4.7 Article

Determinants of material footprint in BRICS countries: an empirical analysis

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 28, Issue 28, Pages 37689-37704

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13309-7

Keywords

Renewable energy; Urbanization; Material footprint; BRICS

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the relationship between renewable energy consumption, urbanization, human capital, trade, natural resources, and material footprint in BRICS countries. The results show that economic growth, natural resources, renewable energy, and urbanization have reduced environmental quality, while foreign trade and human capital improve environmental quality. Policy recommendations for sustainable development in BRICS countries are suggested based on the empirical findings.
This paper explores the relationship between renewable energy consumption, urbanization, human capital, trade, natural resources, and material footprint for BRICS countries from 1990 to 2016. We apply the cross-sectional dependency test to check the correlation among the cross-section. Then, we use the second-generation panel test like CADF and CIPS to check the stationary in the series. After that, we go for the panel cointegration test, i.e., Pedroni and Westerlund panel cointegration, to know the long-run relationship of the variables. The test results reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration among the variables and accept cointegration. The long-run results indicate that economic growth, natural resources, renewable energy, and urbanization have reduced the environmental quality for BRICS countries in case of material footprint employed to measure environmental degradation. However, foreign trade and human capital improve environmental quality. Based on the empirical results, the study recommended some important policy suggestions to achieve sustainable development in BRICS countries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available