Advertisement

Implications of Environmental Convergence: Continental Evidence Based on Ecological Footprint

  • Faik BilgiliEmail author
  • Recep Ulucak
  • Emrah Koçak
Chapter
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

Recently seminal articles in the literature have been investigating the issues of air pollution and convergence in air pollution by following CO2 emissions. These seminal works eventually suggest some prominent environmental policies. This paper aims at (i) following a new, more comprehensive ecological indicator than CO2 indicator, which is called ecological footprint (EF), and, (ii) observing if countries of four continents converge in EF indicator. The continents are Asia, Africa, America and Europe, respectively. This work eventually suggests some relevant environmental policies. EF compares the demand side and supply side of the natural resources. The EF, on the demand side, calculates the amount of human’s consumption of natural resources and amount of waste from the consumption of resources. The EF indicator, on the supply side, measures how quickly nature can absorb people’s waste and how quickly new resources can be created by nature. EF considers the global warming in a broader framework by following effects of land use, deforestation carbon emissions on climate change. The CO2, hence, the greenhouse gas, is accounted for in ecological footprint measurement. Ecological footprint (i) presents an aggregated indicator considering separately the indicators of carbon dioxide emissions, collapse of fisheries, change in land use, and, deforestation, and, (ii) tracks the human activities-driven pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. Therefore, ecological footprint might be followed to understand, in an integrated manner, the environmental impacts of the humans’ activities on the biosphere and its composing ecosystems. To this end, a bootstrap-based panel KPSS test with structural breaks is carried out to determine whether or not environmental convergence happens for 15 countries of each continent. The continents are Asia, Africa, America and Europe, respectively. Results show that convergence in EF is verified in Africa, America and Europe whereas null hypothesis of convergence is rejected in Asia. Following the panel estimations, this paper eventually aims at exploring some environmental policies regarding sustainable urbanization, efficient water usage and optimization in land and forest management.

Keywords

Ecological footprint Biocapacity Urbanization Convergence Asia Africa America Europe 

References

  1. 1.
    Acaravci A, Erdogan S (2016) The convergence behavior of CO2 emissions in seven regions under multiple structural breaks. Int J Energy Econ Policy 6(3):575–580. Retrieved from http://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/view/2725
  2. 2.
    Ahmed M, Khan AM, Bibi S, Zakaria M (2016) Convergence of per capita CO2 emissions across the globe: Insights via wavelet analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aldy JE (2006) Per capita carbon dioxide emissions: convergence or divergence? Environ Resour Econ 33:533–555.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-6160-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bai J, Perron P (1998) Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66(1):47.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2998540MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltagi B, Feng Q, Kao C (2012) A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model (No. 137). Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/cpr
  6. 6.
    Baltagi BH (2015) Econometric analysis of panel data, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, NYzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baltagi BH, Feng Q, Kao C (2016) Estimation of heterogeneous panels with structural breaks. J Econom 191(1):176–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.048MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1992) Convergence. J Polit Econ 100(2):223–251.  https://doi.org/10.1086/261816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü, Kuloğlu A (2017) The impact of urbanization on energy intensity: panel data evidence considering cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity. Energy 133:242–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2017.05.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü, Kuşkaya S (2017) Can biomass energy be an efficient policy tool for sustainable development? Renew Sustain Energy Rev 71:830–845.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bilgili F, Öztürk İ, Koçak E, Bulut Ü, Pamuk Y, Muğaloğlu E, Bağlıtaş HH (2016) The influence of biomass energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a wavelet coherence approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23–19:19043–19061.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7094-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü (2016) The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:838–845.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47(1):239.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burnett JW (2016) Club convergence and clustering of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions. Resour Energy Econ 46:62–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carrion-i-Silvestre JL, del Barrio-Castro T, Lopez-Bazo E (2005) Breaking the panels: an application to the GDP per capita. Econom J 8(2):159–175.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2005.00158.xMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Charles A, Darne O, Hoarau J-F (2012) Convergence of real per capita GDP within COMESA countries: a panel unit root evidence. Ann Reg Sci 49(1):53–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-010-0427-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christidou M, Panagiotidis T, Sharma A (2013) On the stationarity of per capita carbon dioxide emissions over a century. Econ Model 33:918–925.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.05.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colombo U (2001) The Club of Rome and sustainable development. Futures 33(1):7–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00048-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Criado OC, Grether JM (2011) Convergence in per capita CO2 emissions: a robust distributional approach. Resour Energy Econ 33(3):637–665. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/resene/v33y2011i3p637-665.html
  20. 20.
    Feng L, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Ahmad B (2017) The driving force of water footprint under the rapid urbanization process: a structural decomposition analysis for Zhangye city in China. J Clean Prod 163:S322–S328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.09.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gao H, Guddeti RR, Matsuzawa Y, Liu L-P, Su L-X, Guo D, Zhang M (2015) Plasma levels of microRNA-145 are associated with severity of coronary artery disease. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0123477.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hadri K (2000) Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econom J 3(2):148–161.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hubacek K, Guan D, Barrett J, Wiedmann T (2009) Environmental implications of urbanization and lifestyle change in China: ecological and water footprints. J Clean Prod 17(14):1241–1248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2009.03.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Islam N (2003) What have we learnt from the convergence debate? J Econ Surv 17(3):309–362.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee C-C, Chang C-P, Chen P-F (2008) Do CO2 emission levels converge among 21 OECD countries? New evidence from unit root structural break tests. Appl Econ Lett 15(7):551–556.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500426236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li S, Yuan W, Shi T, Zhou L (2011) Dynamic analysis of ecological footprints of Nanchong City in the process of urbanization. Procedia Eng 15:5415–5419.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2011.08.1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li X, Lin B (2013) Global convergence in per capita CO2 emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 24:357–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin J, Inglesi-Lotz R, Chang T (2018) Revisiting CO2 emissions convergence in G18 countries. Energy Sources Part B 13(5):269–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2018.1460422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Long X, Ji X, Ulgiati S (2017) Is urbanization eco-friendly? An energy and land use cross-country analysis. Energy Policy 100:387–396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.06.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luo W, Bai H, Jing Q, Liu T, Xu H (2018) Urbanization-induced ecological degradation in Midwestern China: an analysis based on an improved ecological footprint model. Resour Conserv Recycl 137:113–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2018.05.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maddala GS, Wu S (1999) A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 61(s1):631–652.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Jorgen R, Bahrens WW (1972) The limits to growth: a report to the club of Rome (1972). Universe Book, New York. Retrieved from http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf
  33. 33.
    Moffatt I (2000) Ecological footprints and sustainable development. Ecol Econ 32Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Research Council (2011) Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.  https://doi.org/10.17226/13152
  35. 35.
    Patterson M, McDonald G, Hardy D (2017) Is there more in common than we think? Convergence of ecological footprinting, emergy analysis, life cycle assessment and other methods of environmental accounting. Ecol Model 362:19–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2017.07.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Peng W, Wang X, Li X, He C (2018) Sustainability evaluation based on the emergy ecological footprint method: a case study of Qingdao, China, from 2004 to 2014. Ecol Ind 85:1249–1261.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2017.12.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Perron P (1989) The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57(6):1361–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (CWPE 0435 No. 1233)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Qi Z, Gao C, Na H, Ye Z (2018) Using forest area for carbon footprint analysis of typical steel enterprises in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 132:352–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2017.05.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rashid A, Irum A, Ali Malik I, Ashraf A, Rongqiong L, Liu G, Yousaf B (2018) Ecological footprint of Rawalpindi; Pakistan’s first footprint analysis from urbanization perspective. J Clean Prod 170:362–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.09.186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ridoutt BG, Page G, Opie K, Huang J, Bellotti W (2014) Carbon, water and land use footprints of beef cattle production systems in southern Australia. J Clean Prod 73:24–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2013.08.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rootes C (2008) The environmental movement. In: 1968 in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, pp 295–305.  https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230611900_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Solarin SA (2014) Convergence of CO2 emission levels: evidence from African countries. J Econ Res 19:65–92. Retrieved from http://210.101.116.28/W_files/kiss6/33501095_pv.pdf
  44. 44.
    Solarin SA, Bello MO (2018) Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: the case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecol Ind 89:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.01.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Strazicich MC, List JA (2003) Are CO2 emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environ Resour Econ 24(3):263–271.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022910701857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sun S (2019) Water footprints in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei: a perspective from comparisons between urban and rural consumptions in different regions. Sci Total Environ 647:507–515.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.07.343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Toth G, Szigeti C (2016) The historical ecological footprint: from over-population to over-consumption. Ecol Ind 60:283–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.06.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ulucak R, Apergis N (2018) Does convergence really matter for the environment? An application based on club convergence and on the ecological footprint concept for the EU countries. Environ Sci Policy 80(2):21–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ulucak R, Lin D (2017) Persistence of policy shocks to Ecological Footprint of the USA. Ecol Ind 80:337–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ulucak R, Bilgili F (2018) A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. J Clean Prod 186(2018):100–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
  52. 52.
    Xie C, Li J, Li D, Shen Y, Gao Y, Zhang Z (2018) Grass carp: the fish that feeds half of China. In: Aquaculture in China. Wiley, Chichester, UK, pp 93–115.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119120759.ch2_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Xinchun C, Mengyang W, Xiangping G, Yalian Z, Yan G, Nan W, Weiguang W (2017) Assessing water scarcity in agricultural production system based on the generalized water resources and water footprint framework. Sci Total Environ 609:587–597.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yao X, Wang Z, Zhang H (2016) Dynamic changes of the ecological footprint and its component analysis response to land use in Wuhan, China. Sustainability 8(4):329.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesErciyes UniversityKayseriTurkey

Personalised recommendations