Unusual states of manhole covers (MCs), such as being tilted, lost or flooded, can present substantial safety hazards and risks to pedestrians and vehicles on the roadway. Most MCs are still being managed through manual regular inspections and have limited information technology integration. This leads to time-consuming and labor-intensive identification with a lower level of accuracy. In this paper, we propose an edge computing-based intelligent monitoring system for manhole covers (EC-MCIMS). Sensors detect the MC and send status and positioning information via LoRa to the edge gateway located on the nearby wisdom pole. The edge gateway utilizes a lightweight machine learning model, trained on the edge impulse (EI) platform, which can predict the state of the MC. If an abnormality is detected, the display and voice device on the wisdom pole will respectively show and broadcast messages to alert pedestrians and vehicles. Simultaneously, the information is uploaded to the cloud platform, enabling remote maintenance personnel to promptly repair and restore it. Tests were performed on the EI platform and in Dongguan townships, demonstrating that the average response time for identifying MCs is 4.81 s. Higher responsiveness and lower power consumption were obtained compared to cloud computing models. Moreover, the system utilizes a lightweight model that better reduces read-only memory (ROM) and random-access memory (RAM), while maintaining an average identification accuracy of 94%.
Citation: Liang Yu, Zhengkuan Zhang, Yangbing Lai, Yang Zhao, Fu Mo. Edge computing-based intelligent monitoring system for manhole cover[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(10): 18792-18819. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023833
[1] | Hazrat Yousaf, Azka Amin, Waqar Ameer, Muhammad Akbar . Investigating the determinants of ecological and carbon footprints. Evidence from high-income countries. AIMS Energy, 2022, 10(4): 831-843. doi: 10.3934/energy.2022037 |
[2] | Dimitrios Saligkaras, Vasileios E. Papageorgiou . On the detection of patterns in electricity prices across European countries: An unsupervised machine learning approach. AIMS Energy, 2022, 10(6): 1146-1164. doi: 10.3934/energy.2022054 |
[3] | Miguel de Simón-Martín, Montserrat Díez-Mediavilla, Cristina Alonso-Tristán . Real Energy Payback Time and Carbon Footprint of a GCPVS. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(1): 77-95. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.1.77 |
[4] | Mesude Bayrakci Boz, Kirby Calvert, Jeffrey R. S. Brownson . An automated model for rooftop PV systems assessment in ArcGIS using LIDAR. AIMS Energy, 2015, 3(3): 401-420. doi: 10.3934/energy.2015.3.401 |
[5] | Susana Silva, Isabel Soares, Carlos Pinho . Dynamic behavior of transport fuel demand and regional environmental policy: The case of Portugal. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(5): 899-914. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021042 |
[6] | Pawan Singh, Baseem Khan, Hassan Haes Alhelou, Om Prakash Mahela . Impressions of remote area electrification on social and economic indicators. AIMS Energy, 2020, 8(6): 1045-1068. doi: 10.3934/energy.2020.6.1045 |
[7] | Patrick Moriarty, Damon Honnery . The limits of renewable energy. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(4): 812-829. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021037 |
[8] | Albert Malama, Priscilla Mudenda, Austine Ng'ombe, Lilias Makashini, Henry Abanda . The Effects of the Introduction of Prepayment Meters on the Energy Usage Behaviour of Different Housing Consumer Groups in Kitwe, Zambia. AIMS Energy, 2014, 2(3): 237-259. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.3.237 |
[9] | María del P. Pablo-Romero, Rafael Pozo-Barajas . Global changes in total and wind electricity (1990–2014). AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(2): 290-312. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.2.290 |
[10] | Afamia Elnakat, Juan D. Gomez, Martha Wright . A measure to manage approach to characterizing the energy impact of residential building stocks. AIMS Energy, 2016, 4(4): 574-588. doi: 10.3934/energy.2016.4.574 |
Unusual states of manhole covers (MCs), such as being tilted, lost or flooded, can present substantial safety hazards and risks to pedestrians and vehicles on the roadway. Most MCs are still being managed through manual regular inspections and have limited information technology integration. This leads to time-consuming and labor-intensive identification with a lower level of accuracy. In this paper, we propose an edge computing-based intelligent monitoring system for manhole covers (EC-MCIMS). Sensors detect the MC and send status and positioning information via LoRa to the edge gateway located on the nearby wisdom pole. The edge gateway utilizes a lightweight machine learning model, trained on the edge impulse (EI) platform, which can predict the state of the MC. If an abnormality is detected, the display and voice device on the wisdom pole will respectively show and broadcast messages to alert pedestrians and vehicles. Simultaneously, the information is uploaded to the cloud platform, enabling remote maintenance personnel to promptly repair and restore it. Tests were performed on the EI platform and in Dongguan townships, demonstrating that the average response time for identifying MCs is 4.81 s. Higher responsiveness and lower power consumption were obtained compared to cloud computing models. Moreover, the system utilizes a lightweight model that better reduces read-only memory (ROM) and random-access memory (RAM), while maintaining an average identification accuracy of 94%.
In the process of achieving a high level of industrial development, we have depleted our environmental resources without considering the natural resource constraint. Researchers are therefore concerned that the consumption of natural resources will exceed the biocapacity. Thus, the problem of assessing environmental quality effectively and quantitatively has perplexed environmental scientists for decades 1,2. To determine whether we have over consumed resources, Gary 3 states that “this has led to the development of various types of environmental indices, which, by definition, are tools for aggregating and simplifying information of a diverse nature into a useful and more advantageous form.”
Additionally, environmentalists and economists have been involved in controversial debates about economic development and environmental conservation. According to Sheldon 4 and Ulph 5, environmentalists argue that any benefit from increased trade liberalization will be downplayed by the damage caused to the environment. On the contrary, economists argue that trade and economic growth may be good for ensuring environmental quality. While environmental quality is generally considered a normal good, the increase in per capita income will increase the demand for better environmental quality. Therefore, we are interested in determining the factors that affect environmental quality. We can then adjust our policies so as to reduce environmental degradation. Global environmental policies can be adjusted in order to assist the low-income countries in economic development through technology transfer and financial incentives, thereby ensuring that development is possible without causing environmental degradation.
The indicators of environmental quality are associated with different indicators. However, the most comprehensively developed and accepted indicator is the ecological footprint (EF), which was developed by Wackernagel and Rees 6. The EF is measured as the total area of productive land and water required to continuously produce all resources consumed and to assimilate all wastes generated by a defined population in a specific location. It has become “the most widely-used measure of environmental sustainability” 7. Grazi et al. 8 states that despite this indicator’s structural weakness, which many researchers have attempted to address (e.g., 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17), it remains a widely used indicator for assessing environmental sustainability.
As environmental issues are a key concern, several studies have attempted to explain the optimal use of resources. The EF provides a method to measure how much lands can support the consumption of the natural resources. If the EF is larger than biocapacity, we can say that the waste of resources had exceeded the burden. Moreover, previous studies have pointed out that per capita ecological footprints are negatively correlated with various environmental outcomes, including deforestation and organic water pollution. These correlations are consistent with the findings reported above and by previous studies 18,19,20,21,22,23,24.
Therefore, researchers are now interested in the factors that affect the EF. Recently, Moran et al. analyzed the relationship between the UN Human Development Index (HDI) and the limited biocapacity of the planet that was measured by using the EF 25. The limited biocapacity is a real constraint that is not often emphasized in other development assessments, and they found that a country’s development is positively related to its EF. They indicated that the EF is affected by the following three factors: resource intensity in the production of goods and services, consumption of goods and services per person, and population size. Jorgenson applied OLS estimation to analyze the relationship between the EF and other variables, which include weighted export flows, the value of exported goods and services divided by GDP, income inequality, and other macroeconomic variables 26. He found that weighted export flows and GDP have a significantly positive impact on the EF. The researchers have listed the other references to discuss the factors affecting the EF in Table 1.
References | Time | Country | Factor | Result | Notes |
van Vuuren (2000) | 1980-1994 | 4 | GDP per capita | (+) | The EF for carbon dioxide emissions |
Population | (+) | ||||
van Vuuren and Smeets (2000) | 1980, 1987, and 1994 | 4 | GDP per capita | (+) | |
York (2003) | 1996 | 142 | GDP per capita | (+) | Not stable in all models |
Population | (+) | ||||
Nondependent population | (+) | Positive trend showing a nation’s population between the ages of 15 and 65 (the most productive ages) and a nation’s ecological footprint. | |||
Land area per capita | (+) | ||||
Latitude | (+) | ||||
Capitalist nation | (+) | Not stable in all models | |||
Jorgenson (2003) | 1996 | 208 | Income inequality | (−) | The inclusion of human capital indicators controls the domestic factors that affect the EF |
Urbanization | (+) | ||||
Human capital | (+) | ||||
Literacy | (+) | ||||
World-system position | (+) | ||||
Mun˜izT (2004) | 1986-1996 | Barcelona | Average household income | (+) | |
Job ratio | (−) | ||||
Jorgenson (2007) | 1991-2001 | 138 | GDP per capita | (+) | |
Population | Insignificant | ||||
Income inequality | Insignificant | ||||
Exports / GDP | (−) | ||||
Manufacturing /GDO | (−) | ||||
Services / GDP | (+) | ||||
Agriculture / GDP | Insignificant | ||||
State environmentalism | Insignificant | ||||
Moran et al. (2008) | Consumption of goods and services per person | Theoretical (+) | |||
Population | Theoretical (+) | ||||
Li (2009) | 1988-2005 | China | Total energy consumption | The greatest impact | Partial least squares (PLS) and five-fold cross-validation |
GDP | The second largest impact | ||||
Urbanization | <1 | ||||
Total retail sales of consumer goods | <1 | ||||
Expenditures by city residents | <1 | ||||
Mostafa (2010b) | 140 | GDP | (−) | OLS; Bayesian regression model: not support positive | |
GDP2 | (+) | ||||
Income Inequality | (−) | ||||
Urbanization | (+) | ||||
Literacy | (+) | ||||
Exports / GDP | (+) Insignificant | ||||
Jorgenson (2010) | 1970-2000 | 37 | Military expendituresper soldier | (+) | Fixed effects model estimates with AR(1) |
Military expendituresas % of GDP | (−) Insignificant | ||||
GDP per capita | (+) Insignificant in model B | ||||
Urbanization | (+) Insignificant |
Several studies have discussed the indirect evidence of countries’ externalization of environmental and ecological costs associated with their higher levels of EF 23. As shown in Table 1, GDP per capita has a positive impact on the EF, which implies that the developing economies will cause an increase in the EF. Income inequality is also an important indicator that affects the EF, but the results of its effect are not robust. The effect of urbanization (urban population divided by total population) on the EF is not found to be different in different studies 27,28. While the effect of export of goods and services as a percentage of total GDP has a significantly negative effect on the EF in Jorgenson et al. 29, the effect is not significant in Mostafa 30. However, we have found that few studies have employed panel data analysis, and most studies apply the cross-sectional analysis (for instance, York et al. 31, Jorgenson et al. 29).
For the present study, we chose the factors that affect the EF in accordance with Jorgensen and Rice’s 32 cross-sectional study involving 69 countries. The purpose of our research is to understand why developed countries consume more resources but have low EFs, whereas developing countries consume fewer resources but have high EFs. We wish to understand whether the import of goods and services by the developed countries from the developing countries is the factor responsible for high EFs of developing countries. From Table 1, we determine that the diverse results are due to the different data set or econometric methodologies and different countries’ characteristics. Therefore, we used the limited available panel dataset to correct the above problem. Furthermore, the short time span of individual data sets weakens the significance of the results. Therefore, we selected the panel data set of 99 countries from 1981 to 2006. Jorgenson et al. 29 applied an ecostructural orientation to the theory of foreign investment dependence (see the World Bank’s Global Development Finance). In the 1990s, FDI became the largest source of finance for developing countries, while official loans were also important in low-income countries. Several other cross-national studies suggest that foreign investment is a structural mechanism partly responsible for the emission of carbon dioxide gas 33,34,35, which affects the carbon footprint in the total national EF.
In our research, we provide evidence for the factors that affect the EF. Once we understand these factors, we can reduce the EF through effective policies. In addition, in order to determine the effect of FDI on the EF, we include the FDI that has been documented by the World Bank. We classify the countries into three income groups to discuss whether the effects of the different factors on the EF change for different income groups. The second section of this paper describes the data used in our study, and the third section illustrates the methodology. The empirical results are discussed in the fourth section, and the final section concludes the paper.
We set our empirical model as follows:
log(ef)it=αi+β1log(gdp)it+β2Δgdpit+β3(urb)it+β4log(exp/GDP)it+β5log(fdi)it+εit | 1 |
where i refers to the countries and t is the time; i = 1, 2, …, N, and t = 1, 2, …, T. α is the interception. As mentioned earlier, our panel data set includes 99 countries from 1981 to 2006. The list of countries is in Table 2. We apply the linear interpolation to estimate missing data. Details of the missing data are presented in Table 3. The following is an explanation of the variables that affect the EF in our research:
Country | High income | Country | Middle income | Country | Low income |
Antigua and Barbuda | Non-OECD | Argentina | Upper | Bangladesh | |
Australia | OECD | Botswana | Upper | Benin | |
Austria | OECD | Brazil | Upper | Burundi | |
Bahamas | Non-OECD | Chile | Upper | Congo, Democratic Republic of | |
Bahrain | Non-OECD | Colombia | Upper | Ghana | |
Barbados | Non-OECD | Costa Rica | Upper | Kenya | |
Belgium | OECD | Dominica | Upper | Malawi | |
Canada | OECD | Dominican Republic | Upper | Mali | |
Cyprus | Non-OECD | Fiji | Upper | Mozambique | |
Denmark | OECD | Gabon | Upper | Nepal | |
Finland | OECD | Grenada | Upper | Niger | |
France | OECD | Malaysia | Upper | Rwanda | |
Germany | OECD | Mauritius | Upper | Senegal | |
Greece | OECD | Mexico | Upper | Sierra Leone | |
Iceland | OECD | Panama | Upper | Togo | |
Ireland | OECD | Peru | Upper | ||
Israel | Non-OECD | Seychelles | Upper | ||
Italy | OECD | South Africa | Upper | ||
Japan | OECD | Suriname | Upper | ||
Korea, Republic of | OECD | Turkey | Upper | ||
Kuwait | Non-OECD | Uruguay | Upper | ||
Malta | Non-OECD | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Upper | ||
Netherlands | OECD | Belize | Lower | ||
New Zealand | OECD | Bolivia | Lower | ||
Norway | OECD | Cameroon | Lower | ||
Oman | Non-OECD | China | Lower | ||
Portugal | OECD | Cte d’Ivoire | Lower | ||
Saudi Arabia | Non-OECD | Ecuador | Lower | ||
Spain | OECD | Egypt | Lower | ||
Sweden | OECD | El Salvador | Lower | ||
Switzerland | OECD | Guatemala | Lower | ||
Trinidad and Tobago | Non-OECD | India | Lower | ||
United Kingdom | OECD | Indonesia | Lower | ||
United States of America | OECD | Jordan | Lower | ||
Lesotho | Lower | ||||
Morocco | Lower | ||||
Nicaragua | Lower | ||||
Nigeria | Lower | ||||
Pakistan | Lower | ||||
Papua New Guinea | Lower | ||||
Paraguay | Lower | ||||
Philippines | Lower | ||||
Solomon Islands | Lower | ||||
Sri Lanka | Lower | ||||
Sudan | Lower | ||||
Swaziland | Lower | ||||
Syrian Arab Republic | Lower | ||||
Thailand | Lower | ||||
Tunisia | Lower | ||||
Vanuatu | Lower |
ef: The ecological footprint is the dependent variable in our research. We obtain the data set from Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity 36. Global Footprint Network provides data on cropland, grazing land, forestland, fish grounds, built-up land, and carbon footprint. In the summary worksheet of the Global Footprint Network Guidebook, cropland summarizes the Footprint of cropland embodied in both crop and livestock products; grazing land summarizes the Footprint of pasture grass embodied in livestock products; forestland summarizes the Footprint of forestland embodied in primary and processed forest products; fish grounds summarizes the Footprint of marine and inland water areas embodied in fish and other aquatic products; built-up land summarizes the Footprint associated with buildings, infrastructure, and hydroelectric reservoir area; and the carbon footprint summarizes the carbon Footprint of fossil fuel combustion (both domestically emitted and embodied in traded goods) and an additional bunker fuel carbon tax (Guidebook to the national footprint account 37).
gdp: York et al. 31 indicated that further development and modernization may alleviate environmental problems. He also pointed out that economic development is usually measured as real GDP per capita, thus eliminating the effect of differentscales because of different country sizes. Like Jorgenson and Rice 32, we also use the natural logarithm of the real GDP per capita, obtained from world development indicators 31.
Δ gdp: Jorgenson and Rice 32 indicated that realGDP per capita change can control the extent of a country’s average annual rate of economic development. Accordingly, we have included this variable in our empirical model.
urbresi: The urbanization has been widely accepted in the research of environmental sustainability. For instance, Jorgenson 26 indicates that “A rather extensive body of literature addresses world-systemic factors and urbanization, which justifies the inclusion of urbanization as an intervening variable that is partly a function of world-system position.” Mostafa 30 indicates that “several authors found a positive relationship between urbanization as measured by the percentage of total population living in urban areas and EF levels.” The EF is measured as the total area of productive land and water required to continuously produce all resources consumed and to assimilate all wastes generated by a defined population in a specific location. It has become “the most widely-used measure of environmental sustainability.” Therefore, the ecological modernization theorists use the urbanization as an indicator to explain EF because it is associated with many institutions of modernism. The urbanization of a country is an important indicator of modernization. Ecological modernization theorists use this indicator because it is associated with many institutions of modernism 31,39,40,41. Jorgenson and Rice 32 suggest the use of the urban population percentage of the total as the urbanization variable; this data can be found in WDI 38. In order to avoid the collinear problem of the urbanization variable and GDP, we use the residual of the regression between real GDP per capita and urban population percentage of the total as the urbanization variable. However, there might have some controversy in the literature regarding the causal mechanisms surrounding urbanization. For instance, Liddle and Messinis 42 apply heterogeneous panel causality tests to consider the relationship between urbanization change and economic growth and find the causality is different for different income levels. Therefore, we get the residuals through individually OLS regression. The purpose to do the regression is to keep the pure effect of the urbanization without GDP effect.
exp: In accordance with Jorgenson and Rice 32, to determine the extent of a country’s integration into the world economy, we use the exports of goods and services as a percentage of total GDP in order to measure the overall levels of exports and controls. Thus, we have the exp natural log. The exp data can be found in WDI 38.
fdi1: We use FDI to capture the effect of FDI on the EF. The data can be found in WDI 38.
As mentioned earlier, we applied the linear interpolation to fill the missing data in Table 3. According to Meijering 43, the Linear Interpolationmethod had been widely applied in the problem of constructing a continuously defined function from given discrete data is unavoidable whenever one wishes to manipulate the data in a way that requires information not included explicitly in the data. Table 4 lists the descriptive statistics for all variables. Because the urbresi is the residual of the regression between real GDP per capita and urban population percentage of the total, the average is almost 0. In addition, we have the variables in natural logarithm, except the fdi and GDP per capita change. Table 5 provides the correlation matrix between the variables. The correlations between the variables are all less than 1.
Variable | FDI | Variable | ex | Variable | ser |
Nation | Years | Nation | Years | Nation | Years |
Bangladesh | 1981-1982;1985 | Belize | 1981-1983 | Bahamas | 1988 |
Belize | 1982-1983 | Burundi | 1981-1984 | Fiji | 2006 |
Greece | 1998 | China | 1981 | Niger | 2006 |
Grenada | 1981 | Gabon | 2006 | Oman | 1989 |
Guinea-Bissau | 1981-1983 | Greece | 1998 | Suriname | 2006 |
Lesotho | 1985 | Madagascar | 2006 | ||
Nepal | 1992-1995 | Malawi | 2003-2006 | ||
Nicaragua | 1981-1982 | Papua New Guinea | 2006 | ||
Switzerland | 1981-1982 | Vanuatu | 1981 |
N | Mean | Std Dev | Skewness | Kurtosis | Max | Min | |
Ecological Footprint (log) | 99 | 0.8653 | 0.7826 | 0.5857 | 4.3581 | 4.2449 | −1.2378 |
GDP per capita (log) | 99 | 7.8179 | 1.6036 | 0.0322 | 1.9031 | 11.1879 | 4.3925 |
GDP per capita change (log) | 99 | 4.4546 | 13.1269 | −0.1591 | 6.5100 | 81.8288 | −62.3853 |
urbresi | 99 | 0* | 9973.357 | 1.9062 | 7.0291 | 63200.55 | −10870.3 |
Exports of goods and services % of the totalGDP (log) | 99 | 3.3741 | 0.6215 | −0.4658 | 3.1797 | 4.8762 | 0.9261 |
Foreign direct investment(log) | 99 | 16.3269 | 18.8351 | −2.7431 | 9.4901 | 26.4956 | −24.2956 |
* The average of urbresi is −6.02E−12 because it is the residual of the regression between real GDP per capita and the urban population percentage of the total |
ef | gdp | ∆gdp | urbresi | ser | fdi | |
ef | 1 | |||||
gdp | 0.2236 | 1 | ||||
∆gdp | 0.0686 | 0.0597 | 1 | |||
urbresi | 0.0003 | 0.6875 | 0.0197 | 1 | ||
ser | 0.3066 | 0.0249 | 0.0544 | −0.0702 | 1 | |
fdi | 0.0790 | 0.0746 | 0.0833 | 0.0226 | 0.0021 | 1 |
We employ the panel model to analyze the factors that affect the EF. The panel data model allows the individual difference between samples. It is set as follows:
efit=αi+k∑k=1βkXkit+εit | 2 |
where efit and Xkit refer to the data of the ith country during the t period and k is the kth explanation variable. αi is the intercept. βk is the coefficient of the kth explanation variable. εit is the error term and εit~iid(0,σ2ε).
Owing to the different settings in the intercept, the panel data model is classified into the fixed effects model and random effects model. As the model allows for the difference between cross sections, the fixed effects model assumes that the intercepts can show the unobserved cross-sectional effect. The fixed effects can be classified into two categories: region-specific fixed effects and time-specific fixed effects. The former means that the regional characteristics have fixed effects on the explained variables because of the regional property. The latter means that the property of t has short-run fixed effects on the formerly explained variable in different regions, as we control other explained variables.
Equation (2) can be rewritten as follows:
efi=iαi+k∑k=1βkXki+εi | 3 |
The model assumes that the difference between countries can be addressed through the interception and that the difference does not change with time. αi is the unknown parameter that needs to be estimated, and i is the unit vector. εi is a T × 1 vector of error term. We express equation (3) in the matrix form:
Alternatively, it can be shown as follows:
where di is the dummy variable vector of observation i, and the N T × N matrix D = [d1 d2 … dN], which contains the N × T vector and one-way fixed effects model that can be shown as follows:
efit=n∑j=1αiDjt+k∑k=1βkXkit+εit | 4 |
If i = j, Djt = 1; Otherwise i ≠ j, Djt = 0.
The random effects model allows for the difference between time series and cross-sectional data. The interception explains the difference and considers the individual observation data as random, which arise from a similar difference. Therefore, the model assumes the structural differences between nations and the time change difference as random with the randomness being formed in the error term.
We can rewrite equation (2) as a one-way random effect model:
efit=(ˉα+μi)+k∑k=1βkXkit+εit | 5 |
where ˉα refers to the unknown parameter of the average interception and μi is the unobservable random error term.
Owing to the different model settings between the region-specific fixed effects and random effects, we test which model is the optimal one by using the criteria in Hausman 44. The basic assumption of Hausman’s random model is that, as the random variables and dependent variables are uncorrelated, the OLS estimations of the fixed effects model and random effects model are consistent but the fixed effect model is inefficient. Otherwise, while the OLS estimation of the fixed effects model has consistency, the random effects model lacks consistency. The null hypothesis of Hausman 44 is E(μi,Xit)=0 and the alternative hypothesis is E(μi,Xit)≠0. If the null is rejected, we should select the fixed effects model. Conversely, we should select the random effects model.
According to Liddle 45, for the purpose to examine the stationarityproperties of panel data withcross-sectional dependence problem, we accept the advice to apply Pesaran 46 CD test to test the cross-sectional dependence among the variables and in residuals. As the Table 6 depicts, with the null hypothesis of CD test which means cross-sectional independence, all six variables significantly reject the null and have cross-sectional dependence problem. Thus, we should test the panel unit root test allows for cross-sectional dependence. Therefore, Pesaran 47 panel unit root test is applied to test the stationarity of all 6 variables. The results of Table 6 display that as the lag is one period without trend, only GDP per capita is nonstationary. But as we consider more lag and more conditions, Ecological Footprint (log), GDP per capita (log), Urban population % of the total (residual) might be the I(1) series. In our study, we first apply both the fixed effects model and the random effects model to analyze the effect and then apply the Hausman test to select the model. The data set is classified into the following three categories:high income, middle income, and low income. The classification is outlined in Table 2. The standard of income criterion is obtained from the World Bank. As Table 6 shows, model (1) includes the observations of all 99 countries from 1981 to 2006; Model (2), of 34 high-income countries from 1981 to 2006; Model (3), of 50 middle-income countries from 1981 to 2006; and model (4), of 15 low-income countries from 1981 to 2006.
Variables | Ecological Footprint (log) | GDP per capita (log) | GDP per capita change (log) | Urban population %of the total (residual) | Exports of goods and services % of the total GDP (log) | Foreign direct investment (log) | |
CD teat | 0.30(8.21**) | 0.57(164.78**) | 0.27(64.87**) | 0.62(38.82**) | 0.39(66.46**) | 0.28(61.71**) | |
Panel unit root test (Level) | Lag 1 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.209 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.084 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.009) | 0.000 (0.000) |
Lag 2 | 0.266 (0.031) | 0.695 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.944 (1.000) | 0.089 (0.853) | 0.010 (0.060) | |
Lag 3 | 0.816 (0.117) | 0.220 (0.999) | 0.000 (0.000) | 1.000 (1.000) | 0.004 (0.760) | 0.220 (1.000) | |
Panel unit root test (First difference) | Lag 1 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) |
Lag 2 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | |
Lag 3 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | |
1 The Null Hypothesis of CD test is cross-sectional independence. **indicates significance at the 5% level that reject the Null Hypothesis. Absolute value mean correlation coefficient is shown and the CD-test statistic is in parentheses. 2 The null of Pesaran 47 panel unit root test is nonstationarity. The result is the p-value with different lags and without trend. The value in parentheses is the p-value with trend. |
As per the results of the Hausman test, the four model settings cannot reject the null hypothesis, which means that the random effects model should be accepted. To solve the panel data estimation with the nonstationary variables, we applied the panel linear estimator with AR(1) to correct the problem. As Table 7 displays the result, the residuals have been tested with the Pesaran 47 panel unit root test and the result tells that the residuals of model (1), (2), and (3) are stationary but the model (4) does not pass the test. Therefore, we conclude that the as the research with low income countries may suffer the spurious regression problem. And we had also corrected the research based on the result. Table 7presents the empirical results of the random effects model for four sample selection model settings. We find that in all the models, GDP per capita has a significantly positive effect on the EF, except model (4). This effect is consistent with the findingsof Jorgenson et al. 29, York et al. 31 and van Vuuren and Smeets 48. Therefore, we can say that economic development will increase the EF, which means that the high economic performance will increase the burden on the environment. In addition, the GDP per capita change is significantly negative in low-income countries. However, it is not significant in model (1), high and middle countries, which is consistent with the findings of Jorgenson and Rice 32. This suggests that the effect of GDP per capita change varies with data.
High income | Middle income | Low income | ||
Model(1) | Model(2) | Model(3) | Model(4) | |
n | 99 | 34 | 50 | 15 |
GDP per capita (log) | 0.0939*** | 0.1385*** | 0.1028*** (2.93) [0.0341, 0.1716] | 0.0425 (1.04) [−0.0376, 0.1226] |
(5.15) [0.0581, 0.1296] | (3.61) [0.0632, 0.2140] | |||
GDP per capita change(log) | −0.0001 (−0.23) [−0.0008, 0.0007] | −0.0008 | −0.0000 (−0.06) [−0.0010, 0.0010] | −0.0002 (−0.24) [−0.0014, 0.0011] |
(−0.88) [−0.0027, 0.0010] | ||||
Urban population % of the total (residual) | −0.0000 (−0.44) [−3.46 E−06, 2.19 E−06] | 0.0000 (1.21) [−1.60 E-06, 6.79 E-06] | 0.0000 (−1.44) [−8.64 E−06, 1.33 E−06] | 0.0000 (1.87) [−3.29 E−07, 1.33 E−05] |
Exports of goods and services % of the total GDP (log) | 0.0475 (1.67) [−0.0083, 0.1033] | −0.1520 (−1.71) [−0.3263, 0.0223] | 0.0705 (1.57) [−0.0175, 0.1584] | −0.0062 (−0.17) [−0.0800, 0.0675] |
Foreign direct investment (log) | 0.0003 (0.59) [−0.0008, 0.0015] | 0.0006 (0.58) [−0.0014, 0.0026] | 0.0000 (0.04) [−0.0017, 0.0017] | −0.0004 (−0.37) [−0.0026, 0.0017] |
Residual Unit Root (Pesaran(2007)) Lag 1 (p-value) | 0.074 | 0.015 | 0.058 | 0.302 |
1 Value of t-statistics is in parentheses. indicates significance at the 10% level; **indicates significance at the 5% level; ***indicates significance at the1% level. The 95% confidence intervals are in square brackets. 2 The coefficients of average urban population as a percentage of the total are −6.37E−07, 2.59 E−06, −3.66 E−06, 6.47 E−06. |
Furthermore, the effect of urbanization is not found to be significant. However, when we classify the observations into the three categories, we find that the effect of urbanization is significantly positive in low income categories, which means that the higher the rate of urbanization in a country, the higher the EF. This suggests that as countries develop and become more urbanized, the environmental burden increases. The insignificant effect of urbanization in model (1), (2) and (3) is becausethe urbanization variable is obtained by the residual of the regression between real GDP per capita and urban population percentage of the total, in order to avoid the collinear problem of urbanization variable and GDP. The residual of the regression between real GDP per capita and the urban population percentage of the total is negative in developed countries and is positive in developing countries; this effect is offset when we use all the samples. This finding suggests that, when discussing the factors that affect the EF, countries should be classified according to income level. This classification can show the exact evidence through the results.
The exports of goods and services divided by GDP is significant in model (1) and (2), which indicates that the higher the volume of export, the greater is the environmental burden. But as the country is in high income, the effect is significant negative. However, this effect is not significant in the middle and low income countries. Therefore, we find that the factors affecting the EF the most are GDP per capita and the export of goods and services divided by GDP. Additionally, the effect of GDP per capita is the largest in high-income countries, which implies that the high-income countries may exhibit the phenomenon described by Jorgenson and Rice 32: less-developed countries often have lower ecological footprints because they largely focus on exporting produced goods and raw materials to higher consuming, more-developed countries.
As environmental issues are a key concern, several studies have attempted to explain the optimal use of resources. The EF provides a method for measuring how much lands can support the consumption of the natural resources. However, development and biocapacity debates revolve mainly around the factors that affect the EF and the approaches to improve the environmental quality. Therefore, we conducted panel analysis of data for 99 countries from 1981 to 2006 to determine what factors affect the EF.
The factors affecting the environmental quality have been the topic of great interest since the 1990s, when concerns regarding climate change because of the deteriorating environmental quality, took center stage. In this study, we have considered the EF as an indicator of environmental quality. If the EF exceeds biocapacity, we can say that the consumption of resources has exceeded biocapacity. Our empirical results show that in all sample selection models, GDP per capita significantly affects the EF. This implies that the environmental quality will deteriorate with economic development irrespective of the income level. However, the empirical results also show that the effect of GDP per capita on the EF varies for different income levels. Thus, an increase in the GDP per capita of low-income countries will have a smaller effect on the EF than would an increase in the GDP per capita of middle and high-income countries.
As the countries are pre-industrial economies and the degradation is smaller thanindustrial economies. The effect of GDP per capita will not slow down as the economies become post-industrial economies. Thus, as mentioned earlier, an increase in the GDP per capita of these countries will have a larger effect on the EF than would an increase in the GDP per capita of middle-income and low-income countries. This result is consistent withthe empirical result of Mostafa 30. We also find that the effect of GDP per capita on the EF is insignificant in low-income countries; this means that as the GDP of countries with low-income economies increases, the impact on the environment decreases. We therefore conclude that global environmental policies should be adjusted such that high-income countries assist low-income countries in economic development through technology transfer and financial incentives.
Further, we find that the effect of urbanization is significantly positive in low income categories, which means that the rate of urbanization in a country is the key factors inthe low income countries to affect the EF. This effect is larger in the low-income countries than in the high-income countries. This suggests that as the developing countries pursue economic development, there will be an impact on the environment, indicating that developing countries may seek to develop their economies through activities that are more detrimental to the environment.
Finally, while the export of goods and services as a percentage of total GDP has a significantly negative effect on the EF in Jorgenson et al. 29, but the effect is not significant in Mostafa 30. However, few studies have employed panel data analysis, and most studies apply cross-sectional analysis (for instance, 29,31). Our results show that the export of goods and services divided by GDP is positively significant in model (1), which means that the higher the volume of exports, the greater the burden on the environment. However, this effect is not significant in middle and low income level models. The income effect may explain the diverse effects of export on the environment. Therefore, panel data analysis and income classification are necessary to discuss the effect of export on the environment.
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
W. Liu, D. Y. Chen, P. C. Yin, M. Y. Yang, E. Z. Li, M. Xie, et al., Small manhole cover detection in remote sensing imagery with deep convolutional neural networks, ISPRS. Int. J. Geo-Inf., 8 (2019), 913–924. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8010049 doi: 10.3390/ijgi8010049
![]() |
[2] |
B. D. Zhou, W. J. Zhao, W. H. Guo, L. C. Li, D. J. Zhang, Q. Z. Mao, et al., Smartphone-based road manhole cover detection and classification, Autom. Constr., 140 (2022), 104344–104355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104344 doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104344
![]() |
[3] |
R. Hubaut, R. Guichard, J. Greenfield, M. Blandeau, Validation of an embedded motion-capture and EMG setup for the analysis of musculoskeletal disorder risks during manhole cover handling, Sensors, 22 (2022), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22020436 doi: 10.3390/s22020436
![]() |
[4] |
V. Albino, U. Berardi, R. M. Dangelico, Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives, J. Urban Technol., 22 (2015), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092 doi: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
![]() |
[5] |
X. Y. Liu, Y. Han, Y. H. Du, IoT device identification using directional packet length sequences and 1D-CNN, Sensors, 22 (2022), 8337–8356. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22218337 doi: 10.3390/s22218337
![]() |
[6] | S. Hymel, C. Banbury, D. Situnayake, A. Elium, C. Ward, M. Kelcey, et al., Edge Impulse: An MLOps platform for tiny machine learning, preprint, arXiv: 2212.03332. |
[7] | H. H. Aly, A. H. Soliman, M. Mouniri, Towards a fully automated monitoring system for manhole cover: Smart cities and IOT applications, in 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), (2015), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISC2.2015.7366150 |
[8] | X. R. Fu, Manhole cover intelligent detection and management system, in 2016 6th International Conference on Electronic, Mechanical, Information and Management Society (ICEMIMS), (2016), 986–988. https://doi.org/10.2991/emim-16.2016.203 |
[9] | V. K. Nallamothu, S. Medidi, S. P. Jannu, IOT based manhole detection and monitoring system, in 2022 International Conference on Distributed Computing and Electrical Circuits and Electronics (ICDCECE), (2022), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCECE53908.2022.9793287 |
[10] | R. Dronavalli, K. Seelam, P. Maganti, J. Gowineni, S. D. Challamalla, IoT-based automatic manhole observant for sewage worker's safety, in 2022 International Conference on Automation, Computing and Renewable Systems (ICACRS), (2022), 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACRS55517.2022.10029252 |
[11] | S. Salehin, S. S. Akter, A. Ibnat, T. T. Anannya, N. N. Liya, M. Paramita, et al., An IoT based proposed system for monitoring manhole in context of Bangladesh, in 2018 4th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information & Communication Technology (ICEEICT), (2018), 411–415. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEEICT.2018.8628091 |
[12] |
C. S. Ram, C. N. Kumar, S. Abhilash, Automated street light control and manhole monitoring with fault detection & reporting system for municipal department, Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Man, 7 (2023), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.55041/IJSREM.17962 doi: 10.55041/IJSREM.17962
![]() |
[13] |
S. K. Muragesh, R. Santhosha, Automated internet of things for underground drainage and manhole monitoring system for metropolitan cities, Int. J. Inf. Comput. Technol., 4 (2014), 1211–1220. https://doi.org/10.0974/IJICT.15634 doi: 10.0974/IJICT.15634
![]() |
[14] | Y. Liu, M. Y. Du, C. F. Jing, Y. Bai, Design of supervision and management system for ownerless manhole covers based on RFID, in 2013 21st International Conference on Geoinformatics (ICG), (2013), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/Geoinformatics.2013.6626149 |
[15] |
G. Y. Jia, G. J. Han, H. L. Rao, L. Shu, Edge computing-based intelligent manhole cover management system for smart cities, IEEE Internet Things, 5 (2018), 1648–1656. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2786349 doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2017.2786349
![]() |
[16] |
A. Mankotia, A. K. Shukla, IOT based manhole detection and monitoring system using Arduino, Mater. Today: Proc., 57 (2022), 2195–2198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.264 doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.264
![]() |
[17] | N. Nataraja, R. Amruthavarshini, N. L. Chaitra, K. Jyothi, N. Krupaa, S. S. M. Saqquaf, Secure manhole monitoring system employing sensors and GSM techniques, in 2018 3rd IEEE International Conference on Recent Trends in Electronics, Information & Communication Technology (RTEICT), (2018), 2078–2082. https://doi.org/10.1109/RTEICT42901.2018.9012245 |
[18] | X. C. Guo, B. B. Liu, L. L. Wang, Design and implementation of intelligent manhole cover monitoring system based on NB-IoT, in 2019 International Conference on Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS), (2019), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRIS.2019.00061 |
[19] | J. P. Zhang, X. L. Zeng, Design of intelligent manhole cover monitoring system based on narrow band internet of things, in 2022 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Signal Processing (ICSP), (2022), 1354–1357. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSP54964.2022.9778462 |
[20] |
W. Sun, Design and realization of LoRa-based manhole cover safety monitoring system, J. Int. Things Technol., 9 (2019), 25–26, 30. https://doi.org/10.16667/j.issn.2095-1302.2019.04.005 doi: 10.16667/j.issn.2095-1302.2019.04.005
![]() |
[21] |
H. S. Zhang, L. Li, X. Liu, Development and test of manhole cover monitoring device using LoRa and accelerometer, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 69 (2020), 2570–2580. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2020.2967854 doi: 10.1109/TIM.2020.2967854
![]() |
[22] | X. Liu, H. S. Zhang, L. Li, Research on LoRa communication performance in manhole cover monitoring, in 2019 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), (2019), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/I2MTC.2019.8826898 |
[23] | L. Li, H. S. Zhang, X. Liu, Development of low power consumption manhole cover monitoring device using LoRa, in 2019 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), (2019), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/I2MTC.2019.8826885 |
[24] | Y. Yu, J. Li, H. Guan, C. Wang, Automated detection of road manhole covers from mobile LiDAR point-clouds based on a marked point process, in 2013 Fifth International Conference on Geo-Information Technologies for Natural Disaster Management (ICGITNDM), (2013), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1109/GIT4NDM.2013.23 |
[25] |
Z. Y. Wei, M. M. Yang, L. Z. Wang, H. Ma, X. X. Chen, R. F. Zhong, Customized mobile LiDAR system for manhole cover detection and identification, Sensors, 19 (2019), 2422–2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19102422 doi: 10.3390/s19102422
![]() |
[26] | V. Vishnani, A. Adhya, C. Bajpai, P. Chimurkar, K. Khandagle, Manhole detection using image processing on google street view imagery, in 2020 Third International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT), (2020), 684–688. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSIT48917.2020.9214219 |
[27] | U. Andrijašević, J. Kocić, V. Nešić, Lid opening detection in manholes using RNN, in 2020 28th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR), (2020), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/TELFOR51502.2020.9306668 |
[28] |
R. Krishnan, A. Santhana, D. D. Kumari, N. Nandhini, G. Karpagarajesh, K. Narayanan, et al., A secured manhole management system using IoT and machine learning, Rec. Adv. Int. Things Mach. Learn., 215 (2022), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90119-6_3 doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-90119-6_3
![]() |
[29] |
D. P. Zhang, X. C. Yu, L. Yang, D. Y. Quan, H. M. Mi, K. Yan, Data-augmented deep learning models for abnormal road manhole cover detection, Sensors, 23 (2023), 2676–2693. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23052676 doi: 10.3390/s23052676
![]() |
[30] | K. Thakur, A. Adhya, C. Bajpai, P. Chimurkar, P. Kasambe, Manhole management using image processing and data analytics, in 2021 12th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), 12 (2021), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT51525.2021.9579541 |
[31] |
W. S. Shi, J. Cao, Q. Zhang, Y. H. Z. Li, L. Y. Xu, Edge computing: Vision and challenges, IEEE Internet Things, 3 (2016), 637–646. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2016.2579198 doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2016.2579198
![]() |
[32] |
F. Mo, L. Yu, Z. K. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Design and implementation of manhole cover safety monitoring system based on smart light pole, Math. Probl. Eng., 2022 (2022), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3081649 doi: 10.1155/2022/3081649
![]() |
[33] |
B. Ravelo, M. Guerin, W. Rahajandraibe, V. Gies, L. Rajaoarisoa, S. Lalléchère, Low-pass NGD numerical function and STM32 MCU emulation test, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 8 (2022), 8346–8355. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2021.3109543 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2021.3109543
![]() |
[34] |
V. B. Vales, O. C. Fernández, T. D. Bolaño, C. J. Escudero, J. A. G. Naya, Fine time measurement for the internet of things: a practical approach using ESP32, IEEE Internet Things, 19 (2022), 18305–18318. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2022.3158701 doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2022.3158701
![]() |
[35] |
W. S. Shi, X. Z. Zhang, Y. F. Wang, Q. Y. Zhang, Edge computing: Status and prospects, J. Comput. Res. Dev., 56 (2019), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.7544/issn1000-1239.2019.20180760 doi: 10.7544/issn1000-1239.2019.20180760
![]() |
[36] |
W. S. Shi, H. Sun, J. Cao, Q. Zhang, W. Liu, Edge computing: A new computing model for the internet of everything era, J. Comput. Res. Dev., 54 (2017), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.7544/issn1000-1239.2017.20160941 doi: 10.7544/issn1000-1239.2017.20160941
![]() |
[37] |
Y. F. Li, X. R. He, Y. Z. Bian, Task offloading of edge computing network and energy saving of passive house for smart city, Mob. Inf. Syst., 2022 (2022), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4832240 doi: 10.1155/2022/4832240
![]() |
[38] |
B. Pang, E. Nijkamp, Y. N. Wu, Deep learning with TensorFlow: A review, J. Educ. Behav. Stat., 2 (2020), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998619872761 doi: 10.3102/1076998619872761
![]() |
[39] |
I. N. Mihigo, M. Zennaro, A. Uwitonze, J. Rwigema, M. Rovai, On-Device IoT-based predictive maintenance analytics model: Comparing TinyLSTM and TinyModel from edge impulse, Sensors, 22 (2022), 5174–5194. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22145174 doi: 10.3390/s22145174
![]() |
[40] | L. Qing, K. Yang, W. Tan, J. Li, Automated detection of manhole covers in Mls point clouds using a deep learning approach, in IGARSS 2020-2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, (2020), 1580–1583. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS39084.2020.9324137 |
[41] |
S. J. Tian, S. Wang, H. R. Xu, Early detection of freezing damage in oranges by online Vis/NIR computers and electronics in agriculture transmission coupled with diameter correction method and deep 1D-CNN, Comput. Electr. Agric., 193 (2022), 106638–106659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106638 doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106638
![]() |
[42] |
C. C. Che, H. W. Wang, X. M. Ni, R. G. Ning, M. L. Xiong, Remaining life prediction of aero-engine based on 1D-CNN and Bi-LSTM, J. Mech. Eng., 57 (2021), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.3901/JME.2021.14.304 doi: 10.3901/JME.2021.14.304
![]() |
[43] | Y. Kim, Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification, preprint, arXiv: 1408.5882. |
[44] |
H. J. Wang, Z. Y. Yi, Z. Z. Ke, Y. J. Guo, H. Y. Dong, Wear monitoring of spiral milling tools based on one-dimensional convolutional neural network, J. Zhejiang Univ. (Eng. Ed.), 54 (2020), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2020.05.010 doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-973X.2020.05.010
![]() |
[45] |
L. Liu, J. C. Zhu, G. J. Han, Y. G. Bi, Bearing health monitoring and fault diagnosis based on joint feature extraction in one-dimensional convolution neural network, J. Soft., 32 (2021), 2379−2390. https://doi.org/10.13328/j.cnki.jos.006188 doi: 10.13328/j.cnki.jos.006188
![]() |
[46] |
H. T. Ren, F. Deng, Manhole cover detection using depth information, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1856 (2021), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1856/1/012037 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1856/1/012037
![]() |
[47] |
W. M. Rasheed, R. Abdulla, L. Y. San, Manhole cover monitoring system over IOT, J. Appl. Technol. Innov., 5 (2021), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2600/JATI.245739682 doi: 10.2600/JATI.245739682
![]() |
[48] | S. Bouhoula, M. Avgeris, A. Leivadeas, I. Lambadaris, Computational offloading for the industrial internet of things: A performance analysis, in 2022 IEEE International Mediterranean Conference on Communications and Networking (MeditCom), (2022), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MeditCom55741.2022.9928770 |
1. | Mónica Fernández, Gisela Cebrián, Elisa Regadera, M. Yolanda Fernández, Analysing the Relationship between University Students’ Ecological Footprint and Their Connection with Nature and Pro-Environmental Attitude, 2020, 17, 1660-4601, 8826, 10.3390/ijerph17238826 | |
2. | Brent Bleys, Bart Defloor, Luc Van Ootegem, Elsy Verhofstadt, The Environmental Impact of Individual Behavior: Self-Assessment Versus the Ecological Footprint, 2018, 50, 0013-9165, 187, 10.1177/0013916517693046 | |
3. | Mohammad Ashraful Ferdous Chowdhury, Peal Ahamed Shanto, Afsana Ahmed, Rabeya Hossain Rumana, Does foreign direct investments impair the ecological footprint? New evidence from the panel quantile regression, 2021, 28, 0944-1344, 14372, 10.1007/s11356-020-11518-0 | |
4. | Basem Ertimi, Tamat Sarmidi, Norlin Khalid, Mohd Helmi Ali, The Policy Framework of Natural Resource Management in Oil-Dependence Countries, 2021, 9, 2227-7099, 25, 10.3390/economies9010025 | |
5. | Valentina Niccolucci, Luca Coscieme, Nadia Marchettini, Benefit transfer and the economic value of Biocapacity: Introducing the ecosystem service Yield factor, 2021, 48, 22120416, 101256, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101256 | |
6. | Taghi Ebrahimi Salari, Ahmad Roumiani, Emad Kazemzadeh, Globalization, renewable energy consumption, and agricultural production impacts on ecological footprint in emerging countries: using quantile regression approach, 2021, 0944-1344, 10.1007/s11356-021-14204-x | |
7. | Victor Platon, Florin Marius Pavelescu, Marius Surugiu, Simona Frone, Raluca Mazilescu, Andreea Constantinescu, Florina Popa, Influence of Eco-Innovation and Recycling on Raw Material Consumption; Econometric Approach in the Case of the European Union, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 3996, 10.3390/su15053996 | |
8. | Dan Ioan Topor, Andreea Marin-Pantelescu, Adela Socol, Oana Raluca Ivan, Decarbonization of the Romanian Economy: An ARDL and KRLS Approach of Ecological Footprint, 2022, 24, 15829146, 664, 10.24818/EA/2022/61/664 | |
9. | Zhe Wang, Huangxin Chen, Yin-Pei Teng, Role of greener energies, high tech-industries and financial expansion for ecological footprints: Implications from sustainable development perspective, 2023, 202, 09601481, 1424, 10.1016/j.renene.2022.12.039 | |
10. | Eman Elish, Gender gap and ecological footprint: are there country variations? Evidence from quantile panel regression, 2022, 15, 1754-4408, 219, 10.1108/JCEFTS-08-2021-0042 | |
11. | Lieu Phan Thi, Ngoc Bui Hoang, Does Economic Complexity Reinforce Ecological Footprint in Viet Nam, 2021, 2815-5793, 40, 10.54404/jts.2021.9.04.04 | |
12. | Andrii Verstiak, Vasyl Hryhorkiv, Lesia Buiak, Mariia Hryhorkiv, Oksana Verstiak, 2021, Ecological Footprint Impact Factors Forecasts using VAR Model: Decision Making Case Study From Ukraine, 978-1-6654-1854-6, 19, 10.1109/ACIT52158.2021.9548526 | |
13. | OTÍLIA ZORKÓCIOVÁ, HANA PALUŠKOVÁ, SONIA KRAJČÍK DANIŠOVÁ, REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED VARIABLES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2021, 11, 2464-6733, 228, 10.33543/1102228233 | |
14. | Runyu Zhou, Kashif Raza Abbasi, Sultan Salem, Abdulaziz.I. Almulhim, Rafael Alvarado, Do natural resources, economic growth, human capital, and urbanization affect the ecological footprint? A modified dynamic ARDL and KRLS approach, 2022, 78, 03014207, 102782, 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102782 | |
15. | Mohsen Khezri, Jamal Mamkhezri, Somayeh Razzaghi, Regional and spatial impacts of external and internal conflicts on ecological footprint: the case of Middle East and Africa, 2023, 1614-7499, 10.1007/s11356-023-26692-0 | |
16. | Bui Hoang Ngoc, Nguyen Huynh Mai Tram, Spillover impacts of financial development and globalization on environmental quality in ASEAN countries, 2024, 10, 24058440, e30149, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30149 | |
17. | Emine Kılavuz, Emine Nalbant, Ev hanımları için ekolojik ayak izi farkındalığının belirlenmesi: Kayseri’de bir uygulama, 2024, 17, 2564-6931, 305, 10.25287/ohuiibf.1403792 | |
18. | Iyad Abumoghli, 2024, 978-3-666-50076-3, 155, 10.13109/9783666500763.155 | |
19. | Naima Sarwar, Fazal un Nisa Bibi, Ahmed Junaid, Shahzad Alvi, Impact of urbanization and human development on ecological footprints in OECD and non-OECD countries, 2024, 10, 24058440, e38058, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38058 | |
20. | Chala Amante Abate, How does economic growth impact environmental quality in Ethiopia? A non‐linear approach, 2024, 74, 0020-8701, 993, 10.1111/issj.12492 | |
21. | Cosimo Magazzino, Ecological footprint, electricity consumption, and economic growth in China: geopolitical risk and natural resources governance, 2024, 66, 0377-7332, 1, 10.1007/s00181-023-02460-4 | |
22. | Chun Wang, Merih Uctum, Ecological footprint of FDI inflows and income threshold effect: New results with a new approach to income classification, 2024, 22, 26659727, 100356, 10.1016/j.indic.2024.100356 | |
23. | Ahmet Mesut BÜYÜKSARIKULAK, Seher SULUK, Mustafa BÜBER, An assessment on the trend of the ecological footprint and the components of ecological footprint in BRICS-T countries, 2023, 16, 2564-6931, 950, 10.25287/ohuiibf.1256846 | |
24. | Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke, Nneka Maris Chidiebere-Mark, Roseline Daberechi Ejike, Comfort Chikezie, Ifeyinwa Josephine Uhuegbulem, Determinants of Environmental Quality in Africa, 2024, 43, 1337-947X, 202, 10.2478/eko-2024-0021 | |
25. | Hephzibah Onyeje Obekpa, Andrew Adewale Alola, Adejo Moses Adejo, Chukwuemeka Echebiri, Examining the drivers of ecological footprint components: Is pursuing food security environmentally costly for Nigeria?, 2025, 170, 1470160X, 113009, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.113009 | |
26. | Huu Cuong Nguyen, Hien Khanh Duong, An international empirical study of the impact of green bonds on sustainable development goals, 2025, 1940-5979, 10.1108/RBF-08-2024-0243 |
References | Time | Country | Factor | Result | Notes |
van Vuuren (2000) | 1980-1994 | 4 | GDP per capita | (+) | The EF for carbon dioxide emissions |
Population | (+) | ||||
van Vuuren and Smeets (2000) | 1980, 1987, and 1994 | 4 | GDP per capita | (+) | |
York (2003) | 1996 | 142 | GDP per capita | (+) | Not stable in all models |
Population | (+) | ||||
Nondependent population | (+) | Positive trend showing a nation’s population between the ages of 15 and 65 (the most productive ages) and a nation’s ecological footprint. | |||
Land area per capita | (+) | ||||
Latitude | (+) | ||||
Capitalist nation | (+) | Not stable in all models | |||
Jorgenson (2003) | 1996 | 208 | Income inequality | (−) | The inclusion of human capital indicators controls the domestic factors that affect the EF |
Urbanization | (+) | ||||
Human capital | (+) | ||||
Literacy | (+) | ||||
World-system position | (+) | ||||
Mun˜izT (2004) | 1986-1996 | Barcelona | Average household income | (+) | |
Job ratio | (−) | ||||
Jorgenson (2007) | 1991-2001 | 138 | GDP per capita | (+) | |
Population | Insignificant | ||||
Income inequality | Insignificant | ||||
Exports / GDP | (−) | ||||
Manufacturing /GDO | (−) | ||||
Services / GDP | (+) | ||||
Agriculture / GDP | Insignificant | ||||
State environmentalism | Insignificant | ||||
Moran et al. (2008) | Consumption of goods and services per person | Theoretical (+) | |||
Population | Theoretical (+) | ||||
Li (2009) | 1988-2005 | China | Total energy consumption | The greatest impact | Partial least squares (PLS) and five-fold cross-validation |
GDP | The second largest impact | ||||
Urbanization | <1 | ||||
Total retail sales of consumer goods | <1 | ||||
Expenditures by city residents | <1 | ||||
Mostafa (2010b) | 140 | GDP | (−) | OLS; Bayesian regression model: not support positive | |
GDP2 | (+) | ||||
Income Inequality | (−) | ||||
Urbanization | (+) | ||||
Literacy | (+) | ||||
Exports / GDP | (+) Insignificant | ||||
Jorgenson (2010) | 1970-2000 | 37 | Military expendituresper soldier | (+) | Fixed effects model estimates with AR(1) |
Military expendituresas % of GDP | (−) Insignificant | ||||
GDP per capita | (+) Insignificant in model B | ||||
Urbanization | (+) Insignificant |
Country | High income | Country | Middle income | Country | Low income |
Antigua and Barbuda | Non-OECD | Argentina | Upper | Bangladesh | |
Australia | OECD | Botswana | Upper | Benin | |
Austria | OECD | Brazil | Upper | Burundi | |
Bahamas | Non-OECD | Chile | Upper | Congo, Democratic Republic of | |
Bahrain | Non-OECD | Colombia | Upper | Ghana | |
Barbados | Non-OECD | Costa Rica | Upper | Kenya | |
Belgium | OECD | Dominica | Upper | Malawi | |
Canada | OECD | Dominican Republic | Upper | Mali | |
Cyprus | Non-OECD | Fiji | Upper | Mozambique | |
Denmark | OECD | Gabon | Upper | Nepal | |
Finland | OECD | Grenada | Upper | Niger | |
France | OECD | Malaysia | Upper | Rwanda | |
Germany | OECD | Mauritius | Upper | Senegal | |
Greece | OECD | Mexico | Upper | Sierra Leone | |
Iceland | OECD | Panama | Upper | Togo | |
Ireland | OECD | Peru | Upper | ||
Israel | Non-OECD | Seychelles | Upper | ||
Italy | OECD | South Africa | Upper | ||
Japan | OECD | Suriname | Upper | ||
Korea, Republic of | OECD | Turkey | Upper | ||
Kuwait | Non-OECD | Uruguay | Upper | ||
Malta | Non-OECD | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Upper | ||
Netherlands | OECD | Belize | Lower | ||
New Zealand | OECD | Bolivia | Lower | ||
Norway | OECD | Cameroon | Lower | ||
Oman | Non-OECD | China | Lower | ||
Portugal | OECD | Cte d’Ivoire | Lower | ||
Saudi Arabia | Non-OECD | Ecuador | Lower | ||
Spain | OECD | Egypt | Lower | ||
Sweden | OECD | El Salvador | Lower | ||
Switzerland | OECD | Guatemala | Lower | ||
Trinidad and Tobago | Non-OECD | India | Lower | ||
United Kingdom | OECD | Indonesia | Lower | ||
United States of America | OECD | Jordan | Lower | ||
Lesotho | Lower | ||||
Morocco | Lower | ||||
Nicaragua | Lower | ||||
Nigeria | Lower | ||||
Pakistan | Lower | ||||
Papua New Guinea | Lower | ||||
Paraguay | Lower | ||||
Philippines | Lower | ||||
Solomon Islands | Lower | ||||
Sri Lanka | Lower | ||||
Sudan | Lower | ||||
Swaziland | Lower | ||||
Syrian Arab Republic | Lower | ||||
Thailand | Lower | ||||
Tunisia | Lower | ||||
Vanuatu | Lower |
Variable | FDI | Variable | ex | Variable | ser |
Nation | Years | Nation | Years | Nation | Years |
Bangladesh | 1981-1982;1985 | Belize | 1981-1983 | Bahamas | 1988 |
Belize | 1982-1983 | Burundi | 1981-1984 | Fiji | 2006 |
Greece | 1998 | China | 1981 | Niger | 2006 |
Grenada | 1981 | Gabon | 2006 | Oman | 1989 |
Guinea-Bissau | 1981-1983 | Greece | 1998 | Suriname | 2006 |
Lesotho | 1985 | Madagascar | 2006 | ||
Nepal | 1992-1995 | Malawi | 2003-2006 | ||
Nicaragua | 1981-1982 | Papua New Guinea | 2006 | ||
Switzerland | 1981-1982 | Vanuatu | 1981 |
N | Mean | Std Dev | Skewness | Kurtosis | Max | Min | |
Ecological Footprint (log) | 99 | 0.8653 | 0.7826 | 0.5857 | 4.3581 | 4.2449 | −1.2378 |
GDP per capita (log) | 99 | 7.8179 | 1.6036 | 0.0322 | 1.9031 | 11.1879 | 4.3925 |
GDP per capita change (log) | 99 | 4.4546 | 13.1269 | −0.1591 | 6.5100 | 81.8288 | −62.3853 |
urbresi | 99 | 0* | 9973.357 | 1.9062 | 7.0291 | 63200.55 | −10870.3 |
Exports of goods and services % of the totalGDP (log) | 99 | 3.3741 | 0.6215 | −0.4658 | 3.1797 | 4.8762 | 0.9261 |
Foreign direct investment(log) | 99 | 16.3269 | 18.8351 | −2.7431 | 9.4901 | 26.4956 | −24.2956 |
* The average of urbresi is −6.02E−12 because it is the residual of the regression between real GDP per capita and the urban population percentage of the total |
ef | gdp | ∆gdp | urbresi | ser | fdi | |
ef | 1 | |||||
gdp | 0.2236 | 1 | ||||
∆gdp | 0.0686 | 0.0597 | 1 | |||
urbresi | 0.0003 | 0.6875 | 0.0197 | 1 | ||
ser | 0.3066 | 0.0249 | 0.0544 | −0.0702 | 1 | |
fdi | 0.0790 | 0.0746 | 0.0833 | 0.0226 | 0.0021 | 1 |
Variables | Ecological Footprint (log) | GDP per capita (log) | GDP per capita change (log) | Urban population %of the total (residual) | Exports of goods and services % of the total GDP (log) | Foreign direct investment (log) | |
CD teat | 0.30(8.21**) | 0.57(164.78**) | 0.27(64.87**) | 0.62(38.82**) | 0.39(66.46**) | 0.28(61.71**) | |
Panel unit root test (Level) | Lag 1 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.209 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.084 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.009) | 0.000 (0.000) |
Lag 2 | 0.266 (0.031) | 0.695 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.944 (1.000) | 0.089 (0.853) | 0.010 (0.060) | |
Lag 3 | 0.816 (0.117) | 0.220 (0.999) | 0.000 (0.000) | 1.000 (1.000) | 0.004 (0.760) | 0.220 (1.000) | |
Panel unit root test (First difference) | Lag 1 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) |
Lag 2 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | |
Lag 3 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | |
1 The Null Hypothesis of CD test is cross-sectional independence. **indicates significance at the 5% level that reject the Null Hypothesis. Absolute value mean correlation coefficient is shown and the CD-test statistic is in parentheses. 2 The null of Pesaran 47 panel unit root test is nonstationarity. The result is the p-value with different lags and without trend. The value in parentheses is the p-value with trend. |
High income | Middle income | Low income | ||
Model(1) | Model(2) | Model(3) | Model(4) | |
n | 99 | 34 | 50 | 15 |
GDP per capita (log) | 0.0939*** | 0.1385*** | 0.1028*** (2.93) [0.0341, 0.1716] | 0.0425 (1.04) [−0.0376, 0.1226] |
(5.15) [0.0581, 0.1296] | (3.61) [0.0632, 0.2140] | |||
GDP per capita change(log) | −0.0001 (−0.23) [−0.0008, 0.0007] | −0.0008 | −0.0000 (−0.06) [−0.0010, 0.0010] | −0.0002 (−0.24) [−0.0014, 0.0011] |
(−0.88) [−0.0027, 0.0010] | ||||
Urban population % of the total (residual) | −0.0000 (−0.44) [−3.46 E−06, 2.19 E−06] | 0.0000 (1.21) [−1.60 E-06, 6.79 E-06] | 0.0000 (−1.44) [−8.64 E−06, 1.33 E−06] | 0.0000 (1.87) [−3.29 E−07, 1.33 E−05] |
Exports of goods and services % of the total GDP (log) | 0.0475 (1.67) [−0.0083, 0.1033] | −0.1520 (−1.71) [−0.3263, 0.0223] | 0.0705 (1.57) [−0.0175, 0.1584] | −0.0062 (−0.17) [−0.0800, 0.0675] |
Foreign direct investment (log) | 0.0003 (0.59) [−0.0008, 0.0015] | 0.0006 (0.58) [−0.0014, 0.0026] | 0.0000 (0.04) [−0.0017, 0.0017] | −0.0004 (−0.37) [−0.0026, 0.0017] |
Residual Unit Root (Pesaran(2007)) Lag 1 (p-value) | 0.074 | 0.015 | 0.058 | 0.302 |
1 Value of t-statistics is in parentheses. indicates significance at the 10% level; **indicates significance at the 5% level; ***indicates significance at the1% level. The 95% confidence intervals are in square brackets. 2 The coefficients of average urban population as a percentage of the total are −6.37E−07, 2.59 E−06, −3.66 E−06, 6.47 E−06. |
References | Time | Country | Factor | Result | Notes |
van Vuuren (2000) | 1980-1994 | 4 | GDP per capita | (+) | The EF for carbon dioxide emissions |
Population | (+) | ||||
van Vuuren and Smeets (2000) | 1980, 1987, and 1994 | 4 | GDP per capita | (+) | |
York (2003) | 1996 | 142 | GDP per capita | (+) | Not stable in all models |
Population | (+) | ||||
Nondependent population | (+) | Positive trend showing a nation’s population between the ages of 15 and 65 (the most productive ages) and a nation’s ecological footprint. | |||
Land area per capita | (+) | ||||
Latitude | (+) | ||||
Capitalist nation | (+) | Not stable in all models | |||
Jorgenson (2003) | 1996 | 208 | Income inequality | (−) | The inclusion of human capital indicators controls the domestic factors that affect the EF |
Urbanization | (+) | ||||
Human capital | (+) | ||||
Literacy | (+) | ||||
World-system position | (+) | ||||
Mun˜izT (2004) | 1986-1996 | Barcelona | Average household income | (+) | |
Job ratio | (−) | ||||
Jorgenson (2007) | 1991-2001 | 138 | GDP per capita | (+) | |
Population | Insignificant | ||||
Income inequality | Insignificant | ||||
Exports / GDP | (−) | ||||
Manufacturing /GDO | (−) | ||||
Services / GDP | (+) | ||||
Agriculture / GDP | Insignificant | ||||
State environmentalism | Insignificant | ||||
Moran et al. (2008) | Consumption of goods and services per person | Theoretical (+) | |||
Population | Theoretical (+) | ||||
Li (2009) | 1988-2005 | China | Total energy consumption | The greatest impact | Partial least squares (PLS) and five-fold cross-validation |
GDP | The second largest impact | ||||
Urbanization | <1 | ||||
Total retail sales of consumer goods | <1 | ||||
Expenditures by city residents | <1 | ||||
Mostafa (2010b) | 140 | GDP | (−) | OLS; Bayesian regression model: not support positive | |
GDP2 | (+) | ||||
Income Inequality | (−) | ||||
Urbanization | (+) | ||||
Literacy | (+) | ||||
Exports / GDP | (+) Insignificant | ||||
Jorgenson (2010) | 1970-2000 | 37 | Military expendituresper soldier | (+) | Fixed effects model estimates with AR(1) |
Military expendituresas % of GDP | (−) Insignificant | ||||
GDP per capita | (+) Insignificant in model B | ||||
Urbanization | (+) Insignificant |
Country | High income | Country | Middle income | Country | Low income |
Antigua and Barbuda | Non-OECD | Argentina | Upper | Bangladesh | |
Australia | OECD | Botswana | Upper | Benin | |
Austria | OECD | Brazil | Upper | Burundi | |
Bahamas | Non-OECD | Chile | Upper | Congo, Democratic Republic of | |
Bahrain | Non-OECD | Colombia | Upper | Ghana | |
Barbados | Non-OECD | Costa Rica | Upper | Kenya | |
Belgium | OECD | Dominica | Upper | Malawi | |
Canada | OECD | Dominican Republic | Upper | Mali | |
Cyprus | Non-OECD | Fiji | Upper | Mozambique | |
Denmark | OECD | Gabon | Upper | Nepal | |
Finland | OECD | Grenada | Upper | Niger | |
France | OECD | Malaysia | Upper | Rwanda | |
Germany | OECD | Mauritius | Upper | Senegal | |
Greece | OECD | Mexico | Upper | Sierra Leone | |
Iceland | OECD | Panama | Upper | Togo | |
Ireland | OECD | Peru | Upper | ||
Israel | Non-OECD | Seychelles | Upper | ||
Italy | OECD | South Africa | Upper | ||
Japan | OECD | Suriname | Upper | ||
Korea, Republic of | OECD | Turkey | Upper | ||
Kuwait | Non-OECD | Uruguay | Upper | ||
Malta | Non-OECD | Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | Upper | ||
Netherlands | OECD | Belize | Lower | ||
New Zealand | OECD | Bolivia | Lower | ||
Norway | OECD | Cameroon | Lower | ||
Oman | Non-OECD | China | Lower | ||
Portugal | OECD | Cte d’Ivoire | Lower | ||
Saudi Arabia | Non-OECD | Ecuador | Lower | ||
Spain | OECD | Egypt | Lower | ||
Sweden | OECD | El Salvador | Lower | ||
Switzerland | OECD | Guatemala | Lower | ||
Trinidad and Tobago | Non-OECD | India | Lower | ||
United Kingdom | OECD | Indonesia | Lower | ||
United States of America | OECD | Jordan | Lower | ||
Lesotho | Lower | ||||
Morocco | Lower | ||||
Nicaragua | Lower | ||||
Nigeria | Lower | ||||
Pakistan | Lower | ||||
Papua New Guinea | Lower | ||||
Paraguay | Lower | ||||
Philippines | Lower | ||||
Solomon Islands | Lower | ||||
Sri Lanka | Lower | ||||
Sudan | Lower | ||||
Swaziland | Lower | ||||
Syrian Arab Republic | Lower | ||||
Thailand | Lower | ||||
Tunisia | Lower | ||||
Vanuatu | Lower |
Variable | FDI | Variable | ex | Variable | ser |
Nation | Years | Nation | Years | Nation | Years |
Bangladesh | 1981-1982;1985 | Belize | 1981-1983 | Bahamas | 1988 |
Belize | 1982-1983 | Burundi | 1981-1984 | Fiji | 2006 |
Greece | 1998 | China | 1981 | Niger | 2006 |
Grenada | 1981 | Gabon | 2006 | Oman | 1989 |
Guinea-Bissau | 1981-1983 | Greece | 1998 | Suriname | 2006 |
Lesotho | 1985 | Madagascar | 2006 | ||
Nepal | 1992-1995 | Malawi | 2003-2006 | ||
Nicaragua | 1981-1982 | Papua New Guinea | 2006 | ||
Switzerland | 1981-1982 | Vanuatu | 1981 |
N | Mean | Std Dev | Skewness | Kurtosis | Max | Min | |
Ecological Footprint (log) | 99 | 0.8653 | 0.7826 | 0.5857 | 4.3581 | 4.2449 | −1.2378 |
GDP per capita (log) | 99 | 7.8179 | 1.6036 | 0.0322 | 1.9031 | 11.1879 | 4.3925 |
GDP per capita change (log) | 99 | 4.4546 | 13.1269 | −0.1591 | 6.5100 | 81.8288 | −62.3853 |
urbresi | 99 | 0* | 9973.357 | 1.9062 | 7.0291 | 63200.55 | −10870.3 |
Exports of goods and services % of the totalGDP (log) | 99 | 3.3741 | 0.6215 | −0.4658 | 3.1797 | 4.8762 | 0.9261 |
Foreign direct investment(log) | 99 | 16.3269 | 18.8351 | −2.7431 | 9.4901 | 26.4956 | −24.2956 |
* The average of urbresi is −6.02E−12 because it is the residual of the regression between real GDP per capita and the urban population percentage of the total |
ef | gdp | ∆gdp | urbresi | ser | fdi | |
ef | 1 | |||||
gdp | 0.2236 | 1 | ||||
∆gdp | 0.0686 | 0.0597 | 1 | |||
urbresi | 0.0003 | 0.6875 | 0.0197 | 1 | ||
ser | 0.3066 | 0.0249 | 0.0544 | −0.0702 | 1 | |
fdi | 0.0790 | 0.0746 | 0.0833 | 0.0226 | 0.0021 | 1 |
Variables | Ecological Footprint (log) | GDP per capita (log) | GDP per capita change (log) | Urban population %of the total (residual) | Exports of goods and services % of the total GDP (log) | Foreign direct investment (log) | |
CD teat | 0.30(8.21**) | 0.57(164.78**) | 0.27(64.87**) | 0.62(38.82**) | 0.39(66.46**) | 0.28(61.71**) | |
Panel unit root test (Level) | Lag 1 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.209 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.084 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.009) | 0.000 (0.000) |
Lag 2 | 0.266 (0.031) | 0.695 (1.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.944 (1.000) | 0.089 (0.853) | 0.010 (0.060) | |
Lag 3 | 0.816 (0.117) | 0.220 (0.999) | 0.000 (0.000) | 1.000 (1.000) | 0.004 (0.760) | 0.220 (1.000) | |
Panel unit root test (First difference) | Lag 1 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) |
Lag 2 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | |
Lag 3 | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | 0.000 (0.000) | |
1 The Null Hypothesis of CD test is cross-sectional independence. **indicates significance at the 5% level that reject the Null Hypothesis. Absolute value mean correlation coefficient is shown and the CD-test statistic is in parentheses. 2 The null of Pesaran 47 panel unit root test is nonstationarity. The result is the p-value with different lags and without trend. The value in parentheses is the p-value with trend. |
High income | Middle income | Low income | ||
Model(1) | Model(2) | Model(3) | Model(4) | |
n | 99 | 34 | 50 | 15 |
GDP per capita (log) | 0.0939*** | 0.1385*** | 0.1028*** (2.93) [0.0341, 0.1716] | 0.0425 (1.04) [−0.0376, 0.1226] |
(5.15) [0.0581, 0.1296] | (3.61) [0.0632, 0.2140] | |||
GDP per capita change(log) | −0.0001 (−0.23) [−0.0008, 0.0007] | −0.0008 | −0.0000 (−0.06) [−0.0010, 0.0010] | −0.0002 (−0.24) [−0.0014, 0.0011] |
(−0.88) [−0.0027, 0.0010] | ||||
Urban population % of the total (residual) | −0.0000 (−0.44) [−3.46 E−06, 2.19 E−06] | 0.0000 (1.21) [−1.60 E-06, 6.79 E-06] | 0.0000 (−1.44) [−8.64 E−06, 1.33 E−06] | 0.0000 (1.87) [−3.29 E−07, 1.33 E−05] |
Exports of goods and services % of the total GDP (log) | 0.0475 (1.67) [−0.0083, 0.1033] | −0.1520 (−1.71) [−0.3263, 0.0223] | 0.0705 (1.57) [−0.0175, 0.1584] | −0.0062 (−0.17) [−0.0800, 0.0675] |
Foreign direct investment (log) | 0.0003 (0.59) [−0.0008, 0.0015] | 0.0006 (0.58) [−0.0014, 0.0026] | 0.0000 (0.04) [−0.0017, 0.0017] | −0.0004 (−0.37) [−0.0026, 0.0017] |
Residual Unit Root (Pesaran(2007)) Lag 1 (p-value) | 0.074 | 0.015 | 0.058 | 0.302 |
1 Value of t-statistics is in parentheses. indicates significance at the 10% level; **indicates significance at the 5% level; ***indicates significance at the1% level. The 95% confidence intervals are in square brackets. 2 The coefficients of average urban population as a percentage of the total are −6.37E−07, 2.59 E−06, −3.66 E−06, 6.47 E−06. |