Ecological Deficit and Convergence Analysis of Turkiye in the Perspective of Sustainable Environment: Fourier KSS Unit Root Test

Abstract

The ecological deficit that emerges without allowing the reserves consumed well above the biocapacity produced by the earth to renew itself is gradually increasing and the welfare of future generations is rapidly disappearing. Although some efforts have been made for a sustainable economic growth, the sustainability of the ecological deficit is a matter of curiosity. Many studies in the literature have applied convergence analyses for environmental sustainability and long-run forecasting and the existence of convergence among country groups has been investigated. In this study, the per capita ecological deficit data for including Turkey 6 countries, 4 continents, 13 regions and the world average between 1961 and 2022 are analysed with the Fourier-based F-KSS unit root tests proposed by Christopoulos and León-Ledesma (2010). In the long term, it was concluded that the ecological footprints of the world average and many countries and regions are above the biocapacity and do not come out a signs of improvement. It is also analysed whether Turkey converges to the other 23 series with the finding that deficits are unsustainable. It is concluded that Turkey is converge to China, East Asia, Africa and the world average in the long run. With the inference that Europe has started to get results from the legal regulations and sanctions that it has recently made with the vision of ‘carbon neutral continent’, it is thought that Turkey should be integrated into these environmental regulations immeditally.

Keywords

• Ecological Footprint
• Convergence Analysis
• Sustainable Environment
• Ecological Deficit

Sürdürülebilir Çevre Perspektifinde Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Açığı ve Yakınsama Analizi: Fourier KSS Birim Kök Testi

Abstract

Yerkürenin ürettiği biyokapasitenin oldukça üzerinde tüketilen rezervlerin kendisini yenilemesine imkan vermeksizin ortaya çıkan ekolojik açık giderek artmakta ve gelecek nesillerin refahları hızla yok olmaktadır. Sürdürülebilir bir ekonomik büyüme için bir takım çabalar ortaya konulsa da, ekolojik açığın sürdürülebilirliği merak konusudur. Literatürde çok sayıda çalışmada, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ve uzun dönem tahmini için yakınsama analizlerini uygulamış, ülke grupları arasında yakınsamanın varlığı araştırılmıştır. Çalışmada, 1961-2022 yılları arasında Türkiye’nin de dâhil olduğu 6 ülke, 4 kıta, 13 bölge ve dünya ortalamasına ait kişi başına düşen ekolojik açık verileri, Christopoulos ve León-Ledesma (2010) tarafından ortaya atılan Fourier tabanlı F-KSS birim kök testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Uzun dönemde dünya ortalamasının ve birçok ülke ya da bölgenin ekolojik ayak izlerinin biyokapasitenin üzerinde olduğu ve düzelme seyri göstermediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca Türkiye‘nin, açıkların sürdürülemez olduğu bulgusuyla diğer 23 seriye yakınsayıp yakınsamadığı analiz edilmiştir. Türkiye’nin uzun vadede Çin, Doğu Asya, Afrika ve dünya ortalamasına yakındığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Avrupa’nın “karbon nötr kıta” vizyonu ile ortaya koyduğu, son dönemlerde yapmış olduğu hukuki düzenlemeler ve yaptırımlardan sonuç almaya başladığı çıkarımıyla, Türkiye’nin bu çevresel düzenlemelere çok hızlı entegrasyonun gerektiği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Ekolojik Ayak izi
• Yakınsama Analizi
• Sürdürülebilir Çevre
• Ekolojik Açık

References

1. Abbassi, F.; Haq, M. (2022). A spatial econometric analysis of convergence in global environmental performance. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 37513-37526.
2. Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind. The Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 385-406. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2122171
3. Acaravcı, A.; Erdogan, S. (2016). The convergence behavior of CO2 emissions in seven regions under multiple structural Breaks. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 6(3), 575-580 http://www.econjournals.com/index. php/ijeep/article/view/2725
4. Agbede, E. A.; Bani, Y.; Azman-Saini, W.; Naseem, N. A. M. (2021). The impact of energy consumption on environmental quality: Empirical evidence from the MINT countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 54117-54136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14407-2
5. Aldy, J. E. (2006). Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Convergence or Divergence?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 33, 533-555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-6160-x
6. Aldy, J. E. (2007). Divergence in State-Level per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Land Economics, 83(3), 353-369. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27647777
7. Apaydin, Ş.; Ursavaş, U.; Koç, Ü. (2021). The impact of globalization on the ecological footprint: do convergence clubs matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 53379-53393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14300-y
8. Apeaning, R. W.; Labaran, M. (2024). Club convergence of per capita greenhouse gas emissions in Africa: A multi-sectoral analysis of trends and drivers. Sustainable Futures, 7, 100191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2024.100191

9. Apergis, N.; Payne, J. E. (2017). Per capita carbon dioxide emissions across U.S. states by sector and fossil fuel source: Evidence from club convergence tests. Energy Economics, 63, 365-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco. 2016.11.027
10. Arogundade, S.; Hassan, A.; Akpa, E.; Mduduzi, B. (2023). Closer together or farther apart: are there club convergence in ecological footprint?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 15293-15310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23203-5
11. Bahmani-Oskooee, M.; Chang, T.; Wu, T. (2014). Revisiting purchasing power parity in African countries: panel stationary test with sharp and smooth breaks. Applied Financial Economics, 24(22), 1429-1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603107.2014.925068
12. Barro, R. J.; Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995). Economic Growth. New York, McGraw Hill.
13. Baumol, W. J. (1986). Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show. The American Economic Review, 76(5), 1072-1085. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1816469
14. Bayraktar, Y.; Koc, K.; Toprak, M.; Ozyılmaz, A.; Olgun, M. F.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Soylu, O. B. (2023). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among BRICS-T countries: evidence from Fourier unit root test. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 63022-63035.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26532-1
15. Becker, R.; Enders, W.; Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x
16. Belloc, I.; Molina, J. A. (2022). The ecological footprint in Africa: identifying convergence clubs from 1970 to 2018. Applied Economics Letters, 30(19), 2808-2813. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2022.2107984
17. Ben-David, D. (1993). Equalizing Exchange: Trade Liberalization and Income Convergence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 653-679. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118404
18. Bernard, A. B.; Durlauf, S. N. (1995). Convergence in International Output. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 10(2), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.3950100202
19. Bernard, A. B.; Durlauf, S. N. (1996). Interpreting Tests of the Convergence Hypothesis. Journal of Econometrics, 71(1-2), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01699-2
20. Bilgili, F. & Ulucak, R. (2018). Is there deterministic, stochastic, and/or club convergence in ecological footprint indicator among G20 countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 35404-35419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3457-1
21. Bilgili, F.; Ulucak, R.; Koçak, E. (2019). Implications of Environmental Convergence: Continental Evidence Based on Ecological Footprint. In: Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre, D. (eds) Energy and Environmental Strategies in the Era of Globalization. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham. ss. 133-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06001-5_6
22. Brock, W.; Taylor, A.; Scott, M. (2010). The green solow model. Journal of Economic Growth, 15(2), 127-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-010-9051- 0
23. Burnett, J. W. (2016). Club convergence and clustering of U. S. energyrelated CO2 emissions. Resource and Energy Economics, 46, 62-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.09.001
24. Çelik, O.; Adali, Z.; Bari, B. (2023). Does ecological footprint in ECCAS and ECOWAS converge? Empirical evidence from a panel unit root test with sharp and smooth breaks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 16253-16265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23178-3
25. Christidou, M.; Panagiotidis, T.; Sharma, A. (2013). On the stationarity of per capita carbon dioxide emissions over a century. Economic Modelling, 33, 918-925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.05.024
26. Christopoulos, D. K.; León-Ledesma, M. A. (2010). Smooth Breaks and Non-Linear Mean Reversion: Post-Bretton Woods Real Exchange Rates. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29(6),1076-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2010.02.003
27. Churchill, S. A.; Inekwe, J.; Ivanovski, K. (2020). Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions: Evidence from emerging economies, 1921-2014. Energy Economics, 86, 104659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104659
28. Dissanayake, H.; Perera, N.; Abeykoon, S.; Samson, D.; Jayathilaka, R.; Jayasinghe, M.; Yapa, S. (2023). Nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from global economies. PLoS ONE, 18(6), e0287579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287579.
29. Dogah, K. E.; Awaworyi Churchill, S. (2022) Carbon emissions convergence and determinant analysis: evidence from ASEAN countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 323, 116299. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2022.116299
30. Dürrü, Z.; Konat, G. (2023). CIVETS Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Dengenin Stokastik Yakınsaması: Fourier Kantil Birim Kök Testi Yaklaşımı. İktisadi İdari Ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8("Cumhuriyet’in 100. Yılında Türkiye’nin Sosyo-Ekonomisi" Özel Sayısı), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1149267
31. El-Montasser, G.; Inglesi-Lotz, R.; Gupta, R. (2015). Convergence of greenhouse gas emissions among G7 countries. Applied Economics, 47(60), 6543-6552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1080809
32. Erdogan, S.; Acaravci, A. (2019). Revisiting the convergence of carbon emission phenomenon in OECD countries: New evidence from Fourier panel KPSS test. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(24), 24758-24771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05584-2
33. Erdogan, S.; Okumus, I. (2021). Stochastic and club convergence of EF: An empirical analysis for diferent income group of countries. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107123
34. Ezcurra, R. (2007). Is there cross-country convergence in carbon dioxide emissions? Energy Policy, 35(2), 1363-1372. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.enpol.2006.04.006
35. Global Footprint Network (GFN). (2024). Countries With Biocapacity Deficit https://data.footprintnetwork.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 13.08.2024)
36. Gómez, M.; Rodríguez, J. C. (2024). Analysis of the Convergence of Environmental Sustainability and Its Main Determinants: The Case of the Americas (1990-2022). Sustainability, 16(16), 6819. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166819
37. Haider, S.; Akram, V. (2019). Club convergence analysis of ecological and carbon footprint: Evidence from a cross-country analysis. Carbon Management, 10(5), 451-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1640135
38. Harvey, D. I.; Mills, T. C. (2002). Unit roots and double smooth transition. Journal of Applied Statistics, 29(5), 675-683. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760120098739
39. Hepsağ, A. (2022). Ekonometrik Zaman Serileri Analizlerinde Güncel Yöntemler (WinRATS Uygulamalı), DER Yayınları: İstanbul.
40. Iberdrola (2024) Countries Most Affected By Climate Change https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/top-countries-most-affected-by-climate-change (Erişim Tarihi: 12.11.2024)
41. Işık, C.; Ahmad, M.; Ongan, S.; Ozdemir, D.; Irfan, M.; Alvarado, R. (2021). Convergence analysis of the ecological footprint: Theory and empirical evidence from the USMCA countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 32648-32659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12993-9
42. Kapetanios, G.; Shin, Y.; Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a Unit Root in the Nonlinear STAR Framework. Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00202-6
43. Lanne, M.; Liski, M. (2004). Trends and Breaks in Per-Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1870-2028. The Energy Journal, 25(4), 41-65. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol25-No4-3
44. Lawson, L. A.; Martino, M.; Nguyen-Van, P. (2020). Environmental convergence and environmental Kuznets curve : A unified empirical framework. Ecological Modelling, 437, 109289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109289
45. Lee, C. C.; Chang, C. P. (2008). New evidence on the convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions from panel seemingly unrelated regressions augmented dickey-fuller tests. Energy, 33(9), 1468-1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.06.003
46. Leybourne, S.; Newbold, P.; Vougas, D. (1998). Unit Roots and Smooth Transitions. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(1), 83-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9892.00078
47. List, J. A. (1999). Have Air Pollutant Emissions Converged among U. S. Regions? Evidence from Unit Root Tests. Southern Economic Journal, 66(1), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.2307/1060840
48. Meadows, D. H.; Meadows, D. L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York, NY: Universe Books. https://doi.org/10.1349/ddlp.1
49. Nguyen Van, P. (2005). Distribution dynamics of CO2 emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 49(4), 495-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-7687-6
50. Ozcan, B.; Ulucak, R.; Dogan, E. (2019). Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: Evidence from low, middle- and highincome economies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.025
51. Panopoulou, E.; Pantelidis, T. (2009). Club convergence in carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(1), 47-70. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10640008-9260-6
52. Pata, U. K.;Yurtkuran, S. (2023). Is the EKC hypothesis valid in the five highly globalized countries of the European Union? An empirical investigation with smooth structural shifts. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(1), 17.
53. Pata, U. K., Yurtkuran, S., Ahmed, Z., & Kartal, M. T. (2023). Do life expectancy and hydropower consumption affect ecological footprint? Evidence from novel augmented and dynamic ARDL approaches. Heliyon, 9(9).
54. Payne, J. E.; Apergis, N. (2021). Convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions among developing countries: evidence from stochastic and club convergence tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(26), 33751-33763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09506-5
55. Presno, M. J., Landajo, M.; González, P. F. (2015). Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. An approach from nonlinear stationarity analysis. Energy Economics, 70, 563-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.10.001
56. Romero-Ávila, D. (2008). Convergence in carbon dioxide emissions among industrialised countries revisited. Energy Economics, 30(5), 2265-2282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2007.06.003
57. Solarin, S. A. (2019). Convergence in CO2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: Evidence from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(6), 6167-6181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3993-8
58. Solarin, S. A.; Tiwari, A. K.; Bello, M. O. (2019). A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46, 101422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101422
59. Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884513
60. Strazicich, M. C.; List, J. A. (2003). Are CO2 Emission Levels Converging Among Industrial Countries?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 263-271. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022910701857
61. Tatar, H. E. (2022). Asean-5 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Yakınsaması: SURADF ve SURKSS Birim Kök Testi. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(3), 1018-1035. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1071194
62. Tillaguango, B.; Alvarado, R.; Dagar, V.; Murshed, M.; Pinzón, Y.; Méndez, P. (2021). Convergence of the ecological footprint in Latin America: the role of the productive structure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(42), 59771-59783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14745-1
63. Tiwari, A. K.; Kyophilavong, P.; Albulescu, C. T. (2016). Testing the stationarity of CO2 emissions series in Sub-Saharan African countries by incorporating nonlinearity and smooth breaks. Research in International Business and Finance, 37, 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.01.005
64. Ulucak, R.; Apergis, N. (2018). Does convergence really matter for the environment? An application based on club convergence and on the ecological footprint concept for the EU countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.002
65. Ulucak, R.; Kassouri, Y.; Çağrı İlkay, S.; Altıntaş, H.; Garang, A. P. M. (2020). Does convergence contribute to reshaping sustainable development policies? Insights from Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Indicators, 112, 106140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106140
66. Ursavaş, N.; Apaydın, Ş. (2023). The Convergence in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Across G-7 Countries. Fiscaoeconomia, 7(1), 327-340. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1143345
67. Wang, Y.; Zhang, P.; Huang, D.; Cai, C. (2014). Convergence behavior of carbon dioxide emissions in China. Economic Modelling, 43, 75-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.07.040
68. Westerlund, J.; Basher, S. A. (2008). Testing for convergence in carbon dioxide emissions using a century of panel data. Environmental and Resource Economics, 40(1), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-007-9143-2
69. WWF (2012) Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Raporu http://awsassets.wwftr.panda.org/downloads/ turkiyenin_ekolojik_ayak_izi_raporu.pdf
70. Yavuz, N. C.; Yilanci, V. (2013). Convergence in per capita carbon dioxide emissions among G7 countries: A TAR panel unit root approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 54, 283-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9595-x
71. Yilanci, V.; Gorus, M. S.; Solarin, S. A. (2022b). Convergence in per capita carbon footprint and ecological footprint for G7 countries: Evidence from panel Fourier threshold unit root test. Energy & Environment, 33(3), 527-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X211011461
72. Yilanci, V.; Pata, U. K (2020). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: Evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecological Indicators, 113, 106178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106178
73. Yilanci, V.; Ulucak, R.; Ozgur, O. (2022a). Insights for a sustainable environment: Analysing the persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprints of Mediterranean countries. Spatial Economic Analysis, 17(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2021.1919313
74. Yildirim D. C.; Yildirim, S.; Erdogan, S.; Demirtas, I.; Couto, G.; Castanho, R. A. (2021). Time-varying convergences of environmental footprint levels between European Countries. Energies, 14(7), 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071813
75. Yurtkuran, S. (2020). N11 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Yakınsaması: Fourier Durağanlık Testinden Yeni Kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi Ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191-210. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.681354
76. Yurtkuran, S. (2021a). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği ve yeşil lojistik: Türkiye örneği. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(45), 171-201.
77. Yurtkuran, S. (2021b). Türkiye’de işsizlik histerisi hipotezi: Fourier birim kök testleri’nden yeni kanıtlar. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 70-80. https://doi.org/10.36362/gumus.832175
78. Yurtkuran, S., & Pata, U. K. (2024). The effect of nuclear and fossil fuel energy R&D expenditures on environmental qualities in Canada. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 68, 103872.