Impact of Internet Use on Ecological Footprint: Panel Data Analysis for Fragile Five Countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkiye)

Akin, Fatih; Ozgun, Fergul

doi:10.35784/preko.5979

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Impact of Internet Use on Ecological Footprint: Panel Data Analysis for Fragile Five Countries (Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkiye)

Autorzy

Akin Fatih , Ozgun Fergul

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/preko.5979

Warianty tytułu

Wpływ korzystania z Internetu na ślad ekologiczny: analiza danych panelowych dla pięciu krajów niestabilnych (Brazylia, Indie, Indonezja, Republika Południowej Afryki i Turcja)

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

In addition to the views that claim that the development of information and communication technologies will result in less environmental pollution and better environmental quality, there are also views that claim that it will increase environmental pollution. In this study, the relationship between environmental quality and information and communication technologies for the 1995–2021 period for the Fragile Five countries was examined using the panel augmented autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds test method. Ecological footprint was used to represent environmental quality, and the proportion of individuals using the internet was used to represent developments in information and communication technologies. In addition, economic growth, energy consumption, and financial development are included in the model as explanatory variables. According to the results of this study, internet use reduces the ecological footprint in both the short and long run. While financial development reduces the ecological footprint in the long run, energy consumption increases both in the short and long run. Economic growth, on the other hand, increases the ecological footprint in the short run. In line with these results, expanding internet use in the Fragile Five Countries may increase environmental quality.

Oprócz poglądów, że rozwój technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych spowoduje mniejsze zanieczyszczenie środowiska i lepszą jakość środowiska, istnieją również poglądy, że zwiększy to zanieczyszczenie środowiska. Wniniejszym badaniu zbadano związek między jakością środowiska a technologiami informacyjno-komunika-cyjnymi w latach 1995-2021 w krajach Piątki przy użyciu modelu autoregresyjnego o opóźnieniach rozłożonych (ARDL). Ślad ekologiczny został wykorzystany doprzedstawienia jakości środowiska, a odsetek osób korzystających z Internetu został wykorzystany do przedstawienia rozwoju technologii informacyjnych i komunikacyjnych. Ponadto, wzrost gospodarczy, zużycie energii i rozwój finansowy zostały uwzględnione wmodelu jako zmienne objaśniające. Zgodnie z wynikami tego badania, korzystanie z Internetu zmniejsza ślad ekologiczny za-równo w krótkim, jak i długim okresie, podczas gdy rozwój finansowy zmniejsza ślad ekologiczny w długim okresie, zużycie energii wzrasta zarówno w krótkim, jak i długim okresie. Z drugiej strony wzrost gospodarczy zwiększa ślad ekologiczny w krótkim okresie. Zgodnie z tymi wynikami, rozszerzenie korzystania z Internetu wkrajach Piątki może poprawić jakość środowiska.

Słowa kluczowe

fragile five countries ecological footprint internet use rate economic growth panel ARDL

pięć krajów niestabilnych ślad ekologiczny wskaźnik korzystania z Internetu wzrost gospodarczy panel ARDL

Wydawca

Lublin University of Technology

Czasopismo

Problemy Ekorozwoju

Rocznik

2024

Tom

Vol. 19, no. 2

Strony

139--152

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 52 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Akin Fatih

fatih.akin@erzincan.edu.tr

Erzincan BinaliYıldırım Yıldırım University (Turkey)

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-4004

autor

Ozgun Fergul

İstanbul Yeni Yüzyıl University (Turkey)

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0633-7045

Bibliografia

1. Addai, K., Serener, B., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Empirical analysis of the relationship among urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint: Evidence from Eastern Europe. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *29*(19), 27749–27760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17311-x
2. Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M., & Ali, N. (2019). Does Globalization Increase the Ecological Footprint? Empirical Evidence from Malaysia. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *26*, 18565–18582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
3. Al-Ansi, A. M., Garad, A., & Al-Ansi, A. (2021). ICT-Based Learning During Covid-19 Outbreak: Advantages, Opportunities and Challenges. *Gagasan Pendidikan Indonesia*, *2*(1), 10–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.30870/gpi.v2i1.10176
4. Al-Mulali, U., Sheau-Ting, L., & Ozturk, I. (2015). The Global Move Toward Internet Shopping and Its Influence on Pollution: An Empirical Analysis. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *22*, 9717–9727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4142-2
5. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., Kumar, P., Kumar, S., Akram, V., & 2022, M. D. (2022). Main Determinants for Ecological Footprint: An Econometric Perspective from G20 Countries. *Energy, Ecology and Environment*, *7*(3), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-022-00240-x
6. Asongu, S. A., Le Roux, S., & Biekpe, N. (2017). Environmental Degradation, ICT, and Inclusive Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. *Energy Policy*, *111*, 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.049
7. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). *Econometric Analysis of Panel Data* (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
8. Bayraktar, Y., Egri, T., & Yildiz, F. (2016). A Causal Relationship Between Oil Prices Current Account Deficit, And Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis from Fragile Five Countries. *Ecoforum Journal*, *5*(3), 29–44.
9. Bhujabal, P., Sethi, N., & Padhan, P. C. (2021). ICT, Foreign Direct Investment, and Environmental Pollution in Major Asia Pacific Countries. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *28*(31), 42649–42669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13619-w
10. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. *The Review of Economic Studies*, *47*(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
11. Canbay, Ş. (2023). Analysis of the Relationships Between Agricultural Producer Protection and Macroeconomic Variables in Fragile Five Countries by Bootstrap Panel Causality Test. *Journal of Agricultural Sciences*, *29*(2), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1112584
12. Charfeddine, L., & Umlai, M. (2023). ICT Sector, Digitization, and Environmental Sustainability: A Systematic Review of the Literature from 2000 to 2022. *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews*, *184*, 113482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113482
13. Chien, F., Anwar, A., Hsu, C. C., Sharif, A., Razzaq, A., & Sinha, A. (2021). The Role of Information and Communication Technology in Encountering Environmental Degradation: Proposing an SDG Framework for the BRICS Countries. *Technology in Society*, *65*, 101587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101587
14. Costanza, R. (2000). The Dynamics of the Ecological Footprint Concept. *Ecological Economics*, *32*(3), 341–345.
15. Dastres, R., & Soori, M. (2021). The Role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Environmental Protection. *International Journal of Tomography and Simulation*, *2021*, ffhal-03359776f.
16. Destek, M. A., & Manga, M. (2021). Technological Innovation, Financialization, and Ecological Footprint: Evidence from BEM Economies. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *28*, 21991–22001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11845-2
17. Drastichova, M. (2024). SWOT Analysis of the Sustainable Development Concept. *Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development*, *19*(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.35784/preko.5431
18. Ehigiamusoe, K. U., Lean, H. H., Mustapha, M., & Ramakrishnan, S. (2023). Industrialization, Globalization, ICT, And Environmental Degradation in Malaysia: A Frequency Domain Analysis. *Heliyon*, *9*, e20669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20699
19. Global Footprint Network. (2024). *Data by country*. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
20. Hansmann, R., Mieg, H. A., & Frischknecht, P. (2012). Principal Sustainability Components: Empirical Analysis of Synergies between the Three Pillars of Sustainability. *International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology*, *19*(5), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2012.696220
21. Holden, E. (2004). Ecological Footprints and Sustainable Urban Form. *Journal of Housing and the Built Environment*, *19*, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOHO.0000017708.98013.cb
22. Higón, D. A., Gholami, R., & Shirazi, F. (2017). ICT and Environmental Sustainability: A Global Perspective. *Telematics and Informatics*, *34*(4), 85–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.01.001
23. Hilty, L. M., Arnfalk, P., Erdmann, L., Goodman, J., Lehmann, M., & Wager, P. A. (2006). The Relevance of Information and Communication Technologies for Environmental Sustainability – A Prospective Simulation Study. *Environmental Modelling & Software*, *21*(11), 1618–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.05.007
24. Hoekstra, A. Y. (2009). Human Appropriation of Natural Capital: A Comparison of Ecological Footprint and Water Footprint Analysis. *Ecological Economics*, *68*(7), 1963–1974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.021
25. Jabareen, Y. (2008). A New Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Development. *Environment, Development and Sustainability*, *10*, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9058-z
26. Javidiar, A., & Ekaputra, I. A. (2019). The Dynamics of Exchange Rate and Stock Return Before and After the Fed Policy Normalization: Evidence from Fragile Five Countries. *International Journal of Business Studies*, *3*(2), 54–63.
27. Jorgenson, A. K., & Clark, B. (2011). Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1960-2003. *Social Science Research*, *40*(1), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.09.004
28. Kolupaieva, I., Sheiko, I., Polozova, T., Raudeliūnienė, J., & Tvaronavičienė, M. (2024). Digital Transformation in the Context of Sustainable Development of European Countries. *Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development*, *19*(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.35784/preko.5413
29. Lee, Y. C., Malcein, L. A., & Kim, S. C. (2021). Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Usage During COVID-19: Motivating Factors and Implications. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, *18*(7), 3571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073571
30. Mahdavi, S., & Sojoodi, S. (2021). *Impact of ICT on Environment* (Preprint). Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1020622/v1
31. Majeed, M. T. (2018). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Environmental Sustainability: A Comparative Empirical Analysis. *Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS)*, *12*(3), 758–783.
32. Moffatt, I. (2000). Ecological Footprints and Sustainable Development. *Ecological Economics*, *32*(3), 359–362.
33. Nakhle, P., Stamos, I., Proietti, P., & Siragusa, A. (2024). Environmental Monitoring in European Regions Using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Framework. *Environmental and Sustainability Indicators*, *21*, 100332.
34. Okur, M., Kose, A., & Akpinar, O. (2021). The Soundness of Financial Institutions in The Fragile Five Countries. *International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM)*, *12*(3), 89–102.
35. Ozpolat, A. (2022). How Does Internet Use Affect Ecological Footprint? An Empirical Analysis for G7 Countries. *Environment, Development and Sustainability*, *24*(11), 12833–12849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01967-z
36. Park, Y., Meng, F., & Baloch, M. A. (2018). The Effect of ICT, Financial Development, Growth, and Trade Openness on CO2 Emissions: An Empirical Analysis. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *25*, 30708–30719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3108-6
37. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, *94*(446), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.2307/2670182
38. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross Section Dependence. *Journal of Applied Econometrics*, *22*(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
39. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. *Journal of Econometrics*, *142*(1), 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
40. Raihan, A. (2023). Nexus Between Economy, Technology, and Ecological Footprint in China. *Journal of Economy and Technology*, *1*, 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2023.09.003
41. Rout, S. K., Gupta, M., & Sahoo, M. (2022). The Role of Technological Innovation and Diffusion, Energy Consumption and Financial Development in Affecting Ecological Footprint in BRICS: An Empirical Analysis. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17734-6
42. Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Is Rapid Growth in Internet Usage Environmentally Sustainable for Australia? An Empirical Investigation. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, *23*, 4700–4713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5689-7
43. Strielkowski, W., Firsova, I., Lukashenko, I., Raudeliūnienė, J., & Tvaronavičienė, M. (2021). Effective Management of Energy Consumption During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of ICT Solutions. *Energies*, *14*(4), 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14040893
44. Tomislav, K. (2018). The Concept of Sustainable Development: From its Beginning to the Contemporary Issues. *Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business*, *21*(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-2018-0005
45. Ucan, O., Ozturk, I., & Turgut, E. (2023). Determinants of Ecological Footprint in BRICS Countries: A Panel Data Analysis. *Environment, Development and Sustainability*, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03755-3
46. Unver, M., & Dogru, B. (2015). The Determinants of Economic Fragility: Case of the Fragile Five Countries. *Mediterranean Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences*, *3*(1), 1–24.
47. Waligorska, H., Jozwiak, M., & Kolemba, A. (2023). Career Interest Preferences, Randomness of Study Program Choıce, and Competencıes Vs. Academıc Major Reselectıon. *Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology, Organization & Management/Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Slaskiej. Seria Organizacji i Zarzadzanie*, *179*. https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.179.34
48. Wojcicka, M., & Lęski, M. (2015). The Concept of Sustainable Development in the UN Activity. *Collective Human Rights*, 341–354.
49. World Bank. (2024). *Individuals using the Internet (% of population)*. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS
50. Yang, S., Fichman, P., Zhu, X., Sanfilippo, M., Li, S., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2020). The Use of ICT During COVID‐19. *Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology*, *57*(1), e297. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.297
51. ZEESHAN Z.S., ZHILIN Q., MABROUK F., RAMIREZ-ASIS E., M ALZOUBI H., HISHAN S. S., MICHEL M., 2023, Empirical Linkages between ICT, Tourism, and Trade Towards Sustainable Environment: Evidence from BRICS Countries, Economic Research –Ekonomska istraživanja, 36(2),https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2127417.
52. ZHANG S., CHEN K., 2023, Green Finance and Ecological Footprints: Natural Resources Perspective of China’s Grow-ing Economy, Resources Policy, 85: 103898,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103898.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr POPUL/SP/0154/2024/02 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki II" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki (2025).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-d2460701-062c-4c24-b6e6-ef648a3c6335