Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Assessing food security and environmental quality under policy stringency and geopolitics using counterfactual and machine learning approaches

159 Views


Abstract

The provision of food security promotes sustainable economic growth by fostering healthier and more productive populations. However, achieving food security can impose environmental costs, as production and distribution processes contribute to deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource depletion. Environmental policy stringency plays a critical role in mitigating these impacts by regulating industrial practices and promoting sustainable technologies. This study examines the relationship between food security and environmental policy stringency in shaping greenhouse gas emissions and ecological footprints, while accounting for energy consumption, geopolitical risks, and technological innovation. Using Canadian annual time series data from 1990 to 2022, the study employs the dynamic autoregressive distributed lag (DARDL) model to analyze long-run dynamics. The empirical results indicate that a 1% increase in food security raises CO₂ emissions by 0.16% and ecological footprint by 0.14%, confirming its environmentally detrimental effect. Energy consumption exerts the largest impact, increasing CO₂ emissions by 0.60% and ecological footprint by 0.67%. Geopolitical risk contributes positively to environmental degradation, increasing CO₂ emissions by 0.01% and ecological footprint by 0.79%. In contrast, environmental policy stringency reduces CO₂ emissions by 0.13% and ecological footprint by 0.16%, while technological innovation decreases emissions by 0.11% and ecological footprint by 0.10% in the long run. All estimated coefficients are statistically significant at conventional levels. Counterfactual analysis further evaluates the effects of ± 1% and ± 5% shocks among variables, revealing asymmetric environmental responses. The robustness of the findings is confirmed using Kernel-based Regularized Least Squares (KRLS). These results suggest that policymakers must balance food security objectives with environmental sustainability by strengthening environmental regulations and promoting green agricultural technologies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Food waste used as a resource can reduce climate and resource burdens in agrifood systems

Article

11 March 2025

Animal-based foods have high social and climate costs

Article

21 April 2021

The role of institutional quality, energy consumption, and trade openness in food production in major 19 agricultural economies

Article
Open access
14 March 2026

Data availability

Data used in this study are publicly available and can be accessed through the following websites:1. Carbon dioxide emissions: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.GHG.CO2.PC.CE.AR5?locations=CA](https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.GHG.CO2.PC.CE.AR5?locations=CA)2. Ecological footprint: [https://data.footprintnetwork.org](https:/data.footprintnetwork.org)3. Food security: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.PRD.FOOD.XD? locations=CA](https:/data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.PRD.FOOD.XD? locations=CA)4. Environmental policy stringency: [https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis? tm=environmental%20policy%20stringency%20index&pg=0&snb=1&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_EPS%40DF_EPS&df[ag]=OECD.ECO.MAD&df[vs]=1.0&dq=.A.EPS&lom=LASTNPERIODS&lo=5&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&vw=tb](https:/data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?tm=environmental%20policy%20stringency%20index&pg=0&snb=1&df%5bds%5d=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df%5bid%5d=DSD_EPS%40DF_EPS&df%5bag%5d=OECD.ECO.MAD&df%5bvs%5d=1.0&dq=.A.EPS&lom=LASTNPERIODS&lo=5&to%5bTIME_PERIOD%5d=false&vw=tb)5. Total energy consumption: [https://www.eia.gov/international/overview/country/CAN](https:/www.eia.gov/international/overview/country/CAN)6. Global geopolitical risk index: [https://www.matteoiacoviello.com/gpr.htm](https:/www.matteoiacoviello.com/gpr.htm)7. Technology innovation: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IP.PAT.RESD](https:/www.data.worldbank.org/indicator/IP.PAT.RESD).

References

  1. Ashraf, J. & Javed, A. Food security and environmental degradation: Do institutional quality and human capital make a difference?. J. Environ. Manage. 331, 117330 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wang, Y., Yuan, Z. & Tang, Y. Enhancing food security and environmental sustainability: A critical review of food loss and waste management. Resour. Environ. Sustain. 4, 100023 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ladha-Sabur, A., Bakalis, S., Fryer, P. J. & Lopez-Quiroga, E. Mapping energy consumption in food manufacturing. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 86, 270–280 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Çamkaya, S., Kaya, Y., Brika, S. K., Barut, A. & Ali, K. Do Fossil Fuel Consumption, Eco-Friendly Technology and Financial Development Have an Impact on Environmental Quality Under the LCC Hypothesis? Evidence From E‐7 Countries. Geological Journal. (2025).

  5. Karaaslan, A. & Camkaya, S. The relationship between CO2 emissions, economic growth, health expenditure, and renewable and non-renewable energy consumption: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Renew. Energy. 190, 457–466 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Liu, T., Wang, H. Z., Wang, H. Z. & Xu, H. The spatiotemporal evolution of ecological security in China based on the ecological footprint model with localization of parameters. Ecol. Indic. 126, 107636 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. How much of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food? (Our World in Data, 2024).

  8. Sharma, G. D., Shah, M. I., Shahzad, U., Jain, M. & Chopra, R. Exploring the nexus between agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions in BIMSTEC region: The role of renewable energy and human capital as moderators. J. Environ. Manage. 297, 113316 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yirong, Q. Does environmental policy stringency reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from high-polluted economies. J. Clean. Prod. 341, 130648 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jiang, C., Wang, Y., Yang, Z. & Zhao, Y. Do adaptive policy adjustments deliver ecosystem-agriculture-economy co-benefits in land degradation neutrality efforts? Evidence from southeast coast of China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 195 (10), 1215 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ahmed, K. Environmental policy stringency, related technological change and emissions inventory in 20 OECD countries. J. Environ. Manage. 274, 111209 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aydin, M. & Bozatli, O. The effects of green innovation, environmental taxes, and financial development on renewable energy consumption in OECD countries. Energy 280, 128105 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kilinc-Ata, N., Camkaya, S. & Topal, S. What role do foreign direct investment and technology play in shaping the impact on environmental sustainability in newly industrialized countries (NIC)? New evidence from wavelet quantile regression. Sustainability 17 (11), 4966 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Infante-Amate, J., Travieso, E. & Aguilera, E. Unsustainable prosperity? Decoupling wellbeing, economic growth, and greenhouse gas emissions over the past 150 years. World Dev. 184, 106754 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cui, L., Yue, S., Nghiem, X. H. & Duan, M. Exploring the risk and economic vulnerability of global energy supply chain interruption in the context of Russo-Ukrainian war. Resour. Policy 81, 103373 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Li, C., Zhang, W., Huang, X. & Zhang, J. F. Geopolitical risks, institutional environment, and food price inflation. Appl. Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2386853 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen, D. T., Le, T. H., Do, D. D. & Nguyen, H. N. Does geopolitical risk hinder sustainable development goals? Evidence from a panel analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 347, 119204 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liu, S., Jiang, R., Liu, L. & Chan, F. T. A hybrid method combining three-way decision and DEA game cross-efficiency for procurement mode selection in contract farming. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2025.102336 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Xie, X. et al. Measuring and enhancing food security resilience in China under climate change. Systems 13(12), 1054 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jin, H., Tsai, F. S. & Martinez-Vazquez, J. Optimal expenditure decentralization for sustainable development: evidence from a 52-country panel analysis. Financial Innov. 11 (1), 111 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Porter, M. America’s green strategy. Bus. environment: Read. 33, 1072 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Porter, M. E. & van der Linde, C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 9(4), 97–118 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Elahi, E., Khalid, Z. & Zhang, Z. Understanding farmers’ intention and willingness to install renewable energy technology: A solution to reduce the environmental emissions of agriculture. Appl. Energy 309, 118459 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sahu, S. & Arya, S. K. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture and food processing through sustainable management practices for climate change. In Advances and Technology Development in Greenhouse Gases: Emission, Capture and Conversion (71–96). Elsevier. (2024).

  25. Majeed, Y. et al. Renewable energy as an alternative source for energy management in agriculture. Energy Rep. 10, 344–359 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gliessman, S. R. Package price agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems (CRC, 2021).

  27. OECD. Environmental Policy Stringency Index. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/measuring-environmental-policy-stringency-in-oecd-countries_90ab82e8-en.html

  28. Osman, M., Schwartz, P. & Wodak, S. Sustainable consumption: What works best, carbon taxes, subsidies and/or nudges?. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43(3), 169–194 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ahmad, M., Li, X. F. & Wu, Q. Carbon taxes and emission trading systems: Which one is more effective in reducing carbon emissions? A meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143761 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Li, Z. et al. Integration of renewable energy, environmental policy stringency, and climate technologies in realizing environmental sustainability: Evidence from OECD countries. Renewable Energy 196, 1376–1384 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Christoph, B., Schneider, J. & Emmanuel, A. O. Trade in carbon and carbon tariffs. Environ. Resource Econ. 78 (4), 669–708 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Klenert, D. et al. Making carbon pricing work for citizens. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8(8), 669–677 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rehman, A., Ma, H., Ozturk, I. & Radulescu, M. Revealing the dynamic effects of fossil fuel energy, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and carbon emissions on Pakistan’s economic growth. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (32), 48784–48794 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zakeri, B. et al. Pandemic, war, and global energy transitions. Energies 15 (17), 6114 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Aswani, R. S. & Sajith, S. Cooperative Sustainable Development: A Geostrategic Band-Aid to Energy Insecurity (Springer Nature, 2024).

  36. Sovacool, B. K., Martiskainen, M., Hook, A. & Baker, L. Decarbonization and its discontents: A critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions. Clim. Change 155, 581–619 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  37. World Bank. World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2023).

    Google Scholar 

  38. York University Ecological Footprint Initiative & Global Footprint Network. National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts. (2023). Retrieved from https://data.footprintnetwork.org

  39. OECD. Environmental policy: Environmental Policy Stringency index. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/environmental-policy-stringency-index_2bc0bb80-en

  40. EIA. Canada country data on total energy consumption. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/international/overview/country/CAN

  41. Caldara, D. & Iacoviello, M. Measuring geopolitical risk. Am. Econ. Rev. 112 (4), 1194–1225 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R. J. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J. Appl. Econom. 16(3), 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jordan, S. & Philips, A. Q. Cointegration testing and dynamic simulations of autoregressive distributed lag models. Stata J. 18(4), 902–923 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Çelik, A. & Özırmak, M. Understanding the association between Bitcoin mining and environmental sustainability in light of the Sustainable Development Goals through the DARDL and KRLS methods. Sustain. Dev. 33(5), 6505–6527 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lin, B. & Ullah, S. Modeling the impacts of changes in nuclear energy, natural gas, and coal in the environment through the novel DARDL approach. Energy 287, 129572 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kripfganz, S. & Schneider, D. C. Response surface regressions for critical value bounds and approximate p-values in equilibrium correction models 1. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 82(6), 1456–1481 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hainmueller, J. & Hazlett, C. KRLS: Kernel-based Regularized Least squares (KRLS). R package version 0.3-7 (2014). R-project. org/package= KRLS.

  48. Sarkodie, S. A. & Owusu, P. A. How to apply the novel dynamic ARDL simulations (dynardl) and kernel-based regularized least squares (krls). MethodsX 7, 101160 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sun, C., Xia, E., Huang, J. & Tong, H. Coupled coordination and pathway analysis of food security and carbon emission efficiency under climate-smart agriculture orientation. Sci. Total Environ. 948, 174706 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Niu, K. Y., Hui, G. U. O. & Jing, L. I. U. Can food security and low carbon be achieved simultaneously?—An empirical analysis of the mechanisms influencing the carbon footprint of potato and corn cultivation in irrigation areas. J. Integr. Agric. 22(4), 1230–1243 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  51. He, Y. Food security and agriculture value-added: Do they asymmetrically matter for Korean environmental sustainability?. Cogent Food & Agriculture 9(1), 2213525 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Li, S., Samour, A., Irfan, M. & Ali, M. Role of renewable energy and fiscal policy on trade adjusted carbon emissions: Evaluating the role of environmental policy stringency. Renew. Energy. 205, 156–165 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Dai, S. & Du, X. Discovering the role of trade diversification, natural resources, and environmental policy stringency on ecological sustainability in the BRICST region. Resour. Policy 85, 103868 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kirikkaleli, D., Güngör, H. & Adebayo, T. S. Consumption-based carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in Chile. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31(3), 1123–1137 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Shah, W. U. H. et al. Role of renewable, non-renewable energy consumption and carbon emission in energy efficiency and productivity change: Evidence from G20 economies. Geosci. Front. 15(4), 101631 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ding, T., Li, H., Tan, R. & Zhao, X. How does geopolitical risk affect carbon emissions?: An empirical study from the perspective of mineral resources extraction in OECD countries. Resour. Policy 85, 103983 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Li, R., Wang, Q. & Guo, J. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis of carbon emissions: Exploring the impact of geopolitical risks, natural resource rents, corrupt governance, and energy intensity. J. Environ. Manage. 351, 119663 (2024a).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Villanthenkodath, M. A. & Pal, S. Environmental degradation in geopolitical risk and uncertainty contexts for India: A comparison of ecological footprint, CO2 emissions, and load capacity factor. Energy Clim. Change 5, 100122 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Dong, F. et al. How green technology innovation affects carbon emission efficiency: Evidence from developed countries proposing carbon neutrality targets. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29(24), 35780–35799 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Saqib, N. & Dincă, G. Exploring the asymmetric impact of economic complexity, FDI, and green technology on carbon emissions: Policy stringency for clean-energy investing countries. Geosci. Front. 15(4), 101671 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Nketiah, E., Song, H., Adjei, M., Obuobi, B. & Adu-Gyamfi, G. Assessing the influence of research and development, environmental policies, and green technology on ecological footprint for achieving environmental sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 199, 114508 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the “University of Debrecen Program for Scientific Publication”.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Debrecen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Technology Management, Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Board Bazar, Gazipur, Bangladesh

    Md. Idris Ali

  2. Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada

    Md. Idris Ali

  3. Doctoral School of Management and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi street 138, Debrecen, 4032, Hungary

    Mohammad Bin Amin

  4. Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Business Studies, Army University of Science and Technology, Nilphamari, Saidpur, 5310, Bangladesh

    Mohammad Bin Amin

  5. North South University, Bashundhara R/A, Dhaka, 1229, Bangladesh

    Mohammad Salahuddin

  6. Department of Business and Technology Management, Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Board Bazar, Gazipur, Bangladesh

    Md. Nahin Hossain

  7. Doctoral School of Management and Business Administration, John von Neumann University, Kecskemét, 6000, Hungary

    Judit Oláh

  8. Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, Böszörményi street 138, Debrecen, 4032, Hungary

    Judit Oláh

  9. Department of Trade and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    Judit Oláh

  10. Department of Business Studies, State University of Bangladesh, 696 Kendua, Kanchan, Rupganj, Narayanganj, 1461, Dhaka, Bangladesh

    Mohammad Bin Amin

Authors

  1. Md. Idris Ali
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Bin Amin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Salahuddin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Md. Nahin Hossain
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Judit Oláh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Md. Idris Ali: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Data analysis, Writing – original draftMohammad Bin Amin: Writing – review & editing, Software, ResourcesMohammad Salahuddin: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Data curationMd. Nahin Hossain: Software, Resources, Methodology, Data curationJudit Oláh: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to
Md. Idris Ali or Mohammad Bin Amin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare 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

See Fig 18

Fig. 18
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Full size image

(Source: www.vecteezy.com/vector-art/21523296-detailed-map-of-canada).

Map of Canada.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ali, M.I., Amin, M.B., Salahuddin, M. et al. Assessing food security and environmental quality under policy stringency and geopolitics using counterfactual and machine learning approaches.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48181-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48181-3

Keywords

  • Food security
  • Policy stringency
  • Geopolitics
  • Carbon emissions
  • Ecological footprint

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Dynamics and ecology of a multistage expansion of Oropouche virus in Brazil

Deficit-irrigation management for sustainable grape production (Vitis vinifera L.): different regimes to assess yield and berry quality under arid conditions

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close