Economic Integration and Forest Sector Dynamics: Türkiye’s Strategic Outlook in a BRICS-Aligned Future
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is devoted to the study of an interesting topic in modern forest economics. The authors analyze the long-term relationship between the forest resource wealth of the BRICS-T countries (BRICS countries and Turkey) and greenhouse gas emissions. The dependencies are studied using a set of panel data for the last 14 years for the listed countries and the application of advanced econometric methods. Overall, the work is performed at a fairly high technical level, but I have a number of important substantive considerations that need to be carefully considered and responded to.
The most important comment concerns the choice of econometric analysis tactics and the applicability of econometric approaches themselves to solving the task at hand (they are combined in points 1 and 2).
1. Although the authors attempted to apply appropriate regression modeling methods (including dynamic OLS, which allows for endogeneity), a crucial issue remained unaddressed: how accurate is it to model the relationships selected by the authors on a sample of several countries and only 15 dynamic points? The standard errors of such models are so large that they render the results meaningless.
2. The factors under consideration obviously do not change significantly over time (the country's forest area may not change significantly for 50 years; the population, especially in a country such as Turkey, is more volatile, but still remains virtually unchanged). Does it make any sense at all to draw any conclusions from such an analysis?
3. The initial formulation of the task is clearly not related to the results of econometric modeling. Turkey's place and prospects in international relations with the BRICS countries is clearly a much broader topic than the results of a voluminous but not very useful regression analysis.
4. The list of keywords should be rewritten and expanded. In their current form, they are written formally and do not reflect the specific details of the article or highlight its interesting features.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Comments 1: Although the authors attempted to apply appropriate regression modeling methods (including dynamic OLS, which allows for endogeneity), a crucial issue remained unaddressed: how accurate is it to model the relationships selected by the authors on a sample of several countries and only 15 dynamic points? The standard errors of such models are so large that they render the results meaningless.
Response 1: As the reviewer has noted, the panel dataset employed in this study covers a relatively short period (2009–2023) and a limited number of countries. The BRIC concept emerged in 2001, formal cooperation was initiated in 2006, the first summit was held in 2009, and with the accession of South Africa in 2010, the group became known as BRICS. Therefore, the aim of this study is not to examine long-term century-wide trends, but rather to capture the transformations in the environmental and economic structures of the BRICS-T countries, particularly in the post-2009 period. Moreover, in light of this limitation, the FMOLS and DOLS methods were employed. These estimators are widely applied in the literature as they minimize potential endogeneity and serial correlation problems that may arise in small-sample panel datasets. Numerous studies on BRICS, G7, and similar country groups have also produced meaningful results with comparable numbers of observations. In the present study, the outcomes of the applied statistical tests (Pedroni, Westerlund, Dumitrescu-Hurlin) were found to be statistically significant, and the standard errors were determined to remain within reasonable bounds. Furthermore, FMOLS and DOLS estimators are designed to mitigate standard error problems more effectively than classical OLS. Accordingly, the findings of this study should not be regarded as definitive conclusions but rather as preliminary policy implications derived from a limited dataset. With this approach, the study aims to make a novel contribution to the literature as one of the few panel analyses that jointly examine forest resources, carbon emissions, and trade relations in the BRICS-T context.
Revisions and additions have been incorporated into the manuscript in response to the above critique.
Line 415-418
These methods reduce potential endogeneity and serial correlation problems that may arise in short-panel data sets, thereby providing consistent and unbiased long-term estimates. Similar applications in the literature also support this methodological choice.
Line 750 – 755
The findings of this study, being based on a limited dataset, should not be regarded as definitive and immutable results, but rather as preliminary policy implications. This approach is intended to provide insights into the transformations observed in the environmental and economic structures of the BRICS-T countries, particularly in the post-2009 period. Accordingly, while the study aims to contribute a novel perspective to the literature, it also serves as a starting point for more extensive and long-term research.
Comments 2: The factors under consideration obviously do not change significantly over time (the country's forest area may not change significantly for 50 years; the population, especially in a country such as Turkey, is more volatile, but still remains virtually unchanged). Does it make any sense at all to draw any conclusions from such an analysis?
Response 2: As the reviewer has pointed out, some structural variables (such as forest area and population) exhibit relatively low variability over short periods. However, we consider their inclusion in the model necessary, as these variables constitute fundamental determinants of environmental and economic processes. Indeed, population size directly affects energy demand, production, and consumption patterns, while forest area is one of the most essential indicators of long-term carbon sink capacity and land-use policies. Furthermore, as noted in lines 222–225 of the manuscript, the variables were selected based on a comprehensive literature review.
The panel data methods employed in this study (FMOLS, DOLS) are specifically designed to reveal long-term relationships, even in series with low variance. Additionally, unit root and cointegration tests suggest that the variables can be incorporated into the model in a statistically valid manner. Therefore, low variability does not invalidate the model's results; on the contrary, it enhances the reliability of long-term structural relationships.
Finally, in the case of BRICS-T countries, it is evident that forest area and population are critical variables in global environmental governance. Accordingly, the inclusion of these indicators in our model is not merely a technical choice but also a logical requirement of the research question.
Comments 3: The initial formulation of the task is clearly not related to the results of econometric modeling. Turkey's place and prospects in international relations with the BRICS countries is clearly a much broader topic than the results of a voluminous but not very useful regression analysis.
Response 3: We highly value the reviewer’s comment regarding the consistency between the theoretical framework of the study and the econometric findings. The starting point of our research is to evaluate Turkey’s environmental and economic integration capacity with the BRICS countries and to discuss which managerial and structural factors could support this process through the forestry sector. Naturally, such a framework points to a multidimensional and broad field of inquiry.
To analytically delimit this broad perspective, panel data methods were employed. Panel econometric models are widely used to uncover common structural dynamics and long-term relationships across different countries. In our study, the FMOLS and DOLS estimators were applied to statistically test the cointegration relationships among the variables, thereby providing empirical support for the theoretical discussion. In this way, the theoretically proposed relationship between “forestry resources, energy use, and carbon emissions” has been empirically validated.
Therefore, there is not a disjunction but rather a complementary relationship between the design of the study and the econometric results. Nevertheless, as the reviewer rightly pointed out, additional revisions have been made to further strengthen the bridge between the theoretical context and the empirical findings.
Line 189 – 192
Panel data analyses allow the empirical testing of the theoretical framework. In particular, through the applied econometric methodology, the relationships among forestry resources, energy use, and carbon emissions have been examined
Line 600- 606
These results suggest that in countries like Turkey, where extensive forest resources are available. However, production-oriented forestry practices are prevalent, sustainable forestry policies should focus not only on expanding forest areas but also on the modes of their utilization. Compared to BRICS countries such as Brazil and China, where large-scale afforestation programs and carbon markets have been institutionalized, Turkey still lacks similar structural mechanisms, which highlights the importance of adapting BRICS experiences to strengthen its forestry and climate policies
Line 620-622
In particular, this finding reflects that Turkey’s socio-economic and environmental structures, which differ from those of the BRICS countries, are also captured by the model, underlining the need to consider country-specific characteristics in policy design.
Line 623-625
For Turkey, this heterogeneity provides empirical evidence of both the challenges and opportunities in aligning its environmental governance with BRICS countries, thus contributing to the assessment of Turkey’s integration capacity within this group.
Line 632-635
In this respect, Turkey’s climate strategy can benefit from the experiences of BRICS countries in integrating renewable energy expansion with forest-based carbon certification systems, thereby reinforcing both environmental sustainability and economic integration.
Line 660-663
For Turkey, this finding highlights the dual role of the forestry sector. While forest expansion policies provide long-term carbon storage capacity, production-oriented forestry and biomass utilization may increase emissions unless accompanied by sustainable management and certification mechanisms.
Line 696-699
For Turkey, these causality results underscore the need to integrate forestry policies, renewable energy strategies, and demographic dynamics within a unified framework of environmental governance, ensuring that sectoral interdependencies are explicitly addressed in national climate and energy policies.
Comments 4. The list of keywords should be rewritten and expanded. In their current form, they are written formally and do not reflect the specific details of the article or highlight its interesting features.
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the constructive comment. The list of keywords has been revised, and the final keywords are as follows:
BRICS-T countries; Carbon emissions; Environmental governance; Natural resources; Panel data
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough my initial inclination was to reject this manuscript due to major structural and substantive weaknesses, I have decided to give it one more chance given the relevance and importance of its theme. However, substantial revisions are required. I have provided compressive comments and suggestion (see below). In summary, the abstract should be streamlined, with a clearer link between Turkey and BRICS and less statistical clutter. The introduction needs restructuring, with a clear timeline of Turkey–BRICS relations, stronger justification for the study’s significance, and an explicit statement of novelty supported by appropriate citations. The methodology section should be more concise, with clearer justification for variable selection and methods. Most critically, the Results section must be rewritten to present actual findings rather than methodological detail, and the Discussion should engage with those findings in depth, comparing them to the literature and drawing clear implications for Turkey and BRICS. Only after addressing these fundamental issues can the manuscript make a meaningful scholarly and policy contribution.
Abstract:
It is dense, with too much statistical detail and a long list of recommendations that could be streamlined for clarity. The link between Turkey and BRICS could also be introduced more smoothly.
Rewrite this sentence as it is confusing “The findings indicate that a 1% 21 increase in population (%0.60–0.62%), forest area (0.14%), forest product exports (0.22– 22 0.23%), and imports (0.15–0.17%) significantly increased emissions”.
Introduction
Since the study analyzes the long-term relationships between forest area, population, forest product trade, renewable energy production, and carbon emissions using BRICS-T panel data, it would be useful to present a clear timeline of Turkey’s relationship with BRICS and explain why this study is significant in that context. Particularly, the discussion on the importance of forestry and renewable energy is very superficial. Please elaborate with concrete reasons.
The section mentions Turkey’s observer status and debates about membership but does not present a clear timeline or milestones. Adding a brief chronology (e.g., when Turkey first expressed interest, observer invitations, diplomatic developments) would strengthen the argument.
The introduction jumps between geopolitical context, Turkey’s foreign policy, forestry functions, BRICS best practices, and Turkey’s shortcomings. Consider grouping into three parts: (i) Global and BRICS context, (ii) Turkey’s foreign policy and forestry sector challenges, (iii) Rationale and research gap.
Some data (e.g., Turkey’s carbon credit volumes compared to BRICS) are useful but could be shortened in the introduction and detailed later in the results/discussion. Too much quantitative detail may dilute the focus here.
The novelty of the study is not well highlighted—please make explicit what this paper contributes that existing studies have not addressed.
In many places, key statements lack proper substantiation with citations; please strengthen these arguments with relevant literature. S
The closing para should clearly state: (a) why Turkey’s forestry sector is strategically important, (b) what gap this study fills, and (c) how the analysis contributes to both academic and policy debates.
Method
The methodology section is too detailed, but it could be improved for clarity and focus.
First, the description of BRICS history and environmental significance is useful but feels more like background material and might fit better in the Introduction or as an Annex, or as another section just below the iNtrioductkn section.
Second, the rationale for selecting variables is described, but the novelty of combining them for BRICS-T should be emphasized more explicitly.
Third, although log transformations and descriptive statistics are reported, the justification for these specific choices (e.g., handling skewness, ensuring normality) needs clearer explanation.
Fourth, data sources should be consistently referenced (Table 1 and 2 lack clear citations for all variables).
Fifth, the section is quite lengthy due to country-by-country descriptions; this could be streamlined with a comparative summary table instead of extensive text.
Finally, it would be useful to briefly state why panel methods (FMOLS, DOLS) are appropriate for this dataset here, rather than postponing it entirely to the econometric model section.
Results
There are many repetitions throughout the paper (in all sections). Please avoid repetition. Even the first para “The study adopts a panel data analysis approach to reveal the causal relationships between renewable energy production, forestry sector data, natural resource use, and emission dynamics in BRICS-T countries. During the empirical analysis process, the effects of energy transformation and forestry sector trade items on carbon emissions were investigated within the framework of environmental sustainability. Through the econometric models developed in this context, the study aims to assess Turkey's strategic position analytically. This analysis not only highlights the potential of the forestry sector in terms of environmental sustainability but also in terms of economic integration.” Already written in previous sections.
In fact, the entire Results section does not present results; it mainly focuses on model development and testing, which belong in the Methods section. Please rewrite the Results section to clearly present the key findings and directly address your aim and specific objectives.
Discussions
Surprisingly, the Discussion section also focuses largely on the model. After writing the Results section, please extract the key findings and discuss them in depth—explain why they occurred, compare them with findings from other studies, and link them with Turkey’s and BRICS’ policies. At the end of each subsection, clearly state the key implications arising from the discussion.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments 1: (Abstract) It is dense, with too much statistical detail and a long list of recommendations that could be streamlined for clarity. The link between Turkey and BRICS could also be introduced more smoothly. Rewrite this sentence as it is confusing “The findings indicate that a 1% 21 increase in population (%0.60–0.62%), forest area (0.14%), forest product exports (0.22– 22 0.23%), and imports (0.15–0.17%) significantly increased emissions”.
Response 1: In response to the reviewer’s comments, the abstract has been streamlined, unnecessary statistical details have been removed, and the Turkey–BRICS linkage has been articulated more clearly. The previously confusing sentence has been rewritten in a clear and comprehensible manner. Policy implications within the scope of the study have been incorporated, and the novelty of the research has been emphasized.
Line 14-32
The BRICS has emerged as a strategic actor in global environmental and economic governance, encompassing 42% of the world’s population, 32% of global GDP, and nearly half of the world's forest resources. Member countries have integrated forest management with renewable energy transition and carbon market mechanisms as part of their sustainable development strategies. In this context, Türkiye positions the forestry sector as both an environmental and economic lever in its potential alignment with BRICS while seeking to diversify its foreign policy. This study examines the long-term relationships between forest area, population, forest product trade, renewable energy production, and carbon emissions in BRICS-T countries for the period 2009–2023, employing panel econometric methods (FMOLS and DOLS). The findings indicate that population growth, forest expansion, and forest product trade are associated with increased emissions, while renewable energy production contributes to emission reductions. Moreover, bidirectional causality is identified between population and emissions, and between renewable energy and emissions. The results suggest that environmental sustainability depends not only on the availability of resources but also on the quality of governance, policy coherence, and sectoral coordination. The study provides an original contribution to the literature by analyzing Türkiye’s environmental and economic integration with BRICS through the combined lens of forestry and energy transition, offering exploratory policy implications for Türkiye’s strategic position in a multipolar world.
Comments 2: (Introduction) Since the study analyzes the long-term relationships between forest area, population, forest product trade, renewable energy production, and carbon emissions using BRICS-T panel data, it would be useful to present a clear timeline of Turkey’s relationship with BRICS and explain why this study is significant in that context. Particularly, the discussion on the importance of forestry and renewable energy is very superficial. Please elaborate with concrete reasons. The section mentions Turkey’s observer status and debates about membership but does not present a clear timeline or milestones. Adding a brief chronology (e.g., when Turkey first expressed interest, observer invitations, diplomatic developments) would strengthen the argument. The introduction jumps between geopolitical context, Turkey’s foreign policy, forestry functions, BRICS best practices, and Turkey’s shortcomings. Consider grouping into three parts: (i) Global and BRICS context, (ii) Turkey’s foreign policy and forestry sector challenges, (iii) Rationale and research gap.
Response 2: We highly appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment. The reviewer's identified fragmented structure has been revised, and the Introduction has been reorganized with additional content accordingly.
Line 54-65
Türkiye expressed its interest in BRICS membership for the first time at the 2013 Summit and subsequently participated in various BRICS meetings as a guest country. However, no significant diplomatic steps or status changes occurred during the 2013–2023 period. Türkiye’s invitation to the 2018 Johannesburg Summit with official observer status enhanced the international visibility of the process and gave momentum to debates on possible membership and institutional alignment in both diplomatic and academic circles. In 2022, representatives of the BRICS International Forum drew attention to Türkiye’s potential participation. The process reached a critical stage at the 2024 Kazan Summit, when Türkiye submitted an official membership application and attended the meeting as a guest; during the same period, the possibility of granting Türkiye ‘partner country’ status was brought to the agenda. However, as of 2025, full membership has not materialized.
Line 76-78
These risks suggest that Turkey’s engagement with BRICS should be based on a selective and balanced strategy, ensuring dual alignment by maintaining its commitments to the EU while exploring new opportunities within BRICS.
Line 79 – 99
Forests cover approximately 30% of Turkey’s land area, serve as carbon sinks, and constitute a significant component of the forest product trade. However, the sector faces challenges such as deforestation pressures, fragmented land use, and limited integration with renewable energy policies. Forestry in Turkey, therefore, plays a dual role: while extensive forest resources provide substantial carbon sequestration potential, production-oriented practices constrain this contribution. Together, forestry and renewable energy form interconnected pillars of Turkey’s climate strategy, as both determine its capacity to align with BRICS in the transition toward low-carbon development. Similarly, although Turkey has expanded its renewable energy capacity (the share of electricity generated from renewable sources in total production increased from 17.7% in 2008 to 35.7% in 2021, 40% in 2022, 42% in 2023, and 44% in 2024), its high dependence on imported fossil fuels (the share of imported fossil fuels in primary energy supply was 67.8% in 2022, 78% in 2023, and 78.2% in 2024) and shortcomings in policy coherence and cross-sectoral coordination have limited its potential contribution to emission reductions. These two sectors, therefore, constitute critical leverage points in Turkey’s potential alignment with BRICS; indeed, the innovative experiences of BRICS countries in sustainable forest management (such as China’s “Grain-for-Green” program and India’s Joint Forest Management model) and large-scale renewable energy deployment provide valuable lessons for Turkey from both environmental and economic perspectives
Line 103-106
This demonstrates that lessons drawn from BRICS are not merely descriptive but provide actionable insights for Turkey’s policy design, particularly in reconciling environmental sustainability with economic integration.
Comments 3: Some data (e.g., Turkey’s carbon credit volumes compared to BRICS) are useful but could be shortened in the introduction and detailed later in the results/discussion. Too much quantitative detail may dilute the focus here.
Response 3: In line with the reviewer’s request, the numerical data have been reduced in the Introduction and relocated to the Discussion section.
Line 90-91
…its high dependence on imported fossil fuels (which accounted for 78% of primary energy supply in 2024) and shortcomings in policy coherence …”
Line 91-92
…although Turkey has expanded its renewable energy capacity (renewables accounted for 44% of total electricity production in 2024), its high dependence on imported fossil fuels …”
Comments 4: The novelty of the study is not well highlighted—please make explicit what this paper contributes that existing studies have not addressed. In many places, key statements lack proper substantiation with citations; please strengthen these arguments with relevant literature.
Response 4: The reviewer’s comment is greatly appreciated, and the required revisions have been implemented in our study as specified below.
Line 181 -187
The arguments developed in this study are grounded in a broad set of international reports and peer-reviewed studies, including FAO forestry assessments, UNFCCC submissions, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) regulations, and World Bank analyses on carbon finance and renewable energy. By relying on these sources, the study ensures that its evaluation of Turkey’s forestry and energy sectors is not based solely on descriptive discussion but is systematically linked to internationally recognized empirical evidence and policy frameworks.
Line 192 – 201
This study examines Turkey’s capacity for environmental and economic integration in the forestry sector. This domain is strategically important not only for its timber production but also for its role in carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, rural development, and adaptation to green trade mechanisms. Employing a panel data approach within the BRICS-T framework addresses a gap in the existing literature, which has so far either focused on BRICS countries in isolation or treated Turkey’s energy and environmental policies separately. Through the joint analysis of forestry resources, renewable energy dynamics, and carbon emissions, the study contributes to academic debates on environmental governance in emerging economies. It provides policy-relevant insights for Turkey’s balanced alignment with both BRICS and the EU green transition.
Comments 5: The closing para should clearly state: (a) why Turkey’s forestry sector is strategically important, (b) what gap this study fills, and (c) how the analysis contributes to both academic and policy debates.
Response 5: The reviewer’s comment is greatly appreciated, and the required revisions have been implemented in our study as specified below.
Line 192 – 201
This study examines Turkey’s capacity for environmental and economic integration in the forestry sector. This domain is strategically important not only for its timber production but also for its role in carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, rural development, and adaptation to green trade mechanisms. Employing a panel data approach within the BRICS-T framework addresses a gap in the existing literature, which has so far either focused on BRICS countries in isolation or treated Turkey’s energy and environmental policies separately. Through the joint analysis of forestry resources, renewable energy dynamics, and carbon emissions, the study contributes to academic debates on environmental governance in emerging economies. It provides policy-relevant insights for Turkey’s balanced alignment with both BRICS and the EU green transition.
Comment 6: (Method) First, the description of BRICS history and environmental significance is useful but feels more like background material and might fit better in the Introduction or as an Annex, or as another section just below the Introduction section.
Response 6: An Appendix section has been created, and the descriptive statistics (Table A1) as well as the log-transformed descriptive statistics (Table A2) have been moved to this section. Both tables have been summarized and cited in the main text. In addition, a note has been added below Table A2 indicating that the data were derived from Table A1.
Line 225-240
First proposed in 2001 to describe emerging economies, BRICS became a political, financial, and environmental platform with the inclusion of South Africa in 2010. Since then, it has held regular summits to shape common agendas on development, climate change, and financial governance [40,41].
Today, the BRICS accounts for around 42% of the global population, 32% of the global GDP, and a quarter of world trade. It also holds nearly half of the world’s forest resources, making the group a key actor in global carbon cycles, afforestation programs, and renewable energy deployment [42].
In addition to economic and ecological weight, BRICS countries have expanded renewable energy, experimented with carbon markets, and advanced nature-based solutions [43]. Supported by the New Development Bank, these initiatives position BRICS as both an economic bloc and a laboratory for alternative development strategies. This dynamic has also attracted Turkey, which increasingly seeks cooperation with BRICS [44].
Turkey should therefore assess its potential role in BRICS not only through trade and investment but also through environmental capacity, carbon policies, forestry-based trade, and a green transformation vision.
Line 285-294
The average values of the variables for 2009–2023 show significant variation across BRICS countries in terms of population, forest resources, renewable energy, emissions, and forest product trade. Russia and Brazil dominate in forest reserves, while China and India lead in emissions and renewable energy production. South Africa remains a smaller-scale case but provides an important comparative example. Turkey, with 85.3 million people, 22.2 million hectares of forest, 457 Million Tons of COâ‚‚ emissions, and 90.3 terawatt-hours of renewable energy production, is broadly comparable to BRICS members in environmental indicators. However, its forest product trade balance is marked by higher imports ($7.27 billion) than exports ($3.4 billion). Detailed country-level averages are provided in Annex A (Table A1).
Table A1. Descriptive statistics of BRICS-T countries (averages, 2009–2023)
|
Country |
Population (million) |
Forest Area (million ha) |
Renewable Energy Production (TWh) |
COâ‚‚ Emissions (MtCOâ‚‚) |
Forest Product Exports (USD bn) |
Forest Product Imports (USD bn) |
|
Russia |
144.2 |
815.3 |
188.8 |
1,724 |
10.7 |
4.69 |
|
Brazil |
211.1 |
449.7 |
484.7 |
1,540 |
18.0 |
2.29 |
|
China |
1,412.0 |
227.0 |
159.3 |
12,170 |
44.4 |
64.9 |
|
India |
1,430.0 |
72.1 |
226.6 |
2,985 |
2.77 |
8.20 |
|
South Africa |
63.2 |
17.0 |
6.1 |
556 |
2.32 |
2.16 |
|
Turkey |
85.3 |
22.2 |
90.3 |
457 |
3.40 |
7.27 |
Table A2. Log-transformed descriptive statistics of BRICS-T countries (2009–2023)
|
Series |
Stats. |
Russia |
Brazil |
China |
South Africa |
India |
Turkiye |
|
EMS |
Mean |
21.26009 |
21.15255 |
23.21673 |
20.13491 |
21.81064 |
19.92125 |
|
|
Maximum |
21.48858 |
21.23543 |
23.35653 |
20.21131 |
22.01622 |
20.23290 |
|
|
Minumum |
21.05142 |
21.01255 |
22.96535 |
20.03092 |
21.59911 |
19.60571 |
|
|
Std. Dev. |
0.127535 |
0.076966 |
0.109891 |
0.057418 |
0.115499 |
0.198016 |
|
|
Skewness |
0.394270 |
0.842393 |
0.715110 |
0.714391 |
0.207876 |
0.065454 |
|
|
Kurtosis |
2.238179 |
2.293743 |
1.103185 |
1.125868 |
1.347190 |
1.741859 |
|
REP |
Mean |
12.14385 |
13.08441 |
14.18322 |
8.416423 |
12.28248 |
11.33885 |
|
|
Maximum |
12.30646 |
13.35332 |
14.86031 |
9.723164 |
12.82118 |
11.84958 |
|
|
Minumum |
12.02710 |
12.93160 |
13.33352 |
7.243513 |
11.76917 |
10.54910 |
|
|
Std. Dev. |
0.099058 |
0.120174 |
0.472141 |
0.842131 |
0.321252 |
0.404248 |
|
|
Skewness |
0.354152 |
0.921629 |
-0.273867 |
-0.002858 |
0.159926 |
-0.301316 |
|
|
Kurtosis |
1.736680 |
3.016624 |
1.963732 |
1.538769 |
1.953471 |
2.024916 |
|
FRE |
Mean |
23.27239 |
23.58041 |
24.28911 |
21.55560 |
21.46067 |
21.60266 |
|
|
Maximum |
23.72445 |
24.03057 |
25.18757 |
21.84206 |
22.60106 |
22.86451 |
|
|
Minumum |
22.94095 |
23.05513 |
23.17494 |
21.34601 |
20.30107 |
20.37021 |
|
|
Std. Dev. |
0.216651 |
0.272161 |
0.725026 |
0.161718 |
0.791228 |
0.893707 |
|
|
Skewness |
0.472600 |
-0.038320 |
-0.032617 |
0.426341 |
0.194258 |
0.110278 |
|
|
Kurtosis |
2.393081 |
2.129782 |
1.336147 |
1.868804 |
1.467351 |
1.350903 |
|
FRI |
Mean |
22.25068 |
21.52958 |
24.86608 |
21.47702 |
22.79360 |
22.68800 |
|
|
Maximum |
22.53135 |
21.87404 |
25.17963 |
21.84700 |
23.22351 |
23.16217 |
|
|
Minumum |
21.90085 |
21.20156 |
24.23694 |
21.05863 |
22.16733 |
22.22121 |
|
|
Std. Dev. |
0.204332 |
0.225403 |
0.264677 |
0.208579 |
0.285781 |
0.203097 |
|
|
Skewness |
-0.554853 |
0.339890 |
-0.770764 |
-0.057376 |
-0.496772 |
0.141570 |
|
|
Kurtosis |
1.247089 |
1.707608 |
1.132740 |
1.513483 |
0.829853 |
2.598964 |
|
FRA |
Mean |
15.91341 |
15.42408 |
14.56768 |
12.05881 |
13.47356 |
12.28845 |
|
|
Maximum |
15.91391 |
15.45554 |
14.63685 |
12.09996 |
13.49658 |
12.32529 |
|
|
Minumum |
15.90963 |
15.31896 |
14.49987 |
12.04222 |
13.44886 |
12.25437 |
|
|
Std. Dev. |
0.001077 |
0.031665 |
0.041867 |
0.014312 |
0.015624 |
0.022293 |
|
|
Skewness |
-1.151474 |
1.558937 |
-0.017912 |
0.512949 |
-0.125475 |
0.095069 |
|
|
Kurtosis |
1.62836 |
1.420450 |
1.878134 |
1.585098 |
1.715016 |
1.836177 |
|
POP |
Mean |
18.78712 |
19.12640 |
21.04630 |
17.86080 |
21.81064 |
18.18564 |
|
|
Maximum |
18.79537 |
19.16804 |
21.06853 |
17.96201 |
22.01622 |
18.26199 |
|
|
Minumum |
18.77685 |
19.07342 |
21.00939 |
17.76152 |
21.59911 |
18.09272 |
|
|
Std. Dev. |
0.006579 |
0.031292 |
0.021262 |
0.064831 |
0.115499 |
0.056118 |
|
|
Skewness |
0.268767 |
0.255697 |
-0.460571 |
0.003995 |
0.207876 |
0.161789 |
|
|
Kurtosis |
1.403532 |
1.557130 |
1.155505 |
1.795704 |
2.347190 |
1.232729 |
Line 295-301
After logarithmic transformation, the variables generally show acceptable distributional properties for panel data analysis. While ln(EMS) and ln(REP) display moderate positive skewness in some countries, ln(FRA) is highly stable in Russia and moderately skewed in Brazil. Population data (ln(POP)) remains nearly symmetric with very low variance. Detailed skewness and kurtosis values are reported in Annex A (Table A2), which serve as reference indicators for assessing natural capital management, emissions control, energy transition, and forest economy performance.
Comment 7: Second, the rationale for selecting variables is described, but the novelty of combining them for BRICS-T should be emphasized more explicitly.
Response 7: In line with the reviewer’s comment, the following text has been incorporated into the manuscript.
Line 275-282
While the rationale for each variable is well established in the literature, the novelty of this study lies in combining them within a unified BRICS-T framework. Previous research has generally examined BRICS countries in isolation or analyzed Turkey’s environmental and energy policies separately. By jointly modeling forestry resources, renewable energy production, forest trade, and emissions, this study captures the interconnections between ecological sustainability and economic integration in emerging economies. This integrated approach has not been explicitly addressed in earlier studies and thus represents a key contribution of the research.
Comment 8: Third, although log transformations and descriptive statistics are reported, the justification for these specific choices (e.g., handling skewness, ensuring normality) needs clearer explanation.
Response 8: In line with the reviewer’s comment, the following text has been incorporated into the manuscript.
Line 369-374
Logarithmic transformations were further applied to stabilize variance and address moderate skewness in the data, thereby improving the distributional properties of the variables. Descriptive statistics, including skewness and kurtosis, were reported to assess deviations from normality and ensure the appropriateness of panel estimation. This step reduces the risk of spurious regression and provides a stronger basis for subsequent cointegration and causality analysis.
Comment 9: Fourth, data sources should be consistently referenced (Table 1 and 2 lack clear citations for all variables).
Response 9: Each variable in Table 1 has been referenced. The following note has been added below Table 2A: “Descriptive statistics are based on data from sources listed in Table 1A.”
Comment 10: Fifth, the section is quite lengthy due to country-by-country descriptions; this could be streamlined with a comparative summary table instead of extensive text.
Response 10: The lengthy paragraphs describing each of the BRICS-T countries, as mentioned by the reviewer, have been simplified, and reference has been made to Table A1 in the Appendix.
Line 285-294
The average values of the variables for 2009–2023 show significant variation across BRICS countries in terms of population, forest resources, renewable energy, emissions, and forest product trade. Russia and Brazil dominate in forest reserves, while China and India lead in emissions and renewable energy production. South Africa remains a smaller-scale case but provides an important comparative example. Turkey, with 85.3 million people, 22.2 million hectares of forest, 457 Million Tons of COâ‚‚ emissions, and 90.3 terawatt-hours of renewable energy production, is broadly comparable to BRICS members in environmental indicators. However, its forest product trade balance is marked by higher imports ($7.27 billion) than exports ($3.4 billion). Detailed country-level averages are provided in Annex A (Table A1).
Line 295-301
After logarithmic transformation, the variables generally show acceptable distributional properties for panel data analysis. While ln(EMS) and ln(REP) display moderate positive skewness in some countries, ln(FRA) is highly stable in Russia and moderately skewed in Brazil. Population data (ln(POP)) remains nearly symmetric with very low variance. Detailed skewness and kurtosis values are reported in Annex A (Table A2), which serve as reference indicators for assessing natural capital management, emissions control, energy transition, and forest economy performance.
Comment 11: Finally, it would be useful to briefly state why panel methods (FMOLS, DOLS) are appropriate for this dataset here, rather than postponing it entirely to the econometric model section.
Response 11: In line with the reviewer’s comment, the following text has been added to the manuscript.
Line 336-343
Panel data methods are particularly suitable for this dataset as they combine cross-country and time-series dimensions, allowing the study to capture both within-country dynamics and between-country heterogeneity. Moreover, the relatively short time span but multi-country coverage makes fully modified and dynamic OLS estimators (FMOLS, DOLS) appropriate for addressing endogeneity, serial correlation, and providing consistent long-run estimates. While the technical details of these estimators are explained in Section 2.2.4, their selection reflects the need for robust long-term inference in a BRICS-T comparative framework.
Comment 12: There are many repetitions throughout the paper (in all sections). Please avoid repetition. Even the first para “The study adopts a panel data analysis approach to reveal the causal relationships between renewable energy production, forestry sector data, natural resource use, and emission dynamics in BRICS-T countries. During the empirical analysis process, the effects of energy transformation and forestry sector trade items on carbon emissions were investigated within the framework of environmental sustainability. Through the econometric models developed in this context, the study aims to assess Turkey's strategic position analytically. This analysis not only highlights the potential of the forestry sector in terms of environmental sustainability but also in terms of economic integration.” Already written in previous sections.
In fact, the entire Results section does not present results; it mainly focuses on model development and testing, which belong in the Methods section. Please rewrite the Results section to clearly present the key findings and directly address your aim and specific objectives.
Response 12: In line with the reviewer’s comments, the Results section has been completely revised.
Comment 13: Surprisingly, the Discussion section also focuses largely on the model. After writing the Results section, please extract the key findings and discuss them in depth—explain why they occurred, compare them with findings from other studies, and link them with Turkey’s and BRICS’ policies. At the end of each subsection, clearly state the key implications arising from the discussion.
Response 13: We revised the Discussion section by reducing methodological detail, adding country-specific policy links, strengthening literature comparisons (China, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa), and providing explicit implications at the end of each subsection.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The topic of the article seems relevant. The main focus of the article is to analyze the factors that determine carbon emissions in the BRICS countries and Turkey. The authors examined the long-term relationships between forest area, population, trade in forest products, renewable energy production and carbon emissions. The choice of the BRICS countries as an object for comparison is explained by the authors in the context of Turkey's status as an observer and possible prospects for joining this association as a full member. At the same time, the authors used panel data on a number of variables for the BRICS-T countries for a significant period of 2009–2023.
- There are known empirical studies devoted to assessing and analyzing the importance of forests as a source of multifunctional ecosystem services. Moreover, with regard to the BRICS-T countries, such an analysis of forests as multifunctional ecosystem services is carried out for the first time. The authors very convincingly argue for the relevance of such comparative studies, but the theoretical background is not sufficiently considered. In particular, the authors do not analyze the research gaps in this issue.
- I believe that this study adds some analytical justification to the subject area of environmental sustainability of forest resources, including in matters of sustainable forest management. The authors argue that forest area, trade in forest products and population dynamics can in some cases increase emissions. The authors also substantiate that environmental sustainability depends not only on the amount of forest resources, but also on how these forest resources are used.
- The article is very interesting, including in the educational aspect. However, there are certain comments.
Firstly, it is not clear what research questions were posed in the article. It is possible to recommend formulating the research questions in the Introduction section after justifying the relevance of the study. In addition, I recommend clearly identifying the purpose of the study and providing it at the end of the Introduction section.
Secondly, the authors considered the theoretical background in the Introduction section. I propose to form a separate Literature Review section. Based on the results of this section, it is recommended to justify the research gaps.
Thirdly, the authors did not formulate the research hypothesis. A research article is usually aimed at confirming the research hypotheses. These hypotheses are formulated based on the identified gaps or discontinuities in the research problematic. To do this, it is necessary to conduct a literature review on the research topic and identify areas (gaps) of insufficient research. That is why I recommend developing a Literature Review section and formulating research hypotheses.
Fourth, the Discussion of Results section is present in the article, but it is mainly devoted to the analysis of various tests. I recommend finalizing the Discussion section. In it, I recommend presenting an analysis of the confirmation of the research hypotheses, verifying the results with known works, describing the limitations of the study, and directions for future research.
- The conclusions of the study are formulated quite clearly. The Conclusion section contains the results of the study and general recommendations for practice. I recommend indicating the theoretical and practical significance of the research results in the Conclusion.
- The article contains a very large array of references from 142 sources. A significant part of the sources are dated by the last five-year period.
- The article contains 6 figures and 8 tables. All graphics in the article are clear and appropriate. The methodology is clear and does not raise questions.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comment 1: Firstly, it is not clear what research questions were posed in the article. It is possible to recommend formulating the research questions in the Introduction section after justifying the relevance of the study. In addition, I recommend clearly identifying the purpose of the study and providing it at the end of the Introduction section.
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have addressed this point as follows:
- At the end of the Introduction, after discussing the relevance of the topic and identifying the research gap, we added a transitional paragraph that explicitly formulates the main research questions guiding the study. These questions clarify the analytical focus of the paper and establish a direct link between the theoretical background and the empirical model.
- Immediately after the research questions, we also included a clear and concise purpose statement as the closing paragraph of the Introduction. This statement emphasizes that the study aims to empirically analyze the determinants of carbon emissions in BRICS-T countries (2009–2023) using panel econometric methods and to assess Türkiye’s strategic position in this comparative framework.
These revisions ensure that the Introduction now ends with both well-defined research questions and a clearly articulated purpose, fully addressing the reviewer’s concerns.
Comment 2: Secondly, the authors considered the theoretical background in the Introduction section. I propose to form a separate Literature Review section. Based on the results of this section, it is recommended to justify the research gaps.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We fully agree on the importance of making the theoretical background and literature review more visible and systematic. In the revised manuscript, we did not create an entirely separate Literature Review section; instead, we improved the Introduction by clarifying its internal structure and explicitly emphasizing the literature discussion.
- For instance, in the Introduction, we now more clearly highlight how BRICS countries have integrated forest resources into environmental governance: “China has reforested millions of hectares under the Natural Forest Protection Program and Grain-for-Green… India has developed Joint Forest Management… South Africa has combined invasive species control, water conservation, and employment generation through the Working for Water and Working for Forests programs… Russia has moved toward carbon markets, while Brazil has faced global criticism due to deforestation in the Amazon rainforest” [17–33]. These examples provide the theoretical and empirical background that supports our comparative framework.
- We also emphasized Türkiye’s position within this context: “Although a shift toward ‘multi-purpose forests’ and ‘sustainable forest management’ began in the 2000s, forestry policies still emphasize production. PES and community-based management practices are at a limited level, reflecting weak institutional capacity compared to BRICS countries” [26–28]. This discussion directly situates Türkiye within the comparative literature.
- Finally, the research gap is now more clearly stated at the end of the Introduction: “Despite the growing body of literature on BRICS and Türkiye separately, an integrated framework analyzing forest area, population, forest product trade, renewable energy production, and carbon emissions together has been missing. This study addresses this gap by employing a panel data approach within the BRICS-T framework for the period 2009–2023.”
By clarifying these elements, the revised Introduction now performs the dual role of introducing the study and presenting the theoretical background and literature coherently. We believe this approach addresses the reviewer’s concern while maintaining a concise article structure, consistent with the journal’s format.
Comment 3: Thirdly, the authors did not formulate the research hypothesis. A research article is usually aimed at confirming the research hypotheses. These hypotheses are formulated based on the identified gaps or discontinuities in the research problematic. To do this, it is necessary to conduct a literature review on the research topic and identify areas (gaps) of insufficient research. That is why I recommend developing a Literature Review section and formulating research hypotheses.
Response 3: In the original version of the manuscript, the hypotheses guiding the study were implicit in the model specification and the empirical analysis, but we recognize that they were not explicitly formulated in the Introduction. In the revised version, we addressed this shortcoming as follows:
- Hypothesis formulation: At the end of the Introduction, following the discussion of the literature and the research gap, we now explicitly state the hypotheses (H1–H4). These hypotheses reflect the expected relationships between carbon emissions and forest area, population, forest product trade, and renewable energy production in BRICS-T countries.
- Connection to methodology: In Section 2.2.1 (Model Specification), we clarified that the econometric model is directly designed to test these hypotheses.
- Empirical confirmation: In the Results section, we now explicitly indicate which hypotheses are supported by the findings. For example, the results confirm H2, H3, and H4, and provide evidence consistent with H1.
- Integration into discussion and conclusion: To strengthen the coherence of the article, we also refer back to the hypotheses in the Discussion and Conclusion, showing how the empirical evidence validates the hypotheses and reinforces the policy implications.
Comment 4: Fourth, the Discussion of Results section is present in the article, but it is mainly devoted to the analysis of various tests. I recommend finalizing the Discussion section. In it, I recommend presenting an analysis of the confirmation of the research hypotheses, verifying the results with known works, describing the limitations of the study, and directions for future research.
Response 4: In the revised version of the manuscript, we have finalized the Discussion section in line with the recommendations:
- Confirmation of hypotheses: We now explicitly discuss the hypotheses (H1–H4) formulated in the Introduction and link them to the empirical findings reported in the Results. For example, the positive association between population and emissions (H2) and the mitigating role of renewable energy production (H4) are highlighted and directly confirmed by the long-run estimations.
- Verification with known works: The results are more clearly compared with existing studies on BRICS countries. For instance, the emission-reducing role of renewable energy is discussed in relation to Qin et al. for China, Kumar for India, and Moyo for South Africa, while the positive population–emission link is connected to broader findings in the emerging economies literature.
- Limitations: At the end of the Discussion, we explicitly acknowledge that the study is bounded by the 2009–2023 data window, BRICS-T comparability, and the selected set of explanatory variables, while noting that omitted structural factors such as technology and institutional quality, as well as potential endogeneity, remain limitations.
- Future research: We added a forward-looking note indicating that future research could extend the framework to include additional emerging economies, incorporate institutional and technological indicators, and apply dynamic panel or panel-IV methods to further explore causality and endogeneity.
Comment 5: The conclusions of the study are formulated quite clearly. The Conclusion section contains the results of the study and general recommendations for practice. I recommend indicating the theoretical and practical significance of the research results in the Conclusion.
Response 5: In the revised version, we have strengthened the Conclusion section by explicitly indicating both the theoretical and practical significance of the study’s findings.
- Theoretical significance: We now emphasize that the study contributes to the literature by incorporating Turkey into the BRICS comparative framework and by jointly examining forestry, trade, demographic, and renewable energy factors as structural determinants of carbon emissions.
- Practical significance: We also highlight that the results provide evidence-based guidance for Turkey and other emerging economies in designing integrated policies on renewable energy, forest governance, and carbon markets, aligning with both BRICS and EU sustainability regimes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy main concerns about the usefulness of the econometric exercise remain. However, the authors have improved the manuscript considerably. Technically, it is ready to be published.
Author Response
Comment: My main concerns about the usefulness of the econometric exercise remain. However, the authors have improved the manuscript considerably. Technically, it is ready to be published.
Response: We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and effort you devoted to reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive feedback. Following your earlier report, we have substantially revised the paper, and we are pleased that, in your latest evaluation, you considered the manuscript technically ready for publication.
We understand that your primary concern is the usefulness of the econometric exercise and the relatively short time span of the panel dataset (2009–2023). We would like to emphasize that this limitation has been explicitly addressed in several sections of the manuscript:
- In the Methods section, we acknowledged the relatively short time dimension and justified the use of FMOLS and DOLS estimators, citing relevant literature that supports their application in short-T panel settings.
- In the Results section, we described the analysis as a “short-T, multi-country panel,” thereby clarifying the nature and limitations of the dataset.
- In Discussion (Section 4.4), we explicitly stated that the results are bounded by the 2009–2023 window and highlighted that this period coincides with the most active phase of BRICS cooperation in climate, energy, and forestry, which makes it analytically relevant.
- In the Conclusion, we reiterated that the study is based on a “limited dataset” and stressed that the findings should be regarded as “preliminary policy implications” rather than definitive results.
In addition, in the latest revision, we made this limitation even more explicit by adding the following sentence to the Discussion section:
Line 737 - 740
“The relatively short time span (2009–2023) represents a limitation, as longer historical panels could provide stronger evidence on long-run dynamics. Nevertheless, this period coincides with the most active phase of BRICS cooperation in climate, energy, and forestry, which makes it analytically relevant for comparative purposes.”
Accordingly, our study openly acknowledges the short-term limitation, employs appropriate econometric methods to mitigate it, and interprets the findings as preliminary policy insights. At the same time, by positioning Türkiye within a BRICS comparative framework and jointly examining forestry, trade, demographic, and renewable energy factors as structural determinants of emissions, we believe the study offers an original contribution to the literature.
We once again thank you for your constructive comments and guidance.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are some typos and grammatical errors, as well as some repetitions. Please fix them and refine the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some typos and grammatical errors, as well as some repetitions. Please fix them and refine the paper.
Author Response
Comment: There are some typos and grammatical errors, as well as some repetitions. Please fix them and refine the paper.
Response: We sincerely thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive feedback. In response to your second-round comments regarding typographical issues, repetitions, and inconsistencies, we have carefully revised the manuscript as follows:
- Methods – Variable Definitions: The repeated expression “Population (POP): Population (POP)” has been removed. Variable definitions were also streamlined to improve readability.
- 4. Conclusion – Contribution Statement: The identical contribution sentence that appeared twice has been corrected by removing the second repetition.
- 5. Conclusion – Turkey’s Potential Role: Two similar paragraphs describing Türkiye’s integration role within BRICS were merged, thereby eliminating redundant expressions.
- Variable Names: In the Methods section, the variables were defined as “Forest Product Export (FPE)” and “Forest Product Import (FPI),” but in some equations they were mistakenly written as “FRE.” This typographical error has been corrected, and equations and tables have been aligned with the defined variable names.
Through these revisions, typographical errors and repetitions have been addressed, and greater consistency has been established between variable definitions and their use in equations.
We once again thank you for your constructive comments, which have helped us to refine and improve the clarity of the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am satisfied with the process of finalizing the article. Almost all my comments have been taken into account and worked out in the article. The article has become much better perceived. I believe that the article can be accepted for publication after making editorial changes
Author Response
Comment: I am satisfied with the process of finalizing the article. Almost all my comments have been taken into account and worked out in the article. The article has become much better perceived. I believe that the article can be accepted for publication after making editorial changes.
Response: We sincerely thank you for your interest in our work and for your valuable comments. During the revision process, we carefully implemented the changes you suggested. Your feedback has greatly contributed to making the manuscript clearer and stronger.
We are very pleased that you consider the article suitable for publication. We will ensure that all necessary editorial adjustments are carefully addressed in the final version.
We greatly appreciate your constructive contribution and guidance.
Sincerely,
