Assessing the Convergence of Cropland Ecological Balance: A Panel Data Analysis of 13 Major Agricultural Countries

Authors

  • Orhan Şimşek

    Department of Economics, Hopa Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Artvin Çoruh University, Hopa, Artvin 08600, Turkey
  • İlkay Güler

    Department of Land Registry and Cadastre, School of Land Registry and Cadastre, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Ankara 06810, Turkey 
  • Sefa Özbek

    Department of Customs Management, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Tarsus University, Mersin 66000, Turkey
  • Mustafa Naimoğlu

    Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Bingol University, Bingol 12000, Turkey 
  • Zafer Adalı

    Department of Economics, Hopa Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Artvin Çoruh University, Hopa, Artvin 08600, Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/jees.v7i7.7676
Received: 4 November 2024 | Revised: 17 November 2024 | Accepted: 2 December 2024 | Published Online: 24 June 2025

Abstract

This study investigates the convergence hypothesis and stochastic dynamics of agricultural land use and ecological balance across 13 major agricultural countries from 1992 to 2022. The study's concentrated samples are Russia, the United States, the Netherlands, Brazil, Germany, China, France, Spain, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Indonesia, and India. The research uncovers notable variations in ecological balance by utilizing a comprehensive set of advanced panel unit root tests (Panel CIPS, CADF, Panel-LM, Panel-KPSS, and Bahmani-Oskooee et al.’s Panel KPSS Unit Root Test). The findings highlight significant improvements in Canada, contrasting with declines in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and the United States. The results indicate convergence in ecological balance among these countries, suggesting that agricultural practices are progressively aligning with sustainability objectives. The considered countries can determine and enact joint and collective policy actions addressing cropland sustainability. However, the univariate outcome also shows that the cropland ecological balance of Germany, China, France, Indonesia, and India does contain a unit root and stationary which means the presence of the constant-mean. The univariate actions from the mentioned governments will not promote persistent impact. Therefore, joint actions determined by the countries considered are recommended for the mentioned countries. However, the rest of the countries also enact local policies. The insights gained are critical for informing global sustainability strategies and aiding policymakers in developing effective measures to enhance agricultural practices and mitigate environmental impacts. This research provides a data-driven foundation for optimizing agricultural sustainability and supports international efforts to achieve long-term ecological stability.

Keywords:

Agricultural Land Use; Ecological Balance; Convergence Hypothesis; Stochastic Dynamics; Panel Unit Root Tests; Sustainable Development

References

[1] Ige, O.E., Ojo, F.R., Onikanni, S.A., 2024. Rural and urban development: Pathways to environmental conservation and sustainability. In: Aransiola, S.A., Babaniyi, B.R., Aransiola, A.B., et al., (Eds.), Prospects for Soil Regeneration and Its Impact on Environmental Protection. Springer Nature: Champaign, Switzerland. pp. 307–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53270-2_14

[2] David-Raj, A., Kumar, S., Kalambukattu, J.G., et al., 2024. Land degradation and its relation to climate change and sustainability. In: Chatterjee, U., Shaw, R., Kumar, S., et al. (Eds.), Climate Crisis: Adaptive Approaches and Sustainability. Springer Nature: Champaign, Switzerland. pp. 121–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44397-8_7

[3] Mallick, S.K., 2024. Urban built-up area footprint (UBAF): A novel method of urban bio-capacity and ecological sensitivity assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production. 440, 140846. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140846

[4] Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization. 4(2), 121–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212

[5] Wackernagel, M., 1994. Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC, Canada.

[6] Rees, W.M., Wackernagel, M., 1996. Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable-and why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental İmpact Assessment Review. 16(4), 223–248.

[7] Telo da Gama, J., 2023. The role of soils in sustainability, climate change, and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities. Ecologies. 4(3), 552–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies4030036

[8] Nazir, M.J., Li, G., Nazir, M.M., et al., 2024. Harnessing soil carbon sequestration to address climate change challenges in agriculture. Soil and Tillage Research. 237, 105959. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2023.105959

[9] Banda, L.O.L., Banda, C.V., Banda, J.T., et al., 2024. Unraveling agricultural water pollution despite an ecological policy in the Ayeyarwady Basin. BMC Public Health. 24(1), 1562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19084-7

[10] Borowiec, J., Papież, M., 2024. Convergence of CO2 emissions in countries at different stages of development. Do globalisation and environmental policies matter? Energy Policy. 184, 113866. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113866

[11] Jiao, L., Wang, L., Lu, H., et al., 2023. An assessment model for urban resilience based on the pressure-state-response framework and BP-GA neural network. Urban Climate. 49, 101543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101543

[12] Liu, J., Cao, Y., 2024. Does out-migration really affect forestry ecological security? An empirical case study based on Heilongjiang province, China. Forests. 15(8), 1400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f15081400

[13] Global Footprint Network, 2024. Footprint Data Foundation. Available from: https://www.footprintnetwork.org (cited 3 July 2024).

[14] Kanojia, M., Kamani, P., Kashyap, G.S., et al., 2024. Alternative agriculture land-use transformation pathways by partial-equilibrium agricultural sector model: a mathematical approach. International Journal of Computer and Information. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41870-024-02158-5

[15] Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Chang, T., Wu, T. 2014. Revisiting purchasing power parity in African countries: panel stationary test with sharp and smooth breaks. Applied Financial Economics. 24(22), 1429–1438. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09603107.2014.925068

[16] Dam, M.M., Durmaz, A., Bekun, F.V., et al., 2024. The role of green growth and institutional quality on environmental sustainability: A comparison of CO2 emissions, ecological footprint and inverted load capacity factor for OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management. 365, 121551. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121551

[17] Eyuboglu, K., Uzar, U., 2021. A new perspective to environmental degradation: the linkages between higher education and CO2 emissions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 28(1), 482–493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09414-8

[18] Oyebanji, M.O., Kirikkaleli, D., Awosusi, A.A., 2023. Consumption‐based CO2 emissions in Denmark: The role of financial stability and energy productivity. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 19(6), 1485–1494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4757

[19] Rasool, Y., Jianguo, D., Ali, K., 2024. Exploring the linkage between globalization and environmental degradation: a disaggregate analysis of Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 26(7), 16887–16915. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03315-9

[20] Sarkodie, S.A., Strezov, V., 2018. Assessment of contribution of Australia's energy production to CO2 emissions and environmental degradation using statistical dynamic approach. Science of the Total Environment. 639, 888–899. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.204

[21] Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., et al., 2015. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological Indicators. 48, 315–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.029

[22] Solarin, S.A., Bello, M.O., 2018. Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: the case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecological Indicators. 89, 35–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064

[23] Wang, W., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Anwar, A., et al., 2024. Shaping a greener future: The role of geopolitical risk, renewable energy and financial development on environmental sustainability using the LCC hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Management. 357, 120708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120708

[24] Behera, S.N., Sharma, M., 2011. Degradation of SO2, NO2 and NH3 leading to formation of secondary inorganic aerosols: An environmental chamber study. Atmospheric Environment. 45(24), 4015–4024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.056

[25] Jiang, L., He, S., Cui, Y., et al., 2020. Effects of the socio-economic influencing factors on SO2 pollution in Chinese cities: A spatial econometric analysis based on satellite observed data. Journal of Environmental Management. 268, 110667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110667

[26] Wang, Y., Han, R., Kubota, J., 2016. Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for SO2 emissions? A semi-parametric panel data analysis for China. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews. 54, 1182–1188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.143

[27] Acheampong, A.O., Opoku, E.E.O., 2023. Environmental degradation and economic growth: Investigating linkages and potential pathways. Energy Economics. 123, 106734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106734

[28] Alvarado, R., Toledo, E., 2017. Environmental degradation and economic growth: evidence for a developing country. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 19, 1205–1218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9790-y

[29] Barut, A., Kaya, E., Bekun, F.V., et al., 2023. Environmental sustainability amidst financial inclusion in five fragile economies: Evidence from lens of environmental Kuznets curve. Energy. 269, 126802. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126802

[30] Bulut, U., Atay-Polat, M., Bulut, A.S., 2024. Environmental deterioration, renewable energy, natural resource rents, and schooling in Türkiye: Does the degree of energy transition matter for environmental quality? Journal of Environmental Management. 365, 121639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121639

[31] Kahouli, B., Miled, K., Aloui, Z., 2022. Do energy consumption, urbanization, and industrialization play a role in environmental degradation in the case of Saudi Arabia? Energy Strategy Reviews. 40, 100814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100814

[32] Shahbaz, M., Nasir, M.A., Roubaud, D., 2018. Environmental degradation in France: the effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations. Energy Economics. 74, 843–857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.07.020

[33] Suki, N.M., Suki, N.M., Sharif, A., et al., 2022. The role of technology innovation and renewable energy in reducing environmental degradation in Malaysia: a step towards sustainable environment. Renewable Energy. 182, 245–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.007

[34] Tsong, C.C., Lee, C.F., Tsai, L.J., et al., 2016. The Fourier approximation and testing for the null of cointegration. Empirical Economics. 51, 1085–1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-015-1028-6

[35] Adalı, Z., Danish, M.S.S., 2022. Investigation of the nexus between the electricity consumption and the ecological footprint. In: Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S. (Eds.), Circular Economy and the Energy Market: Achieving Sustainable Economic Development Through Energy Policy. Springer International Publishing: Champaign, Switzerland. pp. 79–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13146-2_7

[36] Caglar, A.E., Daştan, M., Rej, S., 2024. A new look at China's environmental quality: how does environmental sustainability respond to the asymmetrical behavior of the competitive industrial sector? International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. 31(1), 16–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2248584

[37] Erdogan, S., Sarkodie, S.A., Adedoyin, F.F., et al., 2024. Analyzing transport demand and environmental degradation: the case of G-7 countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 26(1), 711–734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02729-1

[38] Afshan, S., Yaqoob, T., 2023. Unravelling the efficacy of green innovation and taxation in promoting environmental quality: A dual-model assessment of testing the LCC theory in emerging economies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 416, 137850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137850

[39] Dogan, A., Pata, U.K., 2022. The role of ICT, R&D spending and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Testing the LCC hypothesis for G7 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production. 380, 135038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135038

[40] Pata, U.K., Kartal, M.T., Erdogan, S., et al., 2023. The role of renewable and nuclear energy R&D expenditures and income on environmental quality in Germany: Scrutinizing the EKC and LCC hypotheses with smooth structural changes. Applied Energy. 342, 121138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121138

[41] Wu, Y., Anwar, A., Quynh, N.N., et al., 2024. Impact of economic policy uncertainty and renewable energy on environmental quality: Testing the LCC hypothesis for fast growing economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 31(25), 36405–36416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30109-3

[42] Topal, S., 2024. LCC hipotezi çerçevesinde Türkiye'de kirlilik sığınağı ve kirlilik hale hipotezlerinin sınanması. International Journal of the Economics of Business. 20(2), 418–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1414228

[43] Bigerna, S., Bollino, C.A., Polinori, P., 2022. Convergence of ecological footprint and sustainable policy options. Journal of Policy Modeling. 44(3), 564–577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2022.07.001

[44] Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., 2018. Is there deterministic, stochastic, and/or club convergence in ecological footprint indicator among G20 countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 25(35), 35404–35419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3457-1

[45] Erdogan, S., Okumus, I., 2021. Stochastic and club convergence of ecological footprint: an empirical analysis for different income group of countries. Ecological Indicators. 121, 107123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107123

[46] Çelik, O., Adali, Z., Bari, B., 2023. Does ecological footprint in ECCAS and ECOWAS converge? Empirical evidence from a panel unit root test with sharp and smooth breaks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 30(6), 16253–16265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23178-3

[47] Zhang, J., Cherian, J., Parvez, A.M., et al., 2022. Consequences of sustainable agricultural productivity, renewable energy, and environmental decay: Recent evidence from ASEAN countries. Sustainability. 14(6), 3556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063556

[48] Chivu, L., Andrei, J.V., Zaharia, M., et al., 2020. A regional agricultural efficiency convergence assessment in Romania–Appraising differences and understanding potentials. Land Use Policy. 99, 104838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104838

[49] Andrei, J.V., Popescu, G.H., Nica, E., et al., 2020. The impact of agricultural performance on foreign trade concentration and competitiveness: empirical evidence from Romanian agriculture. Journal of Business Economics and Management. 21(2), 317–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.11988

[50] Oncioiu, I., 2014. Increasing agricultural productivity and sustainable development. Romanian Biotechnological Letters. 19(3), 9384–9389.

[51] Constantin, F., 2017. Study on the evolution of labor productivity in Romanian agriculture compare to some EU countries. Quality - Access to Success. 18, 135–140.

[52] Aceleanu, M.I., Molănescu, A.G., Crăciun, L., et al., 2015. The status of Romanian agriculture and some measures to take. Theoretical and Applied Economics. 22(2), 123–138.

[53] Wong, L.F., 2019. Agricultural Productivity in the Socialist Countries. Routledge: London, UK.

[54] Mollavelioğlu Ş., Mıhcı, H., Çağatay, S., et al., 2010. Assessment of sustainability of the European Union and Turkish agricultural sectors. New Medit. 9(3), 13–21.

[55] Mıhcı, H., Mollavelioğlu, Ş., 2011. An assessment of sustainable agriculture in the OECD countries with special reference to Turkey. New Medit. 10(2), 4–17.

[56] Bartolini, F., Coli, A., Magrini, A., et al., 2016. Measuring environmental efficiency of agricultural sector: A comparison between EU countries [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of the Italian Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (IAERE 2016), Bologna, Italy, 11–12 February 2016.

[57] Şenol, C., 2021. İnovasyon, destek, sürdürülebilirlik: Türkiye ekonomisi ve tarım. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. 44, 475–488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32003/igge.926785

[58] Domagala, J., 2021. Economic and environmental aspects of agriculture in the EU Countries. Energies. 14(22), 7826. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227826

[59] Pishgar-Komleh, S.H., Čechura, L., Kuzmenko, E., 2021. Investigating the dynamic ecoefficiency in agriculture sector of the European Union countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International. 28(35), 48942–48954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13948-w

[60] Ozturk, I., 2017. The dynamic relationship between agricultural sustainability and food-energy-water poverty in a panel of selected Sub-Saharan African countries. Energy Policy. 107, 289–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.048

[61] Bekun, F.V., Hassan, A., Osundina, O.A., 2018. The role of agricultural credit in agricultural sustainability: dynamic causality. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology. 14(4), 400–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2018.098026

[62] Direk, M., Kan, A., Kan, M., 2019. Agricultural supports on sustainability of agriculture in Turkey. In: Direk, M. (Ed.), Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment (ICSAE), Konya ,Türkiye, 3-5 October 2019. pp. 278–285.

[63] Karadavut, S., Erdogan, S., Dayan, V., 2023. Investigation of agricultural sustainability with irrigation and economic factors. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture. 6(4), 394–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1300422

[64] Zhang, Y., Long, H., Chen, S., et al., 2023. The development of multifunctional agriculture in farming regions of China: Convergence or divergence? Land Use Policy. 127, 106576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106576.

[65] Yeni, O., Teoman, Ö., 2024. Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye'de tarımsal sürdürülebilirlik: Malmquist Endeksi analizinden çıkarımlar. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 42(1), 143–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.1336188

[66] Breusch, T.S., Pagan, A.R., 1980. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies. 47(1), 239–253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111

[67] Pesaran, M.H., 2004. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240, pp. 1–39. Available from: https://docs.iza.org/dp1240.pdf

[68] Baltagi, B.H., Feng, Q., Kao, C., 2012. A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics. 170(1), 164–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004

[69] Pesaran, M.H., 2007. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Economics. 22(2), 265–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951

[70] Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics. 115(1), 53–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7

[71] Lee, J., Tieslau, M., 2019. Panel LM unit root tests with level and trend shifts. Economic Modelling. 80, 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2017.11.001

[72] Im, K.S., Lee, J., Tieslau, M., 2010. Panel LM unit root tests with trend shifts. Information Technology & Systems eJournal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1619918

[73] Amsler, C., Lee, J., 1995. An LM test for a unit root in the presence of a structural change. Economic Theory. 11(2), 359–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646660000921X

[74] Im, K.S., Lee, J., Tieslau, M., 2005. Panel LM unit‐root tests with level shifts. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 67(3), 393–419.

[75] Carrion-i-Silvestre, J.L., del Barrio-Castro, T., Lopez-Bazo, E., 2005. Breaking the panels: An application to the GDP per capita. The Econometrics Journal. 8, 159–175.

[76] Bai, J., Perron, P., 1998. Estimating and testing linear models with multiple structural changes. Econometrica. 66(1), 47–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2998540

[77] Becker, R., Enders, W., Lee, J., 2006. A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis. 27(3), 381–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x.

[78] Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Fariditavana, H., 2016. Nonlinear ARDL approach and the J-curve phenomenon. Open Economies Review. 27, 51–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-015-9369-5

Downloads

How to Cite

Şimşek, O., Güler, İlkay, Özbek, S., Naimoğlu, M., & Adalı, Z. (2025). Assessing the Convergence of Cropland Ecological Balance: A Panel Data Analysis of 13 Major Agricultural Countries. Journal of Environmental & Earth Sciences, 7(7), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.30564/jees.v7i7.7676

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 7 (July 2025): In Progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Orhan Şimşek, İlkay Güler, Sefa Özbek, Mustafa Naimoğlu, Zafer Adalı

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC