SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2020 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 46

RETRACTED: Examination of the Stationarity of Ecological Footprint and its Sub-Components in the OECD Countries

GERİ ÇEKİLDİ: OECD Ülkelerinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Alt Bileşenlerinin Durağanlığının İncelenmesi

Ali Eren ALPER
Fındık Özlem ALPER
Pages
293–310
Publication Date
2020-10-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The analysis results detected that carbon emission and total ecological footprint variables for the USA; forest products footprint variable for Germany; forest products and total ecological footprint variables for Australia; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for Austria; carbon emission, forest products and total ecological footprint variables for France; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for the Netherlands; forest products and cropland footprint variables for England; cropland footprint variable for Italy; cropland and total ecological footprint variables for Japan; total ecological footprint variables for Canada and fishery areas and forest products footprints for Turkey are stationary at levels.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:(This article was retracted on December 18, 2020.)The basic aim of this study is to test the stationarity of the ecological footprint and its sub-components with the Fourier KPSS unit root test, which takes both smooth and sharp structural breaks into consideration, in 12 selected OECD member countries over the period between 1961-2016.
📊
Key Findings & Data:(This article was retracted on December 18, 2020.)The basic aim of this study is to test the stationarity of the ecological footprint and its sub-components with the Fourier KPSS unit root test, which takes both smooth and sharp structural breaks into consideration, in 12 selected OECD member countries over the period between 1961-2016.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The analysis results detected that carbon emission and total ecological footprint variables for the USA; forest products footprint variable for Germany; forest products and total ecological footprint variables for Australia; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for Austria; carbon emission, forest products and total ecological footprint variables for France; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for the Netherlands; forest products and cropland footprint variables for England; cropland footprint variable for Italy; cropland and total ecological footprint variables for Japan; total ecological footprint variables for Canada and fishery areas and forest products footprints for Turkey are stationary at levels.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekolojik ayak izi · Fourier · Durağanlık

Abstract

(This article was retracted on December 18, 2020.)The basic aim of this study is to test the stationarity of the ecological footprint and its sub-components with the Fourier KPSS unit root test, which takes both smooth and sharp structural breaks into consideration, in 12 selected OECD member countries over the period between 1961-2016. The analysis results detected that carbon emission and total ecological footprint variables for the USA; forest products footprint variable for Germany; forest products and total ecological footprint variables for Australia; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for Austria; carbon emission, forest products and total ecological footprint variables for France; fishery areas and forest products footprint variables for the Netherlands; forest products and cropland footprint variables for England; cropland footprint variable for Italy; cropland and total ecological footprint variables for Japan; total ecological footprint variables for Canada and fishery areas and forest products footprints for Turkey are stationary at levels.

Özet

(Bu makale 18-12-2020 tarihinde geri çekildi.)Bu çalışmanın temel amacı ekolojik ayak izi ve alt bileşenlerinin durağanlığını, 1961-2016 dönemi için 12 seçilmiş OECD üyesi ülkede hem yumuşak hem de sert kırılmaları dikkate alan Fourier KPSS birim kök testi ile sınamaktır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre ABD için karbon salınımı ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Almanya için orman ürünleri ayak izi değişkeninin; Avusturalya için orman ürünleri ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Avusturya için balıkçılık alanları ve orman ürünleri ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Fransa için karbon salınımı, orman ürünleri ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Hollanda için balıkçılık alanları ve orman ürünleri ayak izi değişkenlerinin; İngiltere için orman ürünleri ve tarım alanı ayak izi değişkenlerinin; İtalya için tarım alanı ayak izi değişkeninin; Japonya için tarım alanı ve toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkenlerinin; Kanada için toplam ekolojik ayak izi değişkeninin ve Türkiye için ise balıkçılık alanları ve orman ürünleri ayak izlerinin seviyede durağan olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALPER, A. E., ALPER, F. Ö. (2020). RETRACTED: Examination of the Stationarity of Ecological Footprint and its Sub-Components in the OECD Countries. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 46, 293–310. https://ajindex.com/articles/139295

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Acemoglu, D. & P. Aghion & D. Hemous (2015), “The environment and directed technical change in a North-South model”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(3), 513-530.
  2. Ahmed, M. & A.M. Khan & S. Bibi & M. Zakaria (2017), “Convergence of per capita CO2 emissions across the globe: Insights via wavelet analysis”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75, 86-97.
  3. Aldy, J.E. (2006), “Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Convergence or Divergence?”, Environmental & Resource Economics, 33(4), 533-555.
  4. Al-mulali, U. & C. Weng-Wai & L. Sheau-Ting & A.H. Mohammed (2015), “Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation”, Ecological Indicators, 48, 315-323.
  5. Al-Mulali, U. & I. Ozturk & S.A. Solarin (2016), “Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in seven regions: The role of renewable energy”, Ecological Indicators, 67, 267-282.
  6. Barros, C.P. & L.A. Gil-Alana & F. Perez de Gracia (2016), “Stationarity and Long Range Dependence of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Evidence for Disaggregated Data”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 63(1), 45-56.
  7. Becker, R. & W. Enders & J. Lee (2006), “A Stationarity Test in the Presence of an Unknown Number of Smooth Breaks”, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
  8. Bekhet, H.A. & N.S. Othman & T. Yasmin (2020), “Interaction between Environmental Kuznet Curve and Urban Environment Transition Hypotheses in Malaysia”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(1), 384-402.
  9. Cai, X. & X. Che & B. Zhu & J. Zhao & R. Xie (2018), “Will developing countries become pollution havens for developed countries? An empirical investigation in the Belt and Road”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 624-632.
  10. Camarero, M. & A.J. Picazo-Tadeo & C. Tamarit (2013), “Are the determinants of CO2 emissions converging among OECD countries?”, Economics Letters, 118(1), 159-162.
  11. Chen, P.-F. & C.-C. Lee (2007), “Is energy consumption per capita broken stationary? New evidence from regional-based panels”, Energy Policy, 35(6), 3526-3540.
  12. Chen, Q. & D. Taylor (2020), “Economic development and pollution emissions in Singapore: Evidence in support of the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis and its implications for regional sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 243. Christidou, M. & T. Panagiotidis & A. Sharma (2013), “On the stationarity of per capita carbon dioxide emissions over a century”, Economic Modelling, 33, 918-92