Do Shocks Permanently Affect Ecological Balance Per Capita in Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand?
Mehmet ErdoğmuşThe aim of this study is to reveal whether the ecological balance per capita calculated separately for Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand is permanently affected by shocks or not. The analysis period (depending on data availability) covers the period 1961–2022 for all countries examined. The data used in the study are on an annual basis. The ecological balance per capita has been obtained by subtracting the per capita ecological footprint from the per capita biocapacity. In order to make a choice between unit root tests that do not take into account nonlinearity and those that do, the linearity test suggested by Harvey et al. (2008) was first applied. Considering the results of the linearity analysis, the ADF unit root test, the unit root test recommended by Elliott et al. (1996), and the unit root test proposed by Narayan and Popp (2010) were applied to the data of Brazil and the data of New Zealand. For the ecological balance per capita series of South Africa, the unit root test recommended by Kapetanios et al. (2003), the unit root test proposed by Kruse (2011), and the unit root test suggested by Güriş (2019) were applied. According to the findings obtained, it can be said that the shocks to the ecological balance per capita (calculated separately for Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand) have a permanent effect. The study also made important suggestions based on the findings.
Şoklar Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Yeni Zelanda’da Kişi Başı Ekolojik Dengeyi Kalıcı Olarak Etkiler mi?
Mehmet ErdoğmuşBu çalışmanın amacı Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Yeni Zelanda için ayrı ayrı hesaplanan kişi başı ekolojik dengenin şoklardan kalıcı olarak etkilenip etkilenmediğini ortaya koymaktır. Analiz dönemi incelenen tüm ülkeler için (veri mevcudiyetine bağlı olarak) 1961–2022 dönemini kapsamaktadır. Çalışmada kullanılan veriler yıllık bazdadır. Kişi başı ekolojik denge, kişi başı biyolojik kapasiteden kişi başı ekolojik ayak izinin çıkartılmasıyla elde edilmiştir. Doğrusal dışılığı dikkate almayan ve doğrusal dışılığı dikkate alan birim kök testleri arasında bir seçim yapabilmek amacıyla önce Harvey vd. (2008) tarafından önerilen doğrusallık testi uygulanmıştır. Doğrusallık analizinin sonuçları dikkate alınarak çalışmada Brezilya verilerine ve Yeni Zelanda verilerine ADF birim kök testi, Elliott vd. (1996) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi ve Narayan ve Popp (2010) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi uygulanmıştır. Güney Afrika’ya ait kişi başı ekolojik denge serisi için ise Kapetanios vd. (2003) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi, Kruse (2011) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi ve Güriş (2019) tarafından önerilen birim kök testi uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Yeni Zelanda için ayrı ayrı hesaplanan kişi başı ekolojik dengeye yönelik şokların kalıcı etkiye sahip olduğu söylenebilir. Çalışmada ayrıca elde edilen bulgulardan yola çıkarak önemli önerilerde de bulunulmuştur.
Knowing how environmental variables respond to public interventions is very important for effective environmental policymaking. This study aimed to ascertain whether shocks permanently influenced the ecological balance per capita calculated separately for Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand. The study also intended to discover whether public interventions designed to change the ecological balance per capita of any of the three analysed countries (Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand) could be efficacious.
In this study, countries with a low environmental policy stringency index were selected because it was aimed at revealing the effect of shocks on per capita ecological balance in countries with low environmental policy stringency. As a result of the 2020 values of the environmental policy stringency index, it has been accepted that there is low environmental policy stringency in Brazil, South Africa, Iceland, and New Zealand (since the environmental policy stringency index data announced by the OECD are not available after 2020, the 2020 environmental policy stringency index data were taken into account). However, due to the unavailability of data, the ecological balance per capita for Iceland could not be calculated. Therefore, only Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand are among the countries analysed.
As a result of the literature review, a limited number of studies have been found that reveal whether ecological balance is permanently or temporarily affected by shocks. These studies are as follows: Ulucak and Lin (2017), Yilanci and Pata (2020), Ozcan et al. (2021), and Pata and Yilanci (2021). Ulucak and Lin (2017), in their empirical study on the US, found that the ecological deficit (balance) follows a unit root process. In their empirical study of the G7 and E7 nations, Yilanci and Pata (2020) came to the conclusion that shocks do not permanently affect the ecological balance per capita (calculated separately for nine nations). In their empirical analysis of 27 OECD nations, Ozcan et al. (2021) came to the conclusion that the ecological balance per capita (which is calculated separately for Germany, Israel, and Mexico) does not follow a unit root process. The empirical study of Pata and Yilanci (2021) for the G10 and N11 countries reported that the ecological balance per capita (which is calculated separately for Nigeria, the Philippines, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the US) follows a unit root process. The literature review of the current study also includes studies investigating whether ecological variables other than ecological balance are permanently affected by shocks. These studies are as follows: Chen et al. (2016), Tiwari et al. (2016), Solarin and Bello (2018), Ozcan et al. (2019), Solarin et al. (2019), Yilanci et al. (2019), Alper and Alper (2021), Bermejo et al. (2021), Caglar et al. (2021), Solarin et al. (2021), Solarin and Gil-Alana (2021), Caglar and Mert (2022), Erdogan et al. (2022), Esenyel İçen et al. (2022), Bello et al. (2023), Hacıimamoğlu (2023), Pata and Aydin (2023), and Solarin et al. (2023).
The present study used ecological balance per capita data. The ecological balance per capita data were computed for each stated country by subtracting its per capita ecological footprint from its per capita biocapacity. The analysis period (depending on data availability) begins in 1961 and ends in 2022. Initially, the study utilised the linearity test suggested by Harvey et al. (2008). This test was labelled HLX for this study, and its results enabled the assertion that the series computed for Brazil and New Zealand were linear, whereas the series for South Africa was nonlinear. The ADF unit root test, the unit root test suggested by Elliott et al. (1996) [this test is called DF-GLS in this paper], and the unit root test recommended by Narayan and Popp (2010) [this test is called NP in this paper] were applied for the data of Brazil and the data of New Zealand. For the data of South Africa, the unit root test recommended by Kapetanios et al. (2003) [this test is called KSS in this paper], the unit root test proposed by Kruse (2011) [this test is called KS in this paper], and the unit root test suggested by Güriş (2019) [this test is called FKS in this paper] were applied.
The study results suggest that shocks to the ecological balance per capita (calculated separately for Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand) have permanent effects. In this respect, it can be stated that the intervention to change the ecological balance per capita in Brazil, South Africa, and New Zealand will have a permanent effect. Hence, it is critical for policymakers in the three stated nations to implement strategies designed to change the ecological balance per capita.
