Şoklar Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Yeni Zelanda’da Kişi Başı Ekolojik Dengeyi Kalıcı Olarak Etkiler mi?

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Yeni Zelanda için ayrı ayrı hesaplanan kişi başı ekolojik dengenin şoklardan kalıcı olarak etkilenip etkilenmediğini ortaya koymaktır. Analiz dönemi incelenen tüm ülkeler için (veri mevcudiyetine bağlı olarak) 1961–2022 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Çalışmada kullanılan veriler yıllık bazdadır. Kişi başı ekolojik denge, kişi başı biyolojik kapasiteden kişi başı ekolojik ayak izinin çıkartılmasıyla elde edilmiştir. Doğrusal dışılığı dikkate almayan ve doğrusal dışılığı dikkate alan birim kök testleri arasında bir seçim yapabilmek amacıyla önce Harvey vd. (2008) tarafından önerilen doğrusallık testi uygulanmıştır. Doğrusallık analizinin sonuçları dikkate alınarak çalışmada Brezilya verilerine ve Yeni Zelanda verilerine ADF birim kök testi, Elliott vd. (1996) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi ve Narayan ve Popp (2010) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi uygulanmıştır. Güney Afrika’ya ait kişi başı ekolojik denge serisi için ise Kapetanios vd. (2003) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi, Kruse (2011) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi ve Güriş (2019) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Yeni Zelanda için ayrı ayrı hesaplanan kişi başı ekolojik dengeye yönelik şokların kalıcı etkiye sahip olduğu söylenebilir. Çalışmada ayrıca elde edilen bulgulardan yola çıkarak önemli önerilerde de bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Birim Kök Testi
• Biyolojik Kapasite
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Ekolojik Denge

Do Shocks Permanently Affect Ecological Balance Per Capita in Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand?

Öz

The aim of this study is to reveal whether the ecological balance per capita calculated separately for Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand is permanently affected by shocks or not. The analysis period (depending on data availability) covers the period 1961–2022 for all countries examined. The data used in the study are on an annual basis. The ecological balance per capita has been obtained by subtracting the per capita ecological footprint from the per capita biocapacity. In order to make a choice between unit root tests that do not take into account nonlinearity and those that do, the linearity test suggested by Harvey et al. (2008) was first applied. Considering the results of the linearity analysis, the ADF unit root test, the unit root test recommended by Elliott et al. (1996), and the unit root test proposed by Narayan and Popp (2010) were applied to the data of Brazil and the data of New Zealand. For the ecological balance per capita series of South Africa, the unit root test recommended by Kapetanios et al. (2003), the unit root test proposed by Kruse (2011), and the unit root test suggested by Güriş (2019) were applied. According to the findings obtained, it can be said that the shocks to the ecological balance per capita (calculated separately for Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand) have a permanent effect. The study also made important suggestions based on the findings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unit Root Test
• Biocapacity
• Ecological Footprint
• Ecological Balance

Kaynakça

1. Acaroğlu, H., Kartal, H. M. ve Garcia Marquez, F. P. (2023). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in terms of ecological footprint and CO2 emissions through energy diversification for Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(22), 63289-63304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26278-w google scholar
2. Acheampong, A. O., Opoku, E. E. O. ve Dzator, J. (2022). Does democracy really improve environmental quality? Empirical contribution to the environmental politics debate. Energy Economics, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105942 google scholar
3. Ahmad, F., Draz, M. U., Su, L. ve Rauf, A. (2019). Taking the bad with the good: The nexus between tourism and environmental degradation in the lower middle-income Southeast Asian economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 233, 1240-1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.138 google scholar
4. Ajmi, A. N. ve Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2021). Revi siting the Kuznets curve hypothesis for Tunisia: Carbon dioxide vs. ecological footprint. Energy Sources, PartB: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 16(5), 406-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2020.1850923 google scholar
5. Al-mulali, U. ve Tang, C. F. (2013). Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy, 60, 813-819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.055 google scholar
6. Alper, A. E. ve Alper, F. Ö. (2021). Persistence of policy shocks to the ecological footprint of MINT countries. Ege Akademik Bakış, 21(4), 427-440. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1015635 google scholar
7. Aydin, C., Esen, Ö. ve Aydin, R. (2022). Analyzing the economic development-driven ecological deficit in the EU-15 countries: New evidence from PSTR approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(10),15188-15204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16773-3 google scholar
8. Bektaş, V. ve Ursavaş, N. (2023). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis with globalization for OECD countries: The role of convergence clubs. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(16), 47090-47105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25577-6 google scholar

9. Bello, M. O., Gil-Alana, L. A. ve Ch’ng, K. S. (2023). Mean reversion and convergence of ecological footprint in the MENA region: Evidence from a fractional integration procedure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(12), 35384-35397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24678-y google scholar
10. Bermejo, L., Gil-Alana, L. A. ve Del Rio, M. (2021). Atmospheric pollution in the ten most populated US cities. Evidence of persistence. Heliyon, 7(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08105. google scholar
11. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C., Wackernagel, M. ve Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005. google scholar
12. Caglar, A. E. ve Mert, M. (2022). Carbon hysteresis hypothesis as a new approach to emission behavior: A case of top five emitters. Gondwana Research, 109, 171-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.05.002. google scholar
13. Caglar, A. E., Balsalobre-Lorente, D. ve Akin, C. S. (2021). Analysing the ecological footprint in EU-5 countries under a scenario of carbon neutrality: Evidence from newly developed sharp and smooth structural breaks in unit root testing. Journal of Environmental Management, 295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113155. google scholar
14. Chang, S. C. (2015). Threshold effect of foreign direct investment on environmental degradation. Portuguese Economic Journal, 14, 75-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-015-0112-3. google scholar
15. Chen, Z., Barros, C. P. ve Gil-Alana, L. A. (2016). The persistence of air pollution in four mega-cities of China. Habitat International, 56, 103-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.05.004. google scholar
16. Cil, N. (2023). Re-examination of pollution haven hypothesis for Turkey with Fourier approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 10024-10036.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22800-8. google scholar
17. Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T. J. ve Stock, J. H. (1996). Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica, 64(4), 813-836. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171846. google scholar
18. Erdogan, S., Pata, U. K., Solarin, S. A. ve Okumus, I. (2022). On the persistence of shocks to global CO2 emissions: A historical data perspective (0 to 2014). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(51), 77311-77320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21278-8. google scholar
19. Erdoğmuş, M. (2023). Danimarka ve İsveç için işsizlik histerisi hipotezinin test edilmesi. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, 23(1), 123-136. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.1244630. google scholar
20. Esenyel İçen, N. M., İçen, H. ve Uzuner, G. (2022). Evaluation of ecological security for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-5 countries: New evidence from the RALS unit root test. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 29(4), 705-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-022-00540-9. google scholar
21. Galli, A. ve Halle, M. (2014). Mounting debt in a world in overshoot: An analysis of the link between the mediterranean region’s economic and ecological crises. Resources, 3(2), 383-394. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3020383. google scholar
22. Geng, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, X., Xue, B., Fujita, T. ve Dong, H. (2014). Urban ecological footprint analysis: A comparative study between Shenyang in China and Kawasaki in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 75, 130-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.082. google scholar
23. Global Footprint Network. (t.y.). Ecological Footprint vs Biocapacity (gha per person) [Veri Seti]. Erişim Adresi: https://data.footprintnetwork.org//countryTrends?type=BCpc,EFCpc&cn=223 (Erişim Tarihi: 28.06.2023). google scholar
24. Güriş, B. (2019). A new nonlinear unit root test with Fourier function. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 48(10), 3056-3062. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2018.1473591. google scholar
25. Hacıimamoğlu, T. (2023). Katar’da ekolojik ayak izi ve alt bileşenlerinin durağanlığının test edilmesi: Kesirli frekanslı Fourier birim kök analizi. Verimlilik Dergisi, Döngüsel Ekonomi ve Sürdürülebilirlik Özel Sayısı, 205-218. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1071540. google scholar
26. Harvey, D. I., Leybourne, S. J. ve Xiao, B. (2008). A powerful test for linearity when the order of integration is unknown. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1558-3708.1582. google scholar
27. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. ve 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. google scholar
28. Kostakis, I. ve Arauzo-Carod, J. M. (2023). The key roles of renewable energy and economic growth in disaggregated environmental degradation: Evidence from highly developed, heterogeneous and cross-correlated countries. Renewable Energy, 206, 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.02.106. google scholar
29. Kruse, R. (2011). A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics. Statistical Papers, 52(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00362-009-0204-1. google scholar
30. Kruse, T., Dechezlepretre, A., Saffar, R. ve Robert, L. (2022). Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: An update of the OECD composite EPS indicator (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1703). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/90ab82e8-en. google scholar
31. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. C. (2003). Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1082-1089. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815961. google scholar
32. Lumsdaine, R. L. ve Papell, D. H. (1997). Multiple trend breaks and the unit-root hypothesis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465397556791. google scholar
33. Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M. ve Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.009. google scholar
34. Moors, E. H. M., Mulder, K. F. ve Vergragt, P. J. (2005). Towards cleaner production: Barriers and strategies in the base metals producing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(7), 657-668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.12.010. google scholar
35. Moran, D. D., Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J. A., Goldfinger, S. H. ve Boutaud, A. (2008). Measuring sustainable development—Nation by nation. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 470-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.017. google scholar
36. Narayan, P. K. ve Popp, S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760903039883. google scholar
37. Narayan, P. K. ve Popp, S. (2013). Size and power properties of structural break unit root tests. Applied Economics, 45(6), 721-728. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.610752. google scholar
38. OECD (t.y.). Environmental policy: Environmental Policy Stringency index, OECD.Stat Statistics (database). Erişim Adresi: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EPS# (Erişim Tarihi: 05.04.2023). google scholar
39. Ozcan, B., Danish ve Bozoklu, S. (2021). Dynamics of ecological balance in OECD countries: Sustainable or unsustainable?. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 638-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.014. google scholar
40. Ozcan, B., Ulucak, R. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.025. google scholar
41. Pata, U. K. ve Aydin, M. (2023). Persistence of CO2 emissions in G7 countries: A different outlook from wavelet-based linear and nonlinear unit root tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(6), 15267-15281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23284-2. google scholar
42. Pata, U. K. ve Yilanci, V. (2021). Investigating the persistence of shocks on the ecological balance: Evidence from G10 and N11 countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 624-636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.027. google scholar
43. Poddig, T., Dichtl, H. ve Petersmeier, K. (2008). Statistik, Ökonometrie, Optimierung: Methoden und ihre praktischen Anwendungen in Finanzanalyse und Portfoliomanagement. Uhlenbruch Verlag, Bad Soden/Ts. google scholar
44. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212. google scholar
45. Siche, J. R., Agostinho, F., Ortega, E. ve Romeiro, A. (2008). Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecological Economics, 66(4), 628-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.023. google scholar
46. Solarin, S. A. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064. google scholar
47. Solarin, S. A. ve Gil-Alana, L. A. (2021). Persistence of methane emission in OECD countries for 1750-2014: A fractional integration approach. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 26(4), 497-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-020-09743-5. google scholar
48. Solarin, S. A., Gil-Alana, L. A. ve Lafuente, C. (2019). Persistence in carbon footprint emissions: An overview of 92 countries. Carbon Management, 10(4), 405-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1620038. google scholar
49. Solarin, S. A., Gil-Alana, L. A. ve Lafuente, C. (2021). Persistence and sustainability of fishing grounds footprint: Evidence from 89 countries. Science of the Total Environment, 751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141594. google scholar
50. Solarin, S. A., Pata, U. K., Erdogan, S. ve Okumus, I. (2023). Persistence of shocks on sectoral non-methane volatile organic compound from 1820 to 2019: Insights from a Fourier quantile unit root test. Journal of Environmental Management, 325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116436. google scholar
51. Tiwari, A. K., Kyophilavong, P. ve 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. google scholar
52. Ulucak, R. ve Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecological Indicators, 80, 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.020. google scholar
53. Von Stokar, T., Steinemann, M., Rüegge, B. ve Schmill, J. (2006). Der ökologische Fussabdruck der Schweiz: Ein Beitrag zur Nachhaltigkeitsdiskussion. Erişim Adresi: https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/wirtschaft-konsum/publikationen-studien/publikationen/oekologische-fussabdruck-schweiz.html (Erişim Tarihi: 22.02.2023). google scholar
54. Wackernagel, M. ve Beyers, B. (2016). Footprint: Die Welt neu vermessen. CEP Europaische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg. google scholar
55. Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island. google scholar
56. Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., Jayasinghe, P., Lin, D., Murthy, A., Neill, E. ve Raven, P. (2021). The importance of resource security for poverty eradication. Nature Sustainability, 4(8), 731-738. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00708-4. google scholar
57. Wang, Q., Zhang, F. ve Li, R. (2023). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: The roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environmental Research, 216(Part 3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114637. google scholar
58. Wen, J., Mughal, N., Zhao, J., Shabbir, M. S., Niedbala, G., Jain, V. ve Anwar, A. (2021). Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission. Energy Policy, 153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112230. google scholar
59. Yilanci, V. ve Pata, U. K. (2020). Are shocks to ecological balance permanent or temporary? Evidence from LM unit root tests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124294. google scholar
60. Yilanci, V., Gorus, M. S. ve Aydin, M. (2019). Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 270-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjclepro.2018.11.299. google scholar
61. Yilanci, V., Pata, U. K. ve Cutcu, I. (2022). Testing the persistence of shocks on ecological footprint and sub-accounts: Evidence from the big ten emerging markets. International Journal of Environmental Research, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-021-00391-5 google scholar
62. York, R., Rosa, E. A. ve Dietz, T. (2003). Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 279-300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519769. google scholar
63. Zambrano-Monserrate, M. A., Ruano, M. A., Ormeno-Candelario, V. ve Sanchez-Loor, D. A. (2020). Global ecological footprint and spatial dependence between countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111069. google scholar