Investigating the Convergence of Built-up Land Footprint in the Top Ten Most Populous Countries: Evidence from the Second-Generation Panel Methods

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1 , 780 - 802 , 31.03.2026

İlkay Güler , Zafer Adalı

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1845575

https://izlik.org/JA26DL42TZ

Öz

The world has encountered varied forms of environmental degradation that threaten human beings and all ecosystems. Industrialisation, embedded nonrenewable energy resources, the dominant role of energy inefficiency, and the use of non-green technologies in production, deforestation, and the overexploitation of natural resources are among the essential factors driving global warming, climate change, and other forms of environmental degradation. Over the past six decades, the policy actions required to mitigate environmental degradation and ensure the sustainable generation of natural resources have increasingly become an essential agenda for governments and international organisations. Each leap forward in human history leads to bigger, more complex, and megacities. With advances in industrialization, transportation, technology, and infrastructure, urbanization has become more visible, and a large number of people now live in cities. The pressure of modernization and development has had a significant impact on all segments of the planet, and the land is among the most affected areas. The built-up land footprint is a pivotal indicator of the area of land covered by human infrastructure, such as transportation, housing, and industrial structures. Within this context, the study investigates the stochastic properties of the built-up land footprint using data from 1971-2024 for the top 10 most populous countries. Convergence hypothesis and the persistence of the built-up land footprint are tested using second-generation panel methods. As a result of the examination, convergence hypothesis is verified in the considered countries, while the univariate results on the persistence of the built-up land footprint vary across countries. Hence, joint actions aimed at mitigating the built-up land are provided for the considered countries, and locally based policies are also disclosed for countries whose series do not exhibit a mean-reverting pattern. The study discloses knowledge for sustainable urbanization and supports global efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of anthropogenic activities on land.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Build-Land Footprints , Environmental Degradation , Economic Growth , Sustainable Development , Development Economics

En Kalabalık On Ülkede Yapılaşmış Alan Ayak İzinin Yakınsamasını Araştırmak: İkinci Nesil Panel Yöntemlerinden Elde Edilen Kanıtlar

https://izlik.org/JA26DL42TZ

Öz

Dünya, insanları ve tüm ekosistemleri tehdit eden çeşitli çevre bozulmalarıyla karşı karşıya kalmıştır. Sanayileşme, yerleşik yenilenemez enerji kaynakları, enerji verimsizliğinin baskın rolü ve üretimde yeşil olmayan teknolojilerin kullanımı, ormansızlaşma ve doğal kaynakların aşırı kullanımı, küresel ısınma, iklim değişikliği ve diğer çevre bozulma biçimlerini tetikleyen temel faktörler arasındadır. Son altmış yılda, çevre bozulmasını azaltmak ve doğal kaynakların sürdürülebilir bir şekilde üretilmesini sağlamak için gerekli politika önlemleri, hükümetler ve uluslararası kuruluşlar için giderek daha önemli bir gündem maddesi haline gelmiştir. İnsanlık tarihinde yaşanan her ilerleme, daha karmaşık, daha büyük ve mega şehirlerin ortaya çıkmasını sağlamıştır. Sanayileşme, teknoloji, ulaşım ve altyapı alanlarındaki gelişmelerle beraber kentleşme daha fazla ön plana çıkmıştır. Günümüzde çok sayıda insan kentlerde yaşamaktadır. Modernleşme ve kalkınmanın yarattığı baskı, dünyanın tüm kesimlerini önemli ölçüde etkilemiş, en çok da araziler etkilenmiştir. İnşa edilmiş arazi ayak izi, konut, ulaşım ve endüstriyel yapılar gibi insan altyapısının kapladığı arazi alanının temel bir göstergesidir. Bu çerçevede çalışma, dünyanın en kalabalık 10 ülkesi için 1971-2024 yıllarına ait verileri kullanarak, inşa edilmiş arazi ayak izinin stokastik özelliklerini araştırmaktadır. Yakınsama hipotezi ve yerleşim alanlarının ayak izinin kalıcılığı, ikinci nesil panel yöntemleri kullanılarak analiz edilmektedir. Analiz sonucunda, yakınsama hipotezi ele alınan ülkelerde doğrulanırken, yerleşim alanlarının ayak izinin kalıcılığına ilişkin tek değişkenli sonuçlar ülkeler arasında değişkenlik göstermektedir. Bu nedenle, ele alınan ülkeler için yerleşim alanlarını azaltmaya yönelik ortak eylemler sunulmakta ve serileri ortalama geri dönüş eğilimi sergilemeyen ülkeler için yerel temelli politikalar paylaşılmaktadır. Çalışma, sürdürülebilir kentleşme için öneriler vermekte ve insan faaliyetlerinin arazi üzerindeki negatif etkilerini azaltmaya yönelik küresel çabaları desteklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yapılaşmış Alan Ayak İzi , Ekolojik Ayak İzi , Ekonomik Büyüme , Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma , Gelişme Ekonomisi

Kaynakça

• 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), p.575-580.
• Adalı, Z., & Güler, İ. (2025). “Politikaların otlak arazi çevresi üzerindeki kısa, orta ve uzun vadeli etkilerinin araştırılması”. ECOSUS 2025 Hopa Uluslararası Ekoloji, Ekonomi ve Bölgesel Kalkınma Kongresi, 15-16 Mayıs, Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi, Artvin.
• Adalı, Z., Toygar, A., & Yıldırım, U. (2023). Assessing the stochastic behavior of fishing grounds footprint of top ten fishing countries. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 63, 103015.
• Adalı, Z., Toygar, A., Karataş, A. M., & Yıldırım, U. (2024). Sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine resources: A stochastic analysis of the fishery balance of African countries. Journal for Nature Conservation, 80, 126653
• Adali, Z., Yeter, F., Çoban, M. N., & Sarı, S. (2025). Exploring the grazing land footprint’s stochastic behavior in the top dairy and meat-producing nations. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 30(1), p.107-123.
• Ahmed, M., Khan, A. M., Bibi, S., & Zakaria, M. (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 and resource economics, 33(4), p.533-555.
• Aldy, J. E. (2007). Divergence in state-level per capita carbon dioxide emissions. Land Economics, 83(3), 353-369.
• Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Cil, A. B., Iscan, E., & Eren, A. A. (2023). Stochastic convergence of ecological footprint: new insights from a unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 22100-22114.
• 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.
• Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q., & Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), p.164-177.
• Belbute, J. M., & Pereira, A. M. (2017). Do global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel consumption exhibit long memory? A fractional-integration analysis. Applied Economics, 49(40), 4055-4070.
• Bilgili, F., & Ulucak, R. (2018). The nexus between biomass–footprint and sustainable development. Reference module in materials science and materials engineering, 699, 10600-10609.
• Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., & Koçak, E. (2019). Implications of environmental convergence: continental evidence based on ecological footprint. In Energy and environmental strategies in the era of globalization (pp. 133-165). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Bozoklu, S., Yilanci, V., & Gorus, M. S. (2020). Persistence in per capita energy consumption: a fractional integration approach with a Fourier function. Energy economics, 91, 104926.
• 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), p.239-253.
• Cai, Y., Chang, T., & Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2018). Asymmetric persistence in convergence for carbon dioxide emissions based on quantile unit root test with Fourier function. Energy, 161, p.470-481.
• Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., del Barrio-Castro, T., & Lopez-Bazo, E. (2005). Breaking the panels: an application to the GDP per capita. The Econometrics Journal, p.159–175.
• Chen, P. F., & Lee, C. C. (2007). Is energy consumption per capita broken stationary? New evidence from regional-based panels. Energy Policy, 35(6), 3526-3540.
• Christidou, M., Panagiotidis, T., & Sharma, A. (2013). On the stationarity of per capita carbon dioxide emissions over a century. Economic Modelling, 33, p.918-925.
• Cooper, M. (2018). Governing the global climate commons: The political economy of state and local action, after the US flip-flop on the Paris Agreement. Energy Policy, 118, p.440-454.
• 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(6), 16253-16265.
• Dixon, R. K., McGowan, E., Onysko, G., & Scheer, R. M. (2010). US energy conservation and efficiency policies: Challenges and opportunities. Energy policy, 38(11), 6398-6408.
• Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., & Giljum, S. (2012). Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological indicators, 16, p.100-112.
• Global Footprint Network. (2026). EF data: Country trends. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.235459077.523442272.1766147025-182668017.1750955786#/countryTrends?cn=5001&type=BCpc,EFCpc
• Güler, İ., & Aydinbaş, Y. E. (2024). Proposing sustainable development and growth strategies for CIS-7 countries by investigating the persistence of consumption-based and production-based CO2 emissions. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 16(10), 100114.
• Haider, S., & Akram, V. (2019). Club convergence of per capita carbon emission: global insight from disaggregated level data. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(11), 11074-11086.
• Heil, M. T., & Selden, T. M. (1999). Panel stationarity with structural breaks: carbon emissions and GDP. Applied Economics Letters, 6(4), p.223-225.
• Im, K. S., Lee, J., & Tieslau, M. (2005). Panel LM unit‐root tests with level shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(3), 393-419.
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.
• Kitzes, J., Galli, A., Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., Dige, G., Ede, S., ... & Wiedmann, T. (2009). A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 1991-2007.
• Lanne, M., & Liski, M. (2004). Trends and breaks in per-capita carbon dioxide emissions, 1870-2028. The Energy Journal, 25(4), p.41-65.
• 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.
• Lee, C. C., & Chang, C. P. (2009). Stochastic convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions and multiple structural breaks in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 26(6), 1375-1381.
• Lee, J., & Tieslau, M. (2019). Panel LM unit root tests with level and trend shifts. Economic Modelling, 80, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2017.11.001
• Li, X., & Lin, B. (2013). Global convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 357-363.
• lm, K. S., Lee, J., & Tieslau, M. (2010). Panel LM unit root tests with trend shifts. SSRN, 1619918. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1619918
• McMillan, D. G., & Wohar, M. E. (2013). The relationship between temperature and CO2 emissions: evidence from a short and very long dataset. Applied Economics, 45(26), 3683–3690.
• Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., & Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land use policy, 21(3),p.231-246.
• Narayan, P. K., & Smyth, R. (2007). Are shocks to energy consumption permanent or temporary? Evidence from 182 countries. Energy policy, 35(1), p.333-341.
• Nourry, M. (2009). Re-examining the empirical evidence for stochastic convergence of two air pollutants with a pair-wise approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(4), p.555-570.
• Ozcan, B., Khan, D., & Bozoklu, S. (2021). Dynamics of ecological balance in OECD countries: Sustainable or unsustainable?. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, p.638-647.
• 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, p.130-143 Panopoulou, E., & Pantelidis, T. (2009). Club convergence in carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental and Resource Economics, 44(1), p.47-70.
• Pata, U. K., & Aydin, M. (2020). Testing the EKC hypothesis for the top six hydropower energy-consuming countries: evidence from Fourier Bootstrap ARDL procedure. Journal of Cleaner production, 264, 121699.
• Pata, U. K., & Yilanci, V. (2021). Investigating the persistence of shocks on the ecological balance: Evidence from G10 and N11 countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, p.624-636.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. SSRN 572504. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=572504
• 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.95
• Presno, M. J., Landajo, M., & González, P. F. (2018). Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. An approach from nonlinear stationarity analysis. Energy Economics, 70, 563-581.
• Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), p.121–130
• Rees, W. E. (1998). Understanding sustainable development. Sustainable development and the future of cities.
• Rudolph, A., & Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of ecological footprints: what is the role of globalization?. Ecological Indicators, 81, p.348-361.
• Sachs, J.D., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Iablonovski, G. (2025). Financing Sustainable Development to 2030 and Mid-Century. Sustainable Development Report 2025. Paris: SDSN, Dublin: Dublin University Press.
• Sannigrahi, S., Bhatt, S., Rahmat, S., Paul, S. K., & Sen, S. (2018). Estimating global ecosystem service values and its response to land surface dynamics during 1995–2015. Journal of environmental management, 223, p.115-131.
• Sari, S. (2025). Assessing Environmental Policy Impact through the Ecological Footprint: The Case of Türkiye. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, 13(2), p.359-372.
• Smyth, R., & Narayan, P. K. (2015). Applied econometrics and implications for energy economics research. Energy Economics, 50, p.351-358.
• Solarin, S. A. (2014). Convergence of CO2 emission levels: evidence from African countries. Journal of Economic Research, 19(1), p.65-92.
• Solarin, S. A. (2019). Convergence in CO 2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: evidence from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(6), 6167-6181.
• Solarin, S. A. (2020). Towards sustainable development: A multi‐country persistence analysis of forest products footprint using a stationarity test with smooth shifts. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1465-1476.
• Solarin, S. A., & Bello, M. O. (2018). Persistence of policy shocks to an EDindex: The case of EF in 128 developed and developing countries. Journal of Ecological Indicators, 89, p.35-44.
• Solarin, S. A., Gil-Alana, L. A., & Lafuente, C. (2021). Persistence and sustainability of fishing grounds footprint: Evidence from 89 countries. Science of the Total Environment, 751, 141594.
• Solarin, S. A., Tiwari, A. K., & Bello, M. O. (2019). A multi-country convergence analysis of EF and its components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46, 101422.
• Strazicich, M. C., & List, J. A. (2003). Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environmental and Resource Economics, 24(3), p.263–271.
• Sustainable Development Report (2026). https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/map/
• Sustianbale Development Report ,SDR, (2026). https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/map/.
• Şimşek, O., Güler, İ., Özbek, S., Naimoğlu, M., & Adalı, Z. (2025). Assessing the convergence of cropland ecological balance: A panel data analysis of 13 major agricultural countries. Journal of Environmental & Earth Sciences| Volume, 7(07).
• 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, p.527-540.
• 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, p.80, 21-27.
• Ulucak, R., & Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to EF of the USA. Ecological Indicators, 80, p.337-343.
• UNSTAT, (2025). https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2025/Goal-14/.(Accessed 14 December 2026).
• van Vliet, J. (2019). Direct and indirect loss of natural area from urban expansion. Nature Sustainability, 2(8), 755-763.
• Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability. University of British Columbia.
• Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New Society Publishers.
• Worldometer (2025). Countries in the world by population (2025). https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
• 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(2), p.283-291.
• Yeter, F., & Ölmez, A. (2024). Preservation of Marine Resources and Sustainable Fisheries: Analyzing the Stochastic Dynamics of Fishing Grounds Footprints in the Nordic Countries. Journal of Recycling Economy & Sustainability Policy, 3(2), 129-139
• Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020a). Are shocks to ecological balance permanent or temporary? Evidence from LM unit root tests, Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124294.
• Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020b). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: Evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecological Indicators, 113, 106178.
• Yilanci, V., & Tunali, Ç. B. (2014). Are fluctuations in energy consumption transitory or permanent? Evidence from a Fourier LM unit root test. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 36, p.20-25.
• Yilanci, V., Adali, Z., Çelik, O., & Bari, B. (2023). Testing the short, medium, and long-term effects of shocks on ecological balance. Environmental Management, 72(4), 741-753.
• Yilanci, V., Gorus, M. S., & Aydin, M. (2019). Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary?. Journal of cleaner production, 212, p.270-301.
• Yilanci, V., Gorus, M. S., & Solarin, S. A. (2022a). Convergence in per capita carbon footprint and ecological footprint for G7 countries: Evidence from panel Fourier threshold unit root test. Energy & Environment, 33(3), p.527-545.
• Yilanci, V., Pata, U. K., & Cutcu, I. (2022b). 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), 10.
• Yilanci, V., Ulucak, R., & Ozgur, O. (2022c). Insights for a sustainable environment: analysing the persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprints of Mediterranean countries. Spatial Economic Analysis, 17(1), p.47-66.
• Zickfeld, K., Arora, V. K., & Gillett, N. P. (2012). Is the climate response to CO2 emissions path dependent? Geophysical Research Letters, 39(5), L05703.
• Zickfeld, K., MacDougall, A. H., & Matthews, H. D. (2016). On the proportionality between global temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions during periods of net negative CO2 emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 11(5), 055006.