Natural resource exploitation and productive capacity as drivers of ecological footprint: The roles of technology and economic policy uncertainty

Abstract

Natural resource exploitation—particularly the extraction of minerals and related primary commodities—continues to shape patterns of economic expansion, structural transformation, and environmental strain across developing regions. Understanding how these resource dynamics interact with broader economic structures and institutional conditions is crucial for designing sustainable development pathways. In this context, productive capacity, economic policy uncertainty, and ecological pressure emerge as central dimensions through which the environmental consequences of development can be assessed. This study investigates the impact of the productive capacity index and economic policy uncertainty on the ecological footprint of 33 Asian developing countries from 2000 to 2022, explicitly considering mineral resource dependence, foreign direct investment, and economic growth as control variables. Using advanced econometric techniques—including slope heterogeneity diagnostics, the Westerlund cointegration test, Moment Quantile Regression (MMQR), and Kernel-Based Regularized Least Squares (KRLS)—the analysis reveals that productive capacity, policy uncertainty, and natural resources (including minerals) are negatively associated with the ecological footprint, suggesting that stronger institutional and productive structures mitigate environmental pressures. By contrast, economic growth and foreign direct investment are positively related to ecological footprint, highlighting the environmental trade-offs of rapid expansion and external capital flows. The findings underscore the need for sustainable mineral resource management and integrated policy frameworks that align productive capacity with environmental stewardship. The study concludes that resource-rich economies must balance mineral exploitation with long-term energy and environmental strategies, ensuring that productivity gains do not come at the cost of ecological degradation.

Keywords

Natural exploitation / Productive capacity index / Economic policy uncertainty / Ecological footprint / Natural resources / Asian 33 developing countries

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yi Wang: Writing - review & editing, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Guang Yuan: Writing - review & editing, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China “Research on the Evaluation of Effectiveness and Improvement Path of Local Government Responses to Online Public Opinion” (Grant No. 20BXW078).

References

[1] Adebola, S., Shahbaz, M., 2015. Natural gas consumption and economic growth: the role of foreign direct investment, capital formation and trade openness in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 835-845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.075.

[2] Al-Shetwi, A.Q., 2022. Sustainable development of renewable energy integrated power sector: trends, environmental impacts, and recent challenges. Sci. Tot. Environ. 822, 153645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153645.

[3] Alam, A.W., Farjana, A., Houston, R., 2023. State-level economic policy uncertainty (EPU) and firm financial stability: is there any political insurance? Econ. Lett. 225, 111027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111027.

[4] Anser, M.K., Usman, M., Godil, D.I., Shabbir, M.S., Sharif, A., Tabash, M.I., Lopez, L.B., 2021. Does globalization affect the green economy and environment? The relationship between energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and economic growth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 51105-51118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14243-4.

[5] Badeeb, R.A., Lean, H.H., Clark, J., 2017. The evolution of the natural resource curse thesis: a critical literature survey. Resour. Policy 51, 123-134.

[6] Cui, L., Weng, S., Kirikkaleli, D., Bashir, M.A., Rjoub, H., Zhou, Y., 2021. Exploring the role of natural resources, natural gas and oil production for economic growth of China. Resour. Policy 74, 102429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102429.

[7] Danish, Wang, Z., 2019. Investigation of the ecological footprint’s driving factors: what we learn from the experience of emerging economies. Sustain. Cities Soc. 49, 101626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101626.

[8] Dingru, L., Onifade, S.T., Ramzan, M., AL-Faryan, M.A.S., 2023. Environmental perspectives on the impacts of trade and natural resources on renewable energy utilization in Sub-Sahara Africa: accounting for FDI, income, and urbanization trends. Resour. Policy 80, 103204.

[9] Dogan, E., Ulucak, R., Kocak, E., Isik, C., 2020. The use of ecological footprint in estimating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Sci. Total Environ. 723, 138063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138063.

[10] Esen, Ö., Yıldırım, D.Ç., Yıldırım, S., 2021. Pollute less or tax more? Asymmetries in the EU environmental taxes - ecological balance nexus. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 91, 106662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106662.

[11] Feng, T., Xiong, R., Huan, P., 2023. Productive use of natural resources in agriculture: the main policy lessons. Resour. Policy 85, 103793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103793.

[12] Garcia, M.da.G.M., 2019. Ecosystem services provided by geodiversity: Preliminary assessment and perspectives for the sustainable use of natural resources in the coastal region of the State of São Paulo, Southeastern Brazil. Geoheritage 11, 1257-1266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-019-00383-0.

[13] Hickel, J., 2020. The sustainable development index: measuring the ecological efficiency of human development in the anthropocene. Ecol. Econ. 167, 106331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.011.

[14] Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M., Ozturk, I., 2022. Dynamic association between ICT, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: is there any difference between E-7 (developing) and G-7 (developed) countries? Technol. Soc. 68, 101853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101853.

[15] Huang, Y., Raza, S.M.F., Hanif, I., Alharthi, M., Abbas, Q., Zain-ul-Abidin, S., 2020. The role of forest resources, mineral resources, and oil extraction in economic progress of developing Asian economies. Resour. Policy 69, 101878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101878.

[16] Imran, M., Khan, M.K., Alam, S., Wahab, S., Tufail, M., Jijian, Z., 2024. The implications of the ecological footprint and renewable energy usage on the financial stability of South Asian countries. Financ. Innov. 10, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00627-1.

[17] Jia, Z., Tiwari, S., Zhou, J., Farooq, M.U., Fareed, Z., 2023. Asymmetric nexus between Bitcoin, gold resources and stock market returns: novel findings from quantile estimates. Resour. Policy 81, 103405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103405.

[18] Kapetanios, G., Pesaran, M.H., Yamagata, T., 2011. Panels with non-stationary multifactor error structures. J. Econom. 160, 326-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.10.001.

[19] Khan, Z., Badeeb, R.A., Nawaz, K., 2022. Natural resources and economic performance: evaluating the role of political risk and renewable energy consumption. Resour. Policy 78, 102890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102890.

[20] Kripfganz, S., 2019. Generalized method of moments estimation of linear dynamic panel data models. London Stata Conf., 1-128

[21] Laurens, P., Le Bas, C., Lhuillery, S., Schoen, A., 2017. The determinants of cleaner energy innovations of the world’s largest firms: the impact of firm learning and knowledge capital. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 26, 311-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2016.1193940.

[22] Liu, W., Chen, X., 2022. Natural resources commodity prices volatility and economic uncertainty: evaluating the role of oil and gas rents in COVID-19. Resour. Policy 76, 102581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102581.

[23] Machado, J.A.F., Santos Silva, J.M.C., 2019. Quantiles via moments. J. Econom. 213, 145-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2019.04.009.

[24] Marti, L., Puertas, R., 2020. Analysis of the efficiency of African countries through their ecological footprint and biocapacity. Sci. Total Environ. 722, 137504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137504.

[25] Mensi, W., Rehman, M.U., Hammoudeh, S., Vo, X.V., 2021. Spillovers between natural gas, gasoline, oil, and stock markets: evidence from MENA countries. Resour. Policy 71, 101983.

[26] Murad, M.W., Alam, M.M., Noman, A.H.M., Ozturk, I., 2019. Dynamics of technological innovation, energy consumption, energy price and economic growth in Denmark. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 38, 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/EP.12905.

[27] Omri, A., Hadj, T., 2020. Foreign investment and air pollution: do good governance and technological innovation matter? Environ. Res. 185, 109469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109469.

[28] Pablo-romero, M.P., Sánchez-braza, A., 2015. Productive energy use and economic growth: energy, physical and human capital relationship. Energy Econ. 49, 420-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.03.010.

[29] Pan, L., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Sadiq, M., Dagestani, A.A., 2023. Natural resources: a determining factor of geopolitical risk in Russia? Revisiting conflict-based perspective. Resour. Policy 85, 104033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104033.

[30] Pata, U.K., Tanriover, B., 2023. Is the load capacity curve hypothesis valid for the top ten tourism destinations? Sustainability 15, 960. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020960.

[31] Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. IZA Discuss, Pap. No. 1240 August 2004, 1-39.

[32] Pesaran, H., Yamagata, T., 2008. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J. Econom. 142, 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010.

[33] Pesaran, M.H., 2007. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J. Appl. Econom. 22, 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.

[34] Rehman, A., Ma, H., Ahmad, M., Ozturk, I., Is ¸ ık, C., 2021. Estimating the connection of information technology, foreign direct investment, trade, renewable energy and economic progress in Pakistan: evidence from ARDL approach and cointegrating regression analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 50623-50635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14303-9.

[35] Shahbaz, M., Siddiqui, A., Siddiqui, M., Jiao, Z., Kautish, P., 2023. Exploring the growth of sustainable energy technologies: a review. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 57, 103157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103157.

[36] Shaheen, F., Lodhi, M.S., Rosak-Szyrocka, J., Zaman, K., Awan, U., Asif, M., Ahmed, W., Siddique, M., 2022. Cleaner technology and natural resource management: an environmental sustainability perspective from China. Clean Technol. 4, 584-606. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol4030036.

[37] Sheng, P., He, Y., Guo, X., 2017. The impact of urbanization on energy consumption and efficiency. Energy Environ. 28, 673-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X17723893.

[38] Singh, S., Deep Sharma, G., Radulescu, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Bansal, P., 2023. Do natural resources impact economic growth: an investigation of P 5 + 1 countries under sustainable management. Geosci. Front. 15, 101595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101595.

[39] Sohag, K., Tas ¸ kın, F.D., Malik, M.N., 2019. Green economic growth, cleaner energy and militarization: evidence from Turkey. Resour. Policy 63, 101407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101407.

[40] Solarin, S.A., Al-Mulali, U., 2018. Influence of foreign direct investment on indicators of environmental degradation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25, 24845-24859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2562-5.

[41] Su, F., Liu, Y., Chen, S.J., Fahad, S., 2023. Towards the impact of economic policy uncertainty on food security: introducing a comprehensive heterogeneous framework for assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 386, 135792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135792.

[42] Ulucak, R., Lin, D., 2017. Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecol. Indic. 80, 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.020.

[43] Westerlund, J., 2007. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 69, 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x.

[44] Ye, X., Lin, R., 2023. Financial market risk and innovation nexus with growth: channelizing the role of natural resources volatility for United States. Resour. Policy 81, 103267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103267.

[45] Yi, S., Raza Abbasi, K., Hussain, K., Albaker, A., Alvarado, R., 2023. Environmental concerns in the United States: can renewable energy, fossil fuel energy, and natural resources depletion help? Gondwana Res. 117, 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.12.021.

[46] Zhang, C., Khan, I., Dagar, V., Saeed, A., Zafar, M.W., 2022. Environmental impact of information and communication technology: Unveiling the role of education in developing countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 178, 121570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121570.

[47] Zheng, F., Zhou, X., Rahat, B., Rubbaniy, G., 2021. Carbon neutrality target for leading exporting countries: on the role of economic complexity index and renewable energy electricity. J. Environ. Manage. 299, 113558. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2021.113558.