Implications of Environmental Convergence: Continental Evidence Based on Ecological Footprint Chapter First Online: 21 May 2019
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 CO
2 emissions. These seminal works eventually suggest some prominent environmental policies. This paper aims at (i) following a new, more comprehensive ecological indicator than CO 2 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 CO 2, 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
Acaravci A, Erdogan S (2016) The convergence behavior of CO
emissions in seven regions under multiple structural breaks. Int J Energy Econ Policy 6(3):575–580. Retrieved from
Ahmed M, Khan AM, Bibi S, Zakaria M (2016) Convergence of per capita CO
emissions across the globe: Insights via wavelet analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.053 CrossRef Google Scholar
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-x CrossRef Google Scholar
Bai J, Perron P (1998) Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica 66(1):47.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2998540 MathSciNet CrossRef zbMATH Google Scholar
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
Baltagi BH (2015) Econometric analysis of panel data, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, NY
zbMATH Google Scholar
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.2015.03.048 MathSciNet CrossRef zbMATH Google Scholar
Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1992) Convergence. J Polit Econ 100(2):223–251.
https://doi.org/10.1086/261816 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2017.05.121 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2016.12.109 CrossRef Google Scholar
Bilgili F, Öztürk İ, Koçak E, Bulut Ü, Pamuk Y, Muğaloğlu E, Bağlıtaş HH (2016) The influence of biomass energy consumption on CO
emissions: a wavelet coherence approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23–19:19043–19061.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7094-2 CrossRef Google Scholar
Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü (2016) The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO
emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 54:838–845.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.080 CrossRef Google Scholar
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/10.2307/2297111 MathSciNet CrossRef zbMATH Google Scholar
Burnett JW (2016) Club convergence and clustering of U.S. energy-related CO
emissions. Resour Energy Econ 46:62–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2016.09.001 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.x MathSciNet CrossRef zbMATH Google Scholar
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-z CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2013.05.024 CrossRef Google Scholar
Colombo U (2001) The Club of Rome and sustainable development. Futures 33(1):7–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(00)00048-3 CrossRef Google Scholar
Criado OC, Grether JM (2011) Convergence in per capita CO
emissions: a robust distributional approach. Resour Energy Econ 33(3):637–665. Retrieved from
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.2015.09.047 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.0123477 CrossRef Google Scholar
Hadri K (2000) Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econom J 3(2):148–161.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043 MathSciNet CrossRef zbMATH Google Scholar
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.2009.03.011 CrossRef Google Scholar
Islam N (2003) What have we learnt from the convergence debate? J Econ Surv 17(3):309–362.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00197 CrossRef Google Scholar
Lee C-C, Chang C-P, Chen P-F (2008) Do CO
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/10.1080/13504850500426236 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2011.08.1004 CrossRef Google Scholar
Li X, Lin B (2013) Global convergence in per capita CO
emissions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 24:357–363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.048 CrossRef Google Scholar
Lin J, Inglesi-Lotz R, Chang T (2018) Revisiting CO
emissions convergence in G18 countries. Energy Sources Part B 13(5):269–280.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2018.1460422 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2016.06.024 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2018.05.015 CrossRef Google Scholar
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/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631 CrossRef Google Scholar
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
Moffatt I (2000) Ecological footprints and sustainable development. Ecol Econ 32
National Research Council (2011) Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
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.2017.07.022 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2017.12.020 CrossRef Google Scholar
Perron P (1989) The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57(6):1361–1401
CrossRef Google Scholar
Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (CWPE 0435 No. 1233)
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.2017.05.016 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2017.09.186 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2013.08.012 CrossRef Google Scholar
Rootes C (2008) The environmental movement. In: 1968 in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, pp 295–305.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230611900_25 CrossRef Google Scholar
Solarin SA (2014) Convergence of CO
emission levels: evidence from African countries. J Econ Res 19:65–92. Retrieved from
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.2018.01.064 CrossRef Google Scholar
Strazicich MC, List JA (2003) Are CO
emission levels converging among industrial countries? Environ Resour Econ 24(3):263–271.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022910701857 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2018.07.343 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2015.06.040 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2017.11.002 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2017.05.020 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2018.03.191 CrossRef Google Scholar
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_1 CrossRef Google Scholar
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.2017.07.191 CrossRef Google Scholar
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/su8040329 CrossRef Google Scholar Copyright information
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019