Cited by 18Energy, Environment, Economic GrowthSustainable Development and Environmental PolicyEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Does ecological footprint in ECCAS and ECOWAS converge? Empirical evidence from a panel unit root test with sharp and smooth breaks

Open access
Çelik, Orkun, Adali, Zafer, Bari, Bilgin·2022·Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Abstract

The costs due to climate change have been increasing day by day. In addition to the risk of losing our planet's natural assets due to the increasing destructiveness of climate-related natural disasters and extreme climate events, we are also faced with grave economic risks. For this reason, researchers have recently focused on environmental issues. Nevertheless, they generally have investigated developed countries and ignored developing and least developed countries such as African countries. The United Nations (2015) report highlights that African countries should be specially investigated. Hence, the paper analyzes whether the ecological footprint in the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) converges for the period from 1961 to 2017. We employ Bahmani-Oskooee et al.'s (2014) panel unit root test with sharp and smooth breaks. The empirical findings demonstrate that the ecological footprint is stationary in ECCAS and ECOWAS. Stated in other words, the ecological footprint in these countries converges. Therefore, policymakers could implement similar policies to reduce the ecological footprint in these countries. This policy framework paves the way for an effective sustainable development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11356-022-23178-3

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GDP, FD, and INV are stationary at first difference, while OIL and INF are stationary at level.

    “The result of unit root shows that GDP, FD and INV are stationary at first difference, however, OIL and INF are stationary at level, so the result of the unit root test gives the level of confidence for the application of panel ARDL for estimation [51,52,53,54].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Çelik, O., Adali, Z., & Bari, B.
Affiliations
  • Gümüşhane University (TR)
  • Anadolu University (TR)
Corresponding author
Çelik, Orkun
Venue
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Published
2022-10-01
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
16253-16265
ISSN
  • 0944-1344 (ISSN-L)
  • 1614-7499
OpenAlex
W4298120423
Cited by
18
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science and Pollution Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Gümüşhane University Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Energy, Environment, Economic Growth
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
ecological footprint, convergence, Economic Community of Central African States, ECOWAS, panel unit root tests, stationarity, sustainable development, environmental policy, African countries
MeSH terms
Africa, Carbon Dioxide, Developing Countries, Economic Development, Climate Change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review