The Impact of Food Production, Agricultural Value Added, and Economic Growth on the Ecological Footprint in D8 Countries

Öz

This study examines the impact of the food production index, agricultural value added and GDP per capita on the ecological footprint in the D8 countries (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan and Türkiye) during the period 1990–2022. The study utilised a panel data approach; following descriptive statistics and tests for multicollinearity, the analysis process included the Breusch-Pagan LM and Pesaran LMadj tests for cross-sectional dependence, the Pesaran CADF unit root test for stationarity, the Delta test for homogeneity, and the Westerlund cointegration test to assess the presence of a long-run relationship. Long-run coefficients were analysed using the DOLSMG estimator, whilst causality relationships were examined using the Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test. The findings indicate that, across the panel, the food production index, agricultural value added and GDP per capita increase the ecological footprint in a positive and statistically significant manner. Country-specific results, however, reveal that these relationships are not homogeneous and may manifest in different directions in some countries. Furthermore, bidirectional causality was identified between the ecological footprint and all variables. These results indicate that food production, agricultural value creation and economic growth in the D8 countries increase environmental pressure. Therefore, policymakers must support production and growth targets with policies focused on high resource efficiency, environmental friendliness and sustainable development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecological footprint
• food production index
• agricultural value added
• economic growth
• D8 countries

D8 Ülkelerinde Gıda Üretimi, Tarımsal Katma Değer ve Ekonomik Büyümenin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, 1990-2022 döneminde D8 ülkelerinde (Bangladeş, Endonezya, İran, Malezya, Mısır, Nijerya, Pakistan ve Türkiye) gıda üretim endeksi, tarımsal katma değer ve kişi başına düşen GSYH’nin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Çalışmada panel veri yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve çoklu doğrusal bağlantı testlerinin ardından analiz sürecinde yatay kesit bağımlılığını sınamak amacıyla Breusch-Pagan LM ve Pesaran LMadj testleri, durağanlığı belirlemek için Pesaran CADF birim kök testi, homojenliği değerlendirmek için Delta testi ve uzun dönemli ilişkinin varlığını incelemek amacıyla Westerlund eşbütünleşme testi uygulanmıştır. Uzun dönem katsayıları DOLSMG tahmincisi ile analiz edilirken, nedensellik ilişkileri Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel nedensellik testi ile incelenmiştir. Bulgular, panel genelinde gıda üretim endeksi, tarımsal katma değer ve kişi başına düşen GSYH’nin ekolojik ayak izini pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı biçimde artırdığını göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, ülke bazlı sonuçlar bu ilişkilerin homojen olmadığını ve bazı ülkelerde farklı yönlerde ortaya çıkabildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, ekolojik ayak izi ile tüm değişkenler arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilmiştir. Ülke düzeyindeki farklılıklar, panel sonuçlarının her ülke için aynı biçimde yorumlanmaması gerektiğini ve ülkelere özgü koşulların önemini göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar, D8 ülkelerinde gıda üretimi, tarımsal değer yaratımı ve ekonomik büyümenin çevresel baskıyı artırdığını göstermektedir. Bu nedenle politika yapıcıların üretim ve büyüme hedeflerini yüksek kaynak verimliliği, çevre dostu üretim ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma odaklı politikalarla desteklemesi gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik ayak izi
• gıda üretim endeksi
• tarımsal katma değer
• ekonomik büyüme
• D8 ülkeleri

Kaynakça

1. Ali, A., & Xiangyu, G. (2025). Renewable energy generation, agricultural value added and globalization in relation to environmental degradation in the five most populous countries in Asia. Energy & Environment, 36(3), 1484–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231199152
2. Amin, M. M. I., & Rahman, M. M. (2024). Assessing effects of agriculture and industry on CO₂ emissions in Bangladesh. PLOS Climate, 3(9), Article e0000408. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000408
3. Ashraf, J., Javed, A., Bin Jawaid, Z., & Shovkat, S. (2024). Assessing the effect of energy consumption and food production from agriculture on environmental degradation in Pakistan: Does institutional quality matter? Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 20(2), 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4800
4. Aydin, M., Sogut, Y., & Altundemir, M. E. (2023). Moving toward the sustainable environment of European Union countries: Investigating the effect of natural resources and green budgeting on environmental quality. Resources Policy, 83, Article 103737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103737
5. Breitung, J., & Das, S. (2005). Panel unit root tests under cross-sectional dependence. Statistica Neerlandica, 59(4), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9574.2005.00299.x
6. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
7. Damak, O. I., & Eweade, B. S. (2026). Do economic growth, the legal system, and energy consumption lessen the ecological footprint? Evidence from South Korea. Energy & Environment, 37(3), 1707–1728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X241270280
8. Do, L. T. H., & Hoang, P. V. H. (2024). The impact of agricultural value added and biomass energy consumption on Vietnam’s environmental quality. Environmental Economics, 15(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.21511/ee.15(2).2024.13

9. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
10. Georgescu, I., & Kinnunen, J. (2025). Nonlinear effects of GDP regimes, renewable energy, and urbanization on Finland’s ecological footprint: An MT-NARDL approach. World Development Sustainability, 7, Article 100235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2025.100235
11. Global Footprint Network. (2026). National footprint and biocapacity accounts [Data set]. Retrieved March 14, 2026, from https://data.footprintnetwork.org/
12. Guney, E., Sogut, Y., Demirtas, N., Koseoglu, Y., & Sanver, C. (2025). Harmonising progress: Assessing the impact of economic freedom, economic growth, urbanisation and environmental protection expenditures on load capacity in selected European Union countries. Environmental Sciences Europe, 37, Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-025-01088-8
13. Jie, H., Khan, I., Alharthi, M., Zafar, M. W., & Saeed, A. (2023). Sustainable energy policy, socio-economic development, and ecological footprint: The economic significance of natural resources, population growth, and industrial development. Utilities Policy, 81, Article 101490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2023.101490
14. Khurshid, N., Khurshid, J., Shakoor, U., & Ali, K. (2022). Asymmetric effect of agriculture value added on CO₂ emission: Does globalization and energy consumption matter for Pakistan? Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, Article 1053234. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.1053234
15. Kibria, M. G., Aspy, N. N., Ullah, E., Dewan, M. F., Hasan, M. A., Hossain, M. A., Haseeb, M., & Hossain, M. E. (2023). Quantifying the effect of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, food production index, and land use on cereal production in South Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 432, Article 139764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139764
16. Kirikkaleli, D., Awosusi, A. A., Adebayo, T. S., & Otrakçı, C. (2023). Enhancing environmental quality in Portugal: Can CO₂ intensity of GDP and renewable energy consumption be the solution? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(18), 53796–53806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26191-2
17. Mrówczyńska-Kamińska, A., Bajan, B., Pawłowski, K. P., Genstwa, N., & Zmyślona, J. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of food production systems and its determinants. PLOS ONE, 16(4), Article e0250995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250995
18. Nengsih, T. A., Abduh, M., Ladini, U., & Mubarak, F. (2023). The impact of Islamic financial development, GDP, and population on environmental quality in Indonesia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13727
19. Obekpa, H. O., Alola, A. A., Adejo, A. M., & Echebiri, C. (2025). Examining the drivers of ecological footprint components: Is pursuing food security environmentally costly for Nigeria? Ecological Indicators, 170, Article 113009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.113009
20. Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 727–731. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237803
21. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
22. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
23. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
24. Raihan, A. (2023). An econometric evaluation of the effects of economic growth, energy use, and agricultural value added on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 7(3), 665–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-023-00278-7
25. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, energy use, urbanization, tourism, agricultural value-added, and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 12(4), 794–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-022-00782-w
26. Tariq, G., Sun, H., Ali, I., Ali, S., & Shah, Q. (2023). Influence of access to clean fuels and technology, food production index, consumer price index, and income on greenhouse gas emissions from food system: Evidence from developed countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(21), 59528–59539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26628-8
27. Usman, M., Anwar, S., Yaseen, M. R., Makhdum, M. S. A., Kousar, R., & Jahanger, A. (2022). Unveiling the dynamic relationship between agriculture value addition, energy utilization, tourism and environmental degradation in South Asia. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(4), Article e2712. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2712
28. Wang, N., & Mohammad Shah, K. A. (2023). The impact of ecological innovation on the food production quality: Mediating role of environmental awareness. Economic Research–Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3), Article 2163682. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2163682
29. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
30. World Bank. (2026). World development indicators [Data set]. Retrieved March 14, 2026, from https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
31. Wu, X., Wang, Y., & Zhu, H. (2022). Does economic growth lead to an increase in cultivated land pressure? Evidence from China. Land, 11(9), Article 1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091515
32. Zhang, M., Cui, W. K., Zhang, Y. J., & Xu, Y. H. (2021). Research on world food production efficiency and environmental sustainability based on entropy-DEA model. Complexity, 2021(1), Article 8730264. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8730264