Are the Environmental Policy Shocks to the Ecological Footprint Permanent in the Example of BRICS Countries and Tükiye?

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the stationarity of the ecological footprint (EF)per capita in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and Türkiye (BRICS+T). In this direction, the series structure of each country is classified in terms of linear and non-linearity, and according to these results, appropriate unit root tests are preferred. Thanks to this stationarity analysis, inferences are made as to whether the shocks in the ecological footprint of these countries are permanent or not. In the study, annual data was used for the period 1961-2017, and then this data set was tested with linear and nonlinear unit root tests. In the findings obtained from the study, according to Sollis (2009) test results, the ecological footprint series is stationary only in Russia; Harvey et al. (2013) test results show that the ecological footprint series is stationary in Russia and Tükiye. The results of other countries revealed that the ecological footprint series is not stationary at level values.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental quality
• ecological footprint
• linear unit root
• nonlinear unit root

BRICS Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Örneğinde Ekolojik Ayak İzine Yönelik Çevresel Politika Şokları Kalıcı mı?

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, BRICS ülkelerinde (Brezilya, Rusya, Hindistan, Çin ve Güney Afrika) ve Türkiye’de (BRICS+T) kişi başına düşen ekolojik ayak izi (EF) serisinin durağanlığını incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, her bir ülkeye ait seri yapısı doğrusal olma ve doğrusal olmama bakımından sınıflandırılmıştır. Elde edilen doğrusallık durumu sonuçlarına göre her bir ülke verisinin analizinde uygun birim kök testi tercih edilmiştir. Bu durağanlık incelemesi sayesinde bu ülkelerin ekolojik ayak izinde ortaya çıkan şokların kalıcı olup olmadığına ilişkin çıkarımlar yapılmıştır. Çalışmada, 1961-2017 dönemine ait yıllık veriler doğrusal olan ve doğrusal olmayan birim kök testleri ile sınanmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgularda, Sollis (2009) test sonuçlarına göre sadece Rusya’da ekolojik ayak izi serisinin durağan olduğu; Harvey vd. (2013) test sonuçlarına göre ise Rusya ve Türkiye’de ekolojik ayak izi serisinin durağan olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Diğer ülkelere ait sonuçlar ise ekolojik ayak izi serisinin düzey değerlerinde durağan olmadığını ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel kalite
• ekolojik ayak izi
• doğrusal birim kök
• doğrusal olmayan birim kök

Kaynakça

1. Alper, A. E., & Alper, F. Ö. (2021). Persistence of policy shocks to the ecological footprint of MINT countries. Ege Academic Review, 21(4), 427-440.
2. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., Kim, D. & Perron, P. (2009). GLS-based unit root tests with multiple structural breaks under both the null and the alternative hypotheses. Econometric Theory, 25, 1754-1792.
3. Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., & Lazarus, E. (2014). Ecological footprint: Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 173, 121-132.
4. Göv, A. & Köstekçi, A. (2022). Dış borç yatırımlar için önemli mi? Türkiye’den kanıtlar. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 7(2), 399-423.
5. Harvey, D. I., Leybourne, S. J. & Robert Taylor, A.M. (2013). Testing for unit roots in the possible presence of multiple trend breaks using minimum Dickey–Fuller statistics. Journal of Econometrics, 177, 265–284.
6. Gil-Alana, L.A., Cunado, J. & Gupta, R. (2017). Persistence, mean-reversion and non-linearities in CO2 emissions: evidence from the BRICS and G7 Countries. Environ. Resour. Econ, 67, 869–883.
7. Global Footprint Network, [Çevrimiçi kaynak]. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/ [Erişim: 14.10.2022].
8. Harvey, D.I. & Leybourne, S.J. (2007). Testing for Time Series Linearity. Econometrics Journal, 10, 149-165.

9. Harvey, D. I., Leybourne, S. J., & Xiao, B. (2008). A powerful test for linearity when the order of integration is unknown. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 12(3), 1-24.
10. Heil, M. T., & Selden, T. M. (1999). Panel stationarity with structural breaks: carbon emissions and GDP. Applied Economics Letters, 6(4), 223-225.
11. 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(25), 32648-32659.
12. Lanne, M. & Liski, M. (2003). Trends and breaks in per-capita carbon dioxide emissions. IAEE Energy J. 25 (4), 1870–2028.
13. Lee, J., & Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. Review of economics and statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089.
14. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. (2004). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Unpublished Manuscript. [Çevrimiçi kaynak]. https://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp0417.pdf [Erişim: 14.10.2022].
15. Lumsdaine, R.L. & Papel, D. H. (1997). Multiple trend breaks and the unit-root hypothesis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 212-218.
16. McKitrick R. & Strazicich M.C. (2005). Stationarity of global per capita carbon dioxide emissions: Implications for global warming scenarios. Working Papers 05-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
17. Ozcan, B., Ulucak, R. & Dogan, E. (2019). Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: Evidence from low, middle and high income economies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 130-143.
18. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57, 1361–1401.
19. Perron, P. (1997). Further evidence of breaking trend functions in macroeconomic variables. Journal of Econometrics, 80, 355–385.
20. Perron, P., Rodriguez, G. (2003). GLS detrending, efficient unit root tests and structural change. Journal of Econometrics, 115, 1–27.
21. Rees, W.E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environ. Urbanization, 4 (2), 121–130.
22. Rees, W. & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable—and why they are a key to sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 16 (4–6), 223–248.
23. 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.
24. Solarin, S.A. & Bello, M.O. (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.
25. Sollis, R. (2009). A simple unit root test against asymmetrical STAR nonlinearity with an application to real exchange rates in nordic countries. Economic Modelling, 26(1), 118–125.
26. Stock, J. & Watson, M.W. (2005). Implications of dynamic factor analysis for VAR models. NBER Working Paper, 11467.
27. 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.
28. Ulucak, R. & Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to Ecological Footprint of the USA. Ecological Indicators, 80, 337-343.
29. United Nations, G.A. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1, [Çevrimiçi kaynak].https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N1 5/291/89/PDF/N1529189.pdf?OpenElement [Erişim: 01.09.2022].
30. Vogelsang, T.J. & Perron, P. (1998). Additional tests for a unit root allowing the possibility of breaks in the trend function. International Economic Review, 39, 1073–1100.
31. Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carryinng Capacity: A Toll for Planning Toward Sustainability. The University of British Colombia, PhD Thesis.
32. Wackernagel, M., & Monfreda, C. (2004). Ecological footprints and energy. Encyclopedia of energy, 2(1), 1-11.
33. Wackernagel, M. & Rees, W.E. (1996). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada.
34. Wiedmann, T. & Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the ecological footprint indicator-perceptions and methods. Sustainability, 2(6), 1645-1693.
35. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2020). Living Planet Report 2020—Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Almond, R.E.A., Grooten M. and Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
36. Yilanci, V., Gorus, M. S., & Aydin, M. (2019). Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary?. Journal of cleaner production, 212, 270-301.
37. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D.W.K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, 251–270.