International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05049-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis

with recovered paper consumption, human development index,
urbanization, and forest footprint
M. Aydin1   · P. Koc2 · M. Tumay2

Received: 18 May 2022 / Revised: 28 February 2023 / Accepted: 5 June 2023

© The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Iranian Society of Environmentalists (IRSEN) and Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University 2023

Abstract
The aim of this study, which covers the period from 1991 to 2017, is to analyze the relationships between recovered paper
consumption, human development index, urbanization rate, and forest footprint in the framework of the Environmental
Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis in the 10 countries that consume the most recovered paper. Considering that wood is the
raw material of paper, the study investigates whether the increase in the consumption of recovered paper has a positive effect
on the forest footprint. Therefore, unlike other studies, the dependent variable of the EKC model is the forest footprint. The
study is original in that it is the first to analyze the effects of recovered paper consumption on environmental degradation
in the context of the EKC hypothesis. To analyze the relationships between the variables, we use panel cointegration tests
based on AMG and CCE estimators, which allow analysis on both a country and group basis. According to the results, the
EKC hypothesis is valid only in the Netherlands. While there is a statistically significant and negative relationship between
recovered paper consumption and forest footprint in the Netherlands, there is a statistically significant and negative relation-
ship between urbanization and forest footprint in Italy. Economic and ecological benefits and costs must be considered to
measure the net benefit of waste management programs. In addition, to analyze how environmental impacts change over time,
ecological footprint and gas emissions during waste generation or disposal should be measured similarly to carbon emissions.

Keywords  Environmental degradation · Deforestation · Panel cointegration · Recovered paper consumption · Waste
management

Introduction

Growing product diversity and consumption opportunities

with industrialization contribute to the welfare of today's
generation by facilitating human life. However, it negatively
affects the next generation's prosperity by causing a decrease
Editorial responsibility: Samareh Mirkia.
in resources and an increase in pollution due to production
* M. Aydin conditions based on non-renewable energy resources. The
aydinm@sakarya.edu.tr fact that environmental pollution arising from develop-
P. Koc ment policies based on industrial production increase could
pinartorun@gumushane.edu.tr endanger the lives of future generations was first expressed
M. Tumay at the Stockholm held on 5–16 June 1972, and the Dec-
mtumay@gumushane.edu.tr laration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
1
Environment was adopted (United Nations 1973). Moreover,
Department of Econometrics, Faculty of Political Sciences, the Club of Rome is another organization that emphasizes
Sakarya University, Esentepe Campus, Serdivan, Sakarya,
Turkey that the limits of economic growth have been reached by
2 expressing the environmental degradation caused by the tra-
Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics
and Administrative Sciences, Gumushane University, ditional growth model. Within the framework of these cru-
Gumushane, Turkey cial developments, the World Commission on Environment

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

and Development (WCED) was established in 1983 under Table 1  GDP per capita, ecological footprint, biocapacity, and eco-
the chairmanship of Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland. logical deficit (1990–2018)
Then the Commission, best known for developing the broad Period GDP (USA $) Ecological Bio capacity** Ecological
political concept of sustainable development, published its per capita* footprint** deficit***
report Our Common Future in April 1987 (Meadows et al. 1990 6789 2.63 2.06 0.57
1972; United Nations 1987). 1995 7050 2.52 1.92 0.6
Along with the studies on economic structure and envi- 2000 7874 2.51 1.84 0.67
ronmental degradation, the connection between economic 2005 8655 2.72 1.76 0.96
growth and environmental degradation began to be analyzed 2010 9348 2.81 1.69 1.12
empirically in the 1990s. The first study is the Environ- 2015 10,222 2.73 1.62 1.11
mental Kuznets Curve (EKC) developed by Grossman and 2018 10,847 2.77 1.58 1.19
Krueger (1991). According to the EKC hypothesis, there is
an inverted U-shaped linkage between various indicators of *GDP Per Capita statistics were obtained from the World Bank data-
environmental degradation and per capita income. Initially, base (2022a)
the scale effect applies. As industrial production increases, **Ecological Footprint and Bio Capacity statistics are obtained from
the Global Footprint Network database (2022)
the use of energy and natural resources increases depending
***Ecological deficit is equal to the difference between ecological
on the rise in production scale. The growth in energy usage footprint and biocapacity. The authors calculate them
and natural resources causes an increase in pollution. There-
fore, the EKC is positively sloped during the early stages of
industrial production. The positive association between per
capita income and environmental degradation is reversed,
depending on the structural and technological effects. While
the structural impact is related to the transformation in the
economic structure, the technological impact refers to the
decrease in environmental degradation with the increase in
the use of environmentally friendly technology. The shift
of the economic structure from the industrial sector to the
services sector, the growing use of clean energy sources, and
environmentally friendly technologies ensure that economic
activity increases without environmental degradation. The
emergence of sustainable development is of great impor-
tance in using clean energy resources and developing envi-
ronmentally friendly technologies.
Although the modernization process brings an increase Fig. 1  Waste management hierarchy (Nunoo 2019)
in global welfare, it also causes a decrease in the number of
natural resources. Table 1 shows the change in worldwide
welfare and environmental sustainability indicators from The waste management hierarchy prioritizes the strategies
1990 to 2018. According to Table 1, the level of global wel- that can be implemented in waste management. This hierar-
fare nearly doubled during the 1990–2018 period. Although chy is in Fig. 1. The waste management hierarchy consists of
the change in the number of natural resources varies accord- prevention, reduction, reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and
ing to the years, the ecological deficit increases despite sus- disposal concerning priority. The primary goal is zero waste
tainable development policies. The ecological deficit shows generation (Prokkola et al. 2012). However, in cases where
that using unsustainable natural resources continues to grow. waste generation cannot be prevented, reuse and recycling
In this context, waste management is of great importance policies should be emphasized.
in sustainability. While wastes were considered a homoge- Recycling is an essential strategy for long-term sustain-
neous mass to be buried until the 1970s, this understand- ability for several reasons. First, recycling improves the
ing changed in the 1970s. Therefore, wastes began to be functioning and efficiency of natural ecosystems. Second, it
perceived as materials that can be reused, reproduced, or positively affects human health by reducing toxic waste and
recycled. The concept of industrial environmental manage- environmental pollution. Third, it protects natural resources
ment and cleaner production, which started to develop in the and ecosystems by reducing waste, increasing the long-term
1980s and 1990s, also contributed to the development of the sustainability of the biosphere, and promoting biodiversity
waste management hierarchy (Gertsakis and Lewis 2003). (Virtanen and Nilsson 1993; Mirkovic et al. 2015; Khudya-
kova and Lyaskovskaya, 2021).

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Lamma (2021) lists the positive effects of recycling on
environmental sustainability as follows:
Recycling can decrease the waste reaching the landfill
Recycling encourages natural resource sustainability,
while office paper, recycled can cut back 27,300 L of
water, 18 trees, 2450 L of oil, 2.28 m3 of a landfill,
Recycling can reduce energy consumption,
Recycling preserves habitats and forests; about
26,500,000 trees can be saved annually, in case 10% of
the existing newspapers are recycled in the USA.
Recycling helps diminish air pollution.
Recycling reduces global warming.
The primary raw material in paper production is pulp
obtained from natural materials, especially wood. A lot of
energy is consumed during paper pulp production, and many
chemicals that harm the environment are used in the produc-
tion process. For this reason, the recycling of paper provides
essential gains in terms of environmental sustainability. With
paper recycling, the use of wood is used as raw material, and
the transaction and capital costs per unit decrease. Thus,
water and energy savings are achieved (MacEachern 2008;
Stevenson 2016; Cabalova et al. 2011).
Cabalova et al. (2011) and Kumar (2017) list the gains
that can be obtained by producing paper again with a ton of
used paper as follows:

In this context, forests are of great importance in con-
tributing to biological diversity and ecological sustainabil-
ity. However, it is seen that the share of forest areas has
decreased since the 1990 period when we examine the per-
centage of forest areas within the land areas. Figure 2 shows
the share of forest areas worldwide from 1990 to 2016.
While the share of forest areas was 31.62% in 1990, this
rate decreased to 31.17% with a decrease of 1.42% in 2000
and fell to 30.71% in 2016 with a reduction of 1.49%. This
decline in forest areas is of great importance for the success
of sustainable policies. In this context, how the production
amounts in industries based on forest products have changed
over time has been examined. Forestry products are used
in timber and parquet, wood veneer and plywood, chip and
fiber, and paper production. Table 2 gives the global produc-
tion of forest products from 1990 to 2019. Log and firewood
are the most produced forest products.
17 trees can be prevented from being cut down,
The release of 36 tons of greenhouse gases can be con-
trolled,
3–4 ­m3 less storage space may be needed,
30,000 L of water can be saved,
380 gallons of oil consumption can be avoided,
Invasion of 2.3 ­m3 landfill can be prevented,
35–50% energy savings can be achieved.
However, Awasthi et al. (2018) emphasize that waste
recycling with inappropriate methods adversely affects
human and environmental health. Informal recycling and
waste management processes increase ecological pollution
(Yang et al. 2017). The average rate of recycled paper waste
around the world is 58%. The rate of recycled paper waste in
developed countries ranges from 70 to 75%. European coun-
tries are the countries with the highest paper recycling rate.
European countries are followed by North America, Asia,

31.80

31.60
Forest Area (% of Land Area)

31.40

31.20

31.00

30.80

30.60

30.40

30.20
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Fig. 2  Forest area (% of land area). Source: Created by Author compiling from World Bank (2022b)

13
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Table 2  Global forest products production (period of 1990–2019)

Forest products 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2019

Roundwood (1000) ­m3 3,450,386 3,212,762 3,377,282 3,550,868 3,405,676 3,754,973 3,969,368
Fuelwood + Charcoal (1000) ­m3 1,796,197 1,703,690 1,589,234 1,842,642 1,877,605 1,901,265 1,944,708
Industrial Roundwood (1000) m ­ 3 1,654,189 1,509,072 1,588,330 1,708,226 1,528,071 1,853,707 2,024,660
Sawlogs + Veenerlogs (1000) ­m3 979,765 908,800 962,030 988,982 850,035 1,053,161 1,154,458
Pulpwood + Particles (1000) tonnes 439,690 444,117 471,433 540,516 524,733 654,642 711,196
Sawnwood + Sleepers (1000) ­m3 485,946 426,216 388,430 420,603 389,856 448,062 488,196
Wood-based Panel (1000) m ­ 3 124,939 146,261 182,784 247,925 278,428 344,616 357,651
3
Veneer Sheets (1000) m­ 4869 6014 7280 12,194 12,144 13,515 14,495
Plywood (1000) ­m3 49,707 55,312 58,148 73,222 83,960 111,774 107,235
­ 3
Particle Board (1000) m 52,408 64,588 84,340 100,647 94,654 87,257 99,875
3
Fibre Board (1000) m
­ 17,956 20,347 33,017 61,861 88,476 118,595 118,934
Paper + Paperboard (1000) tonnes 238,238 282,041 324,046 379,229 398,929 406,931 404,288

Source: Created by author compiling from FAO (2022)

Latin America, and African countries, respectively. How-
ever, the most recycled material in Europe is paper. Metal
is in second place, and glass and aluminum are in third and
fourth place (Ozola et al. 2019).
The rest of the paper is as follows: Sect. 2 introduces the
literature review. Section 3 introduces materials and meth-
ods. Section 4 explains the results. Section 5 includes a dis-
cussion and conclusion.
Literature review
Many studies investigate the relationship between the vari-
ous macroeconomic variables and environmental degrada-
tion in literature, such as Gokmenoglu and Taspinar (2018),
Gorus and Aydin (2019), Dogan and Inglesi-Lotz (2020),
Isik et al. (2019), Pata and Aydin (2020), Murshed and Dao
(2020), Aydin and Turan (2020), Koc and Bulus (2020),
Gormus and Aydin (2020), Bekun et al. (2021), Pata et al.
(2021), Al-Mulali et al. (2022), Aydin et al. (2023a), and
Aydin et al. (2023b). However, empirical studies analyze the
economic and environmental effects of recycling and paper
recycling. Hoel (1978) analyzes the environmental impact
of recycling under resource constraints, starting from a util-
ity function. In this study, which is based on the solution to
the optimization problem, he emphasizes that recycling is
a good that can be a complete substitute for other resources
and that recycling can have harmful effects on the environ-
ment, albeit slightly.
Byström and Lundstedt (1997) examine the environmen-
tal and economic impacts of paper recycling using the Opti-
mal Fiber Flow model. The study uses the environment load
unit index as an environmental impact indicator. The results
indicate that to minimize the ecological impact in Scandina-
via, forest product usage in paper production should be 30%,
and in Europe, 53% for reuse. Nakamura (1999) investigates
the economic and environmental impacts of waste recycling
based on a cross-industry approach. According to the results
obtained from the study, recycling reduces the level of pro-
duction in all industrial sectors, including oil, transporta-
tion, and storage, and reductions in carbon emissions are
achieved. Madu et al. (2002) question whether recycling
paper is possible to produce more cost-effectively. Accord-
ing to the findings, the total cost of high-strength fiber paper
is about US$ 142, whereas the total cost of low-strength fiber
paper is about 154 US$. Ross and Evans (2003) explore
the environmental impacts of plastic reuse and recycling
based on the product life cycle. The results indicate that the
recycling of plastic has effects on reducing environmental
degradation. Pati et al. (2006) investigate whether it regen-
erating paper from paper waste is more economical than
zero paper production. Paper production from paper waste
is more economical.
Massimiliano (2008) analyzes the linkage between waste
generation and economic growth in European countries in
the context of the EKC hypothesis. The study concludes
that the waste curve is far from reaching a theoretical turn-
ing point that would characterize the EKC hypothesis. Tro-
schinetz and Mihelcic (2009) estimate the factors affecting
municipal solid waste recycling in developing countries.
According to the study, Government policy, form of financ-
ing, type of waste, way of separating and collecting waste,
education level of employees and households, accumula-
tion of human and technological capital, and availability of
land are factors that affect recycling rates. Mazzanti et al.
(2009) estimate the validity of the EKC in Italian countries
using municipal waste generation data as the dependent
variable. The study shows that the EKC is valid in waste
management. Laurijssen et al. (2010) investigate the link-
age between paper recycling and carbon emission. Growing

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
recycling can encourage in biomass availability and reduces
life-cycle energy use and carbon emissions.
Smith (2011) examines the environmental sustain-
ability of paper by considering the high costs of purchas-
ing paper and printing. Boyden et al. (2016) estimate the
environmental effects of recycling Lithium-Ion batteries.
Recycling Lithium-Ion batteries reduces energy consump-
tion and greenhouse gas emissions, providing significant
resource savings. However, the net impact on the environ-
ment is uncertain. Bekiroglu and Elmas (2017) calculate
the value of the economic benefit created by the wastepaper
collected by the resource allocation process in Turkey. The
results imply that the financial advantage to be made by the
wastepaper collected is approximately 1.4 billion US dollars.
Zhang et al. (2019) indicate that the closed-loop approach
is suitable for achieving sustainable recycling by applying
the Taguchi-RSM optimization approach. Hysa et al. (2020)
investigate the impact of circular economy innovation and
environmental degradation on economic growth through
panel data analysis. According to the findings of the study,
there is a strong and positive correlation between circular
economy and economic growth.
Ari and Şentürk (2020) examine the validity of the EKC
using methane emissions from solid wastes in G7 coun-
tries as the dependent variable. The estimations demon-
strate that the EKC is not valid. Magazzino et al. (2020)
analyze the association between solid waste management,
GDP, and greenhouse gas emissions in Switzerland. The
study reveals a bidirectional causality relationship between
solid waste production and GDP in Switzerland. In addi-
tion, waste recovery negatively affects greenhouse gas
emissions. Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt (2020) explore
the linkage between e-waste and economic growth in 30
European countries in the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
The results obtained from the study support the validity of
the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Liu et al. (2020) compare
the economic and environmental benefits of the standard
and non-standard recycling of paper in China using the life
cycle assessment method. Although non-standard recycling
enterprises produce at a lower cost, greenhouse gas emis-
sions are higher.
Bahrami and Jafari (2020) examine the environmental
benefits and impacts of using wastepaper as a sustainable
material in landscape architecture. Venkatachary et  al.
(2020) examine the effects of recycling waste solar panels
on the environment and human health. The study results
emphasize that the recycling of waste solar panels can be
effective in reducing energy production costs and state that
appropriate waste management systems should be devel-
oped to recycle harmful wastes. Shang et al. (2021) discuss
the effect of waste paper recycling on carbon emissions in
China. An inverted “U” shape connection exists between the
waste paper recovery rate and carbon emissions in China
for the period of 2000–2017. Cerqueira et al. (2021) ana-
lyze the relationship between recycling, renewable energy,
and sustainable development in OECD countries using the
simultaneous panel data method. They use the human capi-
tal index as an indicator of sustainable development. The
study results reveal a multifaceted connection between recy-
cling and renewable energy, and sustainable development.
Salhofer et al. (2021) emphasize the need to improve the
methods used by expressing the environmental risks created
by the practices made in the recycling process of plastic in
Vietnam.
Yang et al. (2021) analyze resource savings from recy-
cling agricultural waste in family farms operating in rural
China using Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA).
Magazzino et al. (2021) estimate the causal relationships
between solid waste productions, income level, urbaniza-
tion, and greenhouse gas emissions in Denmark. Urbani-
zation causes an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by
increasing income level and waste production. Boubell-
outa and Kusch-Brandt (2021) analyze the relationship
between e-waste mismanagement and economic growth in
27 EU countries within the framework of the Environmental
Kuznets Curve. The study uses poor management of elec-
tronic waste as an indicator of environmental degradation.
There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between waste
mismanagement and economic growth. Georgescu et al.
(2022) explore the relationships between waste recycling
rates, GDP, and R&D expenditures in European countries.
According to the results, technological development causes
an increase in waste production. The study emphasizes that
environmentally friendly technologies should be developed.
Sasmoko et al. (2022) address the environmental conse-
quences of waste generation and recycling through ARDL
model in China from 1975 to 2020. Although recycling poli-
cies, carbon emissions continue to grow.
In the above-mentioned studies use recycling rates or
waste amounts as dependent variable. However, consider-
ing that wood is used as an input in paper production, no
study analyzes the effect of the increase in recovered paper
production on the forest footprint in the context of the EKC.
In this context, this study is original because it is the first to
empirically analyze the effects of increased consumption of
recovered paper on forest footprint based on the EKC. More-
over, human development and urbanization in the model as
other factors that can affect the forest footprint, are included
in the model.
13
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Materials and methods where 𝜌̂ij is the estimated binary correlation of residuals.

While the null hypothesis shows cross-section independence
This study examines the effects of recovered paper consump- in all three test statistics, the alternative hypothesis shows
tion, urbanization, human development index, and economic cross-section dependence. Delta tests developed by Pesaran
growth on forest footprint within the EKC hypothesis frame- and Yamagata (2008) were used to test slope homogeneity
work 1991–2017 period in the top ten recovered paper con- in the study. Test statistics for delta tests are calculated as
sumer countries, namely: Austria, Australia, France, Ger- follows.
many, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the � � � �
United Kingdom. In the study, ff represents per capita forest
√ N −1 S̃ − k √ N −1 S̃ − E(̃ẑit )
̂
Δ= N ̂
and Δadj = N
footprint. Paper donates recovered paper consumption. hdi
√ √
2k var(̃ẑit )
represents the human development index. Urbanization (urb) (4)
indicates the ratio of a population living in urban areas to the where S̃ is defined as E(̃ẑit ) = k, var(̃ẑit ) = 2k(T − k − 1)∕
total population, and gdp (per capita, constant 2015 US$) rep-
T + 1 while denoting the modified Swamy (1970) statistic.
resents economic growth. The dataset was compiled from the The null hypothesis shows homogenous slopes, while the
Global Footprint Network database, the Food and Agriculture alternative hypothesis shows heterogeneous slopes.
Organization (FAO) database, United Nations Development The stationarity levels of the variables were tested via the
Programme (UNDP), and the World Bank database, respec- panel stationarity test developed by Hadri and Kurozumi
tively. The logarithms of all the variables were used. The EKC (2012). The model used for this test is as follows:
hypothesis was tested by the following model:
�
yit = zt 𝛿̂i + 𝜙̂ i1 yit−1 + ....... + 𝜙̂ ip yit−p + 𝜓̂ i0 yt−p + 𝜈̂it (5)
ln ffit = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ln paperit + 𝛽2 ln urbit + 𝛽3 ln hdiit
(1)
+ 𝛽4 ln gdpit + 𝛽5 ln gdp2it + 𝜀it The ZASPC and ZALA test statistics are obtained as follows:
√ � � √ � �
where 𝛽0,𝛽1,𝛽2,𝛽3,𝛽4 , and 𝛽5 are the coefficients of constant, N ST1 − 𝜉 N ST2 − 𝜉
recovered paper consumption, urbanization, human develop- ZASPC = and ZALA = (6)
𝜍 𝜍
ment index, economic growth, and the squared of economic
growth, respectively. 𝜀it stands for the error term. If the coef- N T
where STiSPC   , 1
(Sitw )2  ,
�
S T1 = N −1 STiSPC =
∑ ∑
ficient of economic growth is statistically significant and i=1
2
𝜎̂ iSPC T2
t=1
positive, and the square of economic growth is statistically −1 ,
T
and 1
(Sitw )2.
�
STiLA
∑
significant and negative, the EKC hypothesis is valid. In this S T2 = N = 2
𝜎̂ iLA T2
t=1
case, the forest footprint, which increases with economic The null hypothesis expresses the stationarity for the
growth, decreases after a certain threshold value. Hadri and Kurozumi (2012) stationarity test, while the alter-
We calculate the threshold value using the formula below: native hypothesis expresses unit root.
𝛽 In the study, cointegration test was applied to estimate
Y∗ = e
− 2𝛽4
5 (2) the long-term relationship for Model 1. Westerlund (2008)
developed a cointegration test that considers cross-sectional
In the study, firstly, the cross-sectional dependencies of
dependence. This test also allows different degrees of sta-
the variables were analyzed through three different cross-
tionarity of the independent variables, provided that the
sectional dependence tests. These tests are C ­ DLM1 developed
dependent variable is I(1). Two different test statistics are
by Breusch and Pagan (1980), ­CDLM2 and CD developed by
calculated for this test, called the Durbin-Hausman (DH)
Pesaran (2004). The test statistics for these tests are as follows.
panel cointegration test.
N−1
N
∑∑
𝜌̂2ij , CDLM2
n T n T
CDLM1 = T DHg =
∑
Ŝ i 𝜙̃ i − 𝜙̂ i
( )2 ∑
ê 2it−1 and DHp = Ŝ n 𝜙̃ − 𝜙̂
( )2 ∑ ∑
ê 2it−1
i=1 j=i+1 i=1 t=2 i=1 t=2
√ (7)
1
N−1 N
∑∑
= (T 𝜌̂2ij − 1) and CD (3) where DHg and DHp represent group and panel statistics,
N(N − 1) i=1 j=i+1
(N−1 N ) respectively. Both test statistics test the null hypothesis of no
√
2T ∑∑ cointegration against the alternative hypothesis that indicates
= 𝜌̂
N(N − 1) i=1 j=i+1 ij cointegration.

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Results and discussion Table 5  Panel cointegration Tests Test stat P-value

tests results
Table  3 shows the results of the cross-section depend- dh_g 23.325* 0.000
ency test. According to the results, all variables used and dh_p 4.459* 0.000
the model established include cross-section dependence. *Indicates the rejection of the
Another result reported in Table 3 is the slope homogeneity null hypothesis at a 1% signifi-
test results. The estimations show that the homogeneity of cance level
the null hypothesis is rejected. In other words, Model 1 has
heterogeneous slope coefficients.
Table 4 illustrates the stationarity test results. The station- The study estimates the coefficients related to the long-
arity test results indicate that all variables except lnpaper and term relationship determined with the help of a cointegra-
lnhdi contain unit roots at level but are stationary in their tion test using two different long-term estimators to obtain
first differences. On the other hand, lnpaper and lnhdi are robust results. These estimators are the Augmented Mean
stationarity at the level. Accordingly, lnpaper and lnhdi are Group (AMG) developed by Eberhardt and Teal (2010) and
I(0), and other variables are I(1). the Common Correlated Effects (CCE) long-term estima-
Table 5 gives the panel cointegration test results. Accord- tors developed by Pesaran (2006). Both estimators consider
ing to the results, the null hypothesis showing no cointegra- cross-section dependence and slope heterogeneity. Table 6
tion for Model 1 is rejected. Accordingly, there is cointegra- shows the results for the long-run coefficients. The same
tion. In other words, the forest footprint moves together with results for both estimators are deemed correct and inter-
the explanatory variables in the long run. preted for robust results.
According to the long-run estimation results, the EKC
hypothesis is valid only for the Netherlands. The thresh-
old value is calculated using the AMG coefficient and
is 40,542.40 US $. Accordingly, the threshold value is
Table 3  Cross-section dependence and slope homogeneity tests exceeded for the Netherlands. The EKC hypothesis is not
results
valid within the framework of the model set for all other
Variables CDLM1 CDLM2 CD countries. On the other hand, for the Netherlands, there is a
significant and negative effect of the consumption of recov-
lnff 306.9993* 27.61715* 5.864486*
ered paper on the forest footprint. Considering the impact of
lngdp 1010.882* 101.8129* 31.44297*
urbanization on the forest footprint, the significant and nega-
lngdp2 1008.042* 101.5136* 31.38814*
tive coefficients were determined for Italy. Considering the
lnpaper 306.0967* 27.52201* 10.89601*
impact of the human development index on the forest foot-
lnurb 923.7671* 92.63019* 8.762262*
print, there is no significant relationship. When the results
lnhdi 1145.827* 116.0373* 33.83772*
of the whole panel are examined, conclude no significant
Model 397.7162 * 36.12546 * 7.641694*
relationship.
Slope homogeneity Test Statistics P-value
Δ̂ 10.405* 0.000
̂ adj
Δ 12.014* 0.000

*Indicates the rejection of the null hypothesis at a 1% significance

level

Table 4  Panel stationarity test Variables Level First differences

results
ZA_spc ZA_la ZA_spc ZA_la

lnff 10.507(0.000)* 9.107 (0.000)* − 0.444 (0.671) − 0.077 (0.530)

lngdp 3.127 (0.000)* − 1.360 (0.913) − 0.021 (0.508) − 0.970 (0.834)
lngdp2 3.350 (0.000)* 0.485 (0.313) − 0.083 (0.533) − 0.972 (0.834)
lnurb 30.358 (0.000)* 180.302 (0.000)* 1.008 (0.156) 1.126 (0.129)
lnpaper − 1.549 (0.939) − 2.147 (0.984) – –
lnhdi − 1.726 (0.957) − 1.725 (0.957) – –

*Indicates the rejection of the null hypothesis at a 1% significance level

13
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Table 6  Long-run estimation Countries lngdp lngdp2 lnpaper lnurb lnhdi EKC

results
Austria AMG − 289.75** 13.819** 0.312 0.693 − 0.486 X
CCE − 376.87 17.876 0.279 5.351 0.456
Australia AMG 4.968 − 0.119 0.061 − 6.759 − 7.143 X
CCE 52.696 − 2.546 − 0.114 − 4.629 − 5.488
France AMG − 8.010 0.453 − 0.097 − 39.408 − 5.759 X
CCE − 219.47 10.521 0.025 − 13.124 3.942
Germany AMG 22.780 − 0.955 0.177 2.026 2.630 X
CCE − 66.266 3.299 − 0.448 20.075 7.548
Italy AMG − 10.742 0.518 − 0.317* − 27.858* − 4.283 X
CCE 190.356 − 9.311 0.342* − 23.867*** − 1.065
Netherlands AMG 163.82* − 7.720* − 0.792* − 8.644* − 4.610*** √
CCE 536.61* − 24.721* − 0.059* 3.223 3.164
Poland AMG − 8.946 0.597 − 0.039 35.277* − 7.882** X
CCE 12.105 − 0.526 − 0.042 26.059 − 3.062
Spain AMG − 38.246 2.061 − 0.036 5.443 6.983 X
CCE 307.85 − 14.994 0.333 − 44.439 23.317
Sweden AMG 143.72 − 6.691 − 0.348 24.507 0.107 X
CCE 393.37** − 18.702** 0.053 1.613 − 12.543
United Kingdom AMG − 12.299 0.664 0.069 − 0.568 − 1.662 X
CCE − 107.45 5.143 − 0.028 4.659 1.688
Panel AMG − 7.196 0.453 0.046 − 1.042 − 2.515 X
CCE 69.524 − 3.307 0.001 − 0.629 − 0.074

*, **, and *** indicate the rejection of the null hypothesis at 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respec-
tively
The results shown with bold are the results that were confirmed for both estimators

Conclusion There is a statistically significant and negative relation-

This study investigates the relations between recovered
paper consumption, human development index, urbaniza-
tion, economic growth, and forest footprint in the 10 coun-
tries within the framework of the EKC hypothesis for the
period of 1991–2017. These countries are Austria, Australia,
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Swe-
den, and the United Kingdom, which consume the most
recovered paper. Unlike other studies in the literature, we
exploit forest footprint as an indicator of environmental deg-
radation. The estimation indicates that the EKC hypothesis
is valid only for the Netherlands. According to FISE (2020)
statistics, the Netherlands is one of the European countries
with the least forest area with 10.89%. Also, according to
World Bank statistics, the share of forest areas within land
areas increases in the Netherlands except from 2010 through
2016. Panel-based EKC hypothesis is not valid. These find-
ings can explain that the change in forest footprint across
Europe follows a different course from economic growth.
ship between the consumption of recovered paper and for-
est footprint in the Netherlands. Although paper recycling
rates in European countries reach up to 75%, the limited
reduction in environmental degradation can be explained
by the fact that the recycling economy in Europe is still in
its infancy. This result is also supported by Pao and Chen
(2021). According to the overview of national waste pre-
vention programs in Europe reports, waste prevention pro-
grams that have been implemented since 2010 have not yet
reached levels that can reduce environmental degradation
(EEA 2021a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h). There is a statistically signifi-
cant and negative relationship between the urbanization rate
and forest footprint in Italy. This situation can be explained
by not destroying forest areas in urbanization, population
growth, and industrialization. The relationship between for-
est footprint and GDP, urbanization, recovered paper, and
human development index is not found statistically signifi-
cant in Australia, France, Germany, Spain, and the United
Kingdom. This finding can be explained that the process

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
of development and modernization improves economic
and social life, but on the other hand, it reduces biological
variety, causing climate changes. In this context, renewable
energy use and recycling policies must be encouraged and
increase their efficiency.
The findings show that although significant increases
in paper recycling rates have been achieved in sustainable
development policies, the positive effect of the rise in the
consumption of recovered paper on the forest footprint is
limited. This finding can be explained by the fact that zero-
waste projects have not yet produced the expected positive
effects. Despite the zero waste measures and the increase
in recycling rates, waste generation in European countries
has increased. In this context, obstacles to increasing recy-
cling and reducing waste generation should be removed.
Berger (1997), Butler and Hooper (2000), and Dahle and
Neumayer (2001) list barriers to paper recycling. These
are attitudes and behaviors toward recycling, the lack of
systems and infrastructure for recycling, and the size of the
financial resources required to establish the infrastructure
and systems. Preventing waste generation can be possible
by changing households' consumption behavior to avoid
waste. Considering the positive relationship between edu-
cation and environmental awareness (Dimante et al. 2016),
governments should give training to protect the environ-
ment and reduce excessive consumption and waste at all
levels, starting from primary school.
Pati et al. (2006) and Yang et al. (2021) emphasize
that producing paper from used paper is more economi-
cal than producing new paper. Waste type, collection of
waste, recycling methods, technology level, education
level of employees and households, government policies,
and physical and human capital stock will significantly
determine the results of waste management policies.
Considering the methods used in this context, instead of
economic analysis based only on cost savings, methods
that ensure maximum net positive benefit by consider-
ing economic and environmental costs together should
be used. Research-based on a cost–benefit approach will
also increase resource efficiency. To better analyze the
environmental impact of waste management policies,
the ecological footprint should be calculated based on
the type of waste, recycling rates, or waste quantities.
In addition, gas emissions during the production or
disposal of waste should be measured similarly to car-
bon emissions. Urbanization and increasing population
increase the need for housing, and the increasing demand
for housing is largely met by the destruction of forested
areas. Therefore, necessary legal arrangements should
be made to prevent the construction of housing based
on deforestation. Moreover, the construction of build-
ings based on environmentally friendly technologies
and contributing to sustainability should be supported.
Finally, long-lived trees that will contribute to biodiver-
sity should be planted instead of trees that had to be cut
down.
Recycling policies are important to achieve sustain-
able development goals. This study is expected to pro-
mote future research. Future researchers can estimate the
model for different countries or country groups. The find-
ings can be compared by applying different econometric
techniques. New variables affecting environmental degra-
dation, such as climate change, the abundance of natural
resources, and globalization, can be included in the model.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical approval  Not applicable.
Consent for publication  Not applicable.
Consent to participate  Not applicable.
References
Al-Mulali U, Gholipour HF, Solarin SA (2022) Investigating the
environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis: does govern-
ment effectiveness matter? Evidence from 170 countries. Envi-
ron Dev Sustain 24(11):12740–12755
Ari I, Şentürk H (2020) The relationship between GDP and methane
emissions from solid waste: a panel data analysis for the G7.
Sustain Product Consum 23:282–290
Awasthi AK, Wang M, Awasthi MK, Wang Z, Li J (2018) Envi-
ronmental pollution and human body burden from improper
recycling of e-waste in China: a short-review. Environ Pollut
243:1310–1316
Aydin M, Turan YE (2020) The influence of financial openness, trade
openness, and energy intensity on ecological footprint: revis-
iting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICS
countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(34):43233–43245
Aydin M, Koc P, Sahpaz KI (2023a) Investigating the EKC hypothesis
with nanotechnology, renewable energy consumption, economic
growth and ecological footprint in G7 countries: panel data analy-
ses with structural breaks. Energy Sources Part B 18(1):2163724
Aydin M, Degirmenci T, Gurdal T, Yavuz H (2023) The role of
green innovation in achieving environmental sustainability in
European Union countries: testing the environmental Kuznets
curve hypothesis. Gondwana Res 118:105
Bahrami B, Jafari P (2020) Paper recycling directions to sustainable
landscape. Int J Environ Sci Technol 17:371–382
13

Bekiroğlu S, Elmas GM (2017) Contribution to national economy
of waste paper recycling (example of Turkey’s hotels). Int J
Environ Sci Nat Resourc 2(1):4–8
Bekun FV, Alola AA, Gyamfi BA, Yaw SS (2021) The relevance
of EKC hypothesis in energy intensity real-output trade-off
for sustainable environment in EU-27. Environ Sci Pollut Res
28(37):51137–51148
Berger IE (1997) The demographics of recycling and the structure of
environmental behavior. Environ Behav 29(4):515–531
Boubellouta B, Kusch-Brandt S (2020) Testing the environmental
Kuznets curve hypothesis for E-waste in the EU28+2 countries.
J Clean Product 277:123371. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​
2020.​123371
Boubellouta B, Kusch-Brandt S (2021) Relationship between eco-
nomic growth and mismanaged e-waste: Panel data evidence
from 27 EU countries analyzed under the Kuznets curve hypoth-
esis. Waste Manage 120:85–97
Boyden A, Soo VK, Doolan M (2016) The environmental impacts
of recycling portable lithium-ion batteries. Procedia CIRP
48:188–193
Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The lagrange multiplier test and its
applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ
Stud 47(1):239–253
Butler J, Hooper P (2000) Factors determining the post-consumer waste
recycling burden. J Environ Planning Manage 43(3):407–432
Byström S, Lundstedt L (1997) Paper recycling: environmental and
economic impact. Resour Conserv Recycl 21(2):109–127
Cabalova I, Kacik F, Geffert A, Kacikova D (2011) The effects of
paper recycling and its environmental impact. In: Broniewicz E
(ed) Environmental management in practice. Intechopen, Croa-
tia, pp 329–350
Cerqueira PA, Soukiazis E, Proença S (2021) Assessing the linkages
between recycling renewable energy and sustainable develop-
ment: evidence from the OECD countries. Environ Dev Sustain
23:9766–9791
Dahle M, Neumayer E (2001) Overcoming barriers to campus green-
ing a survey among higher educational institutions in London
UK. Int J Sustain High Educ 2(2):139–160
Dimante D, Tanbovceva T, Atstaja D (2016) Raising environmental
awareness through education. Int J Cont Eng Educat Life-Long
Learn 26(3):259–272
Dogan E, Inglesi-Lotz R (2020) The impact of economic struc-
ture to the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis:
evidence from European countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res
27(11):12717–12724
Eberhardt M, Teal F (2010) Aggregation versus heterogeneity in
cross-country growth empirics. CSAE Working Paper Series No
2010–32. https://​www.​notti​ngham.​ac.​uk /credit/ documents /pap
ers/11–08.pdf. Accessed 15.02.2022.
EEA (2021a) Overview of national waste prevention programmes in
Europe Austria. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/Austria/Waste/
Prevention/Country/Profile/2021a.pdf. Accessed 10 February
2022.
EEA (2021b) Overview of national waste prevention programmes in
Europe France. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/France/Waste/
Prevention/Country/Profile/2021b.pdf. Accessed 10 February
2022.
EEA (2021c) Overview of national waste prevention programmes in
Europe Netherland. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/Nether-
lands/Waste/Prevention/Country/Profile/2021c.pdf. Accessed 10
February 2022.
EEA (2021d) Overview of national waste prevention programmes in
Europe Germany. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/Germany/
13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
Waste/Prevention/Country/Profile/2021a.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb-
ruary 2022.
EEA (2021e) Overview of national waste prevention programmes in
Europe Poland. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/Poland/Waste/
Prevention/Country/Profile/2021d.pdf. Accessed 10 February
2022.
EEA (2021f) Overview of national waste prevention programmes
in Europe Sweden. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/Sweden/
Waste/Prevention/Country/Profile/2021e.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb-
ruary 2022.
EEA (2021g) Overview of national waste prevention programmes in
Europe Spain. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/Spain/Waste/
Prevention/Country/Profile/2021f.pdf. Accessed 10 February
2022.
EEA (2021h) Overview of national waste prevention programmes in
Europe Italy. file:///C:/Users/90542/Downloads/Italy/Waste/Pre-
vention/Country/Profile/2021b.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2022.
FAO (2022) Forest product statistics. Forest product statistics (fao.org).
Accessed 01 January 2022.
FISE (2020) Land cover and change accounts 2000–2018. https://w ​ ww.​
eea.e​ uropa.e​ u/d​ ata-a​ nd-m
​ aps/d​ ashbo​ ards/l​ and-c​ over-a​ nd-c​ hange-​
stati​stics. Accessed 10.02.2022.
Georgescu I, Kinnunen J, Androniceanu A-M (2022) Empirical evi-
dence on circular economy and economic development in Europe:
a panel approach. J Bus Econ Manag 23(1):199–217
Gertsakis J, Lewis H (2003) Sustainability and the waste management
hierarchy. http://​www.​helen​lewis​resea​rch.​com.​au/​wp-​conte​nt/​
uploa​ds/​2014/​05/​TZW__​Susta​inabi​lity _and _the_Waste_Hier-
archy_2003.pdf. Accessed 06 January 2022.
Global Footprint Network (2022). Country trends. https://​data.​footp​
rintn​etwork.​org/?_​ga=2.​17766​8965.​13823​23338.​16701​68337​
13338​7 4508.​1 6701​6 8337#/​c ount​r yTre​n ds?​c n=​5 001&​t ype=​
BCpc,EFCpc. Accessed 05 January 2022.
Gokmenoglu KK, Taspinar N (2018) Testing the agriculture-induced
EKC hypothesis: the case of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res
25(23):22829–22841
Gormus S, Aydin M (2020) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve
hypothesis using innovation: new evidence from the top 10 inno-
vative economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(22):27904–27913
Gorus MS, Aydin M (2019) The relationship between energy consump-
tion, economic growth, and CO2 emission in MENA countries:
causality analysis in the frequency domain. Energy 168:815–822
Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of the north
american free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper Series.
https://​www.​nber. org/system/files/ working_ papers/w3914/
w3914.pdf. Accessed 05 Jan 2022.
Hadri K, Kurozumi E (2012) A simple panel stationarity test in the
presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Econ Lett
115(1):31–34
Hoel M (1978) Resource extraction and recycling with environmental
costs. J Environ Econ Manag 5:220–235
Hysa E, Kruja A, Rehman NU, Laurenti R (2020) Circular economy
innovation and environmental sustainability impact on economic
growth: an integrated model for sustainable development. Sustain-
ability 12(12):4831. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su121​24831
Isik C, Ongan S, Özdemir D (2019) The economic growth/development
and environmental degradation: evidence from the US state-level
EKC hypothesis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(30):30772–30781
Khudyakova LE (2021) Improving the sustainability of regional
development in the context of waste management. Sustainability
13(4):1755. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su130​41755
Koc S, Bulus GC (2020) Testing validity of the EKC hypothesis in
South Korea: role of renewable energy and trade openness. Envi-
ron Sci Pollut Res 27(23):29043–29054
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
Kumar V (2017) Recycling of waste and used papers: a useful contribu-
tion in conservation of environment: a case study Asian. J Water
Environ Pollut 14(4):31–36
Lamma OA (2021) The impact of recycling in preserving the environ-
ment. Int J Appl Res 7(11):297–302
Laurijssen J, Marsidi M, Westenbroek A, Worrel E, Faaij A (2010)
Paper and biomass for energy?: The impact of paper recy-
cling on energy and CO2 emissions. Resour Conserv Recycl
54(12):1208–1218
Liu M, Tan S, Zhang M, He G, Chen Z, Fu Z, Luan C (2020) Waste
paper recycling decision system based on material flow analysis
and life cycle assessment: a case study of waste paper recycling
from China. J Environ Manag 255:109859. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​jjenv​man20​19109​859
MacEachern N (2008) The environmental impact of paper waste recy-
cling: a comparative study. https://​open.​libra​r y.​ubc.​ca/​soa/​cIR-
cle/​colle​ctions/​under​gradu​atere​search/​52966/​items/1.​00754​99.
Accessed 05.January 2022.
Madu CN, Kuei C, Madu IE (2002) A hierarchic metric approach for
integration of green issues in manufacturing: a paper recycling
application. J Environ Manag 64(3):261–272
Magazzino C, Mele M, Schneider N (2020) The relationship between
municipal solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions: evidence
from Switzerland. Waste Manag 113:508–520
Magazzino C, Mele M, Schneider N, Sarkodie SA (2021) Waste gen-
eration wealth and GHG emissions from the waste sector: Is Den-
mark on the path towards circular economy? Sci Total Environ
755:142510. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​jscit​otenv​20201​42510
Massimiliano M (2008) Is waste generation de-linking from eco-
nomic growth? Empirical evidence for Europe. Appl Econ Lett
15(4):287–291
Mazzanti M, Montini A, Zoboli R (2009) Municipal waste generation
and the EKC hypothesis new evidence exploiting province-based
panel data. Appl Econ Lett 16(7):719–725
Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) The
limits to growth. The Limits to Growth. A report for the Club of
Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. (donellameadows.
org). Accessed 01 Jan 2022.
Mirkovic IB, Majnaric I, Bolanca Z (2015) Ecological sustainability
and waste paper recycling. Proc Eng 100:177–186
Murshed M, Dao NTT (2020) Revisiting the CO2 emission-induced
EKC hypothesis in South Asia: the role of export quality improve-
ment. Geo J 87:535–563
Nakamura S (1999) An interindustry approach to analyzing economic
and environmental effects of the recycling of waste. Ecol Econ
28:133–145
Nunoo EK (2019) Sustainable waste management systems in higher
institutions: overview and Advances in Central University Miotso,
Ghana. In: Leal Filho W (ed) Encyclopedia of sustainability in
higher education. Springer, Cham
Ozola ZU, Vesere R, Kalnins SN, Blumberga D (2019) Paper waste
recycling circular economy aspects. Environ Climate Technol
23(3):260–273
Pao H, Chen C (2021) The dynamic interaction between circular
economy and the environment: evidence on EU countries. Waste
Manag Res 40(7):105715. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07342​42X21​
10570​15
Pata UK, Aydin M (2020) Testing the EKC hypothesis for the top six
hydropower energy-consuming countries: evidence from Fourier
Bootstrap ARDL procedure. J Clean Prod 264:121699
Pata UK, Aydin M, Haouas I (2021) Are natural resources abundance
and human development a solution for environmental pressure?
Evidence from top ten countries with the largest ecological foot-
print. Resour Policy 70:101923
Pati RK, Vrat P, Kumar P (2006) Economic analysis of paper recycling
vis-à-vis wood as raw material. Int J Prod Econ 103(2):489–508
Pesaran MH (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogene-
ous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica
74(4):967–1012
Pesaran MH, Yamagata T (2008) Testing slope homogeneity in large
panels. J Econ 142(1):50–93
Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section depend-
ence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper No 1240. General diagnostic
tests for cross section dependence in panels (iza.org). Accessed
15.02.2022.
Prokkola H, Kuokkanen T, Lassi U (2012) Material-efficient utilization
of waste oils—biodegradability and other chemical properties of
vegetable recycling oils. Green Sustain Chem 2(4):133–140
Ross S, Evans D (2003) The environmental effect of reusing and recy-
cling a plastic-based packaging system. J Clean Prod 11:561–571
Salhofer S, Jandric A, Soudachanh S, Xuan TL, Tran TD (2021) Plas-
tic recycling practices in vietnam and related hazards for health
and the environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(8):4203.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerp​h1808​4203
Sasmoko S, Zaman K, Malik M, Awan U, Handayani W, Jabor MK,
Asif M (2022) Environmental effects of bio-waste recycling on
ındustrial circular economy and eco-sustainability. Recycling
7(4):60. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​recyc​ling7​040060
Shang D, Diao G, Liu C, Yu L (2021) The ımpact of waste paper
recycling on the carbon emissions from China’s paper ındustry.
Environ Manag 67:811–821
Smith R (2011) The environmental sustainability of paper. Grad Stud
J Organ Dyn 1(1):1–18
Stevenson TAL (2016) The impact of paper recycling in the society. Int
J Adv Res Comput Sci Manag Stud 4(6):380–389
Swamy PAVB (1970) Efficient inference in a random coefficient regres-
sion model. Econometrica 38(2):311–323
Troschinetz AM, Mihelcic JR (2009) Sustainable recycling of
municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Manag
29(2):915–923
United Nations (1973) Report of the United Nations conference on
the human environment. Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972. Report of
the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment - A/
CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (un-documents.net).Accessed 01 Jan 2022
United Nations (1987) Report of the World commission on environ-
ment and development- our common future. Our Common Future:
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment (sswm.info). Accessed 03 Jan 2022
Venkatacharya SK, Samikannu R, Murugesan S, Dasari NR, Subra-
maniyam RU (2020) Economics and impact of recycling solar
waste materials on the environment and health care. Environ Tech-
nol Innov 20:101130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eti.​2020.​101130
Virtanen Y, Nilsson S (1993) Environmental impacts of waste paper
recycling. Earthscan Publications, London
Westerlund J (2008) Panel cointegration tests of the fisher effect. J Appl
Economet 23(2):193–233
World Bank (2022a) GDP per capita (current US$). Accessed 05 Jan
2022a
World Bank (2022b) Forest area (% of land area). Forest area (% of land
area) | Data (worldbank.org). Acsessed 01 Jan 2022b
Yang H, Ma M, Thompson JR, Flower RJ (2017) Waste management
informal recycling environmental pollution and public health. J
Epidemiol Community Health 72(3):1–7
Yang L, Xiao X, Gu K (2021) Agricultural waste recycling optimi-
zation of family farms based on environmental management
13

accounting in rural China. Sustainability 13(10):5515. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su131​05515
Zhang LW, Sojobi AO, Kodur VKR, Liew KM (2019) Effective utili-
zation and recycling of mixed recycled aggregates for a greener
environment. J Clean Product 236:117600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​jjcle​pro20​19070​75
13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
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.