Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 26, pp 26500–26516 | Cite as

Re-estimating the interconnectedness between the demand of energy consumption, income, and sustainability indices

  • Burcu OzcanEmail author
  • Panayiotis Tzeremes
  • Eyup Dogan
Research Article


In this study, we analyze the time-varying causality linkages between energy consumption, economic growth, and environmental degradation in 33 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, spanning the period 2000 to 2013. The curve causality approach provides evidence of a significant environmental Kuznets curve in 25 countries in the case of the ecological footprint and in 23 countries in the case of the Environmental Performance Index. However, out of them, only Italy, Slovakia, and South Korea have traditional environmental Kuznets curve, in the form of an inverted U–shaped curve. For the remaining countries, different forms of curves are valid. In particular, an N-shaped curve appears to be valid between income and environmental degradation for nearly half of the sample, i.e., for Austria, Belgium, Chile, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Turkey, and the USA. Additionally, bidirectional causality relationships are confirmed among all covariates in most countries. In view of the results, some crucial policy implications would be suggested, such as sustainable development that aims to make a balance between economic growth and environmental protection.


Environmental Kuznets curve Energy consumption Sustainability indices Economic growth Time-varying causality 



  1. Acar S, Asici AA (2017) Nature and economic growth in Turkey: what does ecological footprint imply? Middle East Dev J 9(1):101–115.
  2. Ajmi AN, Hammoudeh S, Nguyen DK, Sato JR (2015) On the relationships between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and income: the importance of time variation. Energy Econ 49:629–638. Google Scholar
  3. Alam S, Kabir N (2013) Economic growth and environmental sustainability: empirical evidence from East and South-East Asia. Int J Econ Financ 5(2):86–97. Google Scholar
  4. Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2015) The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy 84:382–389. Google Scholar
  5. Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2016) The investigation of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the advanced economies: the role of energy prices. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:1622–1163. Google Scholar
  6. Al-Mulali U, Weng-Wai C, Sheau-Ting L, Mohammed AH (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol Indic 48:315–323. Google Scholar
  7. Alsharif MH, Kim J, Kim JH (2018) Opportunities and challenges of solar and wind energy in South Korea: a review. Sustainability 10:1–23. Google Scholar
  8. Ang JB (2007) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energ Policy 35:4772–4778. Google Scholar
  9. Apergis N, Payne JE (2010) The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the common wealth of independent states. Energ Policy 38:650–655. Google Scholar
  10. Asici AA, Acar S (2016) Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecol Indic 61:707–714. Google Scholar
  11. Bagliani M, Bravo G, Dalmazzone S (2008) A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecol Econ 65:650–661.
  12. Barrett S, Graddy K (2000) Freedom, growth and the environment. Environ Dev Econ 5:433–456. Google Scholar
  13. Beder S (2006) Environmental Principles and Policies. New South Books, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  14. Benavides M, Ovalle K, Torres C, Vinces T (2017) Economic growth, renewable energy and methane emissions: is there an environmental Kuznets curve in Austria? Int J Energy Econ Policy 7(1):259–267Google Scholar
  15. Bohringer C, Jochem PE (2007) Measuring the immeasurable—a survey of sustainability indices. Ecol Econ 63(1):1–8. Google Scholar
  16. Borjigin S, Yang Y, Yang X, Sun L (2018) Econometric testing on linear and nonlinear dynamic relation between stock prices and macroeconomy in China. Physica A 493:107–115. Google Scholar
  17. Caviglia-Harrisa JL, Chambers D, Kahn JR (2009) Taking the “U” out of Kuznets: a comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecol Econ 68:1149–1159. Google Scholar
  18. Chang CP, Hao Y (2017) Environmental performance, corruption and economic growth: global evidence using a new data set. Appl Econ 49(5):498–514. Google Scholar
  19. Charfeddine L (2017) The impact of energy consumption and economic development on ecological footprint and CO2 emissions: evidence from a Markov switching equilibrium correction model. Energy Econ 65:355–374. Google Scholar
  20. Charfeddine L, Mrabet Z (2017) The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: a panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 76:138–154. Google Scholar
  21. Chowdhury T, Islam S (2017) Environmental Performance Index and GDP growth rate: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ Ecol 8(4):31–36. Google Scholar
  22. Dahlhaus R, Neumann MH, Sachs RV (1999) Nonlinear wavelet estimation of the time-varying autoregressive processes. Bernoulli 5:873–906Google Scholar
  23. Dechezlepretre A, Sato M (2017) The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Rev Environ Econ Policy 11(2):183–206. Google Scholar
  24. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 75:427–431Google Scholar
  25. Dogan E, Seker F, Bulbul S (2017) Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries. Curr Issue Tour 20(16):1701–1719. Google Scholar
  26. Dritsaki C, Dritsaki M (2014) Causal relationship between energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions: a dynamic panel data approach. Int J Energy Econ Policy 4(2):125–136Google Scholar
  27. EIA (Energy Information Administration) (2017) International Energy Outlook 2017, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Eilers PHC, Marx BD (1996) Flexible smoothing with B-splines and penalties. Stat Sci 11:89–121Google Scholar
  29. Fakher HA, Abedi Z (2017) Relationship between environmental quality and economic growth in developing countries (based on Environmental Performance Index). Environ Energ Econ Res 1(3):299–310.
  30. Gondran N, Brodhag C (2006) Local Environmental quality versus (global) ecological carrying capacity: what might alternative aggregated indicators bring to the debates about environmental Kuznets curves and sustainable development? Int J Sustain Dev 9(3):297–310. Google Scholar
  31. Granger C (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37(3):424–438. Google Scholar
  32. Grossman G, Krueger A (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Working Paper 3194, National Bureau of Economics Research Cambridge. Accessed 12 March 2019
  33. Grossman G, Krueger A (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377. Google Scholar
  34. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energ Policy 37:1156–1164. Google Scholar
  35. Hervieux MS, Darne O (2015) Environmental Kuznets curve and ecological footprint: a time series analysis. Econ Bull 35(1):814–826Google Scholar
  36. Hervieux MS, Darne O (2016) Production and consumption-based approaches for the environmental Kuznets curve using ecological footprint. J Environ Econ Pol 5(3):318–334. Google Scholar
  37. IEA (International Energy Statistics) (2017) Key World Energy Statistics, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  38. Jaunky VC (2011) The CO2 emissions- income nexus: evidence from rich countries. Energ Policy 39:1228–1240. Google Scholar
  39. Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Ozturk I (2016) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic 60:824–831. Google Scholar
  40. Kashyna O (2011) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using Environmental Performance Indices. Master Thesis, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  41. Kourtzidis SA, Tzeremes P, Tzeremes NG (2018) Re-evaluating the energy consumption-economic growth nexus for the United States: an asymmetric threshold cointegration analysis. Energy 148:537–545. Google Scholar
  42. Kraft J, Kraft A (1978) On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev 3(2):401–403Google Scholar
  43. Kwiatkowski D, Phillips PCB, Schmidt P, Shin Y (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationary against the alternative of a unit root. J Econ 54:159–178Google Scholar
  44. Lachmann D (2017) The Environmental Kuznets Curve – An Environmental Performance Based Approach. FUB-Discussion Paper. Accessed 9 Feb 2019
  45. Lee SR, Yoo SH (2016) Energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in Korea: a causality analysis. Energ Source Part B 11(5):412–417. Google Scholar
  46. List JA, Gallet CA (1999) The environmental Kuznets curve: does one size fit all? Ecol Econ 31:409–423. Google Scholar
  47. Lorente DB, Alvarez-Herranz A (2016) Economic growth and energy regulation in the environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:16478–16494. Google Scholar
  48. Magazzino C (2016) The relationship between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Italy. Int J Sustain Energy35(9):844–857.
  49. Moran DD, Wackernagel M, Kitzes JA, Goldfinger SH, Boutaud A (2008) Measuring sustainable development — Nation by nation. Ecol Econ 64:470–474. Google Scholar
  50. Mrabet Z, Alsamara M (2017) Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: a comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renew Sust Energ Rev 70:1366–1375. Google Scholar
  51. Narayan PK, Popp S (2012) The energy consumption-real GDP nexus revisited: empirical evidence from 93 countries. Econ Model 29(2):303–308. Google Scholar
  52. Neagu O, Ardelean DI, Lazar V (2017) How is environmental performance associated with economic growth? A world cross-country analysis. Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldis” Arad Econ Ser 27(3):15–32.
  53. Opschoor JB, Vos HB (1989) Economic instruments for environmental protection. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  54. Ozcan B (2013) The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energ Policy 62:138–1147. Google Scholar
  55. Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Saboori B (2016) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:1916–1928. Google Scholar
  56. Phillips PCB, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regressions. Biometrica 75:335–346. Google Scholar
  57. Rees WE (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out? Environ Urban 4(2):121–130. Google Scholar
  58. Rothman DS (1998) Environmental Kuznets curves—real progress or passing the buck? A case for consumption-based approaches. Ecol Econ 25:177–194. Google Scholar
  59. Samimi AJ, Kashefi A, Salatin P, Lashkarizadeh M (2011) Environmental performance and HDI: evidence from countries around the world. Middle-East J Sci Res 10(3):294–301Google Scholar
  60. Sato JR, Morettin PA, Arantes PR, Amaro JE (2007) Wavelet based time-varying vector autoregressive modelling. Comput Stat Data An 51:5847–5866Google Scholar
  61. Shafiei S, Salim RA (2014) Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energ Policy 66:547–556. Google Scholar
  62. Shahabadi A, Samari H, Nemati M (2017) Factors affecting environmental Performance Index (EPI) in selected OPEC countries. Iran Econ Rev 21(3):457–467.
  63. Shahbaz M, Mahalik MK, Shah SH, Sato JR (2016) Time-varying analysis of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth nexus: statistical experience in next 11 countries. Energ Policy 98:33–48. Google Scholar
  64. Shahbaz M, Chaudhary AR, Ozturk I (2017) Does urbanization cause increasing energy demand in Pakistan? Empirical evidence from STIRPAT model. Energy 122:83–93. Google Scholar
  65. Shahbaz M, Ferrer R, Shahzad SJH, Haouas I (2018) Is the tourism–economic growth nexus time-varying? Bootstrap rolling-window causality analysis for the top 10 tourist destinations. Appl Econ 50(24):2677–2697. Google Scholar
  66. Soytas U, Sari R (2009) Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol Econ 68:1667–1675. Google Scholar
  67. Thomakos DD, Alexopoulos TA (2014) Economic growth as a proxy for environmental performance: exploring the informational content of the Environmental Performance Index. Int J Energ Stat 2(3):151–168.
  68. Tiba S, Omri A (2017) Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:1129–1146. Google Scholar
  69. Torras M, Boyce J (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 25:147–160. Google Scholar
  70. Tzeremes P (2018a) Revisiting the energy consumption–economic growth causal relationships in tails. J Econ Stud 45(5):98–909. Google Scholar
  71. Tzeremes P (2018b) Time-varying causality between energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth: evidence from US states. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(6):6044–6060. Google Scholar
  72. Uddin GA, Salahuddin M, Alam K, Gow J (2017) Ecological footprint and real income: panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecol Indic 77:166–175. Google Scholar
  73. United Nations (1987) Our Common Future-Brundtland Report. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Wackernagel M, Rees W (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. The New Catalyst Bioregional Series. New Society Publishers, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  75. Wackernagel M, Lewan L, Hansson CB (1999) Evaluating the use of natural capital with the ecological footprint: applications in Sweden and Subregions. Ambio 28(7):604–612Google Scholar
  76. Wang MN (2017) Investigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve of Consumption for Developing and Developed Countries: A Study of Albania and Sweden. Dissertation, Aalto UniversityGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang Y, Kang L, Wu X, Xiao Y (2013) Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: a spatial econometric approach. Ecol Indic 34:15–21. Google Scholar
  78. World Bank (2017) World Development Indicators. Accessed 2 Jan 2019
  79. Yale University (2018) 2018 Environmental Performance Index Report, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. 12 March 2019
  80. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) Footprints on the Earth: the environmental consequences of modernity. Am Sociol Rev 68(2):279–300. Google Scholar
  81. Yoshioka S (2010) Estimation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for Various Indicators: Evidence from Cross-Section Data Analysis. Accessed 3 Feb 2019

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of EconomicsFirat UniversityElazigTurkey
  2. 2.Laboratory of Economic Policy and Strategic Planning, Department of EconomicsUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  3. 3.Faculty of Managerial Sciences, Business AdministrationAbdullah Gul UniversityKayseriTurkey

Personalised recommendations