Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental and Sustainability Indicators

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/environmental-and-sustainability-indicators

Sustainable development spillover effects between North America and

MENA: Analyzing the integrated sustainability perspective
Vahid Mohamad Taghvaee a, Abbas Assari Arani a, *, Lotfali Agheli b
a
Department of Economic Development and Planning, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
b
Economic Research Institute, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

JEL classification: It remains an aura of ambiguity if globalization and openness resulted from the UN platform are helpful for the
O19 global sustainability or against it. This study aims to reveal if the effect of globalization and openness on sus­
O24 tainability of MENA and North America is negative or positive. Our study employs a SEY model as a package of
O21
Simultaneous Equations System, Vector AutoRegressive (VAR) and Granger Causality approaches during
Q52
Q56
1971–2016, to estimate the sustainable development spillover effects (or sustainability elasticities) between
MENA and North America. According to the results, the sustainability elasticities are positive between MENA and
Keywords:
Integrated sustainability
North America, showing synergetic nature of sustainability spillover effects. According to the dominant and
Sustainability spillover effects positive spillover effects, this study claims that the relationships between MENA and North America are syn­
Globalization ergistic, not trade-off. It implies that the countries in MENA and North America should develop their relation­
Partnership ships in a peaceful environment via regional agreements, unions and openness. Therefore, our findings support
Peace the unique agenda of the UN about SDGs for progressing the global sustainable development, especially SDG 16
Openness (Peace, justice and strong institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnership for the goals). In this way, our study for the first
time confirms a new perspective integrated sustainability by adding a 4th pillar of spillover effect to the
traditional pillars of social, environment, and economy.

1. Introduction
In 2015, the United Nations (UN) which is the most important in­
ternational organization has introduced 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) in a globally integrated platform to resolve the mounting
concerns of the world including low income, social inequalities and
environmental degradation up to 2030 (Ahmadi et al., 2021; Farooq
et al., 2020; Nodehi and Taghvaee, 2021a). From the economic point of
view, numerous countries lack the economic (or prosperity) pillar of
sustainable development (or sustainability) (Ahmed, 2021; Parsa et al.,
2019; Taghvaee et al., 2019); and they are suffering from poverty and
extremely low income (Taghvaee et al., 2021a). In Burundi for instance,
per person’ income is less than only 1 Dollar each day; and it is less than
only 3 Dollars per day in more than 20 countries mainly from Middle
East and North Africa (MENA)1 in 2019 (Constant US Dollar, 2010)
(World Bank, 2021). These tragedies are so terrible that the UN assigns
the first two SDGs (No poverty and No hunger) as well as SDG 8 (Decent
work and economic growth) to the economic issues (Allen et al., 2019;
Fullman et al., 2017; Hák et al., 2016; Lyytimäki et al., 2020; Nilsson
et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2018; Taghvaee et al., 2021b). In addition to
the economic concerns, the environmental pollution is threatening the
environment (or planet) pillar of sustainable development (or sustain­
ability) through climate change and global warming (Ahmed, 2018;
Nasrollahi et al., 2020; Taghvaee et al., 2017, 2022b). These disasters
create health consequences, damaging the social (or people) pillar of
sustainable development (or sustainability) (Ahmed, 2020b), as 23% of
global mortality is the result of pollution (WHO, 2018). Furthermore, it
anticipated that about 700 million people would be displaced since
water scarcity endangers 40% and 50% of the world population by 2030
and 2050, respectively (World Bank and United Nations, 2018). To fight
against these global catastrophes, the UN promotes global partnership
(or rather globalization) by suggesting a unique framework (i.e., the 17
SDGs) (Allen et al., 2019; Fullman et al., 2017; Hák et al., 2016; Lyy­
timäki et al., 2020; Nilsson et al., 2016; Nodehi and Taghvaee, 2021b,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: V.TAGHVAEE@modares.ac.ir (V. Mohamad Taghvaee), ASSARI_A@modares.ac.ir (A. Assari Arani), AGHELIK@modares.ac.ir (L. Agheli).
1
Central African Republic, Congo, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Liberia, Malawi, Niger, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Yemen, Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Mali,
Chad, Gambia, Burkina Faso, Nepal, Rwanda, Guinea, Uganda, Timor-Leste, Tanzania.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2022.100182
Received 4 March 2022; Received in revised form 6 April 2022; Accepted 9 April 2022
Available online 13 April 2022
2665-9727/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
V. Mohamad Taghvaee et al.
2022; Smith et al., 2018).
Yet, it remains an aura of ambiguity if globalization and openness
resulted from the UN platform are helpful for the global sustainability or
against it (Shirazi et al., 2020). Many studies believe that globalization
and openness are beneficial for sustainability and the economic devel­
opment, according to the Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage theory
(Štreimikienė and Kačerauskas, 2020; Tremblay et al., 2020; Umar et al.,
2020; Xu et al., 2020). This theory plays a key role in trade facilitation
and economic growth in the world by openness and globalization,
especially thanks to the advancement in transportation and communi­
cation (Taghvaee et al., 2017). Many researcher, however, argue that
openness and globalization are against sustainability, according to the
Pollution Haven Hypotheses (Omri et al., 2019; Youssef et al., 2020).
This hypothesis claims that the developed countries with stringent
environmental regulations transfer their pollutant industries into the
developing countries. In this way, the more the economy grows in the
developed countries, the more the environment degrades in the devel­
oping economies, increasing the gap between sustainable development
in developed and developing countries (Omri et al., 2019; Youssef et al.,
2020). It is how the globalization and openness increases the inequality
among various regions and damages the sustainability process in the
world. Therefore, there are conflicting view points on the relationship
between globalization and openness with global sustainability.
This study aims to reveal if the effect of globalization and openness
on sustainability of MENA2 and North America is negative or positive.
To this aim, this research considers the spatial spillover effects of sus­
tainability as the proxy of globalization and openness and maps them
between MENA and North America. This mapping, by separating the
positive and negative spillover effects, shows that the relationships be­
tween the two regions are synergistic or trade-off. The synergistic (and
trade-off) relationships confirm the Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage
theory (and the Pollution Haven Hypothesis), based on which the policy-
makers should follow flow-based (and place-based) governance.
2. Literature review
Recent studies claim that globalization positively affects sustainable
development and develop “integrated sustainability” as a new perspec­
tive of sustainable development (Nodehi et al., 2021a; Taghvaee et al.,
2021a; Taghvee et al., 2022) besides the traditional perspectives of weak
and strong sustainability (Nasrollahi et al., 2020). In country level
(Nodehi et al., 2021a), show that sustainability spillover effects are
positive and synergistic. According to the findings of this study, the
sustainable development spillover effects are positive and synergetic
between the US and China. In other words, sustainable development in
the US improves sustainable development in China and vice versa. In
regional level (Taghvaee et al., 2021a), confirm the positive spillover
effects of sustainable development between the Middle East and North
America (MENA) and Europe. In global level (Taghvee et al., 2022),
confirm the synergetic nature of sustainability spillover effects. In this
way, these studies suggest that sustainability spillover effects are glob­
ally, regionally, and nationally positive (Ahmed, 2017; Collste et al.,
2017; Kia Lashaki and Ahmed, 2017) and globalization improve sus­
tainable development, proposing integrated sustainability perspective.
These studies add the spillover effects as the 4th pillar of sustainable
development (Nodehi et al., 2021a; V. M. Taghvaee et al., 2021a;
Taghvee et al., 2022) besides social, environment, and economy as the 3
traditional pillars (Ahmed, 2020a; Boussemart et al., 2020; Taghvaee
et al., 2022a). Fig. 1 displays different sustainability perspectives. Ac­
cording to Fig. 1, the strong sustainability attaches higher importance to
the environment pillar compared with social and economy pillars while
the weak sustainability acknowledges equal value for the three pillars
(Cabello et al., 2019). However, integrated sustainability considers 4
2
Middle East and North Africa.
2
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182
pillars of sustainability including spillover effects, social, environment,
and economy (Nodehi et al., 2021a; Taghvaee et al., 2021a; Taghvee
et al., 2022). The differences among these sustainability perspectives are
the research of in this paper.
This study tries to check the new developed perspective of integrated
sustainability and the significance of its new pillar of spillover effects
between two regions of North America and MENA. Our research in­
vestigates if the relationships among other regions confirm this sus­
tainability perspective. In this way, this study helps realize which
sustainability perspective is dominant compared with other
perspectives.
3. Methodology
Following (Nodehi et al., 2021a; Taghvaee et al., 2021a), our study
employs SEY3 model as a package of Simultaneous Equations System,
Vector AutoRegressive (VAR) and Granger Causality approaches during
1971–2016, to estimate the sustainable development spillover effects
(or sustainability elasticities) between MENA and North America.
The SEY model assumes that development in each sustainability
pillar in region “i” depends on development in the sustainability pillars
of region “j”, as in Fig. 1 (Hosseini and Kaneko, 2012).
Fig. 2 displays the 3 assumptions of SEY model. According to Fig. 2,
Each pillar of sustainable development in region “i” is a function of
sustainable development pillars in region “j”. In this study, social,
environment, and economy pillars of sustainability are S, E and Y,
respectively. The regions of “j” and “i” and are, interchangeably, North
America or MENA.
Following (Abdouli and Omri, 2020; Ben Youssef et al., 2016;
Kahouli and Omri, 2017; Nodehi et al., 2021a; Taghavee et al., 2016;
Taghvaee et al., 2021a; Taghvee et al., 2022), our study transforms the
SEY model into Simultaneous Equation System to estimate the spillover
effects as in equation (1).
LEit = α0j + α1j LEjt + α2j CO−jt 1 + α3j GDPjt + ε1t
(1)
CO−it 1 = β0j + β1j LEjt + β2j CO−jt 1 + β3j GDPjt + ε2t
GDPit = θ0j + θ1j LEjt + θ2j CO−jt 1 + θ3j GDPjt + ε3t
where LE is life expectancy measured in year as an index for social pillar
of sustainability; CO− 1 is the inverse of CO2 emissions per capita in 1/
metric tons as a proxy for environmental pillar of sustainability; GDP is
Gross Domestic Production per capita in constant 2010 US Dollar as a
proxy for economic pillar of sustainability; α0 , β0 and θ0 are intercept; ε
is error terms; and t is year.
Positive coefficients (or elasticities) reveal synergetic effects of sus­
tainability between MENA and North America, consistent with (Nodehi
et al., 2021a; Štreimikienė and Kačerauskas, 2020; Taghvaee et al.,
2021a; Taghvee et al., 2022; Tremblay et al., 2020; Umar et al., 2020; Xu
et al., 2020). In case of synergistic spillover effect, policymakers should
follow flow-based governance. Negative coefficients (or elasticities),
however, suggest trade-off relationships which is consistent with (Omri
et al., 2019; Youssef et al., 2020). In this case, decision-makers should
follow place-based governance.
Our study reflects solely those coefficients with statistical signifi­
cance both in the simultaneous equations system, and in causal rela­
tionship in the Granger Causality and VAR approach. These elasticities
in average are the sustainability elasticities.
Data are derived from the World Development Indicators, World
Bank, within 1971–2016 (World Bank, 2021). They are normalized
3
SEY model stands for Social (S), Environment (E), and Economy (Y) which
are the three pillars of sustainability.
V. Mohamad Taghvaee et al. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182

Fig. 1. Various perspectives of sustainability and their pillars.

Source (Nodehi et al., 2021a; Taghvaee et al., 2021a; Taghvee et al., 2022):

values of the natural logarithm form.4

More details of methodology and data are in the Appendix is acces­
sible at the following link. (Nodehi et al., 2021b).
https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/xvd7bv6mjb/draft?a=c
50b0dc2-3be2-4bc1-8b5a-f56419347307.

4. Result

Regarding the results, the sustainability elasticities are positive be­

Fig. 2. Assumptions of SEY model.
tween MENA and North America, exhibiting synergetic character of
sustainability spillover effects.
Table 1 and Table 2 display the coefficients and statistics of the
simultaneous equations system and Granger causality test with various
approaches. All the methods show identical coefficients and statistics,
confirming the reliability of the resulted elasticities. In addition, Fig. 3
represents the impulse functions of the VAR model. All these tables and

4
The normalization is according to the following equation:
Current value− Maximum value
Normalized value = Maximum value− Minimum valueAfter normalization, all the variables
are put into unit root tests and they are stationary in level, paving the way to
run the model without any worry for spurious regression result.

3
V. Mohamad Taghvaee et al. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182

Table 1
Estimated relationships and causality directions of sustainable development pillars from North America to Middle East & North Africa via simultaneous equations
system and Granger causality test.
MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA (MENA) ⇐ North America (N. America)

Limited information approach (single equation) Full information approach (single equation) Granger

OLS WOLS 2SLS WSLS 3SLS SUR GMM FIML Causality

LE equationMENA Optimal lag = 5

C 0.3015*** 0.3015*** 0.3015*** 0.3015*** 0.3015*** 0.3015*** 0.3015*** 0.3015 –
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.40)
LE N. ​ America 0.4328*** 0.4328*** 0.4328*** 0.4328*** 0.4328*** 0.4328*** 0.4328*** 0.4328** LE⇒LE
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.02) (0.51)
CO−N.1​ America -0.0093 -0.0093 -0.0093 -0.0093 -0.0093 -0.0093 -0.0093 -0.0093 CO− 1 ⇒LE*
(0.73) (0.71) (0.73) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.81) (0.90) (0.06)
GDP N. ​ America 0.5340*** 0.5340*** 0.5340*** 0.5340*** 0.5340*** 0.5340*** 0.5340*** 0.5340*** GDP⇒LE*
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.06)
CO − 1 equationMENA
C 6.6863*** 6.6863*** 6.6863*** 6.6863*** 6.6863*** 6.6863*** 6.6863*** 6.6863*** –
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
LE N. ​ America 0.8284** 0.8284*** 0.8284** 0.8284*** 0.8284*** 0.8284*** 0.8284** 0.8284 LE⇒CO− 1
(0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.02) (0.55) (0.26)
CO−N.1​ America -0.5586*** -0.5586*** -0.5586*** -0.5586*** -0.5586*** -0.5586*** -0.5586** -0.5586 CO− 1 ⇒CO− 1
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.04) (0.39) (0.89)
GDP N. ​ America -1.2932*** -1.2932*** -1.2932*** -1.2932*** -1.2932*** -1.2932*** -1.2932*** -1.2932 GDP⇒CO− 1
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.25) (0.80)
GDP equationMENA
C 2.5754*** 2.5754*** 2.5754*** 2.5754*** 2.5754*** 2.5754*** 2.5754*** 2.5754 –
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.53)
LE N. ​ America 0.0523 0.0523 0.0523 0.0523 0.0523 0.0523 0.0523 0.0523 LE⇒GDP
(0.91) (0.91) (0.91) (0.91) (0.91) (0.91) (0.90) (0.98) (0.33)
− 1
CON. ​ America -0.2202 -0.2202 -0.2202 -0.2202 -0.2202 -0.2202 -0.2202 -0.2202 − 1
CO ⇒GDP***
(0.43) (0.41) (0.43) (0.41) (0.41) (0.41) (0.32) (0.83) (0.73)
GDP N. ​ America 0.3781 0.3781 0.3781 0.3781 0.3781 0.3781 0.3781 0.3781 GDP⇒GDP
(0.42) (0.40) (0.42) (0.40) (0.40) (0.40) (0.40) (0.88) (0.58)

Table 2
Estimated relationships and causality directions of sustainable development pillars from Middle East & North Africa to North America via simultaneous equations
system and Granger causality test.
NORTH AMERICA (N. America) ⇐ Middle East & North Africa (MENA)

Limited information approach (single equation) Full information approach (single equation) Granger

OLS WOLS 2SLS WSLS 3SLS SUR GMM FIML Causality

LE equationN. ​ America Optimal lag = 5

C -0.4377 -0.4377 -0.4377** -0.4377** -0.4377*** -0.4377 -0.4377*** -0.4377 –
(0.23) (0.21) (0.23) (0.21) (0.21) (0.21) (0.24) (0.90)
LE MENA 1.0402*** 1.0402*** 1.0402*** 1.0402*** 1.0402*** 1.0402*** 1.0402*** 1.0402*** LE⇒LE
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.25)
1
CO−MENA 0.0324 0.0324 0.0324 0.0324 0.0324 0.0324 0.0324 0.0324 CO− 1 ⇒LE
(0.47) (0.45) (0.47) (0.45) (0.45) (0.45) (0.46) (0.94) (0.70)
GDP MENA 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 0.0412 GDP⇒LE
(0.26) (0.24) (0.26) (0.24) (0.24) (0.24) (0.25) (0.85) (0.61)
CO − 1 equationN. ​ America
C 3.9758*** 3.9758*** 3.9758*** 3.9758*** 3.9758*** 3.9758*** 3.9758*** 3.9758*** –
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.47)
LE MENA 0.3568*** 0.3568*** 0.3568*** 0.3568*** 0.3568*** 0.3568*** 0.3568*** 0.3568 LE⇒CO− 1 **
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.58) (0.01)
1
CO−MENA -0.3764*** -0.3764*** -0.3764*** -0.3764*** -0.3764*** -0.3764*** -0.3764*** -0.3764 CO− 1 ⇒CO− 1
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.53) (0.39)
GDP MENA -0.2031** -0.2031** -0.2031** -0.2031** -0.2031** -0.2031** -0.2031* -0.2031 GDP⇒CO− 1
(0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.07) (0.59) (0.61)
GDP equationN. ​ America
C 0.5567** 0.5567** 0.5567** 0.5567** 0.5567** 0.5567** 0.5567* 0.5567 –
(0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.09) (0.81)
LE MENA 0.9224*** 0.9224*** 0.9224*** 0.9224*** 0.9224*** 0.9224*** 0.9224*** 0.9224*** LE⇒GDP***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
CO−MENA
1 -0.1424*** -0.1424*** -0.1424*** -0.1424*** -0.1424*** -0.1424*** -0.1424*** -0.1424 CO− 1 ⇒GDP
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.50) (0.80)
GDP MENA -0.0089 -0.0089 -0.0089 -0.0089 -0.0089 -0.0089 -0.0089 -0.0089 GDP⇒GDP
(0.71) (0.70) (0.71) (0.70) (0.70) (0.70) (0.69) (0.96) (0.56)

the figure support the significant interaction among life expectancy, statistically significant both in the simultaneous equations system and in
CO2 emission and GDP per capita between MENA and North America. the Granger causality. They are the elasticities of sustainable develop­
Table 3 displays the resulted coefficients in Tables 1 and 2 which are ment pillars between MENA and North America, which are mostly

4
V. Mohamad Taghvaee et al.
Fig. 3. Impulse functions of sustainable development pillars between MENA and North America (CO is the inverse of per capita CO2 emissions; GDP is per capita
GDP; and LE is life expectancy).
positive, confirming the findings of (Nodehi et al., 2021a; Štreimikienė
Kačerauskas, 2020; Taghvaee, et al., 2021a; Taghvee et al., 2022;
Tremblay et al., 2020; Umar et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020). It affirms the
UN idea about a unique platform (the SDGs) for improvement of sus­
tainability in global level (Farooq et al., 2020). According to Table 3, life
expectancy in MENA has positive effects on CO2 reduction and GDP
increment in North America (equal to 35% and 92%, respectively). It
shows that social development in MENA improve both the economy and
the environment in North America (see Fig. 4). Furthermore, the GDP in
North America has positive effect on life expectancy in MENA (53%). It
implies that economic development in North America improves the so­
cial development in MENA (see Fig. 4). In addition, the average of the
5
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182
elasticities are the sustainability elasticities. Sustainable development in
MENA as a whole improves sustainable development in North America
63%; and sustainable development in North America recovers sustain­
able development in MENA 26%. It shows a bilateral positive and syn­
ergetic relationship between MENA and North America.
5. Discussion
Our findings support the perspective of Integrated Sustainability with
4 pillars of spillover effect, social, environment, and economy. Our re­
sults show a considerable synergetic relationship among sustainable
development pillars between North America and MENA, consistent with
V. Mohamad Taghvaee et al. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182

Table 3 claims that the relationships between MENA and North America are
Summary of the results: This represents the statistically significant causalities synergistic, not trade-off. It implies that the countries in MENA and
with average long-run relationships of the sustainable development pillars be­ North America should develop their relationships in a peaceful envi­
tween North America and MENA. These are the sustainability elasticities (or ronment via regional agreements, unions and openness. From this view-
rather the spillover effects of sustainable development pillars) as the positive point, this research adds spillover effect as the 4th pillar to the sus­
ones are synergies and the negative one is trade-off nexus. The average of the
tainable development pillars. By considering 4 pillars for sustainable
averages is the interactive sustainability elasticity.
development, this study introduces a new perspective of sustainability
Region j => Region i MENA => America America => MENA as Integrated Sustainability, beside the classical ones which are weak and
Social i strong sustainability. Integrated sustainability promotes peace, part­
Social j LEj ⇒LEi – – nership, globalization and openness as stimulus to regional and global
Environment j CO−j 1 ⇒LEi – − 0.0093* sustainability. It implicitly emphasizes two Sustainable Development
Economy j GDPj ⇒LEi – +0.5340* Goals (SDGs), SDG 16 (Peace, justice and strong institutions) and SDG 17
Environment i
Social j
(Partnership for the goals). In this environment, the policymakers are
LEj ⇒CO−i 1 +0.3568** –
Environment j CO−j 1 ⇒CO−j 1 – – advised to follow flow-based governance rather than place-based one.
Economy j GDPj ⇒CO−i 1 – – The global society, in addition, should establish regional and interna­
Economy i tional agreements, union and partnership to improve sustainability not
Social j LEj ⇒GDPi +0.9224*** – only in the regional level but also in the global level.
Environment j CO−j 1 ⇒GDPi – – Therefore, our findings support the unique agenda of the UN about
Economy j GDPj ⇒GDPi – – SDGs for progressing the global sustainable development, especially
Interactive Sustainability Elasticities +63% +26% SDG 16 and SDG 17. The countries should join and follow the SDGs to
Source: Researchers’ findings. achieve the sustainability not only in country level but also in regional
and global levels. In addition, policy-makers in country-level are rec­
(Nodehi et al., 2021a; Taghvaee et al., 2021a; Taghvee et al., 2022). This ommended to increase and improve their own relationships with other
result confirms that spillover effects play a vital role in regional and countries via signing and joining international agreement, unions, and
global sustainable development as a 4th sustainable development pillar cooperation.
devotes to this effect. Although weak and strong sustainable develop­ As a future study, the other regions and countries may put into test
ment perspectives have 3 pillars of social, environment, and economy whether spillover effects of sustainability are synergetic among other
pillars, integrated sustainability adds the 4th one as spillover effect. In regions and countries, especially between the two great economic
this way, integrated sustainability perspective appreciates Peace and powers of the world (East and West).
Partnership as the 4th P for People, Planet, and Prosperity which are the As limitation of this study, the residual is the most important variable
3 Ps of sustainability. According to this viewpoint, integrated sustain­ in the model as the sustainability indicator that captured the spillover
ability emphasizes on two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), i.e., effects of the sustainability issues via the combined contribution of the
SDG 16 which is “peace, justice and strong institutions” and SDG 17 qualities of the variables. The paper addressed the estimation of the
which is “partnership for the goals”. Therefore, our findings confirm variables, a next research can consider it as a second step to calculate the
integrated sustainability as a new perspective for the sustainability sustainability indicators including the Total Factor productivity that
literature which focuses on spillover effects, peace, and partnership proxies the technological progress via the residual term.
among various countries and regions.
Funding
6. Conclusion
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
According to the dominant and positive spillover effects, this study agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Fig. 4. Estimated spillover effects (or elasticities) of sustainable development pillars between MENA and North America.
Source: Researchers’ findings.

6
V. Mohamad Taghvaee et al.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Availability of data and supplementary materials
Details of methodology and data are in the Appendix which is
accessible at the following link (Nodehi et al., 2021b).
Code availability
The model estimations are in the following EViews Work-File
(Nodehi et al., 2021b).
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Abdouli, M., Omri, A., 2020. Exploring the Nexus among FDI inflows, environmental
quality, human capital, and economic growth in the mediterranean region. Journal
of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00641-5.
Ahmadi, H., Mohebi, M., Nikbeen, H., Rasoli, K., Sharifpour, Y., Soleymani, A.,
Taghvaee, V.M., Yousefi, A., 2021. Sustainable development and modern customs: a
review on customs conventions of World Customs Organization. Glob. Trade Cust. J.
363–383. http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Jo
urnals%5CGTCJ%5CGTCJ2021040.pdf.
Ahmed, E.M., 2017. ICT and human capital spillover effects in achieving sustainable East
Asian knowledge-based economies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 8 (3),
1086–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0430-4.
Ahmed, E.M., 2018. Are bio-economy dimensions new stream of the knowledge
economy? World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 15
(2), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-06-2017-0014.
Ahmed, E.M., 2020a. Modelling green productivity spillover effects on sustainability.
World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development 17 (3),
257–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-01-2020-0009.
Ahmed, E.M., 2020b. Covid19-Implications on IsDB member countries sustainable digital
economies. International Journal of Innovation and Knowledge Management in
Middle East and North Africa 8 (1–2), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.47556/J.
IJIKMMENA.8.1.2020.2.
Ahmed, E.M., 2021. Modelling information and communications technology cyber
security externalities spillover effects on sustainable economic growth. Journal of
the Knowledge Economy 12 (1), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-
00627-3.
Allen, C., Metternicht, G., Wiedmann, T., 2019. Prioritising SDG targets: assessing
baselines, gaps and interlinkages. Sustain. Sci. 14 (2), 421–438. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11625-018-0596-8.
Ben Youssef, A., Hammoudeh, S., Omri, A., 2016. Simultaneity modeling analysis of the
environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Energy Econ. 60, 266–274. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.10.005.
Boussemart, J.-P., Leleu, H., Shen, Z., Valdmanis, V., 2020. Performance analysis for
three pillars of sustainability. J. Prod. Anal. 53 (3), 305–320. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11123-020-00575-9.
Cabello, J.M., Navarro-Jurado, E., Rodríguez, B., Thiel-Ellul, D., Ruiz, F., 2019. Dual
weak–strong sustainability synthetic indicators using a double reference point
scheme: the case of Andalucía, Spain. Operational Research 19 (3), 757–782.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-0390-5.
Collste, D., Pedercini, M., Cornell, S.E., 2017. Policy coherence to achieve the SDGs:
using integrated simulation models to assess effective policies. Sustain. Sci. 12 (6),
921–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0457-x.
Farooq, Q., Hao, J., Liu, X., Xiao, D., Hao, Y., 2020. Social and environmental
development: fresh concepts and soft measures towards sustainable development.
Sustain. Dev. 28 (6), 1796–1803. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2075.
Fullman, N., Barber, R.M., Abajobir, A.A., Abate, K.H., Abbafati, C., Abbas, K.M., Abd-
Allah, F., Abdulle, A.M., Abera, S.F., Aboyans, V., Abu-Raddad, L.J., Abu-Rmeileh, N.
M.E., Adedeji, I.A., Adetokunboh, O., Afshin, A., Agrawal, A., Agrawal, S.,
Kiadaliri, A.A., Ahmadieh, H., Murray, C.J.L., 2017. Measuring progress and
projecting attainment on the basis of past trends of the health-related Sustainable
Development Goals in 188 countries: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2016. Lancet 390 (10100), 1423–1459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736
(17)32336-X.
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: a need for
relevant indicators. Ecol. Indicat. 60, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2015.08.003.
7
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182
Hosseini, H.M., Kaneko, S., 2012. Causality between pillars of sustainable development:
global stylized facts or regional phenomena? Ecol. Indicat. 14 (1), 197–201. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.005.
Kahouli, B., Omri, A., 2017. Foreign direct investment, foreign trade and environment:
new evidence from simultaneous-equation system of gravity models. Res. Int. Bus.
Finance 42, 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.161.
Kia Lashaki, R., Ahmed, E.M., 2017. FDI inflow spillover effect implications on the Asia
Pacific productivity growth through the export channel. Rev. Galega Econ. 26 (3),
57–72. https://doi.org/10.15304/rge.26.3.4460.
Lyytimäki, J., Salo, H., Lepenies, R., Büttner, L., Mustajoki, J., 2020. Risks of producing
and using indicators of sustainable development goals. Sustain. Dev. 28 (6),
1528–1538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2102.
Nasrollahi, Z., Hashemi, M., Bameri, S., Taghvaee, V.M., 2020. Environmental pollution,
economic growth, population, industrialization, and technology in weak and strong
sustainability: using STIRPAT model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10668-018-0237-5.
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., Ringler, C., 2016. A Draft Framework for
Understanding SDG Interactions June 2016.
Nodehi, M., Arani, A.A., Taghvaee, V.M., 2021a. Sustainability spillover effects and
partnership between East Asia & Pacific versus North America: interactions of social,
environment and economy. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12076-021-00282-5.
Nodehi, M., Taghvaee, V.M., 2021a. Sustainable concrete for circular economy: a review
on use of waste glass. Glass Structures & Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40940-021-00155-9.
Nodehi, M., Taghvaee, V.M., 2021b. Alkali-activated materials and geopolymer: a review
of common precursors and activators addressing circular economy. Circular
Economy and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00029-w.
Nodehi, M., Taghvaee, V.M., 2022. Applying circular economy to construction industry
through use of waste materials: a review of supplementary cementitious materials,
plastics, and ceramics. Circular Economy and Sustainability. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s43615-022-00149-x.
Nodehi, M., Taghvaee, V.M., Arani, A.A., 2021b. Data and methodology for estimating
sustainability spillover effects between two regions. Mendeley Dataset. https://doi.
org/10.17632/xvd7bv6mjb.2.
Omri, A., Euchi, J., Hasaballah, A.H., Al-Tit, A., 2019. Determinants of environmental
sustainability: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1592–1601.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.111.
Parsa, H., Keshavarz, H., Taghvaee, V.M., 2019. Industrial growth and sustainable
development in Iran. Iran. Econ. Rev. 23 (2), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.22059/
ier.2019.70281.
Shirazi, J.K., Taghvaee, V.M., Nasiri, M., Assari Arani, A., 2020. Sustainable development
and openness in oil-exporting countries: green growth and brown growth. Journal of
Economic Structures 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-020-00216-2.
Smith, M.S., Cook, C., Sokona, Y., Elmqvist, T., Fukushi, K., Broadgate, W., Jarzebski, M.
P., 2018. Advancing sustainability science for the SDGs. Sustain. Sci. 13 (6),
1483–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0645-3.
Štreimikienė, D., Kačerauskas, T., 2020. The creative economy and sustainable
development: the Baltic States. Sustain. Dev. 28 (6), 1632–1641. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sd.2111.
Taghavee, V.M., Aloo, A.S., Shirazi, J.K., 2016. Energy, environment, and economy
interactions in Iran with cointegrated and ECM simultaneous model. Procedia Econ.
Finance 36, 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30056-9.
Taghvaee, S.M., Omaraee, B., Taghvaee, V.M., 2017. Maritime transportation,
environmental pollution, and economic growth in Iran: using dynamic log linear
model and granger causality approach. Iran. Econ. Rev. 21 (2) https://doi.org/
10.22059/IER.2017.62100.
Taghvaee, V.M., Agheli, L., Assari Arani, A., Nodehi, M., Shirazi, J.K., 2019.
Environmental pollution and economic growth elasticities of maritime and air
transportations in Iran. Marine Economics and Management 2 (2), 114–123. https://
doi.org/10.1108/MAEM-09-2019-0008.
Taghvaee, V.M., Arani, A.A., Soretz, S., Agheli, L., 2021a. Sustainable Development in
MENA and Europe: Regional Interactions of Social, Environment, and Economy.
Iranian Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.22059/IER.2021.83906.
Taghvaee, V.M., Arani, A.A., Soretz, S., Agheli, L., 2022a. Diesel demand elasticities and
sustainable development pillars of economy, environment and social (health):
comparing two strategies of subsidy removal and energy efficiency. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02092-7.
Taghvaee, V.M., Arani, A.A., Soretz, S., Agheli, L., 2022b. Comparing energy efficiency
and price policy from a sustainable development perspective: using fossil fuel
demand elasticities in Iran. MRS Energy & Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1557/
s43581-022-00024-0.
Taghvaee, V.M., Assari Arani, A., Nodehi, M., Khodaparast Shirazi, J., Agheli, L., Neshat
Ghojogh, H.M., Salehnia, N., Mirzaee, A., Taheri, S., Mohammadi Saber, R.,
Faramarzi, H., Alvandi, R., Ahmadi Rahbarian, H., 2021b. Sustainable development
goals: transportation, health and public policy. Review of Economics and Political
Science. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-12-2019-0168. ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print).
Taghvaee, V.M., Mavuka, C., Shirazi, J.K., 2017. Economic growth and energy
consumption in Iran: an ARDL approach including renewable and non-renewable
energies. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 19 (6) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9862-z.
Taghvee, V.M., Nodehi, M., Arani, A.A., Jafari, Y., Shirazi, J.K., 2022. Sustainability
spillover effects of social, environment and economy: mapping global sustainable
development in a systematic analysis. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-022-00231-0.
V. Mohamad Taghvaee et al.
Tremblay, D., Fortier, F., Boucher, J.F., Riffon, O., Villeneuve, C., 2020. Sustainable
development goal interactions: an analysis based on the five pillars of the 2030
agenda. Sustain. Dev. 28 (6), 1584–1596. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2107.
Umar, M., Ji, X., Kirikkaleli, D., Shahbaz, M., Zhou, X., 2020. Environmental cost of
natural resources utilization and economic growth: can China shift some burden
through globalization for sustainable development? Sustain. Dev. 28 (6),
1678–1688. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2116.
WHO, 2018. WHO webside. World health organization (WHO). http://www.who.int/ai
rpollution/en/.
World Bank, 2021. No title. World development indicator. https://databank.worldbank.
org/source/world-development-indicators.
Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 14 (2022) 100182
World Bank, United Nations, 2018. A joint report by World Bank and united Nations.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/17825HLPW_Outcome.
pdf.
Xu, Z., Li, Y., Chau, S.N., Dietz, T., Li, C., Wan, L., Zhang, J., Zhang, L., Li, Y., Chung, M.
G., Liu, J., 2020. Impacts of international trade on global sustainable development.
Nat. Sustain. 3, 964–971. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0572-z.
Youssef, A. Ben, Boubaker, S., Omri, A., 2020. Financial development and
macroeconomic sustainability: modeling based on a modified environmental Kuznets
curve. Climatic Change 163 (2), 767–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-
02914-z.