Evaluating the Determinants of Deforestation in Romania: Empirical Evidence from an Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model and the Bayer–Hanck Cointegration Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Economic Growth and Deforestation
2.2. Renewable Energy Consumption and Deforestation
2.3. Urbanization and Deforestation
2.4. Political, Institutional, and Governance Structures and Deforestation
2.5. COVID-19 Impact and the Financial Crisis
3. Data and Methodology
4. Romania’s Forest Conservation Challenges: Empirical and Strategic Analyses
4.1. Assessment of Deforestation Impact in Romania: PESTELE and SWOT Analyses
4.2. Analyzing Romania’s Forest Dynamics: An ARDL and Bayer–Hanck Cointegration Approach
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
List of Abbreviations
Full Form | Acronym |
FA | Forest Area |
FAG | Forest Area Growth |
RENC | Renewable Energy Consumption |
GDP | Gross Domestic Product |
FDI | Foreign Direct Investments |
URB | Urbanization |
ARDL | Autoregressive Distributed Lag |
EG | Engle–Granger Test |
J | Johansen Test |
BA | Banerjee Test |
BO | Boswijk Test |
ADF | Augmented Dickey–Fuller Test |
VAR | Vector Autoregressive |
LogL | Log Likelihood |
LR | Likelihood Ratio |
FPE | Final Prediction Error |
AIC | Akaike Information Criterion |
SC | Schwarz Criterion |
HQ | Hannan–Quinn Criterion |
ECM | Error Correction Model |
FMOLS | Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares |
DOLS | Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares |
CCR | Canonical Cointegrating Regression |
ECT | Error Correction Term |
References
- Cheval, S.; Bulai, A.; Croitoru, A.-E.; Dorondel, Ș.; Micu, D.; Mihăilă, D.; Sfîcă, L.; Tișcovschi, A. Climate Change Perception in Romania. Theor. Appl. Clim. 2022, 149, 253–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petrescu-Mag, R.M.; Burny, P.; Banatean-Dunea, I.; Petrescu, D.C. How Climate Change Science Is Reflected in People’s Minds. A Cross-Country Study on People’s Perceptions of Climate Change. IJERPH 2022, 19, 4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vlăduțescu, Ș.; Stănescu, G.C. Environmental Sustainability of Metaverse: Perspectives from Romanian Developers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.; Kumar, A.; Saikia, P. Deforestation and Forests Degradation Impacts on the Environment. In Environmental Degradation: Challenges and Strategies for Mitigation; Singh, V.P., Yadav, S., Yadav, K.K., Yadava, R.N., Eds.; Water Science and Technology Library; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 104, pp. 19–46. ISBN 978-3-030-95541-0. [Google Scholar]
- Prochazka, P.; Abrham, J.; Cerveny, J.; Kobera, L.; Sanova, P.; Benes, D.; Fink, J.-M.; Jiraskova, E.; Primasova, S.; Soukupova, J.; et al. Understanding the Socio-Economic Causes of Deforestation: A Global Perspective. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2023, 6, 1288365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rădulescu, C.V.; Bran, F.; Ciuvăț, A.L.; Bodislav, D.A.; Buzoianu, O.C.; Ștefănescu, M.; Burlacu, S. Decoupling the Economic Development from Resource Consumption: Implications and Challenges in Assessing the Evolution of Forest Area in Romania. Land 2022, 11, 1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Environment Agency. Romania Country Briefing-the European Environment. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/2015/countries/romania (accessed on 28 April 2024).
- Global Forest Watch. Available online: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/ROU/?category=climate&location=WyJjb3VudHJ5IiwiUk9VIl0%3D (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- World Bank Distribution of Land Area in Romania Covered by Forest from 2006 to 2021 [Graph]. In Statista 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/435973/forest-area-as-percentage-of-land-area-romania/ (accessed on 28 April 2024).
- Hänggli, A.; Levy, S.A.; Armenteras, D.; Bovolo, C.I.; Brandão, J.; Rueda, X.; Garrett, R.D. A Systematic Comparison of Deforestation Drivers and Policy Effectiveness across the Amazon Biome. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 073001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanveer, A.; Song, H.; Faheem, M.; Daud, A. Caring for the Environment. How Do Deforestation, Agricultural Land, and Urbanization Degrade the Environment? Fresh Insight through the ARDL Approach. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgescu, I.; Kinnunen, J.; Nica, I. Assessing Forest Conservation for Finland: An ARDL-Based Evaluation. Sustainability 2024, 16, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinnunen, J.; Georgescu, I.; Nica, I. Evaluating the Environmental Phillips Curve Hypothesis in the STIRPAT Framework for Finland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgescu, I.; Kinnunen, J. Effects of FDI, GDP and Energy Use on Ecological Footprint in Finland: An ARDL Approach. World Dev. Sustain. 2024, 4, 100157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgescu, I.A.; Oprea, S.-V.; Bâra, A. Investigating the Relationship between Macroeconomic Indicators, Renewables and Pollution across Diverse Regions in the Globalization Era. Appl. Energy 2024, 363, 123077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bâra, A.; Oprea, S.-V. What Makes Electricity Consumers Change Their Behavior? Influence of Attitude and Perceived Impact of DR Programs on Awareness. In Kybernetes; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oprea, S.-V.; Bara, A. Machine Learning Algorithms for Short-Term Load Forecast in Residential Buildings Using Smart Meters, Sensors and Big Data Solutions. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 177874–177889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oprea, S.-V.; Bâra, A. Edge and Fog Computing Using IoT for Direct Load Optimization and Control with Flexibility Services for Citizen Energy Communities. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021, 228, 107293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nica, I.; Chiriță, N.; Delcea, C. Towards a Sustainable Future: Economic Cybernetics in Analyzing Romania’s Circular Economy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiriță, N.; Georgescu, I. Cybernetics Analysis of the Circular Economy from Romania. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Informatics in Economy (IE 2023), Bucharest, Romania,25–26 May 2023; Ciurea, C., Pocatilu, P., Filip, F.G., Eds.; Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2024; Volume 367, pp. 319–330. ISBN 978-981-9969-59-3. [Google Scholar]
- de Silva, F.A.; Simioni, F.J.; Hoff, D.N. Diagnosis of Circular Economy in the Forest Sector in Southern Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 135973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Androniceanu, A.; Georgescu, I.; Nica, I.; Chiriță, N. A Comprehensive Analysis of Renewable Energy Based on Integrating Economic Cybernetics and the Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model—The Case of Romania. Energies 2023, 16, 5978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G.; Krueger, A. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991; p. w3914. [Google Scholar]
- Crespo Cuaresma, J.; Heger, M. Deforestation and Economic Development: Evidence from National Borders. Land. Use Policy 2019, 84, e347–e353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, C.P.; Nguyen, B.Q. Environmental Foe or Friend: The Influence of the Shadow Economy on Forest Land. Land. Use Policy 2023, 124, 106456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pablo-Romero, M.P.; Sánchez-Braza, A.; Gil-Pérez, J. Is Deforestation Needed for Growth? Testing the EKC Hypothesis for Latin America. For. Policy Econ. 2023, 148, 102915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill, A.R.; Viswanathan, K.K.; Hassan, S. A Test of Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) for Carbon Emission and Potential of Renewable Energy to Reduce Green House Gases (GHG) in Malaysia. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 1103–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, J.; Zheng, M.; Chen, J. The Effects of Environmental Regulation and Technical Progress on CO2 Kuznets Curve: An Evidence from China. Energy Policy 2015, 77, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katircioğlu, S.; Katircioğlu, S. Testing the Role of Urban Development in the Conventional Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from Turkey. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2018, 25, 741–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajanaku, B.A.; Collins, A.R. Economic Growth and Deforestation in African Countries: Is the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis Applicable? For. Policy Econ. 2021, 129, 102488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caravaggio, N. A Global Empirical Re-Assessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 119, 102282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanner, A.M.; Johnston, A.L. The Impact of Rural Electric Access on Deforestation Rates. World Dev. 2017, 94, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponce, P.; Del Río-Rama, M.D.L.C.; Álvarez-García, J.; Oliveira, C. Forest Conservation and Renewable Energy Consumption: An ARDL Approach. Forests 2021, 12, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wassie, Y.T.; Adaramola, M.S. Potential Environmental Impacts of Small-Scale Renewable Energy Technologies in East Africa: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 111, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazir, M.S.; Bilal, M.; Sohail, H.M.; Liu, B.; Chen, W.; Iqbal, H.M.N. Impacts of Renewable Energy Atlas: Reaping the Benefits of Renewables and Biodiversity Threats. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 22113–22124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrhardt-Martinez, K. Social Determinants of Deforestation in Developing Countries: A Cross-National Study. Soc. Forces 1998, 77, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattarai, M.; Hammig, M. Institutions and the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation: A Crosscountry Analysis for Latin America, Africa and Asia. World Dev. 2001, 29, 995–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nathaniel, S.P.; Bekun, F.V. Environmental Management amidst Energy Use, Urbanization, Trade Openness, and Deforestation: The Nigerian Experience. J. Public Aff. 2020, 20, e2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yameogo, C.E.W. Globalization, Urbanization, and Deforestation Linkage in Burkina Faso. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 22011–22021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neumayer, E. Do Democracies Exhibit Stronger International Environmental Commitment? A Cross-Country Analysis. J. Peace Res. 2002, 39, 139–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Didia, D.O. Democracy, Political Instability and Tropical Deforestation. Glob. Environ. Change 1997, 7, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shandra, J.M.; Esparza, L.E.; London, B. Nongovernmental Organizations, Democracy, and Deforestation: A Cross-National Analysis. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 251–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cary, M.; Bekun, F.V. Democracy and Deforestation: The Role of Spillover Effects. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 125, 102398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acheampong, A.O.; Opoku, E.E.O. Energy Justice, Democracy and Deforestation. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 341, 118012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wehkamp, J.; Koch, N.; Lübbers, S.; Fuss, S. Governance and Deforestation—A Meta-Analysis in Economics. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 144, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbier, E.B.; Tesfaw, A. Explaining Forest Transitions: The Role of Governance. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 119, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinsorotan, O.A.; Olaniyi, O.E.; Adeyemi, A.A.; Olasunkanmi, A.H. Corona Virus Pandemic: Implication on Biodiversity Conservation. Front. Water 2021, 3, 635529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhandari, M.S.; Pandey, S.; Dabral, A.; Meena, R.K.; Kant, R. Global Forestry Perspective: COVID-19 Impact and Assessment. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 2021, 44, 571–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bista, R.; Parajuli, R.; Giri, K.; Karki, R.; Song, C. Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Livelihoods of Rural Households in the Community Forestry Landscape in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Trees For. People 2022, 9, 100312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singhal, V.; Jinger, D.; Rathore, A.C.; Pal, R.; Samal, I.; Bhoi, T.K.; Paramesh, V.; Fahad, S.; Jaremko, L.; Abdelsalam, N.R.; et al. COVID-19, Deforestation, and Green Economy. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2024, 6, 1305779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonarakis, A.S.; Pacca, L.; Antoniades, A. The Effect of Financial Crises on Deforestation: A Global and Regional Panel Data Analysis. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 1037–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vale, M.M.; Berenguer, E.; Argollo De Menezes, M.; Viveiros De Castro, E.B.; Pugliese De Siqueira, L.; Portela, R.D.C.Q. The COVID-19 Pandemic as an Opportunity to Weaken Environmental Protection in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 255, 108994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahman, M.S.; Alam, M.A.; Salekin, S.; Belal, M.A.H.; Rahman, M.S. The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Threat to Forest and Wildlife Conservation in Bangladesh? Trees For. People 2021, 5, 100119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wunder, S.; Kaimowitz, D.; Jensen, S.; Feder, S. Coronavirus, Macroeconomy, and Forests: What Likely Impacts? For. Policy Econ. 2021, 131, 102536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muche, M.; Yemata, G.; Molla, E.; Muasya, A.M.; Tsegay, B.A. COVID-19 Lockdown and Natural Resources: A Global Assessment on the Challenges, Opportunities, and the Way Forward. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2022, 46, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandra, W. Translated by Hans Nicholas Jong Illegal Loggers Use Pandemic as Cover to Ramp up Activity in Sulawesi Mongabay Series. Available online: https://news.mongabay.com/2021/05/illegal-loggers-use-pandemic-as-cover-to-ramp-up-activity-in-sulawesi/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
- Eklund, J.; Jones, J.P.G.; Räsänen, M.; Geldmann, J.; Jokinen, A.-P.; Pellegrini, A.; Rakotobe, D.; Rakotonarivo, O.S.; Toivonen, T.; Balmford, A. Elevated Fires during COVID-19 Lockdown and the Vulnerability of Protected Areas. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berčák, R.; Holuša, J.; Kaczmarowski, J.; Tyburski, Ł.; Szczygieł, R.; Held, A.; Vacik, H.; Slivinský, J.; Chromek, I. Fire Protection Principles and Recommendations in Disturbed Forest Areas in Central Europe: A Review. Fire 2023, 6, 310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo Cascio, E. 2 Urbanization as a Proxy of Demographic and Economic Growth. In Quantifying the Roman Economy; Bowman, A., Wilson, A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 87–106. ISBN 978-0-19-956259-6. [Google Scholar]
- Mahtta, R.; Fragkias, M.; Güneralp, B.; Mahendra, A.; Reba, M.; Wentz, E.A.; Seto, K.C. Urban Land Expansion: The Role of Population and Economic Growth for 300+ Cities. npj Urban. Sustain. 2022, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murshed, M.; Ferdaus, J.; Rashid, S.; Tanha, M.M.; Islam, M.J. The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis for Deforestation in Bangladesh: An ARDL Analysis with Multiple Structural Breaks. Energ. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 6, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lütkepohl, H.; Xu, F. The Role of the Log Transformation in Forecasting Economic Variables. Empir. Econ. 2012, 42, 619–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayer, C.; Hanck, C. Combining Non-cointegration Tests. J. Time Ser. Anal. 2013, 34, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engle, R.F.; Granger, C.W.J. Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica 1987, 55, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansen, S. Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 1988, 12, 231–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peter Boswijk, H. Testing for an Unstable Root in Conditional and Structural Error Correction Models. J. Econom. 1994, 63, 37–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, A.; Dolado, J.; Mestre, R. Error-correction Mechanism Tests for Cointegration in a Single-equation Framework. J. Time Ser. Anal. 1998, 19, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y.; Smith, R.J. Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. J. Appl. Econom. 2001, 16, 289–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansen, S.; Juselius, K. Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration—With applications to The DEMAND for Money. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1990, 52, 169–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samargandi, N.; Fidrmuc, J.; Ghosh, S. Is the Relationship between Financial Development and Economic Growth Monotonic? Evidence from a Sample of Middle-Income Countries. World Dev. 2015, 68, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, P.C.B.; Hansen, B.E. Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1990, 57, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stock, J.H.; Watson, M.W. A Simple Estimator of Cointegrating Vectors in Higher Order Integrated Systems. Econometrica 1993, 61, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.Y. Canonical Cointegrating Regressions. Econometrica 1992, 60, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.L.; Durbin, J.; Evans, J.M. Techniques for Testing the Constancy of Regression Relationships Over Time. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 1975, 37, 149–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y. An Autoregressive Distributed-Lag Modelling Approach to Cointegration Analysis. In Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century: The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium; Strøm, S., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 371–413. ISBN 978-0-521-63323-9. [Google Scholar]
- Map of Cut Forests in Romania. Available online: https://panorama.ro/harta-paduri-taiate-romania/ (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- Scarlat, E.; Nica, I. Bazele Analizei Afacerii; Economică Publishing: Bucharest, Romania, 2022; ISBN 978-606-0-93011-2. [Google Scholar]
- ASFOR. Available online: https://asfor.ro/2023/07/02/noul-regulament-european-privind-produsele-asociate-cu-defrisarile-si-degradarea-padurilor-o-noua-provocare-pentru-sectorul-forestier-romanesc/ (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- EUR-Lex REGULATION (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the Making Available on the Union Market and the Export from the Union of Certain Commodities and Products Associated with Deforestation and Forest Degradation and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/RO/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R1115 (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- European Commission. Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- Euroactiv. Romania’s Forests–Source of Biodiversity, Resource for ‘Wood Mafia’. Available online: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/romanias-forests-source-of-biodiversity-resource-for-wood-mafia/ (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- Euronews Illegal Cutting of Forests in Romania, an Alarming Problem. Available online: https://www.euronews.ro/articole/taierile-ilegale-de-paduri-in-romania (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- Malek, Ž.; Zumpano, V.; Hussin, H. Forest Management and Future Changes to Ecosystem Services in the Romanian Carpathians. Env. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 1275–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romanian-American Foundation. Development of Ecotourism Destinations. Available online: https://rafonline.org/en/program/development-of-ecotourism-destinations/# (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- Omdena. News from Romania: We Did a Groundbreaking App That Lets Us Together Protect a Country from Illegal Trees Cutting. Available online: https://www.omdena.com/blog/forest-guard-project-ai-powered-app-combating-illegal-deforestation-in-romania (accessed on 27 April 2024).
- Mihai, G.; Alexandru, A.-M.; Nita, I.-A.; Birsan, M.-V. Climate Change in the Provenance Regions of Romania over the Last 70 Years: Implications for Forest Management. Forests 2022, 13, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickey, D.A.; Fuller, W.A. Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1979, 74, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogelsang, T.J.; Perron, P. Additional Tests for a Unit Root Allowing for a Break in the Trend Function at an Unknown Time. Int. Econ. Rev. 1998, 39, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dogan, E.; Ozturk, I. The Influence of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption and Real Income on CO2 Emissions in the USA: Evidence from Structural Break Tests. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 10846–10854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, X.; Liu, G.; Bao, Q. Impact of Economic Growth on the Changes in Forest Resources in Inner Mongolia of China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1241703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Qiu, R.; Yao, J.; Hu, X.; Lin, J. The Effects of Urbanization on China’s Forest Loss from 2000 to 2012: Evidence from a Panel Analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, F.; Li, X.; Wu, C.; Yin, Y.; Xiao, H. The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on the Forestry Industry Structure Upgrading: The Moderating Effect on Labor Migration. IJERPH 2023, 20, 2621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doytch, N.; Ashraf, A.; Nguyen, C.P. Foreign Direct Investment and Forest Land: A Sectoral Investigation. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024, 22, 100353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Börjesson, P.; Hansson, J.; Berndes, G. Future Demand for Forest-Based Biomass for Energy Purposes in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 383, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Březina, D.; Michal, J.; Hlaváčková, P. The Impact of Natural Disturbances on the Central European Timber Market—An Analytical Study. Forests 2024, 15, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Acronym | Measurement Unit | Timespan | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Forest Area | FA | % of land area | 1990–2022 | World Bank |
Renewable Energy Consumption | RENC | % of total final energy consumption | 1990–2022 | World Bank |
Gross Domestic Product | GDP | Constant 2015 US$ | 1990–2022 | World Bank |
Foreign Direct Investments | FDI | % of GDP | 1990–2022 | World Bank |
Urbanization | URB | % | 1990–2022 | World Bank |
LFAG | LGDP | LRENC | LURB | LFDI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | −1.79 | 8.77 | 2.78 | 3.98 | 0.76 |
Median | −1.47 | 8.79 | 2.88 | 3.98 | 1.00 |
Maximum | 1.25 | 9.32 | 3.19 | 3.99 | 2.19 |
Minimum | −7.05 | 8.30 | 1.60 | 3.96 | −1.97 |
Std. Dev. | 2.05 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.01 | 0.95 |
Skewness | −0.55 | 0.09 | −1.29 | −0.56 | −1.03 |
Kurtosis | 2.73 | 1.54 | 3.64 | 2.02 | 4.12 |
Jarque–Bera | 1.60 | 2.69 | 8.93 | 2.80 | 6.98 |
Probability | 0.44 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.24 | 0.03 |
Variable | Level | First Difference | Order of Integration |
---|---|---|---|
T-Statistics | T-Statistics | ||
FAG | −1.18 (0.66) | −9.98 *** (0.00) | I (1) |
GDP | −0.78 (0.99) | −4.46 *** (0.00) | I (1) |
RENC | −4.70 *** (0.00) | −4.33 *** (0.00) | I (0) |
URB | −1.87 (0.34) | −3.39 ** (0.01) | I (1) |
FDI | −13.82 *** (0.00) | −15.06 *** (0.00) | I (0) |
Variable | T-Statistics | Break Year | Order of Integration | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level | First Difference | Level | First Difference | ||
FAG | −3.23 (0.54) | −11.21 *** (0.00) | 1999 | 1995 | I (1) |
GDP | −1.97 (0.98) | −4.54 ** (0.037) | 2000 | 1999 | I (1) |
RENC | −4.91 ** (0.01) | −6.16 *** (0.00) | 2021 | 1998 | I (0) |
URB | −4.81 ** (0.01) | −9.26 ** (0.01) | 2009 | 2004 | I (0) |
FDI | −15.75 *** (0.00) | −15.42 *** (0.00) | 1997 | 2004 | I (0) |
Lag | LogL | LR | FPE | AIC | SC | HQ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 56.49 | N/A | −3.81 | −3.57 | −3.74 | |
1 | 193.10 | 212.49 | −12.08 | −10.64 | −11.65 | |
2 | 241.27 | 57.09 * | −13.79 | −11.15 * | −13.01 | |
3 | 278.54 | 30.36 | −14.70 * | −10.86 * | −13.56 * |
Tests | Engle–Granger (EG) | Johansen (J) | Banerjee (BA) | Boswijk (BO) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Test statistic | −3.00 | 80.14 | −2.22 | 47.31 |
p-value | 0.57 | 0.00 | 0.61 | 0.00 |
EG-J | 56.38 | 5% critical value | 10.57 | |
EG-J-BA-BO | 112.62 | 5% critical value | 20.14 |
Test Statistic | Value | K (Number of Regressors) |
---|---|---|
F-statistic | 5.81 | 4 |
Critical-value bounds | ||
10% | 2.52 | 3.56 |
5% | 3.05 | 4.22 |
1% | 4.28 | 5.84 |
Variables | Coefficient | T-Statistics | Prob. |
---|---|---|---|
GDP | 13.24 | 3.70 | 0.00 *** |
RENC | −1.47 | −0.73 | 0.48 |
URB | −317.52 | −3.75 | 0.00 *** |
FDI | −1.38 | −2.99 | 0.01 ** |
C | 1151.80 | 3.69 | 0.00 *** |
Variables | Coefficient | T-Statistics | Prob. |
---|---|---|---|
D(FAG(-1)) | 0.22 | 1.48 | 0.17 |
D(FAG((-2)) | 0.29 | 2.52 | 0.03 ** |
D(GDP) | 7.24 | 3.13 | 0.01 *** |
D(GDP(-1)) | −8.96 | −2.61 | 0.03 ** |
D(GDP(-2)) | −11.04 | −3.75 | 0.00 *** |
D(RENC) | −2.62 | −2.19 | 0.05 ** |
D(RENC(-1)) | 3.86 | 3.46 | 0.00 *** |
D(URB) | −809.88 | −5.89 | 0.00 *** |
D(URB(-1)) | 323.06 | 2.48 | 0.03 ** |
D(URB(-2)) | 216.26 | 3.23 | 0.01 *** |
D(FDI) | −0.32 | −1.38 | 0.20 |
D(FDI(-1)) | −0.66 | 2.01 | 0.07 * |
D(FDI(-2)) | 0.45 | 1.82 | 0.10 * |
CointEq(-1) | −1.54 | −7.53 | 0.00 *** |
R-squared | 0.92 | ||
Adjusted R-squared | 0.85 |
Variables | FMOLS Coefficient, (T-Statistics), [p-Value] | DOLS Coefficient, (T-Statistics), [p-Value] | CCR Coefficient, (T-Statistics), [p-Value] |
---|---|---|---|
GDP | 7.04 (−8.84) [0.00] *** | 7.25 (6.72) [0.00] *** | 7.10 (7.78) [0.00] *** |
RENC | 0.30 (0.51) [0.60] | 0.05 (0.07) [0.94] | 0.33 (0.45) [0.65] |
URB | −116.71 (−4.57) [0.00] *** | −122.29 (−3.53) [0.00] *** | −119.60 (−7.16) [0.00] *** |
FDI | −0.73 (−3.22) [0.00] *** | −0.75 (−2.43) [0.02] ** | −0.78 (−7.39) [0.00] *** |
C | 400.91 (4.10) [0.00] *** | 421.95 (3.19) [0.00] *** | 411.83 (6.55) [0.00] *** |
Diagnostic Test | Decision Statistics [p-Value] | |
---|---|---|
SERIAL | There is no serial correlation in the residuals | Accept 0.85 [0.47] |
ARCH | There is no autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity | Accept 0.08 [0.76] |
Jarque–Bera | Normal distribution | Accept 0.29 [0.86] |
Ramsey | Absence of model misspecification | Accept 0.64 [0.54] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Georgescu, I.; Nica, I. Evaluating the Determinants of Deforestation in Romania: Empirical Evidence from an Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model and the Bayer–Hanck Cointegration Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135297
Georgescu I, Nica I. Evaluating the Determinants of Deforestation in Romania: Empirical Evidence from an Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model and the Bayer–Hanck Cointegration Approach. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135297
Chicago/Turabian StyleGeorgescu, Irina, and Ionuț Nica. 2024. "Evaluating the Determinants of Deforestation in Romania: Empirical Evidence from an Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model and the Bayer–Hanck Cointegration Approach" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5297. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135297