This study examines the associations among geopolitical risk, financial development, economic freedom, foreign direct investment, urbanization, and ecological footprint in a BRICS‐10 sample comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates over the period 2000–2024. Guided by a STIRPAT‐informed framework, it uses ecological footprint as a broad indicator of environmental pressure to assess how geopolitical, financial, institutional, external, and structural factors are associated with ecological outcomes in a heterogeneous emerging‐economy setting. Empirically, the analysis applies the cross‐sectionally augmented autoregressive distributed lag (CS‐ARDL) model to estimate short‐run and long‐run associations while accounting for cross‐sectional dependence and heterogeneity, and it employs augmented mean group (AMG) and common correlated effects mean group (CCEMG) estimators as robustness checks. The results show that geopolitical risk, foreign direct investment, and urbanization are positively associated with ecological footprint, whereas financial development and economic freedom are negatively associated with it. Overall, the findings suggest that ecological pressure in the BRICS‐10 economies is linked not only to external instability and urban expansion but also to the ways in which finance, institutions, and investment conditions shape production and resource use.
Understanding how globalization, energy transition, and resource dependence shape environmental pressure remains critical for resource-rich economies seeking sustainable development. This study investigates the determinants of ecological footprint per capita in the United Arab Emirates from 1992Q1 to 2020Q4 by extendin...
The Philippine Ocean is among the world’s most productive marine ecosystems and a critical pillar of the country’s economy. Seaweed farming, a major coastal livelihood and export commodity, reached a historic peak of 1.84 million metric tons in 2011 but declined by 17% by 2020. This study assesses the decline through...
Rusty Keith E. Placino, Ma. Cristina B. Santiago-Galdo, Christian Ryan A. Argamino et al.· E3S Web of Conferences· 0 citations
This study examines the socioeconomic, institutional, technological, and behavioral determinants of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions across the G7 countries over the period 2011–2024. Specifically, it investigates how self‐reported life satisfaction (SRLS), human development (HDI), total factor productivity (TFP)...
Muhammad Khizar Saeed, Abdulateif A. Almulhim, Abdullah A. Aljughaiman· Sustainable Development· 0 citations
Egypt's agricultural sector faces mounting pressure from rising energy consumption, foreign direct investment (FDI), and climate change, compounded by weak environmental governance and binding water constraints, yet no study has jointly quantified these channels or their distributional consequences. This study examines...
M. Elzaabalawy, Sanaa H. M. Sadek, N. Shoaib et al.· AgroEnvironmental Sustainabi...· 0 citations
Shadow economy (SE) is an important feature of economic activity, yet excessive informality may undermine environmental sustainability by weakening regulatory compliance. While green energy (GE) is central to climate policy and sustainable development, the relationship between GE, SE, and ecological footprint (EFP)...
Md Salah Uddin, Rashed Jahangir, Muhammad Al Amin et al.· Frontiers in Environmental S...· 0 citations
Military expenditures today are not only a determinant of security and geopolitical balances but also a strategic factor influencing environmental sustainability. However, the existing evidence on this relationship remains both fragmented and inconclusive. The literature predominantly features analyses focusing on...