Short-Run Links in Ecological Footprint: A Dynamic Factor Analysis for the EU

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper explores ways to contribute to broadening the field of ecological footprint analysis through measuring the cross-country links in EFP, based on dynamic factor analysis. This is not a very “typical” EF paper. The “links” in this paper are obtained by econometric analysis, instead of conventional input-output models or physical trade analysis. The extent of “links”, i.e., the environmental impacts induced by traded goods, or “ecological footprint”, can be accurately calculated by traditional analysis, while in this present paper, the “links” are actually in a qualitative manner. The authors need to make this clear in the abstract or the introduction section. Second, Table 1 lists relevant papers including empirical sustainability analysis based on environmental degradation variables. I would not say this is an ideal way for a literature review. I suggest the authors discuss the results of these existing papers (or at least the important ones), discuss the commonalities or differences of these papers, how this paper differs from the existing literature regarding variables, methodologies, and results, etc. This would add to the depth of discussion of this manuscript. At the present, I cannot place this paper in a greater context of the EF research, what this paper adds to the field, or what the results can be used for. I would suggest adding these discussions.

 

Some minor comments: (1) The framing of “environmental variables” and “convergence clubs” may seem a bit distant to someone that is used to traditional EF analysis. The authors can further explain these formulations. (2) Figure 1 should be more shown in a better layout.

 

This manuscript is suggested for major revision.

Author Response

We thank you for the valuable comments provided and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Land. We are pleased to send for publication the revised version of the paper entitled “Short-run links in ecological footprint: a dynamic factor analysis for the EU”

 

We have included the points suggested which are important aspects that we did not address adequately in the earlier version of the paper.

• Following your indications, we have improved the introduction to clarify the contribution of the paper and offer an adequate understanding of the measurement of the EFP links obtained in the analysis. This paper introduces a new perspective regarding the analysis of the EFP in the EU by exploring its short-run dynamics and characteristics. So far, studies on EFP have implicitly adopted a long-run perspective and not attention has been devoted to the short-run dynamics of EFP across EU countries. By estimating a Dynamic Factor Model, we assess information about how EFP co-move across the European countries. This methodology is different from the conventional input-output models or other types of analysis, instead, the econometric model employed measure parametrically an indicator that shows the dynamics of EFP from the growth rates of global hectares per capita by country. On the other hand, in line with convergence analysis, identifying countries that share the short-run behavior of their EFP we contribute to the better design and advancement in the development of EU climate change policy.
• In this new version of the paper, we have devoted a great effort to improve the literature review. In table 1 we added a column with the information about the results obtained in the papers shown there. We also discuss the results of these existing papers in section 2 and compare them with the objectives of this paper. Literature on EFP has focused only on the long-run side of the analysis, while short-term analysis of the EFP has been ignored.  In this paper, we offer an innovative empirical approach that may be a useful tool to evaluate the features of EFP performance across the Member States. Results could lead to environmental recommendations on which countries should make further adjustments to increase efforts to reduce EFP.
• The methodological and conclusions sections have also been revised. Further discussion of the dynamic factor model and the GROCERS econometric toolbox has been included to facilitate the understanding of the methodology.    We also have revised the conclusions to connect them more closely to the results obtained.
• We have explained further the framing of “environmental variables” in lines 35 to 41 and “convergence clubs” in lines 113-122.
• In this version, we present Figure 1 in a better layout.
• English language has been checked by a professional to correct spelling and grammatical errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

While this paper has the potential to make a good contribution to the understanding of the Environmental Footprint (EFP) in the European Union and its development over the time period 1962 to 2017, it requires further explanation of both the methodology used and the research results.

Further explanation is required in the following areas:

• Definition, units of measurement and significance of the EFP, as used in this paper (refer Section 1).
• Further discussion of the dynamic factor analysis model used for the research. Examples include:
  • a more detailed discussion of this process and its suitability for this application
  • an explanation of the GROCERS Econometric Toolbox and its application (lines 130 and 131)
  • further discussion of the derivation of the one common factor and the loading factors obtained from the research (lines 132 to 140).
• The term "AR" parameter (Line 156, Figure 1, Table A1) should be explained.
• The figures in Figure 1 (with the exception of the factor loading, which is explained the Table A1) require definition.
• The y axis in Figure 3 requires defining.
• Further explanation of the robustness checks (Section 5) is required, including more detailed definition of those factors used in the equations in this section.
• The diagrams in in Figure 4 are small. Their y-axis require definition.
• There are some minor spelling and/or grammatical errors.

Author Response

We thank you for the valuable comments provided and the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to Land. We are pleased to send for publication the revised version of the paper entitled “Short-run links in ecological footprint: a dynamic factor analysis for the EU”

 

We have included the points suggested which are important aspects that we did not address adequately in the earlier version of the paper.

• Following your indications, we have improved the definition, units of measurement and significance of the EFP in section 1 (lines 41-53).
• We have extended the explanation of the dynamic factor analysis model used for the research following your indications in Section 3.
• The Term AR: Autoregressive has been explained in Line 186, Figure 1 and Table A1.
• We have changed the title of Figure 1 and included definitions for a better understanding of the results.
• We have defined the y-axis: which contains growth rates in Figure 3 and changed the title for a better understanding of the information presented.
• We have further explained the robustness checks and we have defined the factors used in the equation.
• We increase the size of the diagrams in Figure 4 and introduce the definition of the y-axis: which contains the value of the Wald type Statistic
• We have improved the introduction to provide a better background and the literature review.
• The results and conclusions sections have also been revised.
• English language has been checked by a professional to correct spelling and grammatical errors.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This revised manuscript has addressed my concerns. This manuscript is ready for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I am happy with the changes to the manuscript.