Time-Varying Convergences of Environmental Footprint Levels between European Countries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- In reviewing the pioneer empirical literature, it is seen that studies investigating whether the policies are efficient to prevent environmental pollution by linear models [15,16,17,18,19]. However, it is known that macroeconomic indicators have nonlinear features inherently. On the other side, in the analysis period, there can probably be structural breaks in the series. It is seen that the literature gives limited studies that follow nonlinearity and structural breaks. As a main contribution, this study focuses on nonlinearity and structural breaks together.
- It is seen that the studies testing the convergence of environmental pollution including ecological footprint are so limited in the literature. In addition, current studies generally focus on carbon footprint. Another contribution of this study is that ecological footprints have been taken into consideration while testing the convergence of the environmental burden.
- On the other side, it is observed that the studies examining the convergence focus on the whole period. The most important contribution of this study is to analyze the effect of time-varying by using the rolling window method. In this context, this study can test the convergence for each sub-period. As we know, this study will be the first one in the literature that considers the nonlinearity to investigate time-varying convergence. As a result, it is thought we should guide future studies by giving new empirical evidence.
2. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. The Flexible Fourier Form Cross-Sectional KSS Unit Root Test
3.2.2. Rolling Window
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Global Footprint Network (GFN). Glossary. Available online: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/ (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Costanza, R. The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 341–345. [Google Scholar]
- Wackernagel, M. What We Use and What We Have: Ecological Footprint and Ecological Capacity; Redifening Progress: Oakland, CA, USA, 2002; Available online: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/49503/mod_resource/content/1/texto17.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Solarin, S.A. Convergence in CO2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: Evidence from OECD countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 6167–6181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barrett, J.; Birch, R.; Cherrett, N.; Wiedmann, T. Exploring the application of the Ecological Footprint to sustainable consumption policy. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2005, 7, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Environment Agency (EEA). Is Europe Living within the Limits of Our Planet? An Assessment of Europe’s Environmental Footprints in Relation to Planetary Boundaries. 2020. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/is-europe-living-within-the-planets-limits (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Gallia, A.; Wiedmannb, T.; Ercinc, E.; Knoblauchd, D.; Ewinge, B.; Giljumf, S. Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 16, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Environment Agency (EEA). The European Environment—State and Outlook 2015: Synthesis Report, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 2015. Available online: https://www.kowi.de/Portaldata/2/Resources/horizon2020/coop/SOER-Synthesis-2015-EN.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2021).
- European Environment Agency (EEA). The European Environment—State and Outlook 2020: Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/soer-2020 (accessed on 9 January 2021).
- Vandermaesen, T.; Humphries, R.; Wackernagel, M.; Murthy, A.; Mailhes, L. EU Overshoot Day Living beyond Nature’s Limits. 10 May 2019. WWF. Available online: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2019/05/WWF_GFN_EU_Overshoot_Day_report.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2021).
- Enders, W.; Lee, J. Testing for a unit root with a nonlinear Fourier function. In Proceedings of the Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings, Seoul, Korea, 30 June–2 July 2004; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Enders, W.; Lee, J. A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2012, 74, 305–9049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Güriş, B. A new nonlinear unit root test with Fourier function. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 2019, 48, 3056–3062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leybourne, S.; Newbold, P.; Vougas, D. Unit roots and smooth transitions. J. Time Ser. Anal. 1998, 19, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulucak, R.; Lin, D. Persistence of policy shocks to Ecological Footprint of the USA. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 80, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilanci, V.; Gorus, M.S.; Aydin, M. Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 270–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahmani-Oskooee, M.; Chang, T.; Wu, T. Revisiting purchasing power parity in African countries: Panel stationary test with sharp and smooth breaks. Appl. Financ. Econ. 2014, 24, 1429–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solarin, S.A.; Bello, M.O. Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: The case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, D.I.; Leybourne, S.J.; Xiao, B. A powerful test for linearity when the order of integration is unknown. Stud. Nonlinear Dyn. Econom. 2008, 12, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ozcan, B.; Ulucak, R.; Dogan, E. Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: Evidence from low, middle and high income economies. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 130–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.; Khan, A.M.; Bibi, S.; Zakaria, M. Convergence of per capita CO2 emissions across the globe: Insights via wavelet analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barassi, M.R.; Cole, M.A.; Elliott, R.J. The stochastic convergence of CO2 emissions: A long memory approach. Environ. Resour. Econ 2011, 49, 367–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, C.; Mishra, M. Testing the CO2 emissions convergence: Evidence from Asian countries. IM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev. 2017, 6, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panopoulou, E.; Pantelidis, T. Club Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2009, 44, 47–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quah, D. Galton’s Fallacy and Tests of the Convergence Hypothesis. Scand. J. Econ. 1993, 95, 427–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, S.A.; Inekwe, J.; Ivanovski, K. Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions: Evidence fromemerging economies, 1921–2014. Energy Econ. 2020, 86, 104659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sala-i-Martin, X.X. Regional cohesion: Evidence and theories of regional growth and convergence. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1996, 40, 1325–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Presno, M.J.; Landajo, M.; González, P.F. Stochastic convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. An approach from nonlinear stationarity analysis. Energy Econ. 2018, 70, 563–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldy, J.E. Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Convergence or Divergence? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2006, 33, 533–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kutan, A.M.; Yigit, T.M. Real and nominal stochastic convergence: Are the new EU members ready to join the Euro zone? J. Comp. Econ. 2005, 33, 387–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strazicich, M.C.; List, A.J. Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environ. Resour. Econ. 2003, 24, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.C.; Chang, C.P. New evidence on the convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions from panel seemingly unrelated regressions augmented Dickey–Fuller tests. Energy 2008, 33, 1468–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilalli, B.; Castanho, R.A. Sustainable Development and Renewable Energy Sources in Turkey. In Proceedings of the Online International Congress of Energy, Economy and Security (ENSCON’20), Istanbul, Turkey, 14–15 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Romero-Avila, D. Convergence in carbon dioxide emissions among industrialised countries revisited. Energy Econ. 2008, 30, 2265–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdogan, S.; Okumus, I. Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: An empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bilgili, F.; Ulucak, R.; Koçak, E. Implications of environmental convergence: Continental evidence based on ecological footprint. In Energy and Environmental Strategies in the Era of Globalization. Green Energy and Technology; Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bilgili, F.; Ulucak, R. Is there deterministic, stochastic, and/or club convergence in ecological footprint indicator among G20 countries? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 35404–35419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, P.C.; Sul, D. Transition modeling and econometric convergence tests. Econometrica 2007, 75, 1771–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Solarin, S.A.; Tiwari, A.K.; Bello, M.O. A multi-country convergence analysis of ecological footprint and its components. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 46, 101422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulucak, R.; Apergis, N. Does convergence really matter for the environment? An application based on club convergence and on the ecological footprint concept for the EU countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 80, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haider, S.; Akram, V. Club convergence analysis of ecological and carbon footprint: Evidence from a cross-country analysis. Carbon Manag. 2019, 10, 451–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, T.; Cai, Y.; Chen, W.Y. Are suicide rate fluctuations transitory or permanent? Panel KSS unit root test with a fourier function through the sequential panel selection method. ESPERA 2017, 20, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Kapetanios, G.; Shin, Y.; Snell, A. Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. J. Econom. 2003, 112, 359–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ucar, N.; Omay, T. Testing for unit root in nonlinear heterogeneous panels. Econ. Lett. 2009, 104, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M.H. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J. Appl. Econom. 2007, 22, 265–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Becker, R.; Enders, W.; Hurn, S. A general test for time dependence in parameters. J. Appl. Econom. 2004, 19, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Becker, R.; Endes, W.; Lee, J. A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. J. Time Ser. Anal. 2006, 3, 381–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enders, W.; Lee, J. The flexible form and Dickey-Fuller type unit root tests. Econ. Lett. 2012, 117, 196–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Wu, J.L.; Yang, L. A Simple Panel Unit-Root Test with Smooth Breaks in the Presence of a Multifactor Error Structure. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2016, 78, 365–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazlioglu, S.; Karul, C. A panel stationarity test with gradual structural shifts: Re-investigate the international commodity price shocks. Econ. Model. 2017, 61, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christopoulos, D.K.; León-Ledesma, M.A. Smooth breaks and non-linear mean reversion: Post-Bretton Woods real exchange rates. J. Int. Money Financ. 2010, 29, 1076–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Balcilar, M.; Ozdemir, Z.A.; Arslanturk, Y. Economic growth and energy consumption causal nexus viewed through a bootstrap rolling window. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 1398–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M.H.; Timmermann, A. Small sample properties of forecasts from autoregressive models under structural breaks. J. Econom. 2005, 129, 183–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tang, C.F.; Lean, H. Revisit Feldstein-Horioka puzzle: Evidence from Malaysia. Econ. Bull. 2011, 31, 2237–2249. [Google Scholar]
- Caspi, I. Rtadf: Testing for bubbles with EViews. J. Stat. Softw. 2017, 81, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fraser, B. Agricultural land use policy in the European Union: A brief history and lessons learnt. In Learning from Agri-Environment Schemes in Australia Investing in Biodiversity and Other Ecosystem Services on Farms; Ansell, D., Gibson, F., Salt, S., Eds.; ANU Press: Acton, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 947–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pülzl, H.; Wydra, D.; Hogl, K. Piecemeal Integration: Explaining and Understanding 60 Years of European Union Forest Policy-Making. Forests 2018, 9, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variables | Explanations | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cropland | Cropland Footprint | 896 | 0.939 | 0.208 | 0.367 | 1.633 |
fishing | Fishing Footprint | 896 | 0.212 | 0.309 | 0.000 | 2.199 |
forest | Forest Footprint | 896 | 0.586 | 0.420 | 0.008 | 3.271 |
grazing | Grazing Land Footprint | 896 | 0.306 | 0.169 | 0.025 | 0.925 |
total | Total Footprint | 896 | 5.465 | 2.773 | 1.091 | 17.723 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yıldırım, D.Ç.; Yıldırım, S.; Erdoğan, S.; Demirtaş, I.; Couto, G.; Castanho, R.A. Time-Varying Convergences of Environmental Footprint Levels between European Countries. Energies 2021, 14, 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071813
Yıldırım DÇ, Yıldırım S, Erdoğan S, Demirtaş I, Couto G, Castanho RA. Time-Varying Convergences of Environmental Footprint Levels between European Countries. Energies. 2021; 14(7):1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071813
Chicago/Turabian StyleYıldırım, Durmuş Çağrı, Seda Yıldırım, Seyfettin Erdoğan, Işıl Demirtaş, Gualter Couto, and Rui Alexandre Castanho. 2021. "Time-Varying Convergences of Environmental Footprint Levels between European Countries" Energies 14, no. 7: 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14071813