Natural resources, urbanisation, economic growth and the ecological footprint in South Africa: The moderating role of human capital

Main Article Content

Solomon Prince Nathaniel

Abstract

South Africa is the largest emitter of CO2 and arguably the most developed and urbanised country in Africa. The country currently harbours an ecological deficit territory which could be the outcome of economic expansion, urban explosion, unsustainable resource exploration and a low level of human development. After all, environmental distortions are mainly the outcome of human activities. This study is a maiden attempt to examine the linkage between urbanisation, human capital, natural resources (NR) and the ecological footprint (EF) in South Africa. Unlike previous studies, this study employs positivist and relevant environmental indicators that accommodate built-up land, forest land, carbon footprint, ocean, grazing land and cropland. Findings from the long-run results suggest that urbanisation, economic growth and NR increase the EF, whereas human capital ensures environmental sustainability. The interaction between urbanisation and human capital mitigates environmental degradation by reducing the EF. The canonical cointegrating regression (CCR), dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) and the fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) results further confirm the nature of the relationships and linkages existing with respect to NR, urbanisation, economic growth and the EF. A bidirectional causality exists between human capital, economic growth and the EF. Policies related to NR and urban sustainability, the limitations of the study, as well as possible directions for future research are discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Natural resources, urbanisation, economic growth and the ecological footprint in South Africa: The moderating role of human capital. Quaestiones Geographicae, 40(2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2021-0012
Section
Articles

References

  1. Ahmadov A.K., van der Borg C., 2019. Do natural resources impede renewable energy production in the EU? A mixed-methods analysis. Energy Policy 126: 361–369.
  2. Ahmed Z., Wang Z., 2019. Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26(26): 26782–26796.
  3. Ahmed Z., Asghar M.M., Malik M.N., Nawaz K., 2020a. Moving towards a sustainable environment: The dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resources Policy 67: 101677.
  4. Ahmed Z., Wang Z., Ali S., 2019. Investigating the non-linear relationship between urbanization and CO2 emissions: An empirical analysis. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 12(8): 945–953.
  5. 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(18): 18565–18582.
  6. Ahmed Z., Zafar M.W., Ali S., 2020b. Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: An empirical analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society 55: 102064.
  7. Ali H.S., Nathaniel S.P., Uzuner G., Bekun F.V., Sarkodie S.A., 2020. Trivariate modelling of the nexus between electricity consumption, urbanization and economic growth in Nigeria: Fresh insights from Maki Cointegration and causality tests. Heliyon 6(2): e03400.
  8. Al-Mulali U., Saboori B., Ozturk I., 2015. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76: 123–131.
  9. Altıntaş H., Kassouri Y., 2020. Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions? Ecological Indicators 113: 106187.
  10. Amiri A., Ventelou B., 2012. Granger causality between total expenditure on health and GDP in OECD: Evidence from the Toda–Yamamoto approach. Economics Letters 116(3): 541–544.
  11. Ansari M.A., Haider S., Khan, N.A., 2020. Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecological Indicators 115: 106416.
  12. Aziz N., Sharif A., Raza A., Rong K., 2020. Revisiting the role of forestry, agriculture, and renewable energy in testing environment Kuznets curve in Pakistan: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(9): 10115–10128.
  13. Baloch M.A., Zhang J., Iqbal K., Iqbal Z., 2019. The effect of financial development on ecological footprint in BRI countries: Evidence from panel data estimation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26(6): 6199–6208.
  14. Baloch M.A., Mahmood N., Zhang J.W., 2019. Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Science of the Total Environment 678: 632–638.
  15. Balsalobre-Lorente D., Shahbaz M., Roubaud D., Farhani S., 2018. How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions? Energy Policy 113: 356–367.
  16. Banerjee A., Dolado J., Mestre R., 1998. Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-equation framework. Journal of Time Series Analysis 19(3): 267–283.
  17. Bayer C., Hanck C., 2013. Combining non-cointegration tests. Journal of Time Series Analysis 34(1): 83–95.
  18. Baz K., Xu D., Ali H., Ali I., Khan I., Khan M.M., Cheng J., 2020. Asymmetric impact of energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: Using asymmetric and nonlinear approach. Science of the Total Environment 718: 137364.
  19. Boswijk H.P., 1995. Efficient inference on cointegration parameters in structural error correction models. Journal of Econometrics 69(1): 133–158.
  20. Copeland B.R., Taylor M.S., 2004. Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature 42(1): 7–71.
  21. Danish, Wang Z., 2019. Investigation of the ecological footprint’s driving factors: What we learn from the experience of emerging economies. Sustainable Cities and Society 49.
  22. Dasgupta S., Laplante B., Wang H., Wheeler D., 2002. Confronting the environmental Kuznets curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(1): 147–168.
  23. Destek M.A., Sinha A., 2020. Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 242: 118537.
  24. Destek M.A., Ulucak R., Dogan E., 2018. Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: The role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25(29): 29387–29396.
  25. Dogan E., Taspinar N., Gokmenoglu K.K., 2019. Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy & Environment 30(6): 1065–1086.
  26. Dogan E., Ulucak R., Kocak E., Isik C., 2020. The use of ecological footprint in estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Science of the Total Environment 723: 138063.
  27. Engle R.F., Granger C.W., 1987. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: 251–276.
  28. Fan J.S., Zhou L., 2019. Impact of urbanization and real estate investment on carbon emissions: Evidence from China’s provincial regions. Journal of Cleaner Production 209: 309–323.
  29. Fan P., Ouyang Z., Nguyen D.D., Nguyen T.T.H., Park H., Chen J., 2019. Urbanization, economic development, environmental and social changes in transitional economies: Vietnam after Doimoi. Landscape and Urban Planning 187: 145–155.
  30. GFN (2018). Global Footprint Network. (WWW Document)
  31. Global Footprint Network (2019). Global Footprint Network. Online: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint (accessed: 1 May 2019).
  32. Hassan S.T., Baloch M.A., Mahmood N., Zhang J., 2019b. Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Society 47: 101516.
  33. Hassan S.T., Xia E., Khan N.H., Shah S.M.A., 2019a. Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: Evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26(3): 2929–2938.
  34. Ibrahim M., Sare Y.A., 2018. Determinants of financial development in Africa: How robust is the interactive effect of trade openness and human capital? Economic Analysis and Policy 60: 18–26.
  35. Johansen S., Juselius K., 1990. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with appucations to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 52(2): 169–210.
  36. Johansen S., 1991. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica: 1551–1580.
  37. Joshua U., Bekun F.V., 2020. The path to achieving environmental sustainability in South Africa: The role of coal consumption, economic expansion, pollutant emission, and total natural resources rent. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27: 1–9.
  38. Joshua U., Bekun F.V., Sarkodie S.A., 2020. New insight into the causal linkage between economic expansion, FDI, coal consumption, pollutant emissions and urbanization in South Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 1–12.
  39. Keho Y., 2019. An econometric analysis of the determinants of private consumption in Cote d’Ivoire. Theoretical Economics Letters 9(4): 947–958.
  40. Kongbuamai N., Bui Q., Yousaf H.M.A.U., Liu Y., 2020. The impact of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint: A case study of ASEAN countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research: 1–14.
  41. Liu M., Ren X., Cheng C., Wang Z., 2020. The role of globalization in CO2 emissions: A semi-parametric panel data analysis for G7. Science of the Total Environment 718: 137379.
  42. Magazzino C., Bekun F.V., Etokakpan M.U., Uzuner G., 2020. Modeling the dynamic Nexus among coal consumption, pollutant emissions and real income: Empirical evidence from South Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(8): 8772–8782.
  43. Marti L., Puertas R., 2020. Analysis of the efficiency of African countries through their Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity. Science of the Total Environment 722: 137504.
  44. Nathaniel S.P., 2021. Environmental degradation in ASEAN: Assessing the criticality of natural resources abundance, economic growth and human capital. Environmental Science and Pollution Research: 1–13.
  45. Nathaniel S.P., Nwulu N., Bekun F., 2021b. Natural resource, globalization, urbanization, human capital, and environmental degradation in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28(5): 6207–6221.
  46. Nathaniel S., Aguegboh E., Iheonu C., Sharma G., Shah M., 2020d. Energy consumption, FDI, and urbanization linkage in coastal Mediterranean countries: Re-assessing the pollution haven hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research: 1–14.
  47. Nathaniel S., Anyanwu O., Shah M., 2020c. Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research: 1–13.
  48. Nathaniel S., Barua S., Hussain H., Adeleye N., 2020b. The determinants and interrelationship of carbon emissions and economic growth in African economies: Fresh insights from static and dynamic models. Journal of Public Affairs 21(1): e2141.
  49. Nathaniel S., Nwodo O., Adediran A., Sharma G., Shah M., Adeleye N., 2019. Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: Including the excluded. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26(26): 27168–27179.
  50. Nathaniel S., Nwodo O., Sharma G., Shah M., 2020a. Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(16): 19616–19629.
  51. Nathaniel S.P., Bekun F.V., 2020. Electricity consumption, urbanization, and economic growth in Nigeria: New insights from combined cointegration amidst structural breaks. Journal of Public Affairs 21(1): e2102.
  52. Nathaniel S.P., 2019. Modelling urbanization, trade flow, economic growth and energy consumption with regards to the environment in Nigeria. GeoJournal: 1–15.
  53. Nathaniel S.P., 2020. Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal: 1–14.
  54. Nathaniel S.P., Murshed M., Bassim M., 2021a. The nexus between economic growth, energy use, international trade and ecological footprints: The role of environmental regulations in N11 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environ-ment: 1–17.
  55. Ndoricimpa A., 2017. Analysis of asymmetries in the nexus among energy use, pollution emissions and real output in South Africa. Energy 125: 543–551.
  56. Ng S., Perron P., 2001. Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69(6): 1519–1554.
  57. Ogundari K., Awokuse T., 2018. Human capital contribution to economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: Does health status matter more than education? Economic Analysis and Policy 58: 131–140.
  58. Omoke P.C., Nwani C., Effiong E.L., Evbuomwan O.O., Emenekwe C.C., 2020. The impact of financial development on carbon, non-carbon, and total ecological footprint in Nigeria: New evidence from asymmetric dynamic analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(17): 21628–21646.
  59. Panayotou T., 1993. Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (No. 992927783402676). International Labour Organization.
  60. Pesaran M.H., Shin Y., Smith R.J., 2001. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics 16(3): 289–326.
  61. Salahuddin M., Gow J., Ali M.I., Hossain M.R., Al-Azami K.S., Akbar D., Gedikli A., 2019. Urbanization-globalization-CO2 emissions nexus revisited: Empirical evidence from South Africa. Heliyon 5(6): e01974.
  62. Sarkodie S.A., Adams S., 2018. Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: Accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Science of the Total Environment 643: 1590–1601.
  63. Sharif A., Baris-Tuzemen O., Uzuner G., Ozturk I., Sinha A., 2020. Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society 57: 102138.
  64. Sharma R., Sinha, A., Kautish, P., 2020. Examining the impacts of economic and demographic aspects on the ecological footprint in South and Southeast Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(29): 1–13.
  65. Siriwat P., Tiedt S., 2019. World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (pp. 1–4). Springer, Cham.
  66. Toda H.Y., Yamamoto T., 1995. Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics 66(1–2): 225–250.
  67. Ulucak R., Khan S.U.D., 2020. Determinants of the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society 54: 101996.
  68. Uddin G.A., Alam K., Gow J., 2019. Ecological and economic growth interdependency in the Asian economies: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26(13): 13159–13172.
  69. Udi J., Bekun F.V., Adedoyin F.F., 2020. Modeling the nexus between coal consumption, FDI inflow and economic expansion: Does industrialization matter in South Africa? Environmental Science and Pollution Research: 1–12.
  70. Ulucak R., Khan S.U.D., Baloch M.A., Li N., 2020. Mitigation pathways toward sustainable development: Is there any trade-off between environmental regulation and carbon emissions reduction? Sustainable Development 28(4): 813–822.
  71. Usman O., Alola A.A., Sarkodie S.A., 2020. Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: Evidence from the US. Renewable Energy 150: 266–277.
  72. Wang J., Dong K., 2019. What drives environmental degradation? Evidence from 14 Sub-Saharan African countries. Science of the Total Environment 656: 165–173.
  73. Wang Z., Ahmed Z., Zhang B., Wang B., 2019. The nexus between urbanization, road infrastructure, and transport energy demand: Empirical evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26(34): 34884–34895.
  74. World Development Indicator (WDI), 2019. World Bank Development Indicators database. Online: https://data.worldbank.org (accessed: 24 July 2019).
  75. World Wildlife Fund, 2018. In: Grooten M., Almond R.E.A. (eds), Living Planet Report 2018: Aiming Higher. Morges, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund.
  76. Yasmeen H., Wang Y., Zameer H., Solangi Y.A., 2020. Decomposing factors affecting CO2 emissions in Pakistan: Insights from LMDI decomposition approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(3): 3113–3123.
  77. Yilanci V., Pata U.K., 2020. Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: Evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecological Indicators 113: 106178.
  78. Zafar M.W., Zaidi S.A.H., Khan N.R., Mirza F.M., Hou F., Kirmani S.A.A., 2019. The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: The case of the United States. Resources Policy 63: 101428.
  79. Zallé O., 2019. Natural resources and economic growth in Africa: The role of institutional quality and human capital. Resources Policy 62: 616–624.
  80. Zameer H., Yasmeen H., Wang R., Tao J., Malik M.N., 2020. An empirical investigation of the coordinated development of natural resources, financial development and ecological efficiency in China. Resources Policy 65: 101580.
  81. Zhang S., Zhu D., Zhang J., Li L., 2020. Which influencing factors could reduce ecological consumption? Evidence from 90 countries for the time period 1996–2015. Applied Sciences 10(2): 678.
  82. Zhang X., Xu L., Chen Y., Liu T., 2020. Energy-based ecological footprint analysis of a wind farm in China. Ecological Indicators 111: 106018.
  83. Zivot E., Andrews D.W.K., 2002. Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 20(1): 25–44.