i=1 𝜎TRAi , 𝜎EGLO i=1 𝜎EGLOi,  COAL 1.426 0.046 2.010 1.039 20.002***
∑q ∑r ∑s
𝜎COAL = i=1 𝜎COALi𝜎
and 𝜎EPC = i=1 𝜎EPCi . In addition, 𝛽 representing the long- TRA​ 0.657 0.067 1.011 0.027 18.021***
∑u
term integrating parameters of all the variables is estimated EGLO 2.042 1.020 3.001 1.046 22.010***
as follows: EPC 0.841 0.081 1.101 0.061 19.068***

𝛽COAL 𝛽 𝛽 𝛽 The asterisks ***, **, and * show 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of signifi-
𝛽COAL∗ = − , 𝛽TRA∗ = − TRA , 𝛽EGLO∗ = − EGLO , 𝛽EPC∗ = − EPC cance, respectively
𝜌 𝜌 𝜌 𝜌
(6)
Collective short- and long-run parameters are computed
We performed a “Jarque–Bera normality test”. The null
through the orthodox delta method, and ECM ( 𝜌) should
hypothesis of the test states the normality of data, and
necessarily be negative.
the alternative hypothesis states the reverse. The results
of the test vindicate that each series is highly significant
The Wald test
(i.e., at 1% significance level), indicating that data is not
normally distributed. Owing to the non-linearity in data,
Wald test is applied to identify short-run and long-run asym-
Zivot-Andrews (ZA) test was used, and further statistical
metric effects of COAL, TRA, EGLO, and EPC on EFP. For
estimations were applied through a sophisticated quantile
ρ (speed of adjustment parameters), the null hypothesis ρ*
approach (QARDL) following Godil et al. (2021); Godil
(0.05) = ρ* (0.10)…………. ρ* (0.95). A similar hypoth-
et al. (2020b); Chang et al. (2020); and Suki et al. (2020).
esis is tested on βCOAL, βTRA​, βEGLO, and βEPC (the long-run
parameters) and 𝜎COAL , 𝜎TRA , 𝜎EGLO , and 𝜎EPC (the short-run
Unit root test
parameters) (Al-Ghwayeen and Abdallah 2018).
We applied flexible Fourier (FF) form nonlinear unit root
test and ZA tests to check the stationarity of data. The tests
Results and interpretations
are used to find out the structural breaks and stationarity of
the time series data.
Descriptive statistics
The results in Table 3 indicate that all the variables are
non-stationary at the level and become stationary by taking
Now we proceed to the estimation and the results. We
the first difference, i.e., I(1).
estimate the impact of coal rent, transportation, economic
globalization, and electricity consumption on ecological
Main findings (QARDL approach)
footprints in the USA using quarterly data for each vari-
able from 1995 to 2018. The time period starts from 1995
After knowing the integration order, we apply the QARDL
because the data availability related to the coal rent is not
approach. We divide the ecological footprint series into
available, and the time period ends in 2018 before Covid-
eleven quantiles (0.05–0.95). Table 4 depicts the results of
19. Table 2 gives the descriptive statistics of the variables
the model measuring the impact of COAL, TRA, EGLO,
of the study, i.e., EFP, COAL, TRA, EGLO, and EPC. The
and EPC on EFP. The coefficient of error correction (ECM)
mean values of all the variables are found to be positive. On
is significant and negative under all quantiles, indicating
average, EFP is 0.752, with a variability of about a mean
the convergence of the model to the long-run equilibrium
of 0.052. The maximum and minimum values of EFP are
after any exogenous shock. The symbol β’s in the table
1.001 and 0.072, respectively. Similarly, the average values
indicate the long-run relationships of independent variables
of the COAL and TRA are 1.426 and 0.657, respectively,
(COAL, TRA, EGLO, and EPC) with the dependent vari-
with a standard deviation of 1.039 and 0.027, respectively.
able (EFP).
The maximum value of COAL is 2.010, and the minimum
value is 0.046, whereas the maximum value of TRA is
Long‑run results
1.011 and the minimum value is 0.067, respectively. The
mean value of EGLO is 2.042, and its maximum and mini-
It is indicated from the results that economic globalization
mum values are 3.001 and 1.020, respectively. And last, the
affects EFP significantly and positively, showing that glo-
average EPC is 0.841 with maximum and minimum values
balization deteriorates environmental quality in the USA in
of 1.101 and 0.061, respectively.
the long run. Economic globalization worsens the quality
43048 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055

Table 3  Unit root test results Variables FF [level] FF (Δ) ZA [level] Break year ZA (Δ) Break year

EFP  − 0.246  − 4.021***  − 1.010 2011 Q3  − 7.031*** 1999 Q1

COAL  − 1.135  − 6.051***  − 2.001 2005 Q1  − 9.011*** 2006 Q4
TRA​ 0.426  − 3.010*** 1.011 2014 Q4  − 6.013*** 2017 Q1
EGLO  − 1.315  − 5.002***  − 2.010 2003 Q4  − 8.021*** 2009 Q1
EPC  − 0.226  − 3.011***  − 1.100 2016 Q1  − 6.014*** 2013 Q4

Statistical values of the FF and ZA test are specified by the values in the table. The asterisks ***, **, and *
show 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of significance, respectively

Table 4  Results of QARDL approach for ecological footprint

Quantiles Constant ECM Long-run estimation Short-run estimation
(τ) α∗(τ) ρ∗(τ) βCOAL(τ) βTRA​(τ) βEGLO(τ) βEPC(τ) φ1(τ) ω0(τ) λ0(τ) θ0(τ) έ0(τ)

0.05 0.012  − 0.114*** 0.361*** 0.061 0.148* 0.242** 0.046*** 0.024 0.041** 0.456 0.035
(0.019) (− 3.731) (2.991) (1.621) (1.775) (2.035) (3.075) (0.878) (2.624) (1.019) (0.042)
0.1 0.003  − 0.105*** 0.350*** 0.072 0.121* 0.251** 0.037*** 0.042 0.038** 0.447 0.027
(0.017) (− 3.629) (3.002) (1.639) (1.834) (2.239) (3.361) (1.492) (2.431) (1.041) (0.038)
0.2 0.009  − 0.101*** 0.356*** 0.056 0.119* 0.281** 0.033*** 0.056* 0.032* 0.461 0.022
(0.008) (− 3.410) (2.992) (1.629) (1.741) (2.131) (3.253) (1.641) (1.825) (0.967) (0.011)
0.3 0.016  − 0.110*** 0.341** 0.078* 0.137* 0.263** 0.040*** 0.040* 0.047 0.450 0.032
(0.018) (− 3.321) (2.899) (1.650) (1.737) (2.342) (3.460) (1.787) (1.128) (1.579) (0.030)
0.4 0.010  − 0.115*** 0.336** 0.067* 0.114* 0.272 0.050*** 0.060** 0.058 0.420* 0.010
(0.015) (− 3.145) (2.621) (1.791) (1.717) (1.576) (3.179) (1.961) (1.022) (1.657) (0.056)
0.5 0.018  − 0.102*** 0.324** 0.059** 0.125 0.240 0.047*** 0.030** 0.049 0.432* 0.028
(0.012) (− 2.994) (2.499) (1.972) (1.555) (1.064) (3.668) (1.982) (0.837) (1.701) (0.045)
0.6 0.008  − 0.129*** 0.340** 0.090** 0.135 0.264 0.051*** 0.061** 0.063 0.421* 0.031
(0.009) (− 3.015) (2.179) (1.988) (1.574) (1.083) (3.548) (1.975) (0.623) (1.769) (0.039)
0.7 0.011  − 0.106*** 0.3623** 0.162*** 0.123 0.288 0.030*** 0.053** 0.048 0.451** 0.026
(0.003) (− 3.208) (1.965) (2.991) (0.911) (1.372) (3.251) (1.969) (0.543) (1.977) (0.016)
0.8 0.019  − 0.109** 0.338* 0.176*** 0.141 0.252 0.031*** 0.046** 0.079 0.440** 0.009
(0.007) (− 2.618) (1.947) (3.002) (1.270) (0.949) (3.636) (1.991) (0.435) (1.989) (0.025)
0.9 0.022  − 0.123 0.344* 0.168*** 0.134 0.270 0.055*** 0.037** 0.057 0.410*** 0.025
(0.002) (− 1.604) (1.920) (2.992) (1.368) (0.830) (3.843) (2.001) (0.246) (2.991) (0.010)
0.95 0.013  − 0.116 0.330* 0.189*** 0.167 0.255 0.045*** 0.041** 0.078 0.430*** 0.007
(0.005) (− 1.009) (1.939) (− 3.010) (0.943) (0.659) (4.033) (1.989) (0.334) (3.001) (0.007)

The table provides the quantile estimation results. The t-statistics are between brackets. ***, **, and * show 1%, 5%, and 10% levels of signifi-
cance, respectively. Source: Author estimations

of EFP significantly over the range of quantiles (0.05 − 0.4);
however, for higher quantiles (0.5 − 0.95), its impact is insig-
nificant. It shows that at a lower intensity level of EFP, more
economic globalization is going to further deteriorate the
environment, but at higher intensity levels of EFP, there
is an insignificant effect of economic globalization. This
result implies that as the pace of global interconnectivity
of a country accelerates, its ecological footprint increases,
thereby lowering the environmental quality in the long run.
The result is credible because, as a result of increased human
activity such as transportation, industrial production, and
deforestation, globalization has the potential to exacerbate
environmental deterioration. FDI (a component of eco-
nomic globalization) has a significant contribution in this
context because it may result in the establishment of pollu-
tion havens, as developed country investors opt to transfer
pollution-intensive technologies to countries with laxer envi-
ronmental regulations (Destek and Okumus 2019). Foreign
investors frequently use dirty technologies and low-cost pro-
duction strategies that exploit natural resources. Moreover,
an increase in the intensity of energy that follows an increase
in the rate of globalization fuels the positive relationship
between globalization and ecological footprint. Our finding
is second to the findings of Kirikkaleli et al. (2021); Usman
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
et al. (2020); Godil et al. (2020b); Suki et al. (2020); and
Rudolph and Figge (2017) but contrasts Ahmed et al. (2019);
Saud et al. (2020); and Ansari et al. (2021) who found that
globalization improves the value of EFP in top renewable
countries.
Similarly, electricity consumption (EPC) impacts EFP
significantly and positively only over the range of quantile
0.05 − 0.3. It has an insignificant impact on EFP at higher
quantiles (0.4 − 0.95). It implies that at the low-intensity
level of EFP, an increase in electricity consumption further
deteriorates the quality of EFP. But at higher intensity lev-
els of EFP, an increase in electricity consumption has no
effect on EFP. The results can be attributed to the USA’s
dependency on fossil fuels for the production of electricity,
as these are the largest contributors to energy production in
the USA. Coal and natural gas power plants account for 19
and 40% of the country’s installed total energy production
capacity, respectively (US Energy Information Administra-
tion, 2020). Carbon dioxide is produced during the produc-
tion of power from natural gas and coal, which is then dis-
charged into the environment, resulting in environmental
deterioration. Furthermore, since the natural gas and coal
used to generate energy are obtained from natural resources,
and electricity demand and consumption are on the rise, it
will increase demand for coal and natural gas, resulting in
more exhaustion of environmental resources and, as a result,
environmental destruction. The evidence provided from our
results supports the findings of Lean and Smyth (2010), and
Shahbaz et al. (2014).
The opposite is the case with transportation. The coef-
ficient of transportation is insignificant at lower quantiles
(0.05, 0.1, and 0.2) but significant and positive at medium
and upper quantiles, indicating that at lower levels of the
intensity of EFP, there is no effect of the increase in trans-
portation on EFP. However, as the intensity level of EFP
increases, an increase in transportation services diminishes
EFP in the long run. The fact that transportation degrades
environmental sustainability by contributing to about 29%
of total US emissions validates this result, and it makes it the
most effective source of the degradation of the environment.
Cities in the USA are the most reliant on automobiles. Since
1990, 18.5 million individuals in the New York City area
have travelled 8317 km, the least of any of the 13 American
cities. In the New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas,
the EF is 7.3 and 12.2 hectares per person, respectively (New
York State Archives 2020). Pollutant emissions and environ-
mental deterioration increased faster than in any other sec-
tor from 1990 to 2019 (the USA Environmental Protection
Agency, 220). The finding that transportation deteriorates
the quality of EFP is opposite to C. Liu et al. (2016) and
Godil et al. (2021), who found that transportation improves
the ecological footprints and environmental sustainability
but is consistent with Asher et al. (2020), Chi and Stone
43049
Jr (2005); Shayesteh et al. (2014) who also found that the
transportation causes deterioration of the environment.
And last, the coefficient of COAL is significant and posi-
tive over all quantile ranges (at different significance levels),
implying that the higher the coal rents, the more deteriorated
is the value of EFP in the USA in the long run. It indicates
that if EFP is already higher, an increase in coal rents further
deteriorates the quality of EFP in the long run, a finding in
line with the findings of Gyamfi et al. (2021), Adedoyin
et al. (2020), and Adedoyin et al. (2021). One possible expla-
nation is that coal extraction results in high emissions in the
USA, and as a result, coal rents wreak havoc on the envi-
ronment and exacerbate the deterioration of environmen-
tal quality. The increasing impact of coal rent on the EFP
also reflects the fact that coal resources are extracted and
utilized in inefficient and unsustainable ways. In this con-
text, replacing obsolete technologies that demand extensive
use of natural resources with new technologies that provide
synthetic resources and recycling mechanisms can help to
prevent environmental deterioration.
Short‑run results
Shifting the analysis towards the short-run scenario, column
φ1(τ) indicates that former levels of EFP positively and sig-
nificantly affect the present EFP changes for all quantiles
(0.05–0.95) in the USA. Column ω0(τ) shows that the cur-
rent and former changes in coal rents (COAL) have a signifi-
cantly positive impact over the present and preceding varia-
tions in EFP at low to higher intensity levels, i.e., (0.2–0.95).
Column λ0(τ) highlights the fact that prevailing and earlier
changes in transportation (TRA) influence the prevailing
and earlier changes in EFP significantly and positively in
the low-intensity range (0.05–0.2). Furthermore, the current
and previous changes in globalization have a significant and
positive impact on current and prior variations in EFP from
the middle to high-intensity range (0.4–0.95), as depicted
in column θ0(τ). However, as per column έ0(τ), electricity
consumption EPC is insignificant and has no short-run effect
on EFP, and these findings are matched with the outcomes
of Baz et al. (2020).
Thus, the overall QARDL model concludes that coal
rents, transportation, and economic globalization have a
significantly positive impact in the short run and in the long
run, while the impact of electricity consumption is signifi-
cant (positive) only in the long run.
The Wald test
We applied the Wald test to check the constancy of the
parameters across the 11 quantiles. Moreover, as stated
in the methodology part, the Wald test also checks the
43050 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055

non-linearity in parameters of the short run and long run to
estimate locational asymmetries.
Table 5 reports Wald test results. The acceptance of the
null hypothesis indicates the existence of the asymmetries
and non-linearities in the variables under consideration. On
the basis of the test findings, we are able to reject the null
hypothesis of symmetric and linear relationships for all the
independent variables (COAL, TRA, EGLO, and EPC) in
the long run. The null hypothesis is again not accepted in
the short run except for TRA and EPC. It is established from
the outcomes that all the independent variables, i.e., COAL,
TRA, EGLO, and EPC, embody nonlinear and asymmetric
relationships in the long run, but TRA and EPC exhibit lin-
ear and symmetric association in short-run dynamics.
Quantile Granger causality test
Lastly, we apply quantile Granger causality test to estimate
the bi-directional relationship between independent vari-
ables and EFP.

Granger causality in quantile test results

Quantiles ΔEFPt ΔCOALt ΔEFPt ΔTRA​t ΔEFPt ΔEGLOt ΔEFPt ΔEPCt

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
ΔCOALt ΔEFPt ΔTRA​t ΔEFPt ΔEGLOt ΔEFPt ΔEPCt ΔEFPt

[0.05–0.95] 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.05 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.40 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.60 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.70 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.80 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.90 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.95 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Source: authors’ estimation

As per the test results provided in table in the “Granger cau-
sality in quantile test results” section, it is revealed that the
causal relationship exists between two variables at various
quantiles. It is found that COAL, TRA, EGLO, and EPC
Granger cause EFP and vice versa. It suggests that each of
the aforementioned variables has a causal effect on EFP as
well as EFP has the same effect on each of the aforemen-
tioned variables.
Discussions
The results indicated that coal rents have a positive impact
on EFP. These results agree with Ahmad et al. (2020), which
throws light on the role of coal rents in EFP. The study posits
that when the difference between the coal production costs
and coal market price increase, the profits on the sale of
coal commodities encourage the production, extraction, and
consumption of coal within the country. In this situation, the
environmental quality degrades and natural resources are
affected. These results are also in line with the past study of
Ahmed et al. (2020), which highlights that in the countries
where the coal rents get high, the production and extraction
of coals also increase. This increases coal production and the
consumption of coal as a major source of adverse impacts
on naturally found resources.
The results also revealed that transportation has a posi-
tive relation to EFP. These results are in line with Nathan-
iel et al. (2021), a study that explores the environmental
impacts of transportation activities. This study states that in
the areas where transportation activities are greater in num-
ber, the emissions of harmful gases increase. So, progress
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055 43051

Table 5  Wald test results they get involved in international trade, which stimulates the
Wald test for the constancy of parameters economic activities within the country.
The results indicated that electricity consumption has a
Variables Wald statistics (P-Value)
positive relation to the EFP. The results are supported by
Ρ 18.241*** Bello et al. (2018), which show that the increase in elec-
[0.000] tricity consumption increases the use of fossil fuels or
βCOAL 11.007*** nuclear power, which are essential factors in the production
[0.000] of electricity. The combustion of fossil fuels and working
βTRA​ 8.991*** of nuclear power plants causes pollution emissions. The
[0.000] results reveal that the excessive production and use of elec-
βEGLO 5.021*** tricity within the country increases pollution and destroys
[0.000] the natural resources like earth and its yielding, ocean, and
βEPC 3.710*** sea creatures.
[0.000]
φ1 12.999***
[0.000] Policy implications
ω0 2.585**
[0.041] On the basis of the results, some worthy recommendations
λ0 1.004 for the policy makers are provided to diminish the adverse
[0.467] impact of the variables on environmental sustainability.
θ0 8.351*** For many years, over-reliance on fossil fuels for transport
[0.000] systems has been the norm. Initiatives have been made in
It έ0 1.716 recent years to convert the transport sector from traditional
[0.159] to renewable sources of energy; however, due to the ever-
increasing quantity of automobiles, these efforts are unsuc-
The P-values are between square brackets. ***, **, and * indicate
cessful. To address these concerns, first and foremost, the
significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. Source:
Author estimations reliance on fossil fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, must
be reduced, and automobiles should be improved in terms
of functionality. Both strategies would assist in the imple-
mentation of environmentally friendly technologies. When it
in transportation enhances environmental issues and dete- comes to globalization, there are a few things to consider. It
riorates the green natural resources, animals on the land, is the outcome of actions and rules taken in a variety of areas
and water creatures. These results are also in line with Peri (international finance, communication, trade, and transpor-
et al. (2018) which show that when the number of cars and tation) and at various political levels (globally and locally).
bikes in personal ownership increases, the smoke, noise, Even if globalization has a negative impact on the environ-
gathering, and C ­ O2 emissions increase. These all reduce ment, it is recommended that while accelerating the speed
the quality of natural resources like crops, greenery, and of globalization in the US economy, strict environmental
livestock which rely on the environment and its elements. rules be implemented to alleviate the negative environmental
So, the increased transportation adversely affects the qual- impacts of globalization. To ensure the long-term sustain-
ity of natural resources quality and, thus, causes ecological ability of the globalization process as a means of stimu-
footprints. lating growth, the USA must increase its participation in
The results also indicated that economic globalization regional and global market integration with trading partners
has a positive relation to EFP. These results also agree with by removing trade barriers. Because environmental sustain-
Ansari et al. (2021), which states that economic globaliza- ability is a prerequisite for globalization, strategic efforts
tion encourages many economic progressive activities within to increase environmental sustainability should be adopted.
the country like FDI, exports, imports, and industrializa-
tion. The utilization of machines, transportation, produc-
tion technologies, plants, and construction work within the Concluding remarks and recommendations
country enhances dust, smoke, toxic gases, and wastes. So,
economic globalization leaves impacts on environmental In the present study, the ecological footprint EFP is cho-
conditions. These results are supported by Kirikkaleli et al. sen as the indicator for environmental standards owing to
(2021), which posits that when government provides sup- the fact that it is a unique metric for environmental situa-
port to the domestic people to benefit from globalization, tion in a way that it reflects the human country’s economic
43052
dependence on natural resources or assesses technological
and social effects on the ecosystem. There are a number of
existing studies about the determining factors of EFP, but
the group of variables used in this study is unique, espe-
cially in the context of the USA. The impact of coal rents,
transportation, globalization, and electricity consumption
on ecological footprints has been estimated by applying the
QARDL methodology. The quarterly time-series data used
for empirical estimation spans 24 years (1995–2018). At
various quantile ranges, the relationship of COAL, TRA,
EGLO, and EPC with EFP is estimated in short as well as
in the long run by applying QARDL and quantile Granger
causality approaches, and several fascinating findings are
obtained. Last, we applied the Wald test to test whether the
variables are parameter dependent or not. Economic globali-
zation is a significant reason for fast consuming resources
and produces a high level of wastage that exposed its posi-
tive impact on the ecological footprint.
The results of the QARDL analysis suggested that all the
variables COAL, EGLO, TRA, and EPC have a significant
and positive impact on the EFP in the USA. The results
stated that when there is a disparity between coal produc-
tion costs and market prices, profits on coal commodities are
increased, and coal production, extraction, and consump-
tion are encouraged inside the country. Consequently, the
environment’s quality deteriorates, and natural resources are
harmed. The emissions of hazardous gases rise in places
where transportation activities are more numerous. As a
result, advancements in transportation exacerbate environ-
mental concerns like climate change, soil destruction, ocean
rise, etc.; thus, it increases EFP. Many economic progressive
activities within the country, such as FDI, exports, imports,
and industrialization, are encouraged by economic globali-
zation. Thus, there is the use of equipment, transportation,
production technologies, plants, and construction work that
causes ­CO2 emissions and harms natural resources. As the
electricity demand rises, the use of fossil fuels and nuclear
power, which are crucial variables in the creation of electric-
ity, increases and pollution is produced by the combustion
of fossil fuels and the operation of nuclear power plants. So,
electricity consumption positively contributes to EFP.
Furthermore, the findings from this study have shown that
there is a need for the introduction of more strict environ-
mental policies and regulations that may push industries to
switch from the use of energy sources that are carbon emit-
ting to cleaner sources of energy as it will improve environ-
mental quality and promote long-term development. Moreo-
ver, there is a need to add more hydroelectricity to the energy
mix because greater use of hydroelectricity will reduce the
utilization of fossil fuels which are greatly responsible for
environmental degradation. The study further suggests that
the government in the USA, with the 2nd largest EFP, should
encourage businesses and individuals to extract and use coal
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
resources in a safe and sustainable manner. It is strongly
advised that the economy should invest more in innovative
and environmentally favorable industrial processes in order
to reduce carbon emissions and achieve long-term develop-
ment. To address climate change and achieve sustainable
growth, there is a need to change the behavior and lifestyles
and introduce a particular energy consumption strategy to
reduce carbon consumption.
Author contribution  Zheng Wenlong: writing — original draft.
Muhammad Atif Nawaz: methodology conceptualization. Amena Sib-
ghatullah: writing — review and editing. Syed Ehsan Ullah: software.
Supat Chupradit: Data curation. Vu Minh Hieu: visualization, supervi-
sion, and formatting.
Funding  This research is funded by 2020 National Social Science Fund
Major Project “Research on the spatial effects of cross regional major
infrastructure in China” (approval No.: 20 and zd099), participated in
the subproject “integration of cross regional major infrastructure and
urban agglomeration.” And this paper is also partly funded by Van
Lang University, Vietnam.
Data availability  The data that support the findings of this study are
attached.
Declarations 
Ethics approval and consent to participate  We declare that we have no
human participants, human data, or human tissues.
Consent for publication  Not applicable.
Competing interests  The authors declare no competing interests.
References 
Adams S, Boateng E, Acheampong AO (2020) Transport energy con-
sumption and environmental quality: does urbanization matter?
Sci Total Environ 744:140617
Adedoyin FF, Gumede MI, Bekun FV, Etokakpan MU, Balsalobre-
Lorente D (2020) Modelling coal rent, economic growth and CO2
emissions: does regulatory quality matter in BRICS economies?
Sci Total Environ 710:136284
Adedoyin, F. F., Nwulu, N., & Bekun, F. V. (2021). Environmental
degradation, energy consumption and sustainable development:
accounting for the role of economic complexities with evidence
from World Bank income clusters. Bus Strat Environ
Aggarwal P, Jain S (2016) Energy demand and CO2 emissions from
urban on-road transport in Delhi: current and future projections
under various policy measures. J Clean Prod 128:48–61
Ahmad M, Jiang P, Majeed A, Umar M, Khan Z, Muhammad S (2020)
The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innova-
tions and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced
panel data estimation. Resour Policy 69:1018–1036. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​resou​r pol.​2020.​101817
Ahmad M, Jiang P, Murshed M, Shehzad K, Akram R, Cui L, Khan Z
(2021) Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation,
urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
countries: does financial globalization matter? Sustain Cities Soc
70:102881
Ahmed Z, Asghar MM, Malik MN, Nawaz K (2020) Moving towards
a sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage between natural
resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and
ecological footprint in China. Resour Policy 67:101–119. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resou​rpol.​2020.​101677
Ahmed Z, Cary M, Le HP (2021a) Accounting asymmetries in the
long-run nexus between globalization and environmental sus-
tainability in the United States: an aggregated and disaggregated
investigation. Environ Impact Assess Rev 86:106511
Ahmed Z, Wang Z, Mahmood F, Hafeez M, Ali N (2019) Does globali-
zation increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from
Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(18):18565–18582
Ahmed Z, Zhang B, Cary M (2021b) Linking economic globaliza-
tion, economic growth, financial development, and ecological
footprint: evidence from symmetric and asymmetric ARDL. Ecol
Ind 121:107060
Al-Ghwayeen WS, Abdallah AB (2018) Green supply chain manage-
ment and export performance: the mediating role of environ-
mental performance. J Manuf Technol Manag 29(7):1233–1252.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​JMTM-​03-​2018-​0079
Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2015) The effect of energy consumption, urban-
ization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stabil-
ity on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East
and North African) region. Energy 84:382–389
Al-Mulali U, Saboori B, Ozturk I (2015) Investigating the environ-
mental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy
76:123–131
Ansari MA, Haider S, Masood T (2021) Do renewable energy and glo-
balization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renew-
able energy countries? Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(6):6719–6732.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​020-​10786-0
Aqilah N, Zaki SA, Hagishima A, Rijal HB, Yakub F (2021) Analy-
sis on electricity use and indoor thermal environment for typical
air-conditioning residential buildings in Malaysia. Urban Climate
37:104–118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​uclim.​2021.​100830
Asher S, Garg T, Novosad P (2020) The ecological impact of transpor-
tation infrastructure. Econ J 130(629):1173–1199
Asongu SA, Agboola MO, Alola AA, Bekun FV (2020) The critical-
ity of growth, urbanization, electricity and fossil fuel consump-
tion to environment sustainability in Africa. Sci Total Environ
712:1363–1379. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​136376
Baloch MA, Suad S (2018) Modeling the impact of transport energy
consumption on CO 2 emission in Pakistan: evidence from ARDL
approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(10):9461–9473
Baloch ZA, Tan Q, Kamran HW, Nawaz MA, Albashar G, & Hameed
J (2021). A multi-perspective assessment approach of renewable
energy production: policy perspective analysis. Environ Dev Sus-
tain 1-29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​021-​01524-8
Balsalobre-Lorente D, Shahbaz M, Roubaud D, Farhani S (2018) How
economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources con-
tribute to CO2 emissions? Energy Policy 113:356–367. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2017.​10.​050
Baz K, Xu D, Ali H, Ali I, Khan I, Khan MM, Cheng J (2020) Asym-
metric impact of energy consumption and economic growth on
ecological footprint: using asymmetric and nonlinear approach.
Sci Total Environ 718:137–145
Bello MO, Solarin SA, Yen YY (2018) The impact of electricity con-
sumption on CO2 emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and
ecological footprint: the role of hydropower in an emerging econ-
omy. J Environ Manage 219:218–230. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jenvm​an.​2018.​04.​101
Bhattacharya M, Rafiq S, Lean HH, Bhattacharya S (2017) The regu-
lated coal sector and CO2 emissions in Indian growth process:
43053
empirical evidence over half a century and policy suggestions.
Appl Energy 204:667–678
Cai B, Yang W, Cao D, Liu L, Zhou Y, Zhang Z (2012) Estimates of
China’s national and regional transport sector CO2 emissions in
2007. Energy Policy 41:474–483
Chang BH, Sharif A, Aman A, Suki NM, Salman A, Khan SAR (2020)
The asymmetric effects of oil price on sectoral Islamic stocks: new
evidence from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Resour
Policy 65:101571. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resou​rpol.​2019.​10157​1s
Charfeddine L, Khediri KB (2016) Financial development and envi-
ronmental quality in UAE: cointegration with structural breaks.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 55:1322–1335
Chi G, Stone B Jr (2005) Sustainable transport planning: estimating
the ecological footprint of vehicle travel in future years. J Urban
Plan Dev 131(3):170–180
Chien F, Kamran HW, Nawaz MA, Thach NN, Long PD, & Baloch
ZA (2021a). Assessing the prioritization of barriers toward green
innovation: small and medium enterprises Nexus. Environ Dev
Sustain 1-31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​021-​01513-x
Chien F, Pantamee AA, Hussain MS, Chupradit S, Nawaz MA, &
Mohsin M (2021b) Nexus between financial innovation and bank-
ruptcy: evidence from information, communication and technol-
ogy (ict) sector. Singap Econ Rev 1–22
Chien F, Sadiq M, Kamran HW, Nawaz MA, Hussain MS, & Raza M
(2021c) Co-movement of energy prices and stock market return:
environmental wavelet nexus of COVID-19 pandemic from the
USA, Europe, and China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1-15. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​021-​12938-2
Cho JS, Kim T-H, Shin Y (2015) Quantile cointegration in the
autoregressive distributed-lag modeling framework. J Econom
188(1):281–300
Das SK, Roy SK (2019) Effect of variable carbon emission in a multi-
objective transportation-p-facility location problem under neutro-
sophic environment. Comput Ind Eng 132:311–324. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​cie.​2019.​04.​037
Destek MA (2020) Investigation on the role of economic, social, and
political globalization on environment: evidence from CEECs.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(27):33601–33614
Destek MA, Okumus I (2019) Does pollution haven hypothesis hold
in newly industrialized countries? Evidence from ecological foot-
print. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(23):23689–23695
Dreher A (2006) Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a
new index of globalization. Appl Econ 38(10):1091–1110
EnvironmetalProtectionAgency. (2019). Report environmental viola-
tions: Environmetal Protection Agency (EPA).
Figge L, Oebels K, Offermans A (2017) The effects of globalization on
ecological footprints: an empirical analysis. Environ Dev Sustain
19(3):863–876
FocusEconomics. (2019). Economic consensus forecast
FocusEconomics.
Georgatzi VV, Stamboulis Y, Vetsikas A (2020) Examining the
determinants of CO2 emissions caused by the transport sector:
empirical evidence from 12 European countries. Econ Anal Policy
65:11–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eap.​2019.​11.​003
Godil DI, Ahmad P, Ashraf MS, Sarwat S, Sharif A, Shabib-ul-Hasan
S, Jermsittiparsert K (2021) The step towards environmental
mitigation in Pakistan: do transportation services, urbaniza-
tion, and financial development matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res
28(17):21486–21498
Godil DI, Sharif A, Agha H, Jermsittiparsert K (2020a) The dynamic
nonlinear influence of ICT, financial development, and institu-
tional quality on CO2 emission in Pakistan: new insights from
QARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(19):24190–24200
Godil DI, Sharif A, Rafique S, Jermsittiparsert K (2020b) The asym-
metric effect of tourism, financial development, and globalization
43054
on ecological footprint in Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res
27(32):40109–40120
Gyamfi BA, Adedoyin FF, Bein MA, Bekun FV, Agozie DQ (2021)
The anthropogenic consequences of energy consumption in E7
economies: juxtaposing roles of renewable, coal, nuclear, oil and
gas energy: evidence from panel quantile method. J Clean Prod
295:126373
Hassan ST, Xia E, Khan NH, Shah SMA (2019) Economic growth,
natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Paki-
stan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(3):2929–2938
Hu J, Wood R, Tukker A, Boonman H, de Boer B (2019) Global trans-
port emissions in the Swedish carbon footprint. J Clean Prod
226:210–220
Ikram M, Zhang Q, Sroufe R, Shah SZA (2020) Towards a sustainable
environment: the nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy
consumption, access to electricity, agriculture and CO2 emissions
in SAARC countries. Sustain Prod Consum 22:218–230. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2020.​03.​011
Kirikkaleli D, Adebayo TS, Khan Z, Ali S (2021) Does globalization
matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual
adjustment approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(11):14009–
14017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​020-​11654-7
Kongbuamai N, Bui Q, Yousaf HMAU, Liu Y (2020) The impact
of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint:
a case study of ASEAN countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res
27(16):19251–19264
Lean HH, Smyth R (2010) CO2 emissions, electricity consumption and
output in ASEAN. Appl Energy 87(6):1858–1864
Li W, Chien F, Hsu C-C, Zhang Y, Nawaz MA, Iqbal S, & Mohsin
M (2021) Nexus between energy poverty and energy efficiency:
estimating the long-run dynamics. Resour Policy 72. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​resou​r pol.​2021.​102063
Lin B, Li Z (2020) Is more use of electricity leading to less carbon
emission growth? An analysis with a panel threshold model.
Energy Policy 137:111121
Liu C, Susilo YO, Karlström A (2016) Estimating changes in transport
CO2 emissions due to changes in weather and climate in Sweden.
Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 49:172–187
Liu H, Kim H (2018) Ecological footprint, foreign direct investment,
and gross domestic production: evidence of belt & road initiative
countries. Sustainability 10(10):3527
Mohsin M, Kamran HW, Nawaz MA, Hussain MS, & Dahri AS (2021)
Assessing the impact of transition from nonrenewable to renew-
able energy consumption on economic growth-environmental
nexus from developing Asian economies. J Environ Manag
284. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2021.​111999
Nathaniel SP, Barua S, Ahmed Z (2021) What drives ecological foot-
print in top ten tourist destinations? Evidence from advanced
panel techniques. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(28):38322–38331.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​021-​13389-5
Nawaz MA, Hussain MS, Kamran HW, Ehsanullah S, Maheen R,
Shair F (2021a) Trilemma association of energy consumption,
carbon emission, and economic growth of BRICS and OECD
regions: quantile regression estimation. Environ Sci Pollut Res
28(13):16014–16028
Nawaz MA, Seshadri U, Kumar P, Aqdas R, Patwary AK, Riaz M
(2021b) Nexus between green finance and climate change mitiga-
tion in N-11 and BRICS countries: empirical estimation through
difference in differences (DID) approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res
28(6):6504–6519. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​020-​10920-y
New York State Archives. (2020). Land records.
Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Saboori B (2016) Investigating the environmen-
tal Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological
footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1916–1928
Pata UK (2021) Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption,
economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(1):846–861
Peri G, Ferrante P, La Gennusa M, Pianello C, Rizzo G (2018) Green-
ing MSW management systems by saving footprint: the contribu-
tion of the waste transportation. J Environ Manage 219:74–83.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2018.​04.​098
Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Elhoseny M (2018) A multi-objective
transportation model under neutrosophic environment. Comput
Electr Eng 69:705–719. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​leceng.​
2018.​02.​024
Rothman L, Hagel B, Howard A, Cloutier MS, Macpherson A, Aguirre
AN, . . . Hubkarao T (2021) Active school transportation and the
built environment across Canadian cities: findings from the child
active transportation safety and the environment (CHASE) study.
Prev Med , 146, 1064-1079. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ypmed.​
2021.​106470
Rudolph A, Figge L (2017) Determinants of ecological footprints: what
is the role of globalization? Ecol Ind 81:348–361
Sabir S, Gorus MS (2019) The impact of globalization on ecologi-
cal footprint: empirical evidence from the South Asian countries.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(32):33387–33398
Saud S, Chen S, Haseeb A (2020) The role of financial development
and globalization in the environment: accounting ecological foot-
print indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries.
J Clean Prod 250:119518
Shahbaz M, Khan S, Ali A, Bhattacharya M (2017) The impact of
globalization on CO2 emissions in China. Singap Econ Rev
62(04):929–957
Shahbaz M, Uddin GS, Rehman IU, Imran K (2014) Industrialization,
electricity consumption and CO2 emissions in Bangladesh. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 31:575–586
Shair F, Shaorong S, Kamran HW, Hussain MS, Nawaz MA (2021)
Assessing the efficiency and total factor productivity growth of
the banking industry: do environmental concerns matters? Environ
Sci Pollut Res 28(16):20822–20838
Shayesteh K, Darani KM, Ildoromi A (2014) Estimating the ecologi-
cal footprint of transportation in the City of Isphahan (Iran). Curr
World Environ 9(3):760
Suki NM, Sharif A, Afshan S, Suki NM (2020) Revisiting the envi-
ronmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia: the role of globalization in
sustainable environment. J Clean Prod 264:121669
Sun H, Awan RU, Nawaz MA, Mohsin M, Rasheed AK, & Iqbal N
(2020) Assessing the socio-economic viability of solar commer-
cialization and electrification in South Asian countries. Environ
Dev Sustain 1-23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​020-​01038-9
Ullah A, Ahmed M, Raza SA, Ali S (2021) A threshold approach to
sustainable development: nonlinear relationship between renew-
able energy consumption, natural resource rent, and ecological
footprint. J Environ Manage 295:113073
Ulucak R, Khan SU-D (2020) Determinants of the ecological footprint:
role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sus-
tain Cities Soc 54:101996
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey. (2019). How much carbon dioxide
does the United States and the world emit each year from energy
sources? : United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Usman O, Akadiri SS, Adeshola I (2020) Role of renewable energy
and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: implica-
tions for environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res
27:30681–30693
Wackernagel M, & Rees W (1998) Our ecological footprint: reducing
human impact on the earth (Vol. 9): New society publishers.
WilsonCenter. (2018). Globalization and America’s trade agreements:
Wilson Center.
Wu Y, Zhu Q, Zhu B (2018) Comparisons of decoupling trends of
global economic growth and energy consumption between devel-
oped and developing countries. Energy Policy 116:30–38
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023) 30:43040–43055
Xue L, Haseeb M, Mahmood H, Alkhateeb TTY, Murshed M (2021)
Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation:
evidence from selected South Asian economies. Sustainability
13(4):1613
Yilanci V, Gorus MS (2020) Does economic globalization have predic-
tive power for ecological footprint in MENA counties? A panel
causality test with a Fourier function. Environ Sci Pollut Res
27(32):40552–40562
You W, Lv Z (2018) Spillover effects of economic globalization on
CO2 emissions: a spatial panel approach. Energy Economics
73:248–257
Zafar MW, Zaidi SAH, Khan NR, Mirza FM, Hou F, Kirmani SAA
(2019) The impact of natural resources, human capital, and for-
eign direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the
United States. Resour Policy 63:1–11
Zeraibi A, Balsalobre-Lorente D, & Murshed M (2021) The influ-
ences of renewable electricity generation, technological innova-
tion, financial development, and economic growth on ecological
footprints in ASEAN-5 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–19.
43055
Zhan Z, Ali L, Sarwat S, Godil DI, Dinca G, Anser MK (2021) A step
towards environmental mitigation: do tourism, renewable energy
and institutions really matter? A QARDL approach. Sci Total
Environ 778:146209
Zhang N, Yu K, Chen Z (2017) How does urbanization affect carbon
dioxide emissions? A cross-country panel data analysis. Energy
Policy 107:678–687
Zhang S (2018) Is trade openness good for environment in South
Korea? The role of non-fossil electricity consumption. Environ
Sci Pollut Res 25(10):9510–9522
Zhuang Y, Yang S, Chupradit S, Nawaz MA, Xiong R, Koksal C (2021)
A nexus between macroeconomic dynamics and trade openness:
moderating role of institutional quality. Bus Process Manag J.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​BPMJ-​12-​2020-​0594
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.