Author
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (nitrous oxide (N₂O) and methane (CH₄)) and sectoral development in the United Kingdom (UK) using an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)–motivated framework. Annual data from 1990 to 2022 were analysed using autoregressive distributed lag error‑correction models (ARDL‑ECM). The analysis incorporated agricultural Gross Value Added (GVA), Total Factor Productivity (TFP), and the Agricultural Trade Balance (ATB). Descriptive trends show that livestock is the dominant source of agricultural GHG emissions and that both N₂O and CH₄ emissions have declined over the study period while agricultural GVA and productivity (TFP) have grown. However, despite visual indications of nonlinear patterns, analysis, including long‑run marginal effects, the Lind–Mehlum (SLM) test, and flexible Generalized Additive Models (GAMs), find no statistical evidence supporting an inverted‑U EKC for either N₂O or CH₄. N₂O emissions remain positively associated with agricultural GVA across the income range, while CH₄ shows weak and statistically uncertain negative income elasticities. Dynamic impulse‑response and variance‑decomposition results further highlight the central role of productivity and technological progress in reducing emissions over time, with TFP emerging as the dominant long‑run driver of N₂O variation and agricultural GVA explaining the largest share of CH₄ forecast variance. Overall, the findings indicate that emissions reductions in UK agriculture have been driven not by autonomous income‑based EKC mechanisms but by structural change, productivity gains, and policy interventions. These results underscore the need for targeted, emission‑specific mitigation strategies rather than reliance on income‑led environmental transitions within the agricultural sector.
Suggested Citation
Ngarava, Saul, 2026.
"Exploring the Kuznets hypothesis in the United Kingdom’s agricultural sector,"
Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:164:y:2026:i:c:s0264837726000384
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2026.107954
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:164:y:2026:i:c:s0264837726000384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.