wdtoto

royal123

maha212

Vol 17 No 1 (2023): BAREKENG: Journal of Mathematics and Its Applications
Articles

THE NEXUS BETWEEN URBANIZATION, LIVESTOCK, AND DEFORESTATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: EVIDENCE FROM PMG AND PANEL-CAUSALITY

PDF Download
  • Mohamad Egi Destiartono
Mohamad Egi Destiartono
Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30598/barekengvol17iss1pp0043-0052
Published April 15, 2023
Keywords
  • deforestation,
  • livestock,
  • urbanization,
  • STRIPAT,
  • PMG,
  • Panel-Causality
    • ...More
    Less
How to Cite
[1]
M. Destiartono, “THE NEXUS BETWEEN URBANIZATION, LIVESTOCK, AND DEFORESTATION IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: EVIDENCE FROM PMG AND PANEL-CAUSALITY”, BAREKENG: J. Math. & App., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 0043-0052, Apr. 2023.

Copyright (c) 2023 Mohamad Egi Destiartono

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Southeast Asia is one of the regions that has received a red report card related to forest management. This article intends to investigate the relationship between urbanization, livestock, and deforestation in Southeast Asia, as well as elaborate on STRIPAT's concept. This study uses panel data of 9 countries and 28 periods, obtained from the statistical publication of WDI, World Bank. This article applies the Pooled Mean Group (PMG) estimation and performs unit root, co-integration, and causality tests. The estimation results show that urbanization, GDP per capita, and livestock positively and significantly impact deforestation. The increase in the level of urbanization, GDP per capita, and livestock production will be followed by a decrease in forest cover area. In contrast, population density is not the driver of deforestation. In addition, this paper confirms bidirectional causality between urbanization and deforestation rates, as well as a unidirectional causality from income per capita to deforestation and from population density to deforestation. National development plans, urban development, and livestock expansion must be integrated with forest management to reduce deforestation rates

PDF Download

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. M. Russell, “Forest in South-east Asia; Can they be saved?,” Starsbourgh, 2020. Accessed: Jun. 14, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/652068/EPRS_BRI(2020)652068_EN.pdf
  2. W. B. World Development Indcators, “Forest area (% of land area),” Washington, D.C, 2020. Accessed: Jun. 15, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS
  3. H. J. Geist and E. F. Lambin, “Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation,” Bioscience, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 143–150, 2002, doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2.
  4. T. Prugh, “Rural-Urban Migration, Lifestyles, and Deforestation,” in State of the World, Washington D.C: Island Press, 2016, pp. 263–272. doi: 10.5822/978-1-61091-756-8_22.
  5. H. Ritchie, “Cutting down forests: what are the drivers of deforestation?,” Our World in Data, 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-drivers-deforestation
  6. FAO, “Cattle ranching and deforestation,” Roma, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.fao.org/3/a0262e/a0262e.pdf
  7. N. Doggart et al., “Agriculture is the main driver of deforestation in Tanzania,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b35.
  8. M. H. Pesaran, Y. Shin, R. P. Smith, and M. Hashem, “Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels,” Source J. Am. Stat. Assoc., vol. 94, no. 446, pp. 621–634, 1999, Accessed: Jun. 10, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2670182?origin=JSTOR-pdf
  9. T. Dietz and E. A. Rosa, “Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 175–179, 1997, doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.1.175.
  10. B. A. Ajanaku and A. R. Collins, “Economic growth and deforestation in African countries: Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis applicable?,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 129, no. May, p. 102488, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102488.
  11. A. Levin, C. F. Lin, and C. S. J. Chu, “Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties,” J. Econom., vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
  12. M. Ekananda, “Role of macroeconomic determinants on the natural resource commodity prices: Indonesia futures volatility,” Resour. Policy, vol. 78, no. May, p. 102815, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102815.
  13. K. S. Im, M. H. Pesaran, and Y. Shin, “Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels,” J. Econom., vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 53–74, 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7.
  14. M. H. Pesaran, “A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross-Section Dependence,” Jour, vol. 312, pp. 265–312, 2007, doi: 10.1002/jae.
  15. C. Kao, “Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data,” J. Econom., vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 1–44, 1999, doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2.
  16. P. Pedroni, “Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis,” Econom. Theory, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 597–625, 2004, doi: 10.1017/S0266466604203073.
  17. J. Westerlund, “New simple tests for panel cointegration,” Econom. Rev., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 297–316, 2005, doi: 10.1080/07474930500243019.
  18. M. S. Islam, “Influence of economic growth on environmental pollution in South Asia: a panel cointegration analysis,” Asia-Pacific J. Reg. Sci., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 951–973, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s41685-021-00208-5.
  19. M. Verbič, E. Satrovic, and A. Muslija, “Environmental Kuznets curve in Southeastern Europe: the role of urbanization and energy consumption,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 28, no. 41, pp. 57807–57817, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14732-6.
  20. P. Sheng and X. Guo, “The Long-run and Short-run Impacts of Urbanization on Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” Econ. Model., vol. 53, pp. 208–215, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2015.12.006.
  21. K. Sohag, A. B. Nabilah, and R. A. Begum, “Dynamic impact of financial development on economic growth: Heterogeneous panel data analysis of island economies,” Int. J. Econ. Policy Emerg. Econ., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 77–95, 2015, doi: 10.1504/IJEPEE.2015.068249.
  22. N. Caravaggio, “A global empirical re-assessment of the Environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 119, no. September, p. 102282, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102282.
  23. S. P. Nathaniel and F. V. Bekun, “Environmental management amidst energy use, urbanization, trade openness, and deforestation: The Nigerian experience,” J. Public Aff., vol. 20, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.1002/pa.2037.
  24. E. I. Dumitrescu and C. Hurlin, “Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels,” Econ. Model., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1450–1460, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014.
  25. C. E. W. Yameogo, “Globalization, urbanization, and deforestation linkage in Burkina Faso,” Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 28, no. 17, pp. 22011–22021, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-12071-6.
  26. N. Imai, T. Furukawa, R. Tsujino, and S. Kitamura, “Factors affecting forest area change in Southeast Asia during 1980-2010,” PLoS One, pp. 1–14, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199908.