Abstract
This article gives fresh insights into how technological progress and population aging affect environmental quality. Because of the recent findings of new green patents and the dramatic increase in the population over 65 years old across OECD nations, it is important to investigate the influence of these two occurrences on the present environmental degradation. In that context, a variety of econometric methods are applied for a panel data set of 30 OECD countries from 1995 to 2015. We find evidence for the beneficial effect of technological progresses in preserving the ecosystem. Interestingly, the effect of population aging is not linearly correlated with ecological footprint but follows an inverted U-shaped pattern. The empirical results of panel quantile regression also show that the impacts of these two factors are not uniform across nations, but rather rely heavily on the level of environmental quality. While trade openness and renewable energy help to enhance environmental quality, higher energy intensity significantly degrades the ecosystem. The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis holds from the low to middle quantiles of ecological footprint distribution. Our results are robust to a variety of sensitivity tests. The study indicates that it is important to design the right environmental policy mix that considers both technological and demographic changes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
All data analyzed during this study are available and freely collected from public sources. All the data that support the findings of the study has been collected from the open sources and are available from corresponding author on reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Notes
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this issue.
References
Ahmad, M., Khattak, S. I., Khan, A., & Rahman, Z. U. (2020). Innovation, foreign direct investment (FDI), and the energy–pollution–growth nexus in OECD region: A simultaneous equation modeling approach. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(2), 203–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-020-00442-8
Ahmed, K. (2020). Environmental policy stringency, related technological change and emissions inventory in 20 OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 274, 111209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111209
Akram, R., Chen, F., Khalid, F., Huang, G., & Irfan, M. (2021). Heterogeneous effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on economic growth of BRICS countries: A fixed effect panel quantile regression analysis. Energy, 215, 119019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119019
Albulescu, C. T., Tiwari, A. K., Yoon, S. M., & Kang, S. H. (2019). FDI, income, and environmental pollution in Latin America: Replication and extension using panel quantiles regression analysis. Energy Economics, 84, 104504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104504
Alhassan, A., Usman, O., Ike, G. N., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Impact assessment of trade on environmental performance: Accounting for the role of government integrity and economic development in 79 countries. Heliyon, 6(9), e05046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05046
Ali, U., Li, Y., Yánez Morales, V. P., & Hussain, B. (2021). Dynamics of international trade, technology innovation and environmental sustainability: Evidence from Asia by accounting for cross-sectional dependence. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(10), 1864–1885. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1846507
Alola, A. A., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 685, 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.139
Alvarado, R., Tillaguango, B., Dagar, V., Ahmad, M., Işık, C., Méndez, P., & Toledo, E. (2021). Ecological footprint, economic complexity and natural resources rents in Latin America: Empirical evidence using quantile regressions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 318(March), 128585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128585
An, C.-B., & Jeon, S.-H. (2006). Demographic change and economic growth: An inverted-U shape relationship. Economics Letters, 92(3), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2006.03.030
Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review, 91(4), 877–908. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.4.877
Anwar, A., Siddique, M., Dogan, E., & Sharif, A. (2021). The moderating role of renewable and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries: Evidence from Method of Moments Quantile Regression. Renewable Energy, 164, 956–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.128
Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecological Indicators, 61, 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.022
Baek, J., Cho, Y., & Koo, W. W. (2009). The environmental consequences of globalization: A country-specific time-series analysis. Ecological Economics, 68(8–9), 2255–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.021
Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Sinha, A., Driha, O. M., & Mubarik, M. S. (2021). Assessing the impacts of ageing and natural resource extraction on carbon emissions: A proposed policy framework for European economies. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126470
Belaïd, F., Elsayed, A. H., & Omri, A. (2021). Key drivers of renewable energy deployment in the MENA Region: Empirical evidence using panel quantile regression. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 57, 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.03.011
Bentzen, J. (2004). Estimating the rebound effect in US manufacturing energy consumption. Energy Economics, 26(1), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(03)00047-1
Bera, A. K., & Jarque, C. M. (1981). Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals. Economics Letters, 7(4), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(81)90035-5
Bessec, M., & Fouquau, J. (2008). The non-linear link between electricity consumption and temperature in Europe: A threshold panel approach. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2705–2721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.02.003
Bitler, M. P., Gelbach, J. B., & Hoynes, H. W. (2006). What mean impacts miss: Distributional effects of welfare reform experiments. American Economic Review, 96(4), 988–1012. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.4.988
Canay, I. A. (2011). A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 14(3), 368–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2011.00349.x
Canh, N. P., Thanh, S. D., Schinckus, C., Bensemann, J., & Thanh, L. T. (2019). Global emissions: A new contribution from the shadow economy. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.7244
Chen, W., & Lei, Y. (2018). The impacts of renewable energy and technological innovation on environment-energy-growth nexus: New evidence from a panel quantile regression. Renewable Energy, 123, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.026
Cheng, C., Ren, X., Dong, K., Dong, X., & Wang, Z. (2021). How does technological innovation mitigate CO2 emissions in OECD countries? Heterogeneous analysis using panel quantile regression. Journal of Environmental Management, 280(November 2020), 111818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111818
Chu, L. K. (2022). The impact of informal economy on technological innovation–ecological footprint nexus in OECD countries: New evidence from panel quantile regression. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 12(3), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-022-00756-y
Chu, L. K., & Le, N. T. M. (2021). Environmental quality and the role of economic policy uncertainty, economic complexity, renewable energy, and energy intensity: The case of G7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15666-9
Cole, M. A., & Neumayer, E. (2004). Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution. Population and Environment, 26(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:POEN.0000039950.85422.eb
Copeland, B. R. (2005). Policy endogeneity and the effects of trade on the environment. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 34(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500001532
Dalton, M., O’Neill, B., Prskawetz, A., Jiang, L., & Pitkin, J. (2008). Population aging and future carbon emissions in the United States. Energy Economics, 30(2), 642–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.07.002
Danish, & Ulucak, R. (2020). How do environmental technologies affect green growth? Evidence from BRICS economies. Science of the Total Environment, 712, 136504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136504
Danish, Ulucak, R., & Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54(December 2019), 101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
Danish, Ulucak, R., Khan, S. U. D., Baloch, M. A., & Li, N. (2020). Mitigation pathways toward sustainable development: Is there any trade-off between environmental regulation and carbon emissions reduction? Sustainable Development, 28(4), 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2032
Destek, M. A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537
Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: The role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(29), 29387–29396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2911-4
Dietz, T., & Rosa, E. A. (1994). Rethinking the environmental impacts of population, affluence and technology. Human Ecology Review, 1, 277–300.
Dimnwobi, S. K., Ekesiobi, C., Madichie, C. V., & Asongu, S. A. (2021). Population dynamics and environmental quality in Africa. Science of the Total Environment, 797, 149172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149172
Dogan, B., Madaleno, M., Tiwari, A. K., & Hammoudeh, S. (2020). Impacts of export quality on environmental degradation: Does income matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(12), 13735–13772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07371-5
Dong, K., Sun, R., & Hochman, G. (2017). Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy, 141, 1466–1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.092
Dumitrescu, E.-I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
Gyamfi, B. A., Adedoyin, F. F., Bein, M. A., Bekun, F. V., & Agozie, D. Q. (2021). The anthropogenic consequences of energy consumption in E7 economies: Juxtaposing roles of renewable, coal, nuclear, oil and gas energy: Evidence from panel quantile method. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126373
Haščič, I., & Migottom, M. (2015). Measuring environmental innovation using patent data. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 89, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5js009kf48xw-en.
Heijdra, B. J., Kooiman, J. P., & Ligthart, J. E. (2006). Environmental quality, the macroeconomy, and intergenerational distribution. Resource and Energy Economics, 28(1), 74–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2005.05.001
Hu, H., Xie, N., Fang, D., & Zhang, X. (2018). The role of renewable energy consumption and commercial services trade in carbon dioxide reduction: Evidence from 25 developing countries. Applied Energy, 211, 1229–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.019
Hyde, M. (2015). Travel and tourism in later life. In J. Twigg & W. Martin (Eds.), Routledge handbook of cultural gerontology (pp. 337–344). Routledge.
IPBES. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat.
Iqbal, N., Abbasi, K. R., Shinwari, R., Guangcai, W., Ahmad, M., & Tang, K. (2021). Does exports diversification and environmental innovation achieve carbon neutrality target of OECD economies? Journal of Environmental Management, 291(February), 112648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112648
Khan, A., Muhammad, F., Chenggang, Y., Hussain, J., Bano, S., & Khan, M. A. (2020a). The impression of technological innovations and natural resources in energy-growth-environment nexus: A new look into BRICS economies. Science of the Total Environment, 727, 138265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138265
Khan, A., Sicen, L., Khan, B., & Salman, N. (2021). On the influence of demographic structure and industrial growth on environmental quality. Journal of Environmental Management, 288(March), 112453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112453
Khan, H., Khan, I., & Binh, T. T. (2020b). The heterogeneity of renewable energy consumption, carbon emission and financial development in the globe: A panel quantile regression approach. Energy Reports, 6, 859–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.04.002
Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913643
Li, M., Ahmad, M., Fareed, Z., Hassan, T., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Role of trade openness, export diversification, and renewable electricity output in realizing carbon neutrality dream of China. Journal of Environmental Management, 297(August), 113419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113419
Liddle, B. (2011). Consumption-driven environmental impact and age structure change in OECD countries: A cointegration-STIRPAT analysis. Demographic Research, 24, 749–770.
Liddle, B., & Lung, S. (2010). Age-structure, urbanization, and climate change in developed countries: Revisiting STIRPAT for disaggregated population and consumption-related environmental impacts. Population and Environment, 31(5), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0101-5
Lim, H., Kim, J., & Jo, H. H. (2020). Population age structure and greenhouse gas emissions from road transportation: A panel cointegration analysis of 21 OECD countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217734
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x
Mensah, C. N., Long, X., Dauda, L., Boamah, K. B., & Salman, M. (2019). Innovation and CO2 emissions: The complimentary role of eco-patent and trademark in the OECD economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(22), 22878–22891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05558-4
Menz, T., & Welsch, H. (2012). Population aging and carbon emissions in OECD countries: Accounting for life-cycle and cohort effects. Energy Economics, 34(3), 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.07.016
O’Neill, B. C., & Chen, B. S. (2002). Demographic determinants of household energy use in the United States. Population and Development Review, 28, 53–88.
O’Neill, B. C., Liddle, B., Jiang, L., Smith, K. R., Pachauri, S., Dalton, M., & Fuchs, R. (2012). Demographic change and carbon dioxide emissions. The Lancet, 380(9837), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60958-1
OECD. (2012). OECD environmental outlook to 2050. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en
OECD. (2019). Health at a glance 2019: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4dd50c09-en
OECD. (2020). How’s life? 2020. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en
OECD. (2021). Environment at a glance indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ac4b8b89-en
Okada, A. (2012). Is an increased elderly population related to decreased CO2 emissions from road transportation? Energy Policy, 45, 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.033
Ouyang, X., Shao, Q., Zhu, X., He, Q., Xiang, C., & Wei, G. (2019). Environmental regulation, economic growth and air pollution: Panel threshold analysis for OECD countries. Science of the Total Environment, 657, 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.056
Ozturk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics, 36, 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.025
Paramati, S. R., Shahzad, U., & Doğan, B. (2022). The role of environmental technology for energy demand and energy efficiency: Evidence from OECD countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 153(September 2021), 111735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111735
Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Reviews, 34(6–10), 1089–1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623
Pham, N. M., Huynh, T. L. D., & Nasir, M. A. (2020). Environmental consequences of population, affluence and technological progress for European countries: A Malthusian view. Journal of Environmental Management, 260(December 2019), 110143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110143
Powell, D. (2022). Quantile regression with nonadditive fixed effects. Empirical Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-022-02216-6
Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212
Salman, M., Long, X., Dauda, L., Mensah, C. N., & Muhammad, S. (2019). Different impacts of export and import on carbon emissions across 7 ASEAN countries: A panel quantile regression approach. Science of the Total Environment, 686, 1019–1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.019
Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ahmed, K., & Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Economics, 61, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.008
Shapiro, S. S., & Francia, R. S. (1972). An approximate analysis of variance test for normality. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67(337), 215–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1972.10481232
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
Sinha, A., Sengupta, T., & Saha, T. (2020). Technology policy and environmental quality at crossroads: Designing SDG policies for select Asia Pacific countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120317
Sohag, K., Al Mamun, M., Uddin, G. S., & Ahmed, A. M. (2017). Sectoral output, energy use, and CO2 emission in middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(10), 9754–9764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8599-z
Sohag, K., Kalugina, O., & Samargandi, N. (2019). Re-visiting environmental Kuznets curve: Role of scale, composite, and technology factors in OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(27), 27726–27737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05965-7
Su, T., Ahmad, I., Qayyum, A., Yin, W., ur Rahman, S., & Adeel-Farooq, R. M. (2021). Role of economic growth and innovative technologies in the outlook of energy and environmental efficiency: A way forward for developing Asian economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14410-7
Thadewald, T., & Büning, H. (2007). Jarque–Bera test and its competitors for testing normality—A power comparison. Journal of Applied Statistics, 34(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760600994539
Tonn, B. E., Waidley, G., & Petrich, C. (2001). The ageing US population and environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(6), 851–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560120087606
Wang, H., & Wei, W. (2020). Coordinating technological progress and environmental regulation in CO2 mitigation: The optimal levels for OECD countries & emerging economies. Energy Economics, 87, 104510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104510
Wang, N., Zhu, H., Guo, Y., & Peng, C. (2018). The heterogeneous effect of democracy, political globalization, and urbanization on PM2.5 concentrations in G20 countries: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.092
Wang, S., He, Y., & Song, M. (2021). Global value chains, technological progress, and environmental pollution: Inequality towards developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 277(December 2019), 110999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110999
Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
Xie, Z., Wu, R., & Wang, S. (2021). How technological progress affects the carbon emission efficiency? Evidence from national panel quantile regression. Journal of Cleaner Production, 307, 127133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127133
Yang, T., & Wang, Q. (2020). The nonlinear effect of population aging on carbon emission-Empirical analysis of ten selected provinces in China. Science of the Total Environment, 740, 140057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140057
Yang, X., Li, N., Mu, H., Pang, J., Zhao, H., & Ahmad, M. (2021a). Study on the long-term impact of economic globalization and population aging on CO2 emissions in OECD countries. Science of the Total Environment, 787, 147625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147625
Yang, X., Li, N., Mu, H., Zhang, M., Pang, J., & Ahmad, M. (2021b). Study on the long-term and short-term effects of globalization and population aging on ecological footprint in OECD countries. Ecological Complexity, 47(March), 100946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2021.100946
York, R. (2007). Demographic trends and energy consumption in European Union Nations, 1960–2025. Social Science Research, 36(3), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.06.007
Yu, Y., & DengChen, Y. F. (2018). Impact of population aging and industrial structure on CO2 emissions and emissions trend prediction in China. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 9(3), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2017.11.008
Zafar, M. W., Shahbaz, M., Sinha, A., Sengupta, T., & Qin, Q. (2020). How renewable energy consumption contribute to environmental quality? The role of education in OECD countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 122149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122149
Zaidi, S. A. H., Danish, Hou, F., & Mirza, F. M. (2018). The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in CO2 emissions: A disaggregate analysis of Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(31), 31616–31629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3059-y
Zhang, C., & Tan, Z. (2016). The relationships between population factors and China’s carbon emissions: Does population aging matter? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65(2016), 1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.083
Zhang, Z., Hao, Y., Lu, Z. N., & Deng, Y. (2018). How does demographic structure affect environmental quality? Empirical evidence from China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 133, 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.017
Zhu, H., Xia, H., Guo, Y., & Peng, C. (2018). The heterogeneous effects of urbanization and income inequality on CO2 emissions in BRICS economies: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(17), 17176–17193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1900-y
Funding
No funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LKC contributed to conceptualization, introduction, literature review, methodology, result, discussion, conclusion, data curation, software, review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Appendix 1
See Table
10.
1.2 Appendix 2
See Fig.
Normality graph
1.
1.3 Appendix 3
See Fig.
The distribution plot of ecological footprint
2.
1.4 Appendix 4
See Fig.
Relationship between ecological footprint and share of population over 65 years old
3.
1.5 Appendix 5
See Table
11.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chu, L.K. The role of technological innovation and population aging in environmental degradation in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Environ Dev Sustain 26, 735–773 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02730-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02730-8