The Determinants of Forest Products Footprint: A New Fourier Cointegration Approach

Yilanci, Veli (2023): The Determinants of Forest Products Footprint: A New Fourier Cointegration Approach. Published in: Forests , Vol. 14, No. 5 (24 April 2023): pp. 1-12.

Abstract

This study aims to determine the factors that affect the forest products footprint (FPF) in Brazil during the period 1965–2018 by proposing a new cointegration test which augments the Engle-Granger cointegration test with a Fourier function (Fourier Engle-Granger) and allows multiple structural breaks in the long-run relationship. Since the results of the unit root tests show that all variables are nonstationary, we applied the Fourier Engle-Granger cointegration test and revealed that there was a long-term relationship between the forest products’ footprint, energy consumption, gross domestic product, and trade openness. Although energy consumption was found to have a decreasing effect on FPF, the remaining variables were found to have a healing effect on FPF. Policymakers in Brazil should consider shifting energy consumption to clean energy sources and sustain international trade and economic growth in the current form to consider the FPF.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: structural breaks; long-run relationship; footprint
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C12 - Hypothesis Testing: General; Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q50 - General

References

1. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main Report; UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2020. 2. FAO. Global Forest Sector Outlook 2050: Assessing Future Demand and Sources of Timber for a Sustainable Economy—Background Paper for the State of the World’s Forests 2022; FAO Forestry Working Paper, No. 31.; UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2265en. 3. Arias, E. Brazil: Market Profil; The South Carolina Forestry Commission, Columbia: 2022. 4. Ulucak, R.; Lin, D. Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 80, 337–343. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Eren, A.E.; Alper, F.Ö. Persistence of Policy Shocks to the Ecological Footprint of MINT Countries. Ege Acad. Rev. 2021, 21, 427–440. 8. Bello, M.O.; Erdogan, S.; Ch’Ng, K.S. On the convergence of ecological footprint in African countries: New evidences from panel stationarity tests with factors and gradual shifts. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 322, 116061. 9. Yilanci, V.; Ulucak, R.; Ozgur, O. Insights for a sustainable environment: Analysing the persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprints of Mediterranean countries. Spat. Econ. Anal. 2022, 17, 47–66. 10. Yilanci, V.; Pata, U.K.; Cutcu, I. Testing the persistence of shocks on ecological footprint and sub-accounts: Evidence from the big ten emerging markets. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2022, 16, 10. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Yilanci, V.; Pata, U.K. Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among the ASEAN-5 countries: Evidence from a non-linear panel unit root test. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106178. 14. Işık, C.; Ahmad, M.; Ongan, S.; Ozdemir, D.; Irfan, M.; Alvarado, R. Convergence analysis of the ecological footprint: Theory and empirical evidence from the USMCA countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 32648–32659. 15. Tillaguango, B.; Alvarado, R.; Dagar, V.; Murshed, M.; Pinzón, Y.; Méndez, P. Convergence of the ecological footprint in Latin America: The role of the productive structure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 59771–59783. 16. Yilanci, V.; Gorus, M.S.; Solarin, S.A. Convergence in per capita carbon footprint and ecological footprint for G7 countries: Evidence from panel Fourier threshold unit root test. Energy Environ. 2022, 33, 527–545. 17. Yilanci, V.; Ursavaş, U.; Ursavaş, N. Convergence in ecological footprint across the member states of ECOWAS: Evidence from a novel panel unit root test. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 79241–79252. 18. Ursavaş, U.; Yilanci, V. Convergence analysis of ecological footprint at different time scales: Evidence from Southern Common Market countries. Energy Environ. 2023, 34, 429–442. 19. Alper, A.E.; Alper, F.O.; Cil, A.B.; Iscan, E.; Eren, A.A. Stochastic convergence of ecological footprint: New insights from a unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 22100–22114. 20. Arogundade, S.; Hassan, A.; Akpa, E.; Mduduzi, B. Closer together or farther apart: Are there club convergence in ecological footprint? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 15293–15310. 21. Al-Mulali, U.; Weng-Wai, C.; Sheau-Ting, L.; Mohammed, A.H. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 315–323. 22. Ozturk, I.; Al-Mulali, U.; Saboori, B. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 1916–1928. 23. Ulucak, R.; Bilgili, F. A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 144–157. 24. Destek, M.A.; Ulucak, R.; Dogan, E. Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: The role of ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 29387–29396. 25. Destek, M.A.; Sarkodie, S.A. Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The role of energy and financial development. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 2483–2489. 26. Altıntaş, H.; Kassouri, Y. Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions? Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106187. 27. Dogan, E.; Ulucak, R.; Kocak, E.; Isik, C. The use of ecological footprint in estimating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 138063. 28. Ansari, M.A. Re-visiting the Environmental Kuznets curve for ASEAN: A comparison between ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 168, 112867. 29. Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Gokmenoglu, K.K.; Taspinar, N.; Cantos-Cantos, J.M. An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 23010–23026. 30. Destek, M.A.; Okumus, I. Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? Evidence from ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 23689–23695. 31. Nathaniel, S.; Aguegboh, E.; Iheonu, C.; Sharma, G.; Shah, M. Energy consumption, FDI, and urbanization linkage in coastal Mediterranean countries: Re-assessing the pollution haven hypothesis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 35474–35487. 32. Chaudhry, I.S.; Yin, W.; Ali, S.A.; Faheem, M.; Abbas, Q.; Farooq, F.; Ur Rahman, S. Moderating role of institutional quality in validation of pollution haven hypothesis in BRICS: A new evidence by using DCCE approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 9193–9202. 33. Solarin, S.A.; Gil-Alana, L.A.; Lafuente, C. Persistence and sustainability of fishing grounds footprint: Evidence from 89 countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 751, 141594. 34. Kassouri, Y. Exploring the dynamics of fishing footprints in the Gulf of Guinea and Congo Basin region: Current status and future perspectives. Mar. Policy 2021, 133, 104739. 35. Solarin, S.A. Towards sustainable development: A multi‐country persistence analysis of forest products footprint using a stationarity test with smooth shifts. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1465–1476. 36. Solarin, S.A.; Gil-Alana, L.A.; Lafuente, C. Persistence and non-stationarity in the built-up land footprint across 89 countries. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 123, 107372. 37. Karimi, M.S.; Khezri, M.; Khan, Y.A.; Razzaghi, S. Exploring the influence of economic freedom index on fishing grounds footprint in environmental Kuznets curve framework through spatial econometrics technique: Evidence from Asia-Pacific countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 6251–6266. 38. Farooq, U.; Dar, A.B. Is there a Kuznets curve for forest product footprint?—Empirical evidence from India. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 144, 102850. 39. Yilanci, V.; Cutcu, I.; Cayir, B. Is the environmental Kuznets curve related to the fishing footprint? Evidence from China. Fish. Res. 2022, 254, 106392. 40. Yilanci, V.; Cutcu, I.; Cayir, B.; Saglam, M.S. Pollution haven or pollution halo in the fishing footprint: Evidence from In-donesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 188, 114626. 41. Gregory, A.W.; Hansen, B.E. Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. J. Econom. 1996, 70, 99–126. 42. Engle, R.; Granger, C. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 1987, 55, 251–276. 43. Hatemi-j, A. Tests for cointegration with two unknown regime shifts with an application to financial market integration. Empir. Econ. 2008, 35, 497–505. 44. Becker, R.; Enders, W.; Lee, J. A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. J. Time Ser. Anal. 2006, 27, 381–409. 45. Gallant, R. On the basis in flexible functional form and an essentially unbiased form: The flexible Fourier form. J. Econom. 1981, 15, 211–353. 46. Perron, P. The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 1989, 57, 1361–1401. 47. Enders, W.; Lee, J. The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Econ. Lett. 2012, 117, 196–199. 48. Rodrigues, P.M.; Robert Taylor, A.M. The Flexible Fourier Form and Local Generalised Least Squares De‐trended Unit Root Tests. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2012, 74, 736–759. 49. BP 2022, Statistical Review of World Energy—2022, The Brazilian Energy System in 2021. 2022. Available online: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2022-brazil-insights.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2023). 50. Arouri, M.E.H.; Youssef, A.B.; M’henni, H.; Rault, C. Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy Policy 2012, 45, 342–349. 51. Ilham, M.I. Economic development and environmental degradation in ASEAN. Signifikan J. Ilmu Ekon. 2018, 7, 103–112. 52. Chen, S.; Saud, S.; Saleem, N.; Bari, M.W. Nexus between financial development, energy consumption, income level, and ecological footprint in CEE countries: Do human capital and biocapacity matter? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 31856–31872. 53. Lu, W.C. The interplay among ecological footprint, real income, energy consumption, and trade openness in 13 Asian countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 45148–45160. 54. Adekoya, O.B.; Oliyide, J.A.; Fasanya, I.O. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption–Ecological footprint nexus in net-oil exporting and net-oil importing countries: Policy implications for a sustainable environment. Renew. Energy 2022, 189, 524–534. 55. Chandran, V.G.R.; Tang, C.F. The impacts of transport energy consumption, foreign direct investment and income on CO2 emissions in ASEAN-5 economies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 24, 445–453. 56. Dogan, E.; Turkekul, B. CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: Testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 1203–1213. 57. Osuntuyi, B.V.; Lean, H.H. Economic growth, energy consumption and environmental degradation nexus in heterogeneous countries: Does education matter? Environ. Sci. Eur. 2022, 34(1), 1-16. 58. Jahanger, A.; Usman, M.; Murshed, M.; Mahmood, H.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D. The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations. Resour. Policy 2022, 76, 102569. 59. Dada, J.T.; Adeiza, A.; Noor, A.I.; Marina, A. Investigating the link between economic growth, financial development, urbanization, natural resources, human capital, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from Nigeria. J. Bioeco-nomics 2022, 24, 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-021-09323-x. 60. Destek, M.A.; Sinha, A. Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118537. 61. Liu, Y.; Sadiq, F.; Ali, W.; Kumail, T. Does tourism development, energy consumption, trade openness and economic growth matters for ecological footprint: Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve and pollution haven hypothesis for Pakistan. Energy 2022, 245, 123208. 62. Khan, M.T.I.; Yaseen, M.R.; Ali, Q. Dynamic relationship between financial development, energy consumption, trade and greenhouse gas: Comparison of upper middle income countries from Asia, Europe, Africa and America. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 567–580. 63. Yao, X.; Yasmeen, R.; Hussain, J.; Shah, W.U.H. The repercussions of financial development and corruption on energy efficiency and ecological footprint: Evidence from BRICS and next 11 countries. Energy 2021, 223, 120063. 64. Kongbuamai, N.; Zafar, M.W.; Zaidi, S.A.H.; Liu, Y. Determinants of the ecological footprint in Thailand: The influences of tourism, trade openness, and population density. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 40171–40186. 65. Banerjee, A.; Dolado, J.J.; Hendry, D.F.; Smith, G.W. Exploring equilibrium relationships in econometrics through static models: Some Monte Carlo evidence. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1986, 48, 253–277. 66. Lee, H.; Lee, J.; Im, K. More powerful cointegration tests with non-normal errors. Stud. Nonlinear Dyn. Econom. 2015, 19, 397–413. 67. Banerjee, P.; Arčabić, V.; Lee, H. Fourier ADL cointegration test to approximate smooth breaks with new evidence from crude oil market. Econ. Model. 2017, 67, 114–124.