Emerging evidence in the operational functional domain highlights leaders’ need to navigate ethical and risk management issues by establishing robust governance structures prioritizing patient data privacy and security while ethically integrating AI technologies within existing workflows. Additionally, the literature emphasizes that implementing AI in health care will require leaders to ensure new AI solutions comply with existing regulatory and control systems. The literature highlighted that leaders need to pay attention to process agility through continuous monitoring to ensure AI solutions can adapt to contextual changes.
Finally, the organizational functional domain emerges from the thematic analysis as a pivotal area for AI leadership. The literature emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement in building collaboration. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of decision makers’ sense-making to enhance their trust in AI opportunities and ensure that AI integration is supported by individuals across the organization. Further, the literature underscored the importance of organizational culture readiness to support physicians and nurses through protected time and incentive pay to engage, innovate, and adopt AI solutions. Table 3 provides a summary of how operational and organizational functional domains map across the papers.
Author | Functional domain | Key themes | Functional domain | Key themes | ||||||
Operational | Ethical and risk management | Regulatory compliance | Process agility | Organizational | Stakeholder engagement or collaboration | Trust and sense-making | Organizational culture and readiness | |||
Barbour et al [ ] | ||||||||||
Darcel et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Dicuonzo et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Dixit et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Ergin et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Galsgaard et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Ganapathi and Duggal [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Gillan [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Hakim et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Henriksen and Bechmann [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Laukka et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Li et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Morley et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Nasseef et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Olaye and Seixas [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Petersson et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Ronquillo et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Sawers et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Strohm et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Upshaw et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Willis et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
Yang et al [ ] | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
We categorized the themes related to skills and behaviors into 3 essential capacities that a leader must demonstrate to achieve desired goals—technical capacity, adaptive capacity, and interpersonal capacity. Technical capacity encompasses (1) AI literacy, (2) subject matter knowledge, (3) change leadership skills, and (4) innovation mindset to identify AI innovation opportunities. The interpersonal capacity involves several vital facets such as (1) the ability to foster partnerships among diverse stakeholders, (2) the ability to comprehend diverse stakeholder perspectives and deftly influence adoption, (3) the ability to build trust and collaboration, (4) self-awareness and humility to assemble teams with complementary skills, and (5) the integrity and accountability to embody ethical principles. The adaptive capacity encompasses (1) the foresight and sense-making abilities to discern emerging technologies and their implications within the health care sphere; (2) the agility to identify and capitalize on transformative opportunities, swiftly adapting and aligning strategies with evolving contexts; and (3) systems thinking to enable an understanding of how elements interconnect and how changes in 1 area can reverberate throughout the entire system.
The emerging themes from our review reveal that dynamic environmental and situational factors, including regulatory, technology, and organizational contexts, shape AI transformation within health care organizations. For instance, the regulatory context and frameworks related to health professions and health care organizations play a critical role in how AI can be integrated within the organizations. Similarly, the technology context such as the availability of AI technical talent, the retention of technical expertise, the dynamic nature of AI maturity, and the presence of incentives and technological resources for AI innovation or adoption will significantly influence a leader’s ability to effectively drive AI readiness. Finally, the organization context is a critical influence on leaders’ capacity for AI adoption and implementation. Organizations that promote and reward innovation and that have transparent communication practices shape leaders’ ability to pursue AI opportunities.
For the technological domain, the included papers discussed approaches such as upskilling clinical experts with the necessary AI technical skills and ensuring the presence of specialized experts, such as computer scientists, to enable the subject matter experts to develop, test, and seamlessly integrate AI solutions. Further, the papers discussed collaborative strategies such as clinicians and computer scientists working together to effectively identify AI opportunities and develop, adopt, and implement AI solutions in clinical or operational areas.
For the strategic domain, organizational support was essential in supporting leaders to assess and identify AI opportunities that strategically align with organizational priorities and develop strategies to ensure AI transformation garners support from key stakeholders within the complex regulatory and environmental contexts. The literature also highlighted the competition for AI talent in health care and emphasized the significance of talent retention strategies to preserve the organization’s AI technical expertise.
Then, in the operational domain, the emphasis was on establishing governance structures to continuously monitor data quality, patient privacy, and patient care experiences and assess the feasibility and financial implications of AI transformation. These governance structures ensure effective oversight and management of AI initiatives within health care organizations.
Finally, for the organizational domain, the focus was on the pivotal role of organizational culture in AI leadership. Leaders require organizational support to cultivate an environment that fosters innovation and actively incentivizes clinical leaders, such as physicians and nurses, through protected time and incentive pay to innovate and adopt AI solutions. Transparent decision-making processes related to AI solutions are essential cultural elements that build trust in AI systems and promote collaboration among the diverse stakeholders involved in AI transformation within health care organizations.
The purpose of a scoping review is not to draw definitive conclusions but to map the literature, identify emerging patterns, and develop critical propositions. As described in Figure 2 , analysis of current literature shows that leading organizations toward AI transformation requires multidimensional leadership. As such, health care organizations need to engage leaders in the technological, strategic, operational, and organizational domains to facilitate AI transformation in their organizations. Further, the reviewed papers suggest that individuals in AI-related leadership roles need to demonstrate (1) technical capacity to understand the technology and innovation opportunities, (2) adaptive capacity to respond to contextual changes, and (3) interpersonal capacity to navigate the human aspects of the AI transformation process effectively. Furthermore, our study illuminates that leaders in the AI-related leadership roles need to navigate regulatory context, the dynamic nature of changing technology context, and organization context.
Health care organizations are marked by multifaceted interdependencies among medical facilities, health care providers, patients, administrative units, technology, and the regulatory environment. Therefore, the leadership required for AI transformation—which includes identifying AI opportunities, implementing AI solutions, and achieving full-scale AI adaptation—is not a static role but a continuous and dynamic process. Effective leadership involves the capacity to continuously identify opportunities for AI transformation, influence the thoughts and actions of others, and navigate the complex dynamics of the health care setting and AI technology landscape simultaneously. However, the current literature has not fully articulated this multidimensionality, often focusing on leadership through a linear approach.
Further, multiple situational factors can shape AI transformation. First, the rapid growth of AI technologies introduces an element of uncertainty, making it challenging to anticipate the long-term impact and sustainability of specific AI solutions [ 6 ]. Second, AI implementation involves many stakeholders, from technical experts and domain specialists to clinicians, administrators, patients, vendors, and regulatory bodies. Each stakeholder group brings its unique perspectives, priorities, and control systems into the equation, necessitating leaders to navigate competing values, trade-offs, and paradoxes [ 27 ]. Third, once alignment is achieved, the integration of AI within an organization triggers a need for a cultural shift, altering work practices and decision-making processes [ 38 , 59 ]. Fourth, the effectiveness of AI solutions hinges on the availability of high-quality data for informed insights and decision-making. When implementing solutions originally developed within different contexts, local organizations must ensure data integrity and the solution’s adaptability to the organization’s unique context [ 18 ]. This challenge is compounded by emerging regulatory frameworks, which add a layer of complexity. Ensuring compliance and the responsible use of AI technologies has become a critical consideration [ 29 , 50 , 60 ]. Finally, introducing AI may provoke resistance from employees concerned about job displacement or disruptions to established workflows. This problem is further compounded when an organization transitions toward integrating multiple AI systems, as these changes can lead to periods of chaos and confusion [ 59 ].
Emerging key opinions and evidence from outside the health domain indicate that leaders must possess an understanding of data quality nuances, assess process risks, and manage AI as a new team member. Additionally, leaders should have a firm grasp of technology, articulate clear business objectives, define precise goals, uphold a long-term vision, prepare their teams for AI transformation, manage data resources effectively, and foster organizational collaboration [ 3 , 61 - 67 ].
Our findings on the leadership required for AI transformation in health care organizations reinforce this multidimensionality of leadership to effectively navigate the complexities of AI transformation and successfully leverage its potential to drive transformative change. Leaders must operate across different functional domains—technological, strategic, operational, and organizational—while demonstrating technical, adaptive, and interpersonal capacities.
Further, our findings show contingency leadership theories, complexity theory, and transformational leadership theory as relevant theoretical domains for further explaining the different facets of leadership behaviors needed to navigate the multidimensionality of leadership required for AI transformation.
Contingency theories suggest that leadership effectiveness depends on situational factors, which should be considered in future AI implementation studies in the context of AI adaptation and integration within health care organizations [ 68 , 69 ]. Complexity theory provides a framework for examining leadership behaviors in interconnected, dynamic environments where leaders must balance innovation and stability and demonstrate an adaptive approach to challenges, characterized by uncertainty and change [ 70 - 73 ]. Transformational leadership theory emphasizes motivating, empowering, and developing others by fostering trust and collaboration while challenging the status quo to drive organizational change and innovation [ 74 , 75 ]. These theories should be considered in future AI implementation studies within health care organizations.
Future research and training programs related to AI in health care should examine the leadership required for AI transformation through the lens of multidimensionality, providing insights into the interrelatedness of functional domains, leadership capacities, and contextual enablers and barriers, while exploring the key theoretical domains related to contingency, complexity, and transformational leadership to further understand the interpersonal dynamics shaping AI transformation in health care.
Some limitations to our scoping review are worth noting. First, given the contextual variability in the included studies and the methodological variations, we could not establish firm correlations about specific leadership domains, capacities, and contextual factors; the effectiveness of leadership approaches; or the moderating effects of contextual factors. Consequently, we have presented only the overarching emergent themes.
Second, our study is limited by the significant variation in conceptual definitions of leadership and leadership competencies found in the current literature, which often lacks more standardized definitions or instruments for measurement. This variation caused conceptual inconsistencies. We addressed the inconsistencies by clearly defining what constitutes a functional domain, capacity, and context before our data analysis to address this. We iteratively coded the data into themes to ensure all relevant aspects were captured.
Third, our search strategy focused on MEDLINE-indexed journals, which may exclude some newer journals indexed in PubMed but not yet in MEDLINE. While this might limit the capture of the very latest advancements in digital health, it does not diminish the robustness of the review. Fourth, we retrieved only articles written in English, which possibly limited the comprehensiveness of our findings. Fifth, we looked at AI as a system and did not look at the relationship between the implementation of different types of AI tools and leadership behaviors which was beyond the scope of our review. Finally, our analysis used an inductive approach and was not informed by a predetermined theory to aid the mapping of the literature. This may have limited our analysis in capturing different elements of an umbrella theory.
Leading organizations toward AI transformation is an adaptive challenge influenced by a myriad of interwoven situational factors that create a dynamic and intricate environment. The body of literature related to AI in health care is rapidly expanding, and the recommendations imparted by this review, alongside the multidimensional leadership framework ( Figure 2 ), stand poised to guide research and practice to empower health care organizations in their AI transformation journey. Future research on AI transformation, which includes innovation identification, implementation, and scaling, can use this framework to understand the role of leadership in driving successful outcomes.
Further, future research must undergo methodological expansion by embracing qualitative and mixed methods approaches to illuminate the intricate temporal aspects of AI transformation and corresponding evolving leadership behaviors.
In summary, emerging evidence shows that multidimensional leadership plays crucial role in AI transformation in health care organization. Leaders must adeptly balance technology opportunities while demonstrating unwavering empathy for stakeholder needs and nimble adaptability to accommodating the ever-changing contextual landscape, which encompasses the regulatory frameworks, the evolution of technology, and the organization’s priorities.
This work is supported through a grant from the University of Toronto’s Connaught Global Challenges. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the study.
The main study data are the data extraction materials and quality ratings of included papers, most of which are included in the study tables. The data sets generated and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
All authors were involved in conception and design of the study and approved the protocol. AS and NS were responsible for overseeing the search of databases and literature. AS, NS, and SS were involved in the screening of articles, data extraction and data verification, and analysis of data. All authors were involved in data interpretation, supported in the drafting of the paper, which was led by AS, and all authors supported in revising and formatting of the paper. All authors have provided final approval of the version of the paper submitted for publication, and all authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
None declared.
Updated PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) checklist.
artificial intelligence |
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews |
Edited by T de Azevedo Cardoso, G Eysenbach; submitted 14.11.23; peer-reviewed by D Chrimes, TAR Sure, S Kommireddy, J Konopik, M Brommeyer; comments to author 20.02.24; revised version received 12.03.24; accepted 15.07.24; published 14.08.24.
©Abi Sriharan, Nigar Sekercioglu, Cheryl Mitchell, Senthujan Senkaiahliyan, Attila Hertelendy, Tracy Porter, Jane Banaszak-Holl. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 14.08.2024.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 11 , Article number: 1043 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
This study examines the multifaceted impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on environmental sustainability, specifically targeting ecological footprints, carbon emissions, and energy transitions. Utilizing panel data from 67 countries, we employ System Generalized Method of Moments (SYS-GMM) and Dynamic Panel Threshold Models (DPTM) to analyze the complex interactions between AI development and key environmental metrics. The estimated coefficients of the benchmark model show that AI significantly reduces ecological footprints and carbon emissions while promoting energy transitions, with the most substantial impact observed in energy transitions, followed by ecological footprint reduction and carbon emissions reduction. Nonlinear analysis indicates several key insights: (i) a higher proportion of the industrial sector diminishes the inhibitory effect of AI on ecological footprints and carbon emissions but enhances its positive impact on energy transitions; (ii) increased trade openness significantly amplifies AI’s ability to reduce carbon emissions and promote energy transitions; (iii) the environmental benefits of AI are more pronounced at higher levels of AI development, enhancing its ability to reduce ecological footprints and carbon emissions and promote energy transitions; (iv) as the energy transition process deepens, AI’s effectiveness in reducing ecological footprints and carbon emissions increases, while its role in promoting further energy transitions decreases. This study enriches the existing literature by providing a nuanced understanding of AI’s environmental impact and offers a robust scientific foundation for global policymakers to develop sustainable AI management frameworks.
The world is now facing a series of environmental degradations, from water and air pollution to the depletion of ecological resources and many of them are confirmed to be caused by human activities. According to the Global Footprint Network (GFN), the ecological pressure from human activities has exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity by 75% (Network 2019 ). The significant impact of humans on the environment, in turn, affects human development, including economic activities, health conditions, and energy availability. Consequently, both developed and developing countries worldwide have taken various measures, such as conserving natural resources, limiting carbon emissions, and accelerating energy transitions, to mitigate the increasingly urgent climate and environmental issues. For instance, nearly all countries have signed the Paris Climate Change Agreement (PCCA) and committed to reducing their carbon emission levels. Additionally, many countries have announced their energy transition strategies, promoting a shift from fossil fuel dependence to renewable energy reliance to balance energy demand and reduce environmental impacts (Dong et al. 2022a ). Therefore, besides economic growth, protecting ecological resources, reducing carbon emissions, and increasing the utilization of renewable energy have become important development goals for governments worldwide in recent years.
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought multiple impacts on people’s lives and production methods, with its applications increasingly extending into manufacturing, energy, healthcare, logistics, finance, and other fields (Zavyalova et al. 2023 ). According to a recent study published by Forbes, the global AI market is projected to reach a staggering $71 billion by 2024. As a game-changing technology, AI’s rapid development presents unprecedented opportunities and challenges for global environmental protection efforts (Ahmad et al. 2022 ). On one hand, AI’s powerful computing capabilities are believed to help increase productivity and achieve economies of scale, thereby conserving resources and energy for the whole society (Wang et al. 2023c ). On the other hand, an increasing number of practitioners and scholars point out that the explosive growth in AI capabilities is accompanied by an exponential increase in the energy consumption required for AI training. For example, research indicates that training a single model like ChatGPT consumes 1.287 gigawatt-hours of electricity, roughly equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of 120 American households (Probst 2023 ). In short, AI is impacting the current energy system in different directions through multiple channels.
In response to the opportunities and threats brought by the rapid development of AI, more and more countries are turning their attention to regulating, guiding, and utilizing AI to protect the environment, reduce carbon emissions, or promote energy transition, aiming to align AI development with sustainable development standards. Table 1 summarizes some national strategies that emphasize harnessing AI’s potential for sustainability. However, the actual impact of AI on environmental actions remains unclear. Therefore, this study raises the question: What effects does AI development have on the environmental indicators, especially the ecological environment, carbon emissions, and energy transition? How do external conditions such as industrial structure and trade openness influence these effects? Answering these questions is crucial to ensuring AI stays on a sustainable development track and further optimizing AI policies.
From the existing literature, the factors influencing environmental degradation and energy transition have been extensively studied, providing a solid theoretical foundation for subsequent research. However, the emerging variable of AI has rarely been integrated into traditional research frameworks. Additionally, some studies have explored the potential opportunities and threats of AI concerning the ecological environment, carbon emissions, and energy transition from various perspectives but lack systematic and quantitative evaluation. To fill in this gap, this paper aims to quantitatively assess the impact of AI on the ecological environment, carbon emissions, and energy transition and explore the possible heterogeneity and nonlinearity of these impacts. First, based on panel data from 67 countries between 1993 and 2019, a set of SYS-GMM models is employed to investigate the effects of AI on ecological footprint, carbon emissions, and energy transition. Second, the potential differences in AI’s impact across developed and middle-income countries are discussed by grouping countries according to their development stages. Finally, a series of threshold models are constructed using industrial structure, trade openness, AI development level, and energy transition level as threshold variables to clarify the nonlinear characteristics of these impacts. This article aims to clarify the multifaceted environmental impacts of AI and explore its potential heterogeneity and nonlinearity, providing a scientific foundation for global policymakers. Amid the current complex and controversial relationship between AI and the environment, this research helps policymakers develop and manage AI sustainably.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature. Section 3 briefly introduces the methodology and data. Section 4 discusses the empirical results. Conclusions and policy implications are presented in Section 5.
Although the core variables of this paper include carbon emissions, ecological footprint, energy transition, and AI, they come from a classic and broad topic, namely the technology-environment nexus. Therefore, we first review previous discussions on the impact of technological factors on important environmental indicators. Subsequently, we focus on the qualitative discussion and empirical research on the specific environmental impact of AI. Finally, we discussed the gap in existing literature.
Ecological footprint, carbon emissions, and energy transition are three variables that have been widely used to assess sustainability in previous research: Ecological footprint refers to the biologically productive areas that can provide the resources needed for human survival or consume the waste discharged by human beings,.and can be used to measure the pressure of human activities on the ecological environment; reducing carbon emissions is the most direct way to slow down climate change; energy transition is the key path to achieve environmental protection and climate mitigation, marking the recognition of human beings on renewable energy, a clean resource. Examining the determinants of each of these sustainability indicators is a hot topic in the empirical literature on energy economics (Dong et al. 2022b ; Ehigiamusoe and Dogan 2022 ; Wang et al. 2024b . Among the various factors that may affect the above environmental indicators, technological factors are considered to be crucial. Technology has a profound impact on many aspects of residents’ social life and economic production, and these impacts will ultimately change a country’s energy use and interaction with nature (Wang et al. 2024a ). In other words, technological factors may have a positive or negative impact on carbon emissions, ecological footprint, and energy transition.
For example, in terms of the nexus of technology and carbon emissions, Cheng et al. ( 2018 ) used the DEA-Malmquist method to measure the total factor productivity of 30 provinces in China from 1998 to 2014 as an indicator of technological progress. The findings show that technological advances reduce carbon intensity by increasing production efficiency. Gu et al. ( 2019 ) used the number of energy technology patents to represent technological progress, and found an inverted U-shaped relationship between energy technology progress and carbon emissions. Technologies that affect carbon emissions include not only technological progress or innovation in a broad sense but also specific technologies such as digital technology and ICT. Moyer and Hughes ( 2012 ) used the International Futures (IFs) comprehensive assessment system to study the relationship between ICT and global carbon emissions, and believed that ICT has brought about a decline in carbon emissions in the past 50 years. Yi et al. ( 2022 ) used the spatial panel Durbin model to study the impact of the digital economy on carbon emission reduction in 30 provinces in China. They emphasized that the development of the digital economy not only has a direct emission reduction effect but also has a significant spatial spillover effect. The ecological footprint was first brought into the field of empirical research by (Wackernagel and Rees 1998 ) as another indicator of environmental sustainability, which is considered to be a more comprehensive measure of environmental degradation than carbon emissions. Therefore, many scholars use the ecological footprint to replace carbon emissions, and re-examine the already tested nexus between carbon emissions and technology. Huang et al. ( 2022 ) compiled the ICT index through principal component analysis, and found that the development of ICT significantly increased the ecological footprint of E-7 countries, but decreased that of G-7 countries.
Regarding the impact of technology on energy transition, Zheng et al. ( 2021 ) based on China’s provincial data from 2005 to 2017, examine the impact of renewable energy technology innovation represented by patent stock on renewable energy power generation. The results show that an average increase of 1% in the level of renewable energy technology innovation directly brings about a 0.411% increase in renewable energy power generation in the province and a 3.264% increase in renewable energy power generation in neighboring provinces through technology diffusion. Tzeremes et al. ( 2023 ) and Shahbaz et al. ( 2022 ) respectively confirm the role of ICT and digital techniques in promoting energy transition. In summary, based on the above review, the use of carbon emissions, ecological footprint, and energy transition variables can characterize the different impacts of technological factors. In addition, different technologies may have different impacts on the same indicator. Therefore, in order to fully understand the environmental impact of the current new technology of AI, it is necessary to select sufficiently detailed and accurate methods to distinguish AI from previous digital technologies and examine the impact of AI on each different environmental indicator.
The debate over the environmental impact of artificial intelligence (AI) can be traced back to a classic theory related to technological progress—the rebound effect. The rebound effect refers to the phenomenon where improvements in efficiency do not always reduce demand; instead, they can lead to an increase in demand. For example, when a company improves efficiency and achieves raw material savings per unit of product, it may further expand production. This expansion in production resulting from efficiency improvements can completely offset the raw material savings brought about by technological upgrades, or even lead to a dramatic increase in the company’s raw material demand. This rebound effect suggests that although technology may enhance efficiency and save resources per unit product, the ultimate resource and energy consumption, as well as its environmental impact, are uncertain.
In this context, Hilty and Hercheui ( 2010 ) proposed the three-order effect theory to summarize the multiple aspects of the environmental impact that smart technologies may have. The first-order effects of smart technologies refer to the direct environmental impacts of specific products throughout their lifecycle, including production, usage, and disposal. This encompasses the environmental footprint of acquiring raw materials for production, the electricity consumption during usage, and the environmental pollution associated with disposal. Second-order effects represent the direct environmental benefits brought about by efficiency improvements and process optimizations enabled by smart technologies. For example, the use of electronic products directly replaces some paper materials, reducing deforestation. Third-order effects represent the negative environmental impacts arising from the rebound effect based on the second-order effects. For instance, the prevalence of electronic products might lead to long-term dependence or addiction to these devices, resulting in electricity consumption (primarily produced by fossil fuels) that far exceeds the environmental impact of paper-based materials like newspapers and books.
Understanding these effects is crucial for comprehensively grasping the multifaceted debate on the environmental impact of AI. On one hand, the second-order effects of AI are widely acknowledged. In other words, AI has enormous potential to improve production efficiency, enhance production processes, or support environmental protection and energy transition initiatives, thereby promoting environmental improvement (Lei et al. 2023 ; Lyu and Liu 2021 ). On the other hand, the energy consumption throughout its lifecycle (first-order effect) and the productivity rebound (third-order effect) may exacerbate environmental issues (Taddeo et al. 2021 ; Wu et al. 2022 ).
Although it is currently challenging to quantify each specific impact of AI, utilizing detailed macroeconomic statistical data for holistic assessment is a critical research direction. Many scholars leverage global or national-level time series or panel data, selecting environmental indicators such as carbon emissions, ecological footprints, and energy consumption to evaluate the overall environmental impact of AI and understand current trends in AI development. On the one hand, using a global panel and dynamic estimation approach, Ding et al. ( 2023 ) claim that AI reduces carbon emissions significantly. On the other hand, Luan et al. ( 2022 ) found that AI contributed to air pollution through a study of 74 countries and insisted that AI has exacerbated climate warming. There is a little article that studies ecological footprint (Chen et al., 2022b ) which confirms the positive effect of AI on ecological footprint. And only (Wang et al. 2024 c) discussed the impact of AI on energy transition and claimed a positive effect. Other related research about the environmental impact of AI is summarized in Table 2 .
In summary, the aforementioned studies proxy environmental sustainability carbon emissions, ecological footprint, and energy transition to explore and verify the environmental impact of broad-range factors of economics, energy, and technology. However, few studies are focusing on the important AI-environment sustainability nexus. Specifically, three detailed research gaps are identified. (1) From a research perspective, existing studies discussing the environmental sustainability of AI often focus on the perspective of carbon emissions. The impact of AI on ecological footprint and energy transition has rarely been studied, and there are almost no studies combining multiple indicators. (2) Regarding the research object, China has been the most fully studied, while research on other countries or global levels has received inadequate attention. (3) In terms of research ideas and methods, most studies presuppose linear relationships between AI and corresponding environment indicators and adopt linear research methods, thus ignoring the potential nonlinearity and heterogeneity relationships.
This paper fills the above research gaps by using a global panel to evaluate and compare the impact of AI on carbon emissions, ecological footprint, and energy transition. Moreover, dynamic threshold models are developed to explore the potential nonlinear impact under different conditions or stages of industrial structure, trade openness, AI development, and energy transition. Against the backdrop of the current complex and controversial relationship between AI and the environment, this article helps to clarify the multifaceted environmental impacts of AI and explore its potential heterogeneity and nonlinearity, providing a scientific basis for global policymakers to develop and manage AI.
Model setting.
This study aims to evaluate the linear and nonlinear impact of AI on ecological footprint, carbon emissions, and energy transition respectively. For better modeling of these explained variables, dynamics can not be ignored. This is because in many cases, how much environmental impact a country will have or what kind of energy structure it adopts will be determined partially by its past behavior. For example, once a certain industrial production mode is determined, a lot of equipment and professionals need to be invested, and it is difficult for enterprises to switch to another production mode in a short time. Therefore, there may be inertia in carbon emissions, ecological footprint, and energy transition. Based on the above discussion, we first construct three dynamic linear models as the benchmark regression models in this paper to measure the effects of AI on ecological footprint, carbon emissions, and energy transition:
where i represents individual and t represents time. EF, CE, and ETR are the explained variables, representing ecological footprint, carbon emission, and energy transition respectively. AI is the explanatory variable, representing the level of artificial intelligence development. C represents the control variables vector, which is kept the same in the three models. \({u}_{i}\) is the individual fixed effect, and \({\varepsilon }_{{it}}\) is the disturbance term.
Based on Model L1-L3, we need to further construct a series of nonlinear models to study the influence of external variables. In the literature that uses traditional methods to discuss nonlinearity, some add quadratic terms of independent variables to the equation, and some choose to divide the research objects into different samples according to certain standards (such as income, GDP, etc.). These methods can partially solve the problem of nonlinearity, but the rationality and effectiveness of artificially setting models and dividing samples have been questioned. To address the above issues, in this paper, we adopt the dynamic panel threshold models to model the nonlinearity. In a threshold model, the division of the sample interval is endogenously determined by the sample data, and the regression coefficient is allowed to be different across intervals, which overcomes the problem of artificial selection of the model. Therefore, the following dynamic threshold models are used in this paper:
where \({{\boldsymbol{C}}}_{{\boldsymbol{it}}}\) is a vector of control variables consistent with Model L1-L3. \({q}_{{it}}\) is the threshold variable and \(\gamma\) is the corresponding threshold value. I(·) is an indicator function that takes 1 when the condition is satisfied and 0 otherwise. We specially focus on \({\delta }_{1}\) because it collects the change in the influence coefficient of AI when the threshold variable is in a higher interval.
System generalized moment estimation.
The System Generalized Method of Moments (SYS-GMM) proposed by Blundell and Bond ( 1998 ) is adopted to estimate coefficients in Model L1-L3. This method uses GMM instead of the traditional OLS estimation method to solve the problem of downward bias (Nickell bias) of the estimator caused by the introduction of the dependent variable lag term in the traditional fixed effect model (Pesaran 2020 ). In addition, SYS-GMM makes full use of the residual information in the level equation and the difference equation to construct moment conditions, which improves the efficiency of parameter estimation. In order to explain the estimation strategy of SYS-GMM, we express Model L1-L3 in vector form as follows:
where \({Y_{it}}\) and \({Y_{{it}-1}}\) are the explained variable and its first-order lag, respectively. \({\boldsymbol{X}}\) is a vector of explanatory variables. ∆ represents the first difference. ε i and \({\boldsymbol{\Delta }}{{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon }}}_{{\boldsymbol{i}}}\) denote the residual series of the level and difference equations, respectively.
In order to estimate the parameters, we need to obtain all sample moment conditions for the level and difference equations. First, for the above level equation (original equation), we have the moment condition related to the level equation:
Secondly, for the first-order difference equation of the level equation:
we also have the moment condition for the difference equation:
where \({{\boldsymbol{Z}}}_{{\boldsymbol{li}}}^{{\boldsymbol{{\prime} }}}\) and \({{\boldsymbol{Z}}}_{{\boldsymbol{di}}}^{{\boldsymbol{{\prime} }}}\) are the transposes of the level and difference instrumental variable matrix, and
Finally, estimates of the unknown parameters \({{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}_{{\boldsymbol{i}}}\) = ( α , β 0 , β ) will be produced by solving the above sample moment conditions.
To ensure the validity of instrumental variables, two tests should be employed before analyzing the estimation result. First, the Sargan test should be adopted to prevent over-identification. Because the number of instrumental variables is a quadratic function of T in the SYS-GMM model. As T increases, the number of instrumental variables may exceed the parameters to be estimated, which is called over-identified. Second, the Arellano-Bond (AR) test needs to be employed to prevent residual serial correlation. Because SYS-GMM employs the instrumental strategy of using lagged variables, which relies on the presupposes that the residual series are uncorrelated.
The dynamic panel threshold model (DPTM) newly proposed by Seo et al. ( 2019 ) with an endogenous threshold variable is adopted to estimate the nonlinear models (Model N1-N3). The key difference between DPTM and the traditional static panel threshold model is that the equation includes the lagged term of the explained variable, and relaxes the assumption that the threshold variable is completely exogenous, allowing it to become endogenous. In order to explain how DPTM solves the problem of lagged terms of explained variables and endogenous threshold variables, we express the DPTM model in the following vector form:
where \({{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{{\boldsymbol{it}}}\) is the set of explanatory variables including \({{\boldsymbol{Y}}_{{\boldsymbol{it}}}{\boldsymbol{-}}{\boldsymbol{1}}}\) , and \({\boldsymbol{(}}{1{\boldsymbol{,}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{{\boldsymbol{it}}}{\boldsymbol{)}}\) additionally includes a constant term. \({\boldsymbol{\delta }}{\boldsymbol{(}}{{\boldsymbol{1}}{\boldsymbol{,}}{\boldsymbol{X}}}_{{\boldsymbol{it}}}{\boldsymbol{)}}I({q}_{{it}}\ge \gamma )\) records the change in the coefficient of all the explanatory variables when the threshold variable changes from low to high cross-country threshold. According to Seo et al. ( 2019 ), the difference generalized method of moments (Diff-GMM) is used to eliminate \({u}_{i}\) and estimate unknown parameters θ = ( β , δ , γ ). The difference form of Eq. ( 7 ) is:
Consider the following sample moment conditions:
\({{\boldsymbol{z}}}_{{\boldsymbol{it}}}\) is a set of instrumental variables consisting of lagged items, but excluding threshold variables. Footnote 1 Assume that \({\rm{E}}\left({g}_{i}\left({\boldsymbol{\theta }}\right)\right)=0\) , if and only if \({\boldsymbol{\theta }}={{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}_{{\boldsymbol{0}}}\) . Then further let \({g}_{i}={g}_{i}\left({{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}_{{\boldsymbol{0}}}\right)=\) \({\left({z}_{i{t}_{0}}^{{\prime} }\varDelta {\varepsilon }_{i{t}_{0}},\ldots ,{z}_{{iT}}^{{\prime} }\varDelta {\varepsilon }_{{iT}}\right)}^{{\prime} }\) , and let \(\varOmega ={\rm{E}}\left({g}_{i}{g}_{i}^{{\prime} }\right)\) . It can be seen that \(\varOmega\) is a positive-definite matrix. Assume \({W}_{n}\) is a positive definite weight matrix that satisfies \({W_{n}}\mathop{\rightarrow}\limits^{p}{\varOmega }^{-1}\) . Let the criterion function \({\bar{J}}_{n}({\boldsymbol{\theta }})={\bar{g}}_{n}({\boldsymbol{\theta }})^{\prime} {W_{n}}{\bar{g}}_{n}({\boldsymbol{\theta }})\) , The GMM estimator for unknown parameter \(\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}\) = \(\left(\hat{{\boldsymbol{\beta }}},\hat{{\boldsymbol{\delta }}},\hat{\gamma }\right)\) is given as follows:
The above minimization problem can be solved in two steps. First, let the weight matrix W n be specified as an identity matrix I or other known form, and minimize \({\bar{J}}_{n}({\boldsymbol{\theta }})\) to collect residuals \({\widehat{\varDelta \varepsilon }}_{{it}}\) . In the second step, the weight matrix is updated using the collected residuals \({W_{n}}={\left(\frac{1}{n}{\sum}_{i=1}^{n}{\hat{g}}_{i}{\hat{g}}_{i}^{{\prime} }-\frac{1}{{n}^{2}}\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{i=1}^{n}{\hat{g}}_{i}{\sum}_{i=1}^{n}{\hat{g}}_{i}^{\prime}\right)}^{-1}\) , where \({\hat{g}}_{i}={\left({\widehat{\varDelta \varepsilon}}_{i{t}_{0}}{z}_{i{t}_{0}}^{{\prime} },\ldots ,{\widehat{\varDelta \varepsilon }}_{{iT}}{z}_{{iT}}^{{\prime} }\right)}^{{\prime} }\) , and minimize \({\bar{J}}_{n}({\boldsymbol{\theta }})\) again to solve \(\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}\) . It has been proved that the parameters estimated by the above method \(\hat{{\boldsymbol{\theta }}}=(\hat{{\boldsymbol{\beta }}},\hat{{\boldsymbol{\delta }}},\hat{\gamma })\) asymptotically obey the normal distribution, so \(t\) -statistics can be used to test the significance of parameter estimates and construct confidence intervals.
In order to test the significance of the threshold effect to see the rationality of establishing a nonlinear model, the following null hypothesis is proposed \(H0:{\boldsymbol{\delta }}=0\) , for any \(\gamma\) . The corresponding alternative hypothesis is \(H1:{\boldsymbol{\delta }}\,\ne \,0\) , for some \(\gamma\) . This null hypothesis means that the threshold effect does not exist and the model is linear. The \(\sup {Wald}\) statistic is used to test the hypothesis. A significant \(\sup {Wald}\) statistic means that the null hypothesis is rejected, that is, the threshold effect is considered to exist. The probability distributions of \(\sup {Wald}\) statistic and the p-value for rejecting the null hypothesis can be obtained by the bootstrap method according to Seo et al. ( 2019 ).
Explained variables: ef, ce and etr.
Ecological Footprint Consumption (EF) and Carbon Emissions (CE): Ecological Footprint Consumption (EF) can reflect the pressure of human activities on the ecological environment (Li et al., 2023 ). A country’s EF figure is calculated from the per capita amount of built-up land, carbon, arable land, fishing grounds, forest products, and pasture combined. CE is measured by annual per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy transition (ETR): As stressed by Markard ( 2018 ), the modern energy transition is characterized by the gradual reduction of fossil fuels and the continuous shift to low-carbon energy such as wind energy and solar energy (Li et al., 2022a ). Thus it can be considered that the purpose of energy transition is to replace fossil energy with renewable energy in the final energy consumption structure. Following Tzeremes et al. ( 2023 ), we take the share of renewable energy in a country’s total final energy consumption Footnote 2 to represent the energy transition result.
Artificial intelligence technology has experienced rapid development and multiple updates in the past forty years. With the continuous iteration of technology, the connotation of the concept of AI has also changed. Drawing on He et al. ( 2019 ), this paper defines AI as a branch of applied computer science that uses computer algorithms, including machine learning, deep learning, and natural language recognition, to be trained to perform tasks usually associated with human intelligence.
According to this definition, AI includes a variety of technologies, and the application scenarios are also rich. Therefore, how to measure the development level of AI is a major challenge of this paper. Considering that AI devices, such as robots and smart cars, often integrate hardware, software, and programming, and may integrate multiple technologies (Howard 2019 ). It can be inferred that the more advanced a country’s AI technology is, the more functions and application scenarios AI devices have, and the more they may be used. This insight led us to consider assessing AI development from the perspective of the number of devices. Inspired by the work of Acemoglu and Restrepo ( 2020 ), in this paper, we select the well-defined and easy-to-count operational stock of industrial robots as a proxy variable for a country’s AI development level and select per capita stock of industrial robots as an alternative explanatory variable for robustness test.
According to IFR, the global inventory of industrial robots in 2019 was about 2.3 million. The top five countries account for more than 75% of the total, namely China (27.5%), Japan (15.3%), South Korea (12.7%), the United States (11.5%) and Germany (8.4%), suggesting that the above-mentioned countries should have an advantage in AI development. This is supported by many reports assessing the level of AI development. For example, the 2022 Global Artificial Intelligence Innovation Index provided by the Institute of Scientific and Technological Information of China shows that the United States and China are in the first echelon of global AI innovation, while Germany, Japan, and South Korea have also entered the second echelon (ISTIC 2023 ). Therefore, we believe that the operational stock of industrial robots can well represent AI development.
Industrial structure (IS), measured by the proportion of industrial added value in GDP. Various pieces of research pointed out that there are long-term and stable differences in the relationship between carbon emissions and economic development in different industries and sectors (Dong et al. 2020 ; Li et al. 2024 ). We can infer that the development and application of AI in a country will be affected by the existing industrial structure.
Trade openness (OPEN): Measured by the proportion of total trade in GDP. Trade openness will promote the international division of labor and the exchange of goods and technologies, which should be conducive to the development of AI. Therefore, AI development conditions in countries with various degrees of openness may be different.
Artificial intelligence development (AI): Recent studies have shown that AI technology is changing even faster than Moore’s Law Footnote 3 describes Taddeo et al. ( 2021 ). Thus, it is necessary to use the key independent variable AI as a threshold variable to reveal the dynamic change rules of AI’s effect, in other words, the heterogeneous environmental impact at different development levels of AI.
Energy transition (ETR): Inspired by Shahbaz et al. ( 2022 ) who found that the impact of the digital economy on ETR varies in different quantiles of ETR, we therefore use a threshold model and take ETR as a threshold to explore how the environmental effects of AI change as countries progress in energy transition.
Based on the work of Huang et al. ( 2022 ) for EF, Li and Wang ( 2022 ) for CE, and Shahbaz et al. ( 2022 ) for ETR, the following vectors of control variables are constructed and introduced into Model L1-L3 and Model N1-N3 to model EF, CE and ETR. (1) Economic development level (ED), measured by per capita GDP; (2) Energy use (EUSE), measured by per capita energy consumption; (3) Natural resource rent (NRR), measured by the share of total natural resource rent in Footnote 4 GDP (4) Fossil fuel power generation (FFE): measured by the proportion of fossil fuels in power generation; (5) Government size (GOV): measured by the ratio of fiscal expenditure to GDP; (6) Urbanization (URB): Measured by the proportion of urban population.
This study covers 67 countries from 1993 to 2019. The names of countries in the research scope are shown in Appendix Table 1 . The data of the variables were sourced from GFN (Network 2019 ), WDI (WDI 2021 ), and IFR (IFR 2023 ). The descriptive statistics and data sources of variables are shown in Table 3 , and all variables are logarithmic to alleviate the problem of heteroscedasticity. The covariance matrix and the variance inflation factors of the explanatory variables are shown in Appendix Table 2 . It can be found that the largest positive correlation coefficient comes from ED and CE (0.734), and the largest negative correlation coefficient comes from ED and NRR (−0.430). The largest VIF is 3.39 of ED, indicating no obvious multicollinearity in our research case.
The results of cross-section correlation tests for the three benchmark models are reported in Appendix Table A3 . The results showed that all three models rejected the null hypothesis of no cross-section correlation at the 5% significance level. This suggests that cross-sectional correlations exist in Model L1-L3. Based on the result, second-generation unit root testing techniques such as CIPS and CADF should be adopted to overcome the issue of cross-sectional correlation (Ansari 2022 ). Appendix Table A4 shows the test results of CIPS and CADF, and it can be seen that all variables are first-order series stationary. Finally, the cointegration test proposed by Westerlund ( 2005 ) was applied to the three benchmark models to avoid spurious regressions. The results of Table A5 in the Appendix show that all three models have significantly rejected the null hypothesis of “No cointegration for all panels” at the 5% level, indicating that there is a long-term stationary relationship between the variable sequences of each model. In conclusion, the above results show that the preliminary tests are passed and the regression result is reliable.
Benchmark result.
In order to evaluate the impact of AI on sustainability from the three perspectives of ecological footprint, carbon emissions and energy transition, we estimate Model L1–L3 based on the SYS-GMM method of Eqs. ( 1 – 6 ). The specific results are shown in Table 4 . First, we judge the reasonableness of the model based on the results of the Sargan test and the AR test in the last three lines. The p -values of the Sargan test are 0.9945, 0.9943 and 0.9977, which are all greater than 0.1. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no over-identification of instrumental variables cannot be rejected, indicating that the Sargan test is passed. The p -values of the AR(2) tests in the three models are also greater than 0.1, indicating that there is no serial correlation. The above test results show that the SYS-GMM model is well set. The first two rows of the table represent the estimated coefficients for the lagged term of the dependent variable. We found that the coefficients of the lagged terms of EF, CE, and ETR are 0.8904, 0.8084, and 0.9245, respectively, which are significant at the 1% level. This means that the changes in ecological footprint, carbon emissions and energy transition have inertia and are largely affected by the previous year, which confirms the rationality of the dynamic model setting.
As for the result of the key variable, the coefficient of lnAI on lnEF is −0.0018%, which is significant at the 1% level. This means that for the 67 sample countries from 1993 to 2019, every 1% increase in the development level of artificial intelligence corresponds to an average decrease of 0.0018% in ecological footprint. This result suggests that AI contributes to sustainable development by reducing the global ecological footprint. Similar to our point of view, Holzinger et al. ( 2023 ) believe that AI technology can improve the sustainability of agriculture, forestry, and animal husbandry, especially for the preservation of biological resources. Compared with other empirical literature, Ahmad et al. ( 2020 ) and Huang et al. ( 2022 ) found that technological progress and ICT have an ecological footprint reduction effect, respectively. On this basis, our empirical results further expand their conclusions and confirm that AI also has an ecological footprint reduction effect.
According to Model L2, AI also has a significant reduction effect on CE. For every 1% increase in a country’s artificial intelligence development level, the country’s carbon emissions will decrease by 0.0013%. This means that the development of AI can help the country reduce its overall carbon emissions, thereby promoting sustainable development, which is consistent with the empirical findings of Liu et al. ( 2022b ). Note that this influence coefficient is smaller than that of AI on EF (0.0013 < 0.0016). This may be because the positive impact of AI on carbon emissions is partially offset by the negative impact of AI itself such as power consumption (Taddeo et al., 2021 ).
Model L3 shows that at the 1% significance level, AI shows a promoting effect on energy transition. Every 1% increase in the development level of artificial intelligence will boost the energy transition by 0.0025%. The coefficient is the largest among the three models (0.0025 > 0.0018 > 0.0013), indicating that AI is an important driving force for the global energy transition process, which is of great significance for sustainable development. Some existing empirical literature supports our findings. For example, Lee and He ( 2021 ) confirmed that AI can promote wind power technology innovation, and Lyu and Liu ( 2021 ) proved that AI is conducive to the development of digital energy technology. In fact, AI and energy transition are already closely integrated and AI methods such as back propagation neural networks (BPNN) have been widely used in the field of renewable energy (Jha et al. 2017 ).
Combined with the analysis of Model L1-L3 results, we conclude that AI has three positive contributions to sustainability, including ecological footprint reduction effects, carbon reduction effects, and energy transition promotion effects. Therefore, when the sustainable development of countries is hindered after the pandemic, the AI industry can become the focus of countries to accelerate economic development while improving environmental sustainability especially in promoting energy transition.
Given that this study involves a large number of countries at different stages of development, it is necessary to conduct a grouped analysis. Based on the World Bank’s 2018 classification of national development levels, we divided the sample into high-income and middle-income groups Footnote 5 . The results of the grouped study are shown in Table 5 , where columns 1–3 represent the results for the high-income group and columns 4–6 for the middle-income group.
The results, with the ecological footprint as the dependent variable, indicate that the impact coefficient of AI is −0.0016 in high-income countries and −0.0028 in middle-income countries. Both coefficients are significant at the 1% level. This demonstrates that the effect of AI on reducing the ecological footprint is more pronounced in middle-income countries compared to high-income countries. Similarly, the research results on carbon emissions show that AI also significantly reduces carbon emissions in middle-income countries. These results may be because middle-income countries have more room for improvement in clean production, so the widespread application of AI technology can achieve greater reductions in carbon emissions and other ecological footprints in these countries. This contrasts with high-income countries, which have already optimized their production and resource use efficiency to a higher level, resulting in relatively smaller marginal improvements from AI.
However, the results regarding energy transition indicate that the effect of AI on energy transition is mainly concentrated in high-income countries, with an impact coefficient of 0.0053, while it is not significant in middle-income countries. This may suggest that high-income countries have more advanced infrastructure, higher technical capabilities, and more comprehensive policy support, enabling them to utilize AI technology more effectively to promote energy transition. For instance, high-income countries may have already established smart grids, renewable energy management systems, and advanced energy storage technologies, which provide a solid foundation for the application of AI in energy transition. On the other hand, middle-income countries have relatively less investment and infrastructure development in these areas, resulting in AI having a less significant role in promoting energy transition compared to high-income countries.
In summary, the grouped study results indicate that the reduction effects of AI on ecological footprint and carbon emissions are more significant in middle-income countries, whereas the effects on energy transition are mainly observed in high-income countries. This difference suggests that the developmental stage of a country may influence the environmental effects of AI, highlighting the need for countries to formulate corresponding strategies and policies based on their own developmental realities to maximize the positive effects of AI technology.
Based on the benchmark results, we further use the dynamic threshold model to conduct two-pronged research on the nonlinear laws of the three environmental sustainability effects of AI: (1) Use the external variables IND and OPEN as threshold variables to discuss the impact of external macro factors (2) Taking the explanatory variable AI and the explained variable ETR as threshold variables, the impact of different AI and ETR development stages is discussed. In summary, each nonlinear model in Models N1-N3 includes 4 threshold variables (IND, OPEN, AI, ETR) and a total of 12 sub-models need to be estimated.
Before analyzing the regression results of the nonlinear model, we need to test the threshold effect and the validity of the threshold value. The results are shown in Table 6 . The result of Sup Wald test shows that all 12 sub-models reject the null hypothesis of linearity at the 1% level, indicating the existence of a threshold effect. From the result of threshold values, we can see that the threshold values of the other 11 sub-models are all significant, and all fall within the 95% confidence interval except for the sub-model in Model N3 with AI as the threshold variable. It means the threshold values in these models are accurately estimated and the estimation results of these models are reasonable. For the AI sub-model of Model N3, the insignificance of the threshold means that the division of samples may not be optimal. However, considering that the threshold effect does exist, the nonlinear regression results of Model N3 are also worth analyzing.
The sample was classified into the upper or lower regime based on whether the threshold variable was higher than the threshold value obtained. Using the threshold estimated result of Model N1 as an example, we plot the sample distributions of the four threshold variables from 1993 to 2019 in Fig. 1 . First, the proportion of samples below the IND threshold rose from 10% in 1993 to 45% in 2019 indicating that the industrial structure in the sample countries is being gradually optimized. Second, the proportion of samples below the OPEN threshold dropped from 63% to 30% from 1993 to 2007 but rose again to 37% in 2019. This suggests a slowdown in the pace of global openness after 2007 and a resurgence of reverse globalization in recent years. Third, AI has experienced explosive growth during the sample period, with the number of countries with an AI below the threshold of 6.5853 plummeting from 88% to 40%. Finally, the proportion of countries below the threshold energy transition of 3.89% only fell by 12% in 26 years, indicating a possible bottleneck in global renewable energy development.
Thresholds are 3.1903 for IND, 3.9291 for OPEN, 6.5853 for AI and 1.3581 for ETR.
According to the estimation method of DPTM shown in Eqs. 7 – 11 , we obtained the parameter estimation results of 12 nonlinear sub-models. The results of the nonlinear regressions with IND, OPEN, AI, and ETR as thresholds are shown sequentially in Tables 6 – 9 . We can see that the estimation result of each sub-model includes two parts, namely “Lower estimation” and “Threshold effect”. The former is the estimated coefficient for the low regime, while the latter represents the difference between the estimated coefficients for the high and low regimes, which can be regarded as the threshold effect when the threshold variable crosses the threshold.
Table 7 shows the nonlinear regression results when industrial structure is used as the threshold variable and ecological footprint, carbon emissions and energy transition are used as dependent variables. It can be found that the “threshold effect” estimation result includes the lag term of the dependent variable, all independent variables, and constant terms, which is consistent with the DPTM model setting shown in Eq. ( 7 ), indicating that the estimated coefficients of all variables may change in the high regime. However, this paper mainly focuses on the results of the key variable AI.
In Model T1, the ecological footprint is the explained variable. The lower regime results show that the impact coefficient of AI on EF is −0.0090, significant at the 1% statistical level. This means 1% AI development reduces ecological footprint by 0.0090% when IND is lower than the threshold. However, the threshold effect estimator is significantly positive at the 1% level, which means that when IND is higher than the threshold, the impact coefficient of AI on EF will increase by 0.0089, from −0.0090 to −0.0001. This shows that in countries with a high proportion of secondary industry, the reducing effect of AI on EF is weakened. In other words, a high proportion of industry is not conducive for AI to reduce its ecological footprint.
The low regime results of Model T2 show that when IND is low, AI significantly reduces carbon emissions with a coefficient of −0.0065. However, the threshold effect estimation results show that when IND is higher, the impact coefficient of AI will significantly increase by 0.0089. Thus the influence coefficient of AI in high areas has changed from negative to positive to 0.0024, exhibiting a U -shaped nexus of AI-CE. This indicates that IND is also not conducive to AI reducing carbon emissions.
Model T3 shows that when IND is low, AI inhibits the energy transition with a coefficient of −0.0209. However, when IND is high, the coefficient increases significantly and reaches 0.0054, which means that the impact of AI on energy transition changes from negative to positive, showing a U -shaped relationship. That is to say, IND promotes the role of AI in energy transition.
In summary, the above results show that IND is not conducive to the ecological footprint reduction and carbon reduction effects of AI, but can promote the energy transition effect of AI. Judging from the magnitude of the threshold effect, IND influences the impact of AI on EF by 0.0089, CE by 0.0089, and ETR by 0.0263. This means IND has a weaker impact on the first two effects of AI, but a stronger impact on the energy transition effect. Regarding such a “double-edged sword effect” brought about by IND, we compared the existing literature and briefly summarized two aspects of possible explanations. First, an important use of AI in industrial countries is to help industrial production, but industrial production activities are not so clean compared to the primary and tertiary industries. Therefore, if AI is used in heavily polluted production scenarios, it is possible that the use of AI in countries with a high proportion of industry corresponds to a higher ecological footprint and carbon emissions, which is supported by Wang et al. ( 2019 ); Zhang and Liu ( 2015 ). Second, the industrial system can provide infrastructure and technology readiness for energy transition (Heffron et al. 2020 ) and it is therefore reasonable that IND promotion the effect of AI on energy transition.
Table 8 includes all results with OPEN as the threshold. First, both the low regime estimator and the threshold effect estimator in Model T4 are not significant, indicating that the relationship between AI and EF under the influence of OPEN is unclear. The results of Model T5 show that when OPEN is below the threshold, 1% AI corresponds to a significant increase in CE of 0.0058%. However, when OPEN is above the threshold, this coefficient drops significantly to −0.0023, showing an inverted U -shaped relationship between AI and CE, meaning that OPEN promotes the role of AI in reducing carbon emissions. The results of Model T6 show that although the lower regime estimator of AI is not significant, the threshold effect estimator is significant. The latter is much larger than the former in magnitude, so we can say that when OPEN levels are high, AI can significantly contribute to the energy transition. From the magnitude of the threshold effect, after trade openness crosses the threshold, every 1% AI growth will reduce an additional 0.0081% carbon emission and an additional 0.0132% energy transition. We conclude that a higher degree of trade openness overall amplifies the carbon emissions reduction effect and energy promotion effect of AI to exert a more positive sustainability effect.
Compared with the research of other scholars, Demena and Afesorgbor ( 2020 ) found that openness has a positive effect on reducing carbon emissions, Jacqmin ( 2018 ); Urom et al. ( 2022 ) discussed and confirmed the significance of openness in promoting energy transition. Based on the above discussion, from the perspective of AI, our results support the pollution halo theory that trade openness enhances the environmental sustainability in host countries, which runs counter to the arguments of the trade protectionists. In this regard, the global trend of trade protectionism and anti-globalization after the 2008 financial crisis is not a wise choose. We, therefore, call for worldwide countries to strengthen international coordination and create an open environment for free trade and knowledge sharing so as to make better use of AI and accelerate the pace of sustainable development.
In order to investigate the differences in the sustainability effects of AI in different stages and levels of AI development, we analyze the threshold effect of AI as a threshold variable based on Table 9 . The threshold effect estimators in Models T7–T9 show that the three sustainable effects of AI are all significantly affected by the level of AI development. Higher AI will bring an additional 0.1401% reduction in ecological footprint, 0.0804% reduction in carbon emissions, and 0.0423% increase in energy transition progress for every 1% AI growth. Therefore, we conclude that AI has a scale effect. It is worth noting that the threshold effect estimate of AI is significantly higher in magnitude than that of OPEN, which reminds us that we should pay more attention to this scale effect. Specifically, according to Models T7 and T8, the effect of AI on EF and CE is not significant in the lower regime. This insignificant effect will change into a significant reduction effect as the AI level increases. The results of Model T9 show that AI always has a significant promotion effect on energy transition, and this effect is gradually amplified as AI exceeds the threshold.
Similar scale effects are often shown in other scholars’ research on technological factors (Lahouel et al. 2021 ; Xu and Chen 2021 ). For example, (Lahouel et al. 2021 ) non-linear research results show that different ICT levels correspond to different relationships between TFP and carbon emissions. The higher the ICT, the stronger the carbon emission reduction effect of TFP. A possible explanation for this is, that as the application and research of AI technology in a country’s AI industry becomes more and more in-depth, AI-related experience, skills and talents will gradually accumulate. In turn, the cost of using AI will decrease, and the functions will become stronger, so the sustainability effects gradually appear and increase. Considering that AI has experienced explosive growth during the sample period, the continuation of this trend is of great significance for giving full play to the positive effects of AI. Recently, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other countries have launched medium and long-term plans to provide funding for the AI industry and improve AI development goals. Our results emphasize the significance of the uncompromising implementation of these plans for a sustainable future.
According to the threshold effect estimation results in Table 10 , only Model T10 and Model T12 provide significant results. This shows that when ETR exceeds the threshold, the effect of AI on ecological footprint and energy transition is significantly affected, but the effect of AI on carbon emissions is not significant. Specifically, the complete results of Model T10 and Model T12 demonstrate the inverted V relationship both between AI and EF and between AI and ETR. That is to say, when ETR is lower, AI increases ecological footprint but promotes energy transition; when ETR is high, AI reduces ecological footprint but inhibits energy transition. The above results show that the impact of energy transition on the sustainability of AI is also two-fold. A higher level of energy transition improves the role of AI in reducing ecological footprint but limits the promotion effect of AI on ETR.
There are mainly two comments on this finding. On the one hand, a higher level of energy transition means a larger proportion of clean energy in a country’s energy structure. Therefore, in countries with high energy transition, it is reasonable that the ecological footprint reduction effect of AI is better. This finding is consistent with some recent studies, which confirmed that energy transition can improve the environmental performance of agriculture (Sharma et al. 2021 ), ICT (Huang et al. 2022 ) and digital economy (Li et al. 2021 ). On the other hand, it is quite surprising that in countries with higher energy transition levels, the effect of AI on ETR would shift from a facilitator to a depressor. This result contradicts the findings of Dong et al. ( 2022a ), who believe that renewable energy development has a self-reinforcing effect, which means that as the energy transition progresses, the development of renewable energy will automatically become faster and faster. However, our results imply a bottleneck effect during the development of the energy transition from the perspective of AI. If renewable energy production cannot keep pace with demand growth, it is possible that the energy consumption requirement of AI may translate into demand for fossil fuels and undermine energy transition outcomes. Therefore, based on our findings, while accelerating the energy transition to improve the environmental effects of AI, countries need to address bottlenecks and structural issues in the energy transition to prevent the potential negative impacts of AI on the energy transition.
We test the robustness of the baseline regression results in two ways. First, we change the estimation method from system GMM to difference GMM(Diff-GMM). Second, we replace the core explanatory variable from the stock of industrial robots (AI) with the stock of industrial robots per capita (ai). The results are shown in Table 8 and key results are summarized in Fig. 2 accordingly. Figure 2 clearly shows that after changing the estimation method and replacing the core variables, the direction and relative size of AI’s influence coefficients on EF, CE, and ETR have not changed. In other words, AI reduces EF and CE and increases ETR; and AI has the largest impact coefficient on ETR, followed by EF, and finally CE. In addition, the Sargan test and AR (2) of the six robustness test models in Table 11 are both significantly greater than 0.1, indicating that the dynamic model used in the robustness test is effective. In summary, the linear research results are fully credible.
According to Table 10 , all coefficients are significant at the 1% level.
Then we adopted the method of replacing the core explanatory variable with ai to improve the robustness of the nonlinear regression results (Model T1–T12), and the results are shown in Table 12 . For all models, the Sup Wald p -value is less than 0.1, indicating that the non-linear relationship persists after replacing explanatory variables. Except for Model RT9, the estimates of other thresholds are all significant at the 5% level, and these results are in full agreement with the original model.
Subsequently, we are mainly concerned with the threshold effect estimation results of the core variable AI, which represents the impact of the threshold variable on the sustainability effect of AI after crossing the threshold. The comparison between the original results and the robustness check results is visualized in Fig. 3 . First, IND is beneficial to ai to reduce EF and CE, and is not conducive to ai to increase ETR. Second, OPEN has no significant impact on the relationship between ai and EF, but it promotes the reduction effect of ai on CE and the improvement effect of ai on ETR. Third, when ai is at a high level, the reduction effect of ai on EF and CE is amplified, indicating that ai has a scale effect. Finally, a higher energy transition process can significantly help ai decrease EF and CE; however, it inhibited the promoting effect of ai on ETR. In conclusion, the results did not change significantly after replacing the core explanatory variables, suggesting the robustness of the non-linear results.
Note: The bars represent the threshold effect estimator of AI under the influence of the corresponding threshold variable (IND, OPEN, AI or ETR). Results that are not significant at the 5% level are represented by 0. The original result coefficients collected from Tables 6 – 9 , and the robustness coefficients collected from Table 11 .
Conclusions.
This article aims to comprehensively evaluate the linear and nonlinear impact of AI on environmental sustainability. First, this article uses panel data from 67 countries from 1993 to 2019 to construct a series of SYS-GMM models as benchmark models to evaluate the impact of AI on ecological footprint, carbon emissions and energy transition. On this basis, this paper further builds a series of DPTM models to explore how external variables, including industrial structure and trade openness, affect AI sustainability. Finally, we used the DPTM model to reveal the changing laws of AI’s environmental effects during the development process of AI and energy transition and obtained a series of robust research results. The fingdings are as follows.
From the real-world and multiple environmental impacts of AI, benchmark results show that AI contributes to environmental sustainability by reducing ecological footprints and carbon emissions, and promoting energy transition. Every 1% increase in the level of AI development corresponds to a 0.0025% increase in energy transition, a 0.0018% decrease in ecological footprint, and a 0.0013% decrease in carbon emissions. In other words, AI has the strongest effect in promoting energy transition, followed by the reduction effect on ecological footprint, and then the impact of AI on carbon emissions.
From the perspective of external conditions affecting AI, on the one hand, the nonlinear results of IND as a threshold variable indicate that the industrial share is a double-edged sword. More specifically, countries with a higher proportion of industries have a significantly stronger effect on AI’s promotion of energy transition, but the ecological footprint and carbon emissions corresponding to AI have also increased to a certain extent. In detail, for countries with a higher industrial share, every 1% AI growth corresponds to an additional 0.0263% energy transition, 0.0089% ecological footprint, and 0.0089% carbon emissions. On the other hand, the nonlinear results of OPEN as a threshold variable indicate that trade openness can overall promote the sustainability effect of AI. Specifically, when it is higher than the threshold of trade openness, for a 1% AI growth, carbon emissions are reduced by an additional 0.0081%, the energy transition effect is increased by an additional 0.0132%, and the ecological footprint does not change significantly.
From the nonlinear laws of AI’s effect as AI and energy transition process, there is a significant scale effect in the development process of AI. This effect is much stronger than the amplification effect brought about by trade openness. At a higher stage of AI development, every 1% of AI development will bring an additional 0.1401% ecological footprint reduction effect, 0.0804% carbon emission reduction effect, and 0.0423% energy transition promotion effect. However, there may be bottlenecks in the promotion effect of AI on energy transition. When the level of energy transition is high, the effect of AI on reducing the ecological footprint is increased but the promoting effect of AI on energy transition is suppressed. Specifically, as the energy transition process increases and exceeds the threshold, the ecological footprint corresponding to a 1% AI increase decreases by an additional 0.0319%, and the energy transition process also decreases by an additional 0.019%.
The findings discussed herein have significant policy implications:
Overall, the impact of AI on reducing ecological footprint, and carbon emissions and promoting energy transition shows that AI can help improve environmental sustainability. Countries should increase investment in AI R&D, propose AI development strategies and establish long-term development mechanisms. At the same time, policies should standardize the mode of the AI industry and guide AI to contribute to environmental protection actions or energy transition. At present, more than 30 countries have formulated AI development goals and action plans, aiming to encourage, fund and guide the investment and application of AI, such as China’s “The Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan” and the European Union’s “Artificial Intelligence Coordination Program”. The implementation of these goals is of great significance for promoting the development of the AI industry and moving toward sustainable development.
Countries with high industrial proportions should make full use of the advantages of their own industrial systems to develop renewable energy with the help of AI. At the same time, industrial countries cannot ignore the pollution problem in the industrial sector and should introduce policies as soon as possible to regulate the application scenarios of AI in industrial production to prevent AI from being used to accelerate pollution.
Trade openness plays an important role in exerting the positive effects of AI. The trends of anti-globalization and “trade protection” that have emerged in recent years are not conducive to the sustainable development of all countries. We call for strengthening international coordination and creating an open environment for free trade and knowledge sharing.
AI itself has scale effects, so setting binding long-term goals for AI development is of great significance to all countries, especially those countries that are lagging behind in AI. Recently, Indonesia proposed the Stranas KA plan to continue to provide funding for the AI industry and guide the country’s development of artificial intelligence from 2020 to 2045. Russia, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and other countries have also launched medium- and long-term plans to improve AI development goals. Our research supports these mid- to long-term strategies.
A higher level of energy transition can help AI better reduce its environmental footprint. However, governments need to focus on the structural problems and bottlenecks of energy transition such as rising marginal costs and difficulty in technological breakthroughs. For example, currently dozens of countries, including China, the United States, and Japan, have increased their renewable energy production targets in recent years, and have increased subsidies for renewable energy sources with high costs but huge potential, such as offshore wind power, to reduce their marginal costs and ensure supply.
Although this study evaluated for the first time AI has linear and non-linear effects on EF, CE, and ETR, there are still some deficiencies. First, although this paper models the multiple impacts of AI, there are still some factors to be evaluated, such as the impact of AI on different types of energy or other pollutants. Future research can consider the impact of AI on sulfur dioxide, industrial wastewater, etc. Secondly, our research is based on the national level, and it is difficult to reveal specific rules at the sub-national level. In the future, this research can be expanded to a more granular level, such as the provincial or city level.
The datasets publicly available should be through https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/BN3PID .
The hallmark feature of DPTM is that it allows threshold variables \({q}_{{it}}\) to be endogenous. So \(E\left({q}_{{it}}{\Delta \varepsilon }_{{it}}\right){\boldsymbol{\ne }}0\) , which means that the threshold variable \({q}_{{it}}\) is not included in instrumental variable set \({{\boldsymbol{z}}}_{{\boldsymbol{it}}}\) .
According to the IEA, the scope of renewable energy statistics includes traditional utilization of biomass, modern bioenergy, hydroelectric power, wind energy, solar photovoltaic and other renewable energy sources.
Moore’s Law emphasizes the speed of information technology development, and holds that the performance of computers increases exponentially over time, doubling about every 18 months.
Total natural resource rents include oil rents, coal rents, natural gas rents, mineral rents and forest rents.
Due to data limitations of artificial intelligence, the scope of the study does not include low-income countries.
Acemoglu D, Restrepo P (2020) Robots and jobs: evidence from US labor markets. J Political Econ 128(6):2188–2244
Article Google Scholar
Ahmad M, Jiang P, Majeed A et al. (2020) The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Resour Policy 69:101817
Ahmad T, Zhu H, Zhang D et al. (2022) Energetics systems and artificial intelligence: applications of industry 4.0. Energy Rep 8:334–361
Ansari MA (2022) Re-visiting the environmental Kuznets curve for ASEAN: a comparison between ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 168:112867
Article CAS Google Scholar
Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 87(1):115–143
Chen P, Gao J, Ji Z et al. (2022a) Do artificial intelligence applications affect carbon emission performance?—Evidence from panel data analysis of Chinese cities. Energies 15(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155730
Chen Y, Cheng L, Lee C-C (2022b) How does the use of industrial robots affect the ecological footprint? International evidence. Ecol Econ 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107483
Cheng Z, Li L, Liu J (2018) Industrial structure, technical progress and carbon intensity in China’s provinces. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 81:2935–2946
Demena BA, Afesorgbor SK (2020) The effect of FDI on environmental emissions: evidence from a meta-analysis. Energy Policy 138:111192
Ding T, Li J, Shi X et al. (2023) Is artificial intelligence associated with carbon emissions reduction? Case of China. Resour Policy 85:103892
Dong B, Ma X, Zhang Z et al. (2020) Carbon emissions, the industrial structure and economic growth: evidence from heterogeneous industries in China. Environ Pollut 262:114322
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Dong F, Li Y, Gao Y et al. (2022a) Energy transition and carbon neutrality: exploring the non-linear impact of renewable energy development on carbon emission efficiency in developed countries. Resour Conserv Recycling 177:106002
Dong F, Zhu J, Li Y et al. (2022b) How green technology innovation affects carbon emission efficiency: evidence from developed countries proposing carbon neutrality targets. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(24):35780–35799
Ehigiamusoe KU, Dogan E (2022) The role of interaction effect between renewable energy consumption and real income in carbon emissions: evidence from low-income countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 154:111883
Gu W, Zhao X, Yan X et al. (2019) Energy technological progress, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from China. J Clean Prod 236:117666
He J, Baxter SL, Xu J et al. (2019) The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nat Med 25(1):30–36
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Heffron R, Körner M-F, Wagner J et al. (2020) Industrial demand-side flexibility: a key element of a just energy transition and industrial development. Appl Energy 269:115026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115026
Hilty LM, Hercheui MD (2010). ICT and sustainable development IFIP International Conference on Human Choice and Computers. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010:227–235
Holzinger A, Keiblinger K, Holub P et al. (2023) AI for life: trends in artificial intelligence for biotechnology. N Biotechnol 74:16–24
Howard J (2019) Artificial intelligence: implications for the future of work. Am J Ind Med 62(11):917–926
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Huang Y, Haseeb M, Usman M et al. (2022) Dynamic association between ICT, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: is there any difference between E-7 (developing) and G-7 (developed) countries? Technol Soc 68:101853
IFR (2023) World Robotics Report 2023. International Federation of Robotics. https://ifr.org/wr-industrial-robots
ISTIC (2023) 2022 Global Artificial Intelligence Innovation Index Report. China Institute of Scientific and Technological Information. https://www.istic.ac.cn/html/1/284/338/1506840089869938181.html
Jacqmin J (2018) The role of market-oriented institutions in the deployment of renewable energies: evidences from Europe. Appl Econ 50(2):202–215
Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
Jha SK, Bilalovic J, Jha A et al. (2017) Renewable energy: present research and future scope of Artificial Intelligence. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 77:297–317
Jiang W, Gong S-H, Li X-T (2022) Robot shock, capital-embodied technological progress and carbon reduction of manufacturing sector—theoretical analysis and empirical evidence from China. China Ind Econ 10:24–42. https://doi.org/10.19581/j.cnki.ciejournal.2022.10.002
Lahouel BB, Taleb L, Zaied YB et al. (2021) Does ICT change the relationship between total factor productivity and CO2 emissions? Evidence based on a nonlinear model. Energy Econ 101:105406
Lee M, He G (2021) An empirical analysis of applications of artificial intelligence algorithms in wind power technology innovation during 1980–2017. J Clean Prod 297:126536
Lei Y, Liang Z, Ruan P (2023) Evaluation on the impact of digital transformation on the economic resilience of the energy industry in the context of artificial intelligence. Energy Rep. 9:785–792
Li R, Li L, Wang Q (2022a) The impact of energy efficiency on carbon emissions: evidence from the transportation sector in Chinese 30 provinces. Sustain Cities Soc 82:103880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103880
Li R, Wang Q, Guo J (2024) 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 Manag 351:119663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119663
Li R, Wang Q, Li L et al. (2023) Do natural resource rent and corruption governance reshape the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint? Evidence from 158 countries. Resour Policy 85:103890
Li Y, Yang X, Ran Q et al. (2021) Energy structure, digital economy, and carbon emissions: evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:64606–64629
Li Y, Zhang Y, Pan A et al. (2022b) Carbon emission reduction effects of industrial robot applications: heterogeneity characteristics and influencing mechanisms. Technol Soc 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102034
Li Z, Wang J (2022) The dynamic impact of digital economy on carbon emission reduction: evidence city-level empirical data in China. J Clean Prod 351:131570
Liu J, Liu L, Qian Y et al. (2022a) The effect of artificial intelligence on carbon intensity: evidence from China’s industrial sector. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.101002
Liu J, Liu L, Qian Y et al. (2022b) The effect of artificial intelligence on carbon intensity: evidence from China’s industrial sector. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 83:101002
Luan F, Yang X, Chen Y et al. (2022) Industrial robots and air environment: a moderated mediation model of population density and energy consumption. Sustain Prod Consum 30:870–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.01.015
Lyu W, Liu J (2021) Artificial Intelligence and emerging digital technologies in the energy sector. Appl Energy 303:117615
Markard J (2018) The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy. Nat Energy 3(8):628–633
Article ADS Google Scholar
Moyer JD, Hughes BB (2012) ICTs: do they contribute to increased carbon emissions? Technol Forecast Soc Change 79(5):919–931
Network GF (2019) Global footprint network. Obtenido de Global Footprint Network: http://www.footprintnetwork.orgonline . Accessed: 1–10
Pesaran MH (2020) General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empir Econ 60(1):13–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
Probst D (2023) Aiming beyond slight increases in accuracy. Nat Rev Chem 7(4):227–228
Seo MH, Kim S, Kim Y-J (2019) Estimation of dynamic panel threshold model using Stata. Stata J 19(3):685–697
Shahbaz M, Wang J, Dong K et al. (2022) The impact of digital economy on energy transition across the globe: the mediating role of government governance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 166:112620
Sharma GD, Shah MI, Shahzad U et al. (2021) Exploring the nexus between agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions in BIMSTEC region: the role of renewable energy and human capital as moderators. J Environ Manag 297:113316
Song J, Chen Y, Luan F (2023) Air pollution, water pollution, and robots: is technology the panacea. J Environ Manag 330:117170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117170
Taddeo M, Tsamados A, Cowls J et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence and the climate emergency: opportunities, challenges, and recommendations. One Earth 4(6):776–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.05.018
Tzeremes P, Dogan E, Alavijeh NK (2023) Analyzing the nexus between energy transition, environment and ICT: a step towards COP26 targets. J Environ Manag 326:116598
Urom C, Abid I, Guesmi K et al. (2022) Renewable energy consumption, globalization, and economic growth shocks: evidence from G7 countries. J Int Trade Econ Dev 31(2):204–232
Wackernagel M, Rees W (1998) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New Society Publishers
Wang J, Wang W, Liu Y et al. (2023a) Can industrial robots reduce carbon emissions? Based on the perspective of energy rebound effect and labor factor flow in China. Technol Soc 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102208
Wang Q, Hu S, Li R (2024a) Could information and communication technology (ICT) reduce carbon emissions? The role of trade openness and financial development. Telecommun Policy 48(3):102699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102699
Wang Q, Ren F, Li R (2024b) Exploring the impact of geopolitics on the environmental Kuznets curve research. Sustainable Development. 32(3):1700–1722
Wang Q, Sun T, Li R (2023c) Does artificial intelligence promote green innovation? An assessment based on direct, indirect, spillover, and heterogeneity effects. Energy Environ, https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231220520
Wang Q, Zhang F, Li R et al. (2024c) Does artificial intelligence facilitate the energy transition and curb carbon emissions? The role of trade openness. J Clean Prod 447:141298
Wang S, Zeng J, Liu X (2019) Examining the multiple impacts of technological progress on CO 2 emissions in China: a panel quantile regression approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 103:140–150
WDI (2021) World Development Index. World Bank. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/user-guide.html
Westerlund J (2005) New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econom Rev 24(3):297–316
Wu SR, Shirkey G, Celik I et al. (2022) A review on the adoption of AI, BC, and IoT in sustainability research. Sustainability 14(13):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137851
Xu B, Chen J (2021) How to achieve a low-carbon transition in the heavy industry? A nonlinear perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 140:110708
Yao S, Zhang S, Zhang X (2019) Renewable energy, carbon emission and economic growth: a revised environmental Kuznets Curve perspective. J Clean Prod 235:1338–1352
Yi M, Liu Y, Sheng MS et al. (2022) Effects of digital economy on carbon emission reduction: new evidence from China. Energy Policy 171:113271
Yu L, Zeng C, Wei X (2022) The impact of industrial robots application on air pollution in China: mechanisms of energy use efficiency and green technological innovation. Sci Prog 105(4):368504221144093. https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504221144093
Zavyalova EB, Volokhina VA, Troyanskaya MA et al. (2023) A humanistic model of corporate social responsibility in e-commerce with high-tech support in the artificial intelligence economy. Human Soc Sci Commun 10(1):274. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01764-1
Zhang C, Liu C (2015) The impact of ICT industry on CO2 emissions: a regional analysis in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 44:12–19
Zhang X, Liu P, Zhu H (2022) The impact of industrial intelligence on energy intensity: evidence from China. Sustainability 14(12):721914. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127219
Zheng S, Yang J, Yu S (2021) How renewable energy technological innovation promotes renewable power generation: evidence from China’s provincial panel data. Renew Energy 177:1394–1407
Zhong J, Zhong Y, Han M et al. (2023) The impact of AI on carbon emissions: evidence from 66 countries. Appl Econ 56(25):2975–2989
Download references
This work is supported by the “Youth Innovation Team Project” of the Higher Education Institutions under the Shandong Provincial Department of Education (No. 2023RW015), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71874203).
Authors and affiliations.
School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao, 266580, People’s Republic of China
Qiang Wang & Yuanfan Li
School of Economics and Management, Xinjiang University, Wulumuqi, 830046, People’s Republic of China
Qiang Wang & Rongrong Li
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
QW: conceptualization, methodology, software, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, supervision, writing—reviewing and editing. YL: methodology, software, data curation, investigation writing—original draft, writing—reviewing and editing. RL: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, investigation writing—original draft, writing—reviewing.
Correspondence to Qiang Wang or Rongrong Li .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Cite this article.
Wang, Q., Li, Y. & Li, R. Ecological footprints, carbon emissions, and energy transitions: the impact of artificial intelligence (AI). Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1043 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03520-5
Download citation
Received : 29 January 2024
Accepted : 29 July 2024
Published : 14 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03520-5
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Writing a Literature Review A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say "literature review" or ...
A literature review is a survey of scholarly knowledge on a topic. Our guide with examples, video, and templates can help you write yours.
This paper discusses literature review as a methodology for conducting research and offers an overview of different types of reviews, as well as some guidelines to how to both conduct and evaluate a literature review paper. It also discusses common pitfalls and how to get literature reviews published. 1.
The literature review is an opportunity to discover and craft your scholarly identity through the kinds of questions you engage, the discussions you enter, the critiques you launch, and the research you advance.
The literature review in an empirical paper. In this section we discuss the literature review as a part of an empirical article. It plays the fundamental. role of unveiling the theory, or theories ...
Abstract Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in ...
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how ...
What is a literature review? A literature review is an integrated analysis -- not just a summary-- of scholarly writings and other relevant evidence related directly to your research question. That is, it represents a synthesis of the evidence that provides background information on your topic and shows a association between the evidence and your research question.
A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research. There are five key steps to writing a literature review: Search for relevant literature. Evaluate sources. Identify themes, debates and gaps.
Module 2 Chapter 3: What is Empirical Literature & Where can it be Found? In Module 1, you read about the problem of pseudoscience. Here, we revisit the issue in addressing how to locate and assess scientific or empirical literature. In this chapter you will read about: distinguishing between what IS and IS NOT empirical literature how and where to locate empirical literature for understanding ...
A literature review article provides a comprehensive overview of literature related to a theme/theory/method and synthesizes prior studies to strength…
A strong problem statement, like the rest of your literature review, should be filled with empirical results, theory, and arguments based on the extant literature. A research proposal differs significantly from other more reflective essays you've likely completed during your social work studies.
Literature Review is a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular field of study or line of research, usually over a specific period of time, in the form of an in-depth, critical bibliographic essay or annotated list in which attention is drawn to the most significant works.
An empirical article reports the findings of a study conducted by the authors and uses data gathered from an experiment or observation. An empirical study is verifiable and "based on facts, systematic observation, or experiment, rather than theory or general philosophical principle" ( APA Databases Methodology Field Values ).
A literature review is a comprehensive analysis of existing research on a topic, identifying trends, gaps, and insights to inform new scholarly contributions. Read this comprehensive article to learn how to write a literature review, with examples.
A literature review summarizes and discusses previous publications on a topic. It should also: explore past research and its strengths and weaknesses. be used to validate the target and methods you have chosen for your proposed research. consist of books and scholarly journals that provide research examples of populations or settings similar to your own, as well as community resources to ...
Learn about the three essential components within a literature review: the theoretical framework, empirical research and research gap
Empirical literature includes a review of any study that involves actual data collection and analysis, whether that's qualitative data, quantitative data, or a mix of both.
The conventional focus of rigorous literature reviews (i.e., review types for which systematic methods have been codified, including the various approaches to quantitative systematic reviews [ 2 - 4 ], and the numerous forms of qualitative and mixed methods literature synthesis [ 5 - 10 ]) is to synthesize empirical research findings from ...
Reviewing the literature requires the ability to juggle multiple tasks, from finding and evaluating relevant material to synthesising information from various sources, from critical thinking to paraphrasing, evaluating, and citation skills [7]. In this contribution, I share ten simple rules I learned working on about 25 literature reviews as a PhD and postdoctoral student. Ideas and insights ...
A literature review is an overview of the previously published works on a topic. The term can refer to a full scholarly paper or a section of a scholarly work such as a book, or an article. Either way, a literature review is supposed to provide the researcher /author and the audiences with a general image of the existing knowledge on the topic ...
Writing a literature review (research project chapter two) could be difficult without background knowledge and planning.
Objectives: Several studies on dynamic capability theory discuss concepts, definitions, and models and highlight emerging challenges for empirical development. However, there has been a lack of studies that review the literature describing dynamic capability and identifying various ways of marketing that contribute to business sustainability and competitive advantage.
While security concerns are mounting, there is a lack of comprehensive research that integrates a review of existing knowledge with empirical analysis of microservice vulnerabilities. This study aims to fill this gap by gathering, analyzing, and synthesizing existing literature on security vulnerabilities associated with microservice architectures.
Abstract To frame their work, biology education researchers need to consider the role of literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and conceptual frameworks as critical elements of the research and writing process. However, these elements can be confusing for scholars new to education research. This Research Methods article is designed to provide an overview of each of these elements and ...
Results: A comprehensive review of 2813 unique abstracts led to the retrieval of 97 full-text articles, with 22 included for detailed assessment. Our literature mapping reveals that successful AI integration within healthcare organizations requires leadership engagement across technological, strategic, operational, and organizational domains.
Examining the determinants of each of these sustainability indicators is a hot topic in the empirical literature on energy economics (Dong et al. 2022b; Ehigiamusoe and Dogan 2022; Wang et al ...
Download Citation | On Aug 9, 2024, Emmanuel Sarpong Owusu published "Spirit child" and concomitant paedicides in Africa: a systematic review of the empirical literature | Find, read and cite ...