REFERENCES

1. Uddin GA, Salahuddin M, Alam K, Gow J. Ecological footprint and real income: panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecol Indic 2017;77:166-75.

2. Alola AA. The trilemma of trade, monetary and immigration policies in the United States: accounting for environmental sustainability. Sci Total Environ 2019;658:260-7.

3. Alola AA. Carbon emissions and the trilemma of trade policy, migration policy and health care in the US. Carbon Manag 2019;10:209-18.

4. Shahbaz M, Sinha A. Environmental Kuznets curve for CO₂ emissions: a literature survey. J Econ Stud 2019;46:106-68.

5. Akadiri AC, Akadiri SS, Gungor H. The role of natural gas consumption in Saudi Arabia's output and its implication for trade and environmental quality. Energy Policy 2019;129:230-8.

6. Tariq G, Huaping SUN, Haris M, et al. Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from four developing countries. Am J Sci 2018;7.

7. Sun HP, Tariq G, Haris M, Mohsin M. Evaluating the environmental effects of economic openness: evidence from SAARC countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2019;26:24542-51.

8. Tariq G, Sun H, Haris M, Kong Y, Nadeem A. Trade liberalization, FDI inflows economic growth and environmental sustanaibility in Pakistan and India. J Agric Environ Int Dev 2018;112:253-69.

9. Ahmed Z, Wang Z, Mahmood F, Hafeez M, Ali N. Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2019;26:18565-82.

10. Danish, Hassan ST, Baloch MA, Mahmood N, Zhang J. Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustain Cities Soc 2019;47:101516.

11. Yilanci V, Pata UK. Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2020;27:32683-94.

12. Poinssot C, Bourg S, Boullis B. Improving the nuclear energy sustainability by decreasing its environmental footprint. Guidelines from life cycle assessment simulations. Prog Nucl Energy 2016;92:234-41.

13. Sadiq M, Wen F, Dagestani AA. Environmental footprint impacts of nuclear energy consumption: the role of environmental technology and globalization in ten largest ecological footprint countries. Nucl Eng Technol 2022;54:3672-81.

14. Sun H, Tariq G, Kong Y, Khan MS, Geng Y. Nexus between environmental infrastructure and transnational cluster in one belt one road countries: role of governance. Bus Strat Dev 2018;1:17-30.

15. Tariq G, Sun H, Ali I, et al. Influence of green technology, green energy consumption, energy efficiency, trade, economic development and FDI on climate change in South Asia. Sci Rep 2022;12:16376.

16. Bilgili F, Ulucak R. The nexus between biomass - footprint and sustainable development. 2018. pp. 175-92. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327353461_The_Nexus_Between_Biomass_-_Footprint_and_Sustainable_Development [Last accessed on 14 Dec 2023].

17. Ulucak R, Yücel AG, Koçak E. Chapter 5 - the process of sustainability: from past to present. 2019. pp. 37-53.

18. Nathaniel S, Khan SAR. The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. J Clean Prod 2020;272:122709.

19. Solarin SA, Tiwari AK, Bello MO. A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components. Sustain Cities Soc 2019;46:101422.

20. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I. Determinants of pollution and the role of the military sector: evidence from a maximum likelihood approach with two structural breaks in the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2018;25:30949-61.

21. Ozcan B, Ulucak R, Dogan E. Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: evidence from low, middle and high income economies. Sustain Cities Soc 2019;44:130-43.

22. Charfeddine L. The impact of energy consumption and economic development on ecological footprint and CO₂ emissions: evidence from a markov switching equilibrium correction model. Energy Econ 2017;65:355-74.

23. Bello MO, Solarin SA, Yen YY. The impact of electricity consumption on CO₂ emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and ecological footprint: the role of hydropower in an emerging economy. J Environ Manag 2018;219:218-30.

24. Baloch MA, Zhang J, Iqbal K, Iqbal Z. The effect of financial development on ecological footprint in BRI countries: evidence from panel data estimation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2019;26:6199-208.

25. Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Saboori B. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2016;23:1916-28.

26. Katircioglu S, Gokmenoglu KK, Eren BM. Testing the role of tourism development in ecological footprint quality: evidence from top 10 tourist destinations. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2018;25:33611-9.

27. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U. Influence of foreign direct investment on indicators of environmental degradation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2018;25:24845-59.

28. Destek MA, Ulucak R, Dogan E. Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2018;25:29387-96.

29. Wang J, Dong K. What drives environmental degradation? Evidence from 14 Sub-Saharan African countries. Sci Total Environ 2019;656:165-73.

30. Baležentis T, Streimikiene D, Zhang T, Liobikiene G. The role of bioenergy in greenhouse gas emission reduction in EU countries: an environmental kuznets curve modelling. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;142:225-31.

31. Danish, Wang Z. Does biomass energy consumption help to control environmental pollution? Evidence from BRICS countries. Sci Total Environ 2019;670:1075-83.

32. Dogan E, Inglesi-lotz R. Analyzing the effects of real income and biomass energy consumption on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions: empirical evidence from the panel of biomass-consuming countries. Energy 2017;138:721-7.

33. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Gan GGG, Shahbaz M. The impact of biomass energy consumption on pollution: evidence from 80 developed and developing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2018;25:22641-57.

34. Sinha A, Shahbaz M, Balsalobre D. Exploring the relationship between energy usage segregation and environmental degradation in N-11 countries. J Clean Prod 2017;168:1217-29.

35. Mahmood N, Wang Z, Yasmin N, Manzoor W, Rahman AU. How to bend down the environmental Kuznets curve: the significance of biomass energy. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2019;26:21598-608.

36. Ahmed A, Uddin GS, Sohag K. Biomass energy, technological progress and the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from selected European countries. Biomass Bioenergy 2016;90:202-8.

37. Wang Z, Bui Q, Zhang B, Pham TLH. Biomass energy production and its impacts on the ecological footprint: an investigation of the G7 countries. Sci Total Environ 2020;743:140741.

38. Zeraibi A, Balsalobre-Lorente D, Murshed M. The influences of renewable electricity generation, technological innovation, financial development, and economic growth on ecological footprints in ASEAN-5 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2021;28:51003-21.

39. Pata UK, Caglar AE. Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy 2021;216:119220.

40. Murshed M. An empirical analysis of the non-linear impacts of ICT-trade openness on renewable energy transition, energy efficiency, clean cooking fuel access and environmental sustainability in South Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2020;27:36254-81.

41. Murshed M. Can regional trade integration facilitate renewable energy transition to ensure energy sustainability in South Asia? Energy Rep 2021;7:808-21.

42. Murshed M. Modeling primary energy and electricity demands in Bangladesh: an autoregressive distributed lag approach. Sustain Prod Consum 2021;27:698-712.

43. Mehmood U. Biomass energy consumption and its impacts on ecological footprints: analyzing the role of globalization and natural resources in the framework of EKC in SAARC countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2022;29:17513-9.

44. Usman M, Makhdum MSA. What abates ecological footprint in BRICS-T region? Exploring the influence of renewable energy, non-renewable energy, agriculture, forest area and financial development. Renew Energy 2021;179:12-28.

45. Nathaniel SP, Murshed M, Bassim M. The nexus between economic growth, energy use, international trade and ecological footprints: the role of environmental regulations in N11 countries. Energy Ecol Environ 2021;6:496-512.

46. Murshed M, Rahman MA, Alam MS, Ahmad P, Dagar V. The nexus between environmental regulations, economic growth, and environmental sustainability: linking environmental patents to ecological footprint reduction in South Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2021;28:49967-88.

47. Nathaniel SP. Environmental degradation in ASEAN: assessing the criticality of natural resources abundance, economic growth and human capital. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2021;28:21766-78.

48. Brandão M, Azzi E, Novaes R, Cowie A. The modelling approach determines the carbon footprint of biofuels: the role of LCA in informing decision makers in government and industry. Clean Environ Syst 2021;2:100027.

49. Pesaran MH. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empir Econ 2021;60:13-50.

50. Breusch TS, Pagan AR. The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 1980;47:239.

51. Baltagi BH, Feng Q, Kao C. A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. J Econ 2012;170:164-77.

52. Breitung J. The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 2001; pp. 161-77.

53. Levin A, Lin C, James Chu C. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econ 2002;108:1-24.

54. Im KS, Pesaran M, Shin Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econ 2003;115:53-74.

55. Pesaran MH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. J Appl Econ 2007;22:265-312.

56. Pedroni P. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 1999;61:653-70. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653.[Last accessed on 5 Jan 2024]

57. Pedroni P. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econ Theory 2004;20:597-625.

58. Dumitrescu E, Hurlin C. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model 2012;29:1450-60.

59. Global Footprint Network. 2022. Available from: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/ [Last accessed on 14 Dec 2023].

60. BP statistical review. 2022. Available from: https://www.bp.com/ [Last accessed on 14 Dec 2023].

61. IRENA. 2022. Available from: https://www.irena.org/Statistics [Last accessed on 14 Dec 2023].

62. OECD. 2022. Available from: https://data.oecd.org/ [Last accessed on 14 Dec 2023].

63. World Bank Open Data. 2022. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/ [Last accessed on 14 Dec 2023].

64. Khan Z, Ali S, Dong K, Li RYM. How does fiscal decentralization affect CO₂ emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital. Energy Econ 2021;94:105060.

65. Saud S, Chen S, Haseeb A, Sumayya. The role of financial development and globalization in the environment: accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries. J Clean Prod 2020;250:119518.

66. Langnel Z, Amegavi GB. Globalization, electricity consumption and ecological footprint: an autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) approach. Sustain Cities Soc 2020;63:102482.

67. Godil DI, Yu Z, Sharif A, Usman R, Khan SAR. Investigate the role of technology innovation and renewable energy in reducing transport sector CO₂ emission in China: a path toward sustainable development. Sustain Dev 2021;29:694-707.

68. Sarkodie SA, Adams S. Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Sci Total Environ 2018;643:1590-601.