+7 925 966 4690, 9am6pm (GMT+3), Monday – Friday
ИД «Финансы и кредит»

JOURNALS

  

FOR AUTHORS

  

SUBSCRIBE

    
Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice
 

Studying the relationship between energy footprint and economic development based on the net primary productivity model: Evidence from China and Russia

Vol. 24, Iss. 1, JANUARY 2025

Received: 2 September 2024

Accepted: 2 November 2024

Available online: 17 January 2025

Subject Heading: INTEGRATED ECONOMIC-SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

JEL Classification: L92, O33, R41

Pages: 153-171

https://doi.org/10.24891/ea.24.1.153

Zhang SHULIN Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation
2534415499@qq.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6897-6219

Subject. The article addresses energy consumption of China and Russia from 2000 to 2021.
Objectives. The purpose of the study is to investigate the energy footprint intensity and the environmental pressure of energy footprint of China and Russia, to conduct a comparative analysis of relationship between energy footprint and economic development.
Methods. The study draws on general scientific research methods.
Results. China's energy footprint is about seven times higher than Russia's one, and the difference is increasing every year. The structure of energy consumption in Russia is better than in China. The energy footprint intensity of China and Russia demonstrate a downward trend from year to year. Environmental pressure on China's energy footprint is increasing every year. Russia experiences less environmental stress and is in good environmental condition.
Conclusions. According to the gray forecasting model, China's energy footprint will show a linear growth trend from 2022 to 2030, and the environmental pressure of the energy footprint will continue to grow. Being the world's largest consumer (China) and producer (Russia) of oil and gas, their cooperation can bring mutual benefits and win-win results.

Keywords: energy footprint, gray forecasting model, Tapio decoupling model, China, comparative analysis

References:

  1. Kitzes J., Galli A., Bagliani M. et al. A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts. Ecological Economics, 2009, vol. 68, iss. 7, pp. 1991–2007. URL: Link
  2. Chen Min, Zhang Lijun, Wang Rusong et al. Dynamics of ecological footprint of China from 1978 to 2003. Resources Science, 2005, vol. 27, iss. 6, pp. 132–139.
  3. Li Zuo, Han Yafen, Chen Jianyong. Spatial-temporal Dynamic Characteristics and Effect Analysis of Energy Ecological Footprint in China. Resource Development and Market, 2010, vol. 8, pp. 693–696.
  4. Liu Moucheng, Wang Bin, Li Wenhua. Analysis and Dynamic Prediction of China’s Development Based on the Ecological Footprint Method. Resources Science, 2010, vol. 1, pp. 163–170.
  5. Huang Yusheng, Qu Jiansheng, Liu Lina. Research on the differences of carbon footprint and carbon carrying capacity based on provincial level in China. Ecological Economy, 2016, vol. 32, pp. 38–43.
  6. Feng Yin, Cheng Jinhua, Shen Jun. Spatial effect of provincial energy ecological footprint in China. Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Sciences Edition) , 2017, iss. 3, pp. 85–96.
  7. Zhou Qian, Yu Xinghou, Li Wenhua, Wang Yamei. Analysis of spatial effect of energy ecological footprint in the Yangtze River Economic Belt: Based on the perspective of regional division of labor. Resource Development and Market, 2018, vol. 12, pp. 1685–1692.
  8. Tetior A.N. [Town-planning development of territories: Ecological restrictions]. Prirodoobustroistvo, 2010, no. 2, pp. 9–16. URL: Link (In Russ.)
  9. Sausheva O.S. [Ecological footprint of modern socio-economic systems: Measurement and trends]. Nauchnyi zhurnal NIU ITMO. Seriya: Ekonomika i ekologicheskii menedzhment, 2020, no. 3. (In Russ.) URL: Link
  10. Artamonov G.E., Gutnikov V.A., Vasenev I.I. [Environmental assessment of the thermal power plants nitrogen footprint in the Russian Federation]. Problemy regional'noi ekologii = Regional Environmental Issues, 2022, no. 4, pp. 5–15. URL: Link (In Russ.)
  11. Mustafaev K.Zh., Maimekov Z.K. ["Ecological footprint" as a basis for assessing the ecological capacity of the natural system of Kazakhstan]. Gidrometeorologiya i ekologiya = Hydrometeorology and Ecology, 2015, no. 3, pp. 127–136. URL: Link (In Russ.)
  12. Kir'yanova A.D., Dolidze M.E., Karakeyan V.I. et al. [Carbon footprint as an indicator of the environmental safety of microelectronics production]. Pribory = Instruments, 2023, no. 4, pp. 19–23. (In Russ.)
  13. Li Jing. 3S Land-Based Eco-efficiency of the Loess Plateau and Ecological Safety Evaluation. Surveying and Mapping Press, 2013.
  14. Deng Xuankai, Liu Yanfang, Li Jiwei. Comparative study on regional carbon footprint of energy consumption calculation models: A case study of Hubei Province. Ecology and Environment, 2012, vol. 9, pp. 1533–1538.
  15. Venetoulis J., Talberth J. Refining the ecological footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2008, vol. 10, pp. 441–469. URL: Link
  16. Xiong Hongbin, Zheng Huijuan. Research on the influencing factors of Anhui Province's energy footprint based on carbon sink method and NPP method. Journal of Hefei University of Technology (Natural Science) , 2023, vol. 2, pp. 254–260.
  17. Tapio P. Towards a theory of decoupling: Degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport Policy, 2005, vol. 12, iss. 2, pp. 137–151. URL: Link
  18. Feng Mei, Li Wenhua. Changes in primary energy consumption structure and high-quality economic development in China over the past 70 years. Economic Issues, 2019, vol. 7, pp. 9–15.

View all articles of issue

 

ISSN 2311-8725 (Online)
ISSN 2073-039X (Print)

Journal current issue

Vol. 24, Iss. 1
January 2025

Archive

Видите ошибку в отчестве? Отключите перевод, это английская версия сайта!