Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ecological Security Assessment of the G20 and its Drivers: EF-Path-STIRPAT Modeling

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Resources Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Because of the increasing global attention being given to ecological security, the need to identify and quantify its underlying causes has sparked heated debate. However, there has not been any overall assessment of the ecological security in the G20 countries, which could seriously hinder sustainable development. Therefore, to investigate the ecological security situation in the G20 countries from 1999 to 2016 and facilitate the evaluation, three ecological indicators were introduced, namely ecological footprint (EF), ecological deficit or surplus, and eco-efficiency. To compare the driving factors of ecological security and provide a targeted reference for policymakers, the relationships between gross domestic product, population, energy consumption, technology, urbanization, and EF were then evaluated. To do so, the EF-Path-STIRPAT model was used, which is a combined path analysis and a STIRPAT model based on EF, and it was able to calculate the direct path elasticity coefficients between the variables to reveal the mechanisms and interactions. It was found that (a) the EF of developing countries is generally higher than that of developed countries in the G20, of which Russia has the highest EF, (b) from 1999 to 2016, the ecological status of the G20 gradually improved, and Argentina changed from an ecological deficit to an ecological surplus in 2005, and (c) the eco-efficiency of the G20 has been improved. China’s eco-efficiency increased significantly by 7.5% from 1999 to 2016, and the ecological environment improved significantly. According to the results of the EF-STIRPAT model, per capita, wealth should be increased steadily in developing countries, and developed countries should lie in the development of environmentally friendly high-tech industry and economic transformation to reduce energy intensity, improve their energy efficiency, and further optimize the energy structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beynon, M. J., & Munday, M. (2008). Considering the effects of imprecision and uncertainty in ecological footprint estimation: An approach in a fuzzy environment. Ecological Economics, 67(3), 373–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bicknell, K. B., Ball, R. J., Cullen, R., & Bigsby, H. R. (1998). New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy. Ecological Economics, 27(2), 149–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billings, R. S., & Wroten, S. P. (1978). Use of path analysis in industrial/organizational psychology: Criticisms and suggestions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breen, R. (1983). Path analysis: An example. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 417–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brem, M. J., Khaddouma, A., Elmquist, J., Florimbio, A. R., Shorey, R. C., & Stuart, G. L. (2019). Relationships among dispositional mindfulness, distress tolerance, and women’s dating violence perpetration: A path analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(14), 2996–3016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callens, I., & Tyteca, D. (1999). Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: A productive efficiency perspective. Ecological Economics, 28(1), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. Z., & Lin, Z. S. (2008). Multiple timescale analysis and factor analysis of energy ecological footprint growth in China 1953–2006. Energy Policy, 36(5), 1666–1678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of international money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. A., & Neumayer, E. (2004). Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution. Population and Environment, 26(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, J. C. (1998). Population growth and air quality in California. Demography, 35(1), 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., & Rosa, E. A. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(1), 175–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., & York, R. (2007). Driving the human ecological footprint. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D. (1966). Path analysis: Sociological examples. American Journal of Sociology, 72(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science, 171(3977), 1212–1217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Y., Qiao, Q., Xian, C., Xiao, Y., & Fang, L. (2017). A modified ecological footprint method to evaluate environmental impacts of industrial parks. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 125, 293–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney, H. C. (1974). Political dimensions of college impact on civil-libertarianism and the integration of political perspective: A longitudinal analysis. Sociology of Education, 47(2), 214–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2012). Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 16, 100–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J., & Tian, M. (2016). Analysis of over-consumption of natural resources and the ecological trade deficit in China based on ecological footprints. Ecological Indicators, 61, 899–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, A. M., Simons, R. M., Simons, J. S., & Welker, L. E. (2019). Prediction of verbal and physical aggression among young adults: A path analysis of alexithymia, impulsivity, and aggression. Psychiatry Research, 273, 653–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2009). ‘Urban ecological security’: A new urban paradigm? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), 193–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Q., Wang, R., Ren, Z., Li, J., & Zhang, H. (2007). Regional ecological security assessment based on long periods of ecological footprint analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 51(1), 24–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubacek, K., Guan, D., Barrett, J., et al. (2009). Environmental implications of urbanization and lifestyle change in China: Ecological and water footprints. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(14), 1241–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, J., Deng, H., Duan, J., & Zhao, J. (2009). Analysis of the major drivers of the ecological footprint using the STIRPAT model and the PLS method—A case study in Henan Province, China. Ecological Economics, 68(11), 2818–2824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K. W., Rosa, E. A., & Schor, J. B. (2013). Could working less reduce pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analysis of OECD countries, 1970–2007. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 691–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lan, J., Malik, A., Lenzen, M., McBain, D., & Kanemoto, K. (2016). A structural decomposition analysis of global energy footprints. Applied Energy, 163, 436–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen, M., & Murray, S. A. (2001). A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics, 37(2), 229–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., Mu, H., Zhang, M., et al. (2011). Analysis on influence factors of China’s CO2 emissions based on Path–STIRPAT model. Energy Policy, 39(11), 6906–6911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddle, B. (2011). Consumption-driven environmental impact and age structure change in OECD countries: A cointegration-STIRPAT analysis. Demographic Research, 24, 749–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddle, B. (2013). Urban density and climate change: A STIRPAT analysis using city-level data. Journal of Transport Geography, 28, 22–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S., Wang, S., Marinova, D., Zhao, D., & Hong, J. (2017). Impacts of urbanization and real economic development on CO2 emissions in non-high income countries: Empirical research based on the extended STIRPAT model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 952–966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S., Zhao, D., & Marinova, D. (2009). Analysis of the environmental impact of China based on STIRPAT model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 341–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., Lei, Y., Ge, J., et al. (2018). Sector screening and driving factor analysis of Beijing’s ecological footprint using a multi-model method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 191, 330–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Q.-P., Lin, Z.-S., Feng, N.-H., & Liu, Y.-M. (2008). A modified model of ecological footprint accounting and its application to cropland in Jiangsu, China. Pedosphere, 18(2), 154–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, X., Ji, X., & Ulgiati, S. (2017). Is urbanization eco-friendly? An energy and land use cross-country analysis. Energy Policy, 100, 387–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutl, J., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2011). The Hausman test in a Cliff and Ord panel model. The Econometrics Journal, 14(1), 48–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasrollahi, Z., Hashemi, M. S., Bameri, S., & Taghvaee, V. M. (2020). Environmental pollution, economic growth, population, industrialization, and technology in weak and strong sustainability: Using STIRPAT model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1105–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Njoya, E. T., & Nikitas, A. (2019). Assessing agriculture–tourism linkages in Senegal: A structure path analysis. Geo Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10033-1.

  • Oetting, E. R., & Beauvais, F. (1987). Peer cluster theory, socialization characteristics, and adolescent drug use: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(2), 205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppon, E., Acquaye, A., Ibn-Mohammed, T., & Koh, L. (2018). Modelling multi-regional ecological exchanges: The case of UK and Africa. Ecological Economics, 147, 422–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, L., & Ortega, E. (2012). A modified footprint method: The case study of Brazil. Ecological Indicators, 16, 113–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Muzaffar, A. T., Ahmed, K., & Jabran, M. A. (2016). How urbanization affects CO2 emissions in Malaysia? The application of STIRPAT model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uddin, G. A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., & Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Mathijs, E., et al. (2007). Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency. Ecological Economics, 62(1), 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Goldfinger, S., & Thomas, M. (2006). The ecological footprint of cities and regions: Comparing resource availability with resource demand. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1), 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., & Deumling, D. 2002. Ecological footprint of nations: November 2002 update. Redefining Progress. Sustainability Issue Brief.

  • Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Linares, A. C., Falfán, I. S. L., Garcia, J. M., et al. (1999). National natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 29(3), 375–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1997). Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics, 20(1), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New Society Publishers.

  • Wackernagel, M., & Silverstein, J. (2000). Big things first: Focusing on the scale imperative with the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 391–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J. D. (1998). The ecological footprint: An indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 51(1–2), 511–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Li, Q., Fang, C., & Zhou, C. (2016). The relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment, 542, 360–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Wang, F., Zhang, X., Yang, Y., Su, Y., Ye, Y., et al. (2017). Examining the driving factors of energy related carbon emissions using the extended STIRPAT model based on IPAT identity in Xinjiang. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P., Wu, W., Zhu, B., & Wei, Y. (2013). Examining the impact factors of energy-related CO2 emissions using the STIRPAT model in Guangdong Province, China. Applied Energy, 106, 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., & Lenzen, M. (2003). An application of a modified ecological footprint method and structural path analysis in a comparative institutional study. Local Environment, 8(4), 365–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, C., Feng, K., & Hubacek, K. (2015). Driving forces of CO2 emissions in the G20 countries: An index decomposition analysis from 1971 to 2010. Ecological Informatics, 26, 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, R. (2007). Demographic trends and energy consumption in European Union Nations, 1960–2025. Social Science Research, 36(3), 855–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and InPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, B., Bi, J., Fan, Z., et al. (2008). Eco-efficiency analysis of industrial system in China: A data envelopment analysis approach. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 306–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C. Q., Zhang, R., Schwarzer, R., & Hagger, M. S. (2019). A meta-analysis of the health action process approach. Health Psychology, 38(7), 623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., & Zhao, T. (2019). Identifying major influencing factors of CO2 emissions in China: Regional disparities analysis based on STIRPAT model from 1996 to 2015. Atmospheric Environment, 207, 136–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, S., Li, Z., & Li, W. (2005). A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecological Modelling, 185(1), 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, S., Song, K., Gui, F., Cai, H., Jin, W., & Wu, C. (2013). The emergy energy ecological footprint for small fish farm in China. Ecological Indicators, 29, 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We thank the anonymous reviewers of the paper for their valuable comments. This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 71874165, 71991482, 71573237, Research Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education of China No. 15YJA630019. The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) No. CUGESIW1801, the Fundamental Research Founds for National University, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) No. 1910491T10.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China

    Zhili Zuo, Haixiang Guo, Jinhua Cheng & Shicheng Li

  2. School of Economics and Management, Mineral Resource Strategy and Policy Research Center of China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China

    Haixiang Guo, Jinhua Cheng & Shicheng Li

Authors
  1. Zhili Zuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haixiang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jinhua Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shicheng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haixiang Guo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zuo, Z., Guo, H., Cheng, J. et al. Ecological Security Assessment of the G20 and its Drivers: EF-Path-STIRPAT Modeling. Nat Resour Res 29, 4161–4174 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-020-09698-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-020-09698-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation