Ortak bir çevre politikası mı uygulanmalı? Otlak ayak izi kapsamında bir araştırma

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, 1993–2022 döneminde OECD ülkelerinde kişi başı otlak ayak izinin yakınsama dinamiklerini incelemektedir. Ekolojik ayak izinin önemli bir alt bileşeni olan otlak ayak izi, sürdürülebilir gıda sistemleri ve arazi yönetimi açısından kritik bir gösterge niteliği taşımaktadır.

Tasarım/Metodoloji /Yaklaşım: Çalışmada kişi başı otlak ayak izi serilerinin yakınsama örüntülerini belirlemek amacıyla Phillips ve Sul (2007, 2009) tarafından geliştirilen kulüp yakınsama yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulguların sağlamlığı ayrıca sigma yakınsama testi ile sınanmıştır.

Bulgular: Elde edilen sonuçlar, OECD ülkelerinde kişi başı otlak ayak izi değerlerinin uzun dönemde tek bir durağan durum dengesine yakınsamadığını göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, ülkelerin sırasıyla 24 ve 12 üyeden oluşan iki farklı yakınsama kulübü etrafında kümelendiği tespit edilmiştir. Sigma yakınsama testi de bu kulüp yapısını desteklemektedir. Bu bulgular, OECD ülkelerinde ortak çevresel hedeflerin varlığını dışlamamakla birlikte, tek tip politika tasarımlarının tüm ülkelerde aynı ölçüde etkili sonuç üretmeyebileceğine; dolayısıyla kulüp dinamiklerini dikkate alan farklılaştırılmış politika araçlarının daha işlevsel olabileceğine işaret etmektedir.

Özgünlük/Değer: Otlak ayak izi, ekolojik ayak izinin önemli bir alt bileşeni olmasına rağmen, bu değişkenin yakınsama dinamiklerini inceleyen ampirik çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Bu çalışma, OECD ülkeleri örnekleminde otlak ayak izi için kulüp yakınsamayı inceleyerek çevresel yakınsama literatürüne özgün ampirik kanıt sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Bozulma
• Kulüp Yakınsama
• Yakınsama Hipotezi

Proje Numarası

Çalışma bir projeden türetilmemiştir.

Should a common environmental policy be implemented? A study within the scope of the grazing land footprint

Öz

Purpose: This study examines the convergence dynamics of the per capita grazing land footprint across OECD countries over the period 1993–2022. As an important subcomponent of the ecological footprint, the grazing land footprint is a relevant indicator for sustainable food systems and land management.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The club convergence approach developed by Phillips and Sul (2007, 2009) is employed to identify the convergence patterns in per capita grazing land footprint series. The empirical findings are further checked through the sigma convergence test.

Findings: The results show that the per capita grazing land footprint of OECD countries does not converge to a single steady-state equilibrium in the long run. Instead, the sample is divided into two distinct convergence clubs consisting of 24 and 12 countries, respectively. The sigma convergence test supports the existence of these two clubs. These findings do not rule out common environmental objectives across OECD countries; however, they suggest that uniform policy designs may not generate equally effective outcomes for all members, and that policy instruments calibrated to club-specific dynamics may therefore be more appropriate.

Originality/Value: Empirical evidence on the convergence dynamics of the grazing land footprint remains limited. By focusing on this specific component of the ecological footprint for OECD countries, the study provides original empirical evidence to the broader literature on environmental convergence.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Degradation
• Convergence Hypothesis
• Club Convergence

Proje Numarası

Çalışma bir projeden türetilmemiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Acaravcı, A., & Erdoğan, S. (2016). “The Convergence Behavior of CO2 Emissions in Seven Regions under Multiple Structural Breaks”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 6(3), 575–580.
2. Adalı, Z., Yeter, F., Çoban, M. N., ve Sarı, S. (2025). “Exploring the Grazing Land Footprint’s Stochastic Behavior in The Top Dairy and Meat-Producing Nations”, Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 30(1), 107-123.
3. Aldy, J. E. (2006). “Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Convergence or Divergence?”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 33(4), 533–555.
4. Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Cil, A. B., Iscan, E., ve 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.
5. Anwar, M. A., Madni, G. R., ve Yasin, I. (2021). “Environmental Quality, Forestation, And Health Expenditure: Cross-Country Evidence”, Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 23, 16454–16480.
6. Apaydın, Ş, Ursavaş, U., ve Koç, U. (2021). “The impact of globalization on the ecological footprint: Do convergence clubs matter?”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(38), 53379–53393.
7. Chang, J. G., Gao, F., Anderson, M. C., Cirone R. ve H. Zhao, H. (2025). "Regionalization Analysis of Environmental Drivers of CONUS Grazing Land Biomass", IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 18, 12634-12644.
8. Du, K. (2017). “Econometric convergence test and club clustering using Stata”, The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata, 17, 882–900.

9. Erdogan, S., ve Acaravcı, A. (2019). “Revisiting The Convergence of Carbon Emission Phenomenon in OECD Countries: New Evidence from Fourier Panel KPSS Test”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(24), 24758–24771.
10. FAO (2023). “The State of Food and Agriculture 2023 Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform Agrifood Systems”, https://doi.org/10.4060/ cc7724en. (Erişim Tarihi:01 Eylül 2025).
11. GFN (2025). https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=5001&type=BCtot, EFCtot. (ErişimTarihi:01 Eylül 2025).
12. Friedman, M., (1992). “Do Old Fallacies Ever Die?”, Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 30(4), 2129-2132.
13. Hashmi, N. I., Alam, N., Jahanger, A., Yasin, I., Murshed, M., ve Khudoykulov, K. (2023). “Can Financial Globalization and Good Governance Help Turning Emerging Economies Carbon Neutral? Evidence From Members of the BRICS-T”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 39826–39841.
14. Hossain, A., (2000). “Convergence of per capita Output Levels Across Regions of Bangladesh, 1982-1997”, IMF Working Paper, WP/00/121, 1–36.
15. Lee, J., Yücel, A. G., ve Islam, M. T. (2023). “Convergence of CO2 Emissions in OECD Countries”, Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 100029.
16. Li, X., ve Lin, B. (2013). “Global Convergence in per capita CO2 Emissions”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 357–363.
17. Payne, J.E. (2020). “The Convergence of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Survey of The Empirical Literature”, Journal of Economic Studies, 47(7): 1757–1785.
18. Phillips, P. C. ve Sul D. (2007). “Transition Modeling and Econometric Convergence Tests”, Econometrica, 75(6),1771–1855.
19. Phillips, P. C. ve Sul D. (2009). “Economic Transition and Growth”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24(7), 1153–1185.
20. Recepoğlu, M., Hayaloğlu, P., Çay ÇakIr, S., Artan, S. ve Çakır, M.A. (2025). “Ecological Footprint Components and Agricultural Productivity: Insights from MENA Countries”, Science of The Total Environment, 992, 179852.
21. Shahbaz, M., Akcan, A.T., Soyyiğit, S. ve Kılıç, C. (2025). “Are Policy Shocks to Forest Products Footprint Permanent or Temporary? Evidence from 128 Countries,” Journal of Forest Research, 30(4), 295-315.
22. 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.
23. Solarin, S. A., Tiwari, A. K., ve Bello, M. O. (2019). “A Multi-Country Convergence Analysis of Ecological Footprint and Its Components”, Sustainable Cities and Society, 46, 101422.
24. Strazicich, M.C. ve List, J.A. (2003). “Are CO2 Emission Levels Converging Among Industrial Countries?”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 24, 263–271.
25. Tiwari, A. K., Nasir, M. A., Shahbaz, M., ve Raheem, I. D. (2021). “Convergence And Club Convergence of CO2 Emissions at State Levels: A Nonlinear Analysis of the USA”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125093.
26. Ulucak, R., ve 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, 80, 21–27.
27. Ulucak, R., Kassouri, Y., İlkay, S. C., Altıntaş, H., ve Garang, A. P. M. (2020). “Does Convergence Contribute to Reshaping Sustainable Development Policies? Insights from Sub-Saharan Africa”, Ecological Indicators, 112, 106140.
28. Ursavaş, U., ve Yılancı, V. (2022). “Convergence Analysis of Ecological Footprint at Different Time Scales: Evidence from Southern Common Market Countries”, Energy & Environment, 34(2), 429-442.
29. Ursavaş, N., ve Apaydın, Ş. (2023). “The Convergence in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Across G-7 Countries”, Fiscaoeconomia, 7(1), 327–340.
30. Yılancı, V., Yasin, I. ve Ursavaş, N. (2024). “The Convergence in Ecological Footprint Intensity Across ECOWAS Countries: Evidence from A Novel Approach”, Environment Development and Sustainability, 27, 25655-25677.
31. Yılancı, V., Özgür, O., ve Sarıtaş, M. M. (2025). “Are Shocks to the Grazing Land Footprint Permanent or Transitory? Evidence From a Machine Learning-Based Unit Root Test”, Sustainability, 17(14), 6312.