GERİ ÇEKİLDİ: OECD Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Alt Bileşenlerinin Durağanlığının İncelenmesi

Year 2020, Volume: 28 Issue: 46, 293 - 310, 31.10.2020

Ali Eren Alper Fındık Özlem Alper

https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.04.14

Cited By: 1

Abstract

(Bu makale 18-12-2020 tarihinde geri çekildi.)

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı ekolojik ayak izi ve alt bileşenlerinin durağanlığını, 1961-2016 dönemi için 12 seçilmiş OECD üyesi ülkede hem yumuşak hem de sert kırılmaları dikkate alan Fourier KPSS birim kök testi ile sınamaktır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre ABD için karbon salınımı ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Almanya için orman ürünleri ayak izi değişkeninin; Avusturalya için orman ürünleri ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Avusturya için balıkçılık alanları ve orman ürünleri ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Fransa için karbon salınımı, orman ürünleri ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Hollanda için balıkçılık alanları ve orman ürünleri ayak izi değişkenlerinin; İngiltere için orman ürünleri ve tarım alanı ayak izi değişkenlerinin; İtalya için tarım alanı ayak izi değişkeninin; Japonya için tarım alanı ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Kanada için toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkeninin ve Türkiye için ise balıkçılık alanları ve orman ürünleri ayak izlerinin seviyede durağan olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

Ekolojik ayak izi, Fourier, Durağanlık

RETRACTED: Examination of the Stationarity of Ecological Footprint and its Sub-Components in the OECD Countries

Abstract

(This article was retracted on December 18, 2020.)

The basic aim of this study is to test the stationarity of the ecological footprint and its sub-components with the Fourier KPSS unit root test, which takes both smooth and sharp structural breaks into consideration, in 12 selected OECD member countries over the period between 1961-2016. The analysis results detected that carbon emission and total ecological footprint variables for the USA; forest products footprint variable for Germany; forest products and total ecological footprint variables for Australia; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for Austria; carbon emission, forest products and total ecological footprint variables for France; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for the Netherlands; forest products and cropland footprint variables for England; cropland footprint variable for Italy; cropland and total ecological footprint variables for Japan; total ecological footprint variables for Canada and fishery areas and forest products footprints for Turkey are stationary at levels.

Keywords

Ecological footprint, Fourier, Stationarity

References

• Acemoglu, D. & P. Aghion & D. Hemous (2015), “The environment and directed technical change in a North-South model”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(3), 513-530.
• Ahmed, M. & A.M. Khan & S. Bibi & M. Zakaria (2017), “Convergence of per capita CO2 emissions across the globe: Insights via wavelet analysis”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75, 86-97.
• Aldy, J.E. (2006), “Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Convergence or Divergence?”, Environmental & Resource Economics, 33(4), 533-555.
• Al-mulali, U. & C. Weng-Wai & L. Sheau-Ting & A.H. Mohammed (2015), “Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation”, Ecological Indicators, 48, 315-323.
• Al-Mulali, U. & I. Ozturk & S.A. Solarin (2016), “Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in seven regions: The role of renewable energy”, Ecological Indicators, 67, 267-282.
• Barros, C.P. & L.A. Gil-Alana & F. Perez de Gracia (2016), “Stationarity and Long Range Dependence of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Evidence for Disaggregated Data”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 63(1), 45-56.
• Becker, R. & W. Enders & J. Lee (2006), “A Stationarity Test in the Presence of an Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks”, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
• Bekhet, H.A. & N.S. Othman & T. Yasmin (2020), “Interaction between Environmental Kuznet Curve and Urban Environment Transition Hypotheses in Malaysia”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(1), 384-402.
• Cai, X. & X. Che & B. Zhu & J. Zhao & R. Xie (2018), “Will developing countries become pollution havens for developed countries? An empirical investigation in the Belt and Road”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 624-632.
• Camarero, M. & A.J. Picazo-Tadeo & C. Tamarit (2013), “Are the determinants of CO2 emissions converging among OECD countries?”, Economics Letters, 118(1), 159-162.
• Chen, P.-F. & C.-C. Lee (2007), “Is energy consumption per capita broken stationary? New evidence from regional-based panels”, Energy Policy, 35(6), 3526-3540.
• Chen, Q. & D. Taylor (2020), “Economic development and pollution emissions in Singapore: Evidence in support of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis and its implications for regional sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 243.
• Christidou, M. & T. Panagiotidis & A. Sharma (2013), “On the stationarity of per capita carbon dioxide emissions over a century”, Economic Modelling, 33, 918-925.
• Cole, M.A. (2004), “Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages”, Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71-81.
• Destek, M.A. & S.A. Sarkodie (2019), “Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The role of energy and financial development”, Sci Total Environ, 650(Pt 2), 2483-2489.
• Dogan, E. (2016), “Are shocks to electricity consumption transitory or permanent? Sub-national evidence from Turkey”, Utilities Policy, 41, 77-84.
• Global Footprint Network (2018), Global Footprint Network, <https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/>, 23.12.2019.
• Hove, S. & T. Tursoy (2019), “An investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve in emerging economies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 236.
• Imperatives, S. (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future, <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-cf.htm>, 15.05.2019.
• Kapetanios, G. & Y. Shin & A. Snell (2003), “Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework”, Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379.
• Kruse, R. (2011), “A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics”, Statistical Papers, 52(1), 71-85.
• Kwiatkowski, D. & P.C. Phillips & P. Schmidt & Y. Shin (1992), “Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root”, Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
• Lee, C.-C. & C.-P. Chang (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.
• Li, X. & B. Lin (2013), “Global convergence in per capita CO2 emissions”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 357-363.
• Li, X.L. & D.P. Tang & T. Chang (2014), “CO2 emissions converge in the 50 US states-Sequential panel selection method”, Economic Modelling, 40, 320-333.
• López, L.A. & G. Arce & T. Kronenberg & J.F.D. Rodrigues (2018), “Trade from resource-rich countries avoids the existence of a global pollution haven hypothesis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 599-611.
• Mrabet, Z. & M. Alsamara (2017), “Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1366-1375.
• Narayan, P.K. & S. Popp (2010), “A new unit root test with two structural breaks in level and slope at unknown time”, Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(9), 1425-1438.
• Ozcan, B. & R. Ulucak & E. Dogan (2019), “Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: Evidence from low, middle and high income economies”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 130-143.
• Ozturk, I. & U. Al-Mulali & B. Saboori (2016), “Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint”, Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 23(2), 1916-1928.
• Phillips, P.C. & D. Sul (2007), “Transition modeling and econometric convergence tests”, Econometrica, 75(6), 1771-1855.
• Presno, M.J. & M. Landajo & P. Fernández González (2018), “Stochastic convergence in per capita CO 2 emissions. An approach from nonlinear stationarity analysis”, Energy Economics, 70, 563-581.
• Rees, W.E. & M. Wackernagel (1996), “Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities cannot Be Sustainable and Why They Are a Key to Sustainability”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16(4-6), 223-248.
• Rees, W.E. (1992), “Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out”, Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121-130.
• Shahbaz, M. & N. Khraief & S. Hammoudeh (2019), “How Do Carbon Emissions Respond to Economic Shocks? Evidence from Low-Middle- and High-Income Countries”, MPRA Paper, 93976.
• Shao, Q. & X. Wang & Q. Zhou & L. Balogh (2019), “Pollution haven hypothesis revisited: A comparison of the BRICS and MINT countries based on VECM approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 724-738.
• Solarin, S.A. & L.A. Gil-Alana & C. Lafuente (2019), “Persistence in carbon footprint emissions: an overview of 92 countries”, Carbon Management, 10(4), 405-415.
• Solarin, S.A. & M.O. Bello (2018), “Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: the case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries”, Ecological Indicators, 89, 35-44.
• Solarin, S.A. & U. Al-Mulali & I. Musah & I. Ozturk (2017), “Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: An empirical investigation”, Energy, 124, 706-719.
• Stern, D.I. (2004), “The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, World Development, 32(8), 1419-1439.
• Sun, C. & F. Zhang & M. Xu (2017), “Investigation of pollution haven hypothesis for China: An ARDL approach with breakpoint unit root tests”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 153-164.
• Tiwari, A.K. & P. Kyophilavong & C.T. Albulescu (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.
• Ulucak, R. & D. Lin (2017), “Persistence of policy shocks to Ecological Footprint of the USA”, Ecological Indicators, 80, 337-343.
• Wackernagel, M. (1994), “Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: A Tool for Planning Toward Sustainability”, PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia.
• Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A. & C.A. Silva-Zambrano & J.L. Davalos-Panafiel & A. Zambrano-Monserrate & M.A. Ruano (2018), “Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1366-1375.