Load Capacity Factor as Metrics for Land and Forests Sustainability Assessment in G20 Economies: Fresh Insight from Policy, Technology, and Economy Perspectives
Guanglei Huang, Pao-Hsun Huang, Shoukat Iqbal Khattak, Anwar Khan
Abstract
Traditional environmental research remains affixed in fragmented metrics (e.g., CO2 emissions or ecological footprints) that undermine the systemic equilibrium between economic demand and ecological regeneration. Biocapacity, representing the capacity of lands (crop and grazing), forests, and other natural systems, is the backbone of economic livelihoods and environmental resilience. Recent literature frequently calls for operationalizing models with robust environmental sustainability indicators, such as the load capacity factor (LF), a comprehensive compass that measures biocapacity (e.g., forests, croplands) relative to ecological footprint. For this purpose, the integrated model combined environment-related policies (regulations, ENRs), technologies (ERTs), sectoral structures, and LF, with the latest available data (2000–2022) of G20 economies. Results of the multiple tests, including feasible generalized least squares, sensitivity tests (alternate proxies), and panel-corrected standard errors, highlighted a paradox: even though ENRs and ERTs tend to improve environmental sustainability through forestation, land use, and green initiatives, the results showed adverse effects of both indicators on environmental sustainability (LF), reflecting a misalignment between policies and environmental outcomes. While industrialization, renewable energy use, and rising per capita income had enhanced environmental sustainability (LF) gains, structural frictions in the services, manufacturing, and trade sectors undermined these advantages, revealing diffusion lags and transitional lock-ins across sampled countries. With LF embedded as a new tool for sustainable governance of forests and land management, the paper advances three critical contributions: (i) uncovering paradoxical deteriorations in sustainability under misaligned policy and technology interventions, (ii) showing an imperative need for performance-based, adaptive, and innovation-financed policies, and (iii) demonstrating LF as a standard for positioning technology, economic transitions, and policy with ecological and cropland-forests resilience.