N-11 ÜLKELERİNDE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ VE BİLEŞENLERİNDE ŞOKLARIN KALICILIĞININ İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışmada, N-11 ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi ve alt bileşenleri olan yerleşim alanları ayak izi, karbon ayak izi, tarım alanı ayak izi, balıkçılık alanları ayak izi, orman alanları ayak izi, otlak alan ayak izi serilerinin durağanlık yapıları 1971–2022 dönemine ait yıllık veriler kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Öncelikle Harvey ve Leybourne (2007) ile Harvey, Leybourne ve Xiao (2008) testleri ile serilerin doğrusal olup olmadıkları tespit edilmiştir. Doğrusal seriler için Schmidt ve Phillips (1992) geleneksel LM testi, doğrusal olmayan seriler için ise Kapetanios, Shin ve Snell (KSS) (2003) doğrusal olmayan birim kök testi kullanılarak şokların kalıcılığı araştırılmıştır. Schmidt ve Phillips (1992) LM birim kök testi sonuçlarına göre Endonezya için balıkçılık alanları ayak izi, Nijerya için otlak alan ayak izi, Filipinler ve Güney Kore için yerleşim alanları ayak izi, Türkiye için ise ekolojik ayak izi ve balıkçılık alanları ayak izi serilerinin durağan olduğu belirlenmiştir. KSS (2003) tarafından geliştirilen doğrusal olmayan birim kök testi sonuçlarına göre ise Pakistan, Filipinler ve Endonezya’da karbon ayak izi, Meksika’da ekolojik ayak izi ve yerleşim alanları ayak izi, karbon ayak izi, tarım alanı ayak izi serisi, Nijerya’da tarım alanı ayak izi, Güney Kore’de tarım alanı ayak izi ve otlak alan ayak izi, Vietnam’da ise ekolojik ayak izi ve balıkçılık alanları ayak izi, orman alanları ayak izi, otlak alan ayak izi serilerinin durağan bir süreç sergilediği saptanmıştır. Serilerin büyük kısmının birim köklü olması, çevresel bozulmaların kendiliğinden düzelmeyeceğini ve bu süreçlerin zaman içinde ortalamaya dönme eğiliminde olmayacağını işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik ayak izi
• N-11 ülkeleri
• KSS (2003) testi
• Schmidt ve Phillips (1992) LM Testi

INVESTIGATION OF THE PERSISTENCE OF SHOCKS IN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND ITS COMPONENTS IN N-11 COUNTRIES

Öz

In this study, the stationarity structures of the ecological footprint and its subcomponents, namely residential footprint, carbon footprint, agricultural footprint, fishing footprint, forest footprint and grassland footprint series in N-11 countries are investigated using annual data for the period 1971-2022. Firstly, Harvey and Leybourne (2007) and Harvey, Leybourne and Xiao (2008) tests are used to determine whether the series are linear or not. Schmidt and Phillips (1992) conventional LM test for linear series and KSS (2003) nonlinear unit root test for nonlinear series are used to investigate the persistence of shocks. According to the results of the Schmidt and Phillips (1992) LM unit root test, the fishing area footprint series for Indonesia, the grassland footprint series for Nigeria, the residential area footprint series for the Philippines and South Korea, and the ecological footprint and fishing area footprint series for Turkiye are stationary. According to the results of the non-linear unit root test developed by KSS (2003), the carbon footprint series in Pakistan, Philippines and Indonesia, the ecological footprint series in Mexico, and the residential footprint, carbon footprint and agricultural footprint series in Mexico, The series of agricultural land footprint in Nigeria, agricultural land footprint and grassland footprint in South Korea, ecological footprint and fishing land footprint, forest land footprint and grassland footprint in Vietnam were found to exhibit a stationary process. The fact that most of the series are unit-rooted indicates that environmental disturbances will not correct themselves and that these processes do not tend to revert to the mean over time.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecological footprint
• N-11 Countries
• KSS (2003) test
• Schmidt and Phillips (1992) LM Test

Kaynakça

1. Alper, A. E., & 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
2. Akçayır, Ö., & Akın, F. (2024). Sürdürülebilir Çevre Perspektifinde Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Açığı ve Yakınsama Analizi: Fourier KSS Birim Kök Testi. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(4), 1188 - 1202. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1560723
3. Arogundade, S., Hassan, A., Akpa, E., & Mduduzi, B. (2022). Closer together or farther apart: are there club convergence in ecological footprint? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 15293–15310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23203-5
4. Bayraktar, Y., Koc, K., Toprak, M., Ozyılmaz, A., Olgun, M. F., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Soylu, O. B. (2023). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among BRICS-T countries: evidence from Fourier unit root test. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 63022–63035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26532-1
5. Belloc, I., & Molina, J. A. (2023). The ecological footprint in Africa: identifying convergence clubs from 1970 to 2018. Applied Economics Letters, 19, 2808-2813. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2022.2107984
6. Bilgili, F., & Ulucak, R. (2018). Is there deterministic, stochastic, and/or club convergence in ecological footprint indicator among G20 countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 35404–35419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3457-1
7. Çelik, O., Adali, Z., & Bari, B. (2022). 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, 16253–16265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23178-3
8. Danish, Hassan, S. T., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N., & Zhang, J. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516

9. Dürrü, Z., & Konat, G. (2023). CIVETS Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Dengenin Stokastik Yakınsaması: Fourier Kantil Birim Kök Testi Yaklaşımı. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8("Cumhuriyet'in 100. Yılında Türkiye'nin Sosyo-Ekonomisi" Özel Sayısı), 137 - 152. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1149267
10. Erdogan, S., & Okumus, İ. (2021). Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: An empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107123
11. Ergün Tatar, H. (2022). ASEAN-5 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Yakınsaması: Suradf Ve Surkss Birim Kök Testi. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(3), 1018 - 1035. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1071194
12. Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ATLAS 2010. (G. F. Oakland, Dü.) https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf adresinden alındı
13. Gülmez, A., Altıntaş, N., & Kahraman, Ü. O. (2020). A puzzle over ecological footprint, energy consumption and economic growth: the case of Turkey. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27, 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-020-00465-1
14. Harvey, D. I., & Leybourne, S. J. (2007). Testing for time series linearity. The Econometrics Journal, 10(1), 149-165.
15. 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.
16. Hassan, S. T., Xia, E., Khan, N. H., & Shah, S. M. (2019). Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(3), 2929-2938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3803-3
17. Hepsağ, A. (2022). Ekonometrik zaman serisi analizlerinde güncel yöntemler (winRATS uygulamalı). Der Yayınları.
18. Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U., & Rafique, M. Z. (2021). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and ecological footprint: Contextual evidences from Japan. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101460
19. 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, 32648–32659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12993-9
20. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., & Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of Econometrics, 112(2), 359-379.
21. Kapkara Kaya, S., & Göv, A. (2023). BRICS Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Örneğinde Ekolojik Ayak İzine Yönelik Çevresel Politika Şokları Kalıcı mı? Bingol University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 7(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.33399/biibfad.1192998
22. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86(5), 2057-2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10175-7
23. Özcan, B., Ulucak, R., & Doğan, 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
24. Rashid, A., Irum, A., Malik, I. A., Ashraf, A., Rongqiong, L., Liu, G., . . . Yousaf, B. (2018). Ecological footprint of Rawalpindi; Pakistan's first footprint analysis from urbanization perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 362-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.186
25. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment & Urbanization, 4(2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212
26. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064
27. Solarin, S. A., Tiwari, A. K., & Bello, M. O. (2019). A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 46(January), 101422.
28. Ulucak, R., Kassouri, Y., İlkay, S. Ç., Altıntaş, H., & Garang, A. P. (2020). Does convergence contribute to reshaping sustainable development policies? Insights from Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Indicators, 112, 106140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106140
29. Uzar, U., & Eyuboğlu, K. (2023). Does income inequality increase the ecological footprint in the US: evidence from FARDL test? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 9514–9529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22844-w
30. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
31. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Schulz, N. B., Haberl, H., & Krausmann, F. (2004). Calculating national and global ecological footprint time series:resolving conceptual challenges. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 271-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.006
32. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Linares, A. C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., . . . Randers, J. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy human economy. 99(14), 9266-9271. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.142033699
33. Yılancı, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: Evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecological Indicators, 113, 106178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106178
34. Yıldırım, D. Ç., Yıldırım, S., Erdoğan, S., Demirtaş, I., Couto, G., & Castanho, R. A. (2021). Time-Varying Convergences of Environmental Footprint Levels between European Countries. Energies 14(7), 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071813
35. Yurtkuran, S. (2019). N11 Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi Yakınsaması: Fourier Durağanlık Testinden Yeni Kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191 - 210. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.681354