SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3

The Effects of Economic Growth and Energy Consumption on Ecological Footprint And Carbon Emissions: Evidence From Turkey

Ekonomik Büyüme ve Enerji Tüketiminin Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Karbon Emisyonları Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği

Oğuz Öcal(Kayseri Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Fakültesi)0000-0002-5729-7218
Buket Altınöz(Nişantaşı Üniversitesi)0000-0002-4276-4821
Alper Aslan(Erciyes Üniversitesi)0000-0003-1408-0921
Pages
667–681
Publication Date
2020-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that there is a need to consider not only pollution emissions but also the ecological footprint for environmental degradation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between energy use, economic growth, and environmental pollution in Turkey for the period from 1968 to 2016 by using ARDL bounds test approach.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Test findings show that an increase in economic growth and trade openness cause environmental degradation in all models.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that there is a need to consider not only pollution emissions but also the ecological footprint for environmental degradation.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:ARDL · Ekolojik Ayak İzi · CO2 salınımı

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between energy use, economic growth, and environmental pollution in Turkey for the period from 1968 to 2016 by using ARDL bounds test approach. Test findings show that an increase in economic growth and trade openness cause environmental degradation in all models. Although the energy consumption coefficient is positive in all models, it is statistically significant only in the model where the ecological footprint indicator is the dependent variable. Thus, while determining a positive relationship between environmental pollution and economic growth in Turkey, also it can be said that the energy consumption increases ecological footprint. The findings indicate that there is a need to consider not only pollution emissions but also the ecological footprint for environmental degradation. These results raise a number of policy recommendations for Turkey. The existence of an inverted-U shaped relationship between environmental degradation and economic growth actually demonstrate the successful long run sustainable growth in Turkey.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1968-2016 yılları arasında Türkiye’de ekonomik büyüme enerji tüketimi ve çevre kirliliği arasındaki ilişkiyi ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımını kullanarak incelemektir. Bulgular ekonomik büyüme ve dış ticaret açıklığındaki artışın tüm modellerde çevresel bozulmaya neden olduğunu göstermektedir. Enerji tüketim katsayısı tüm modellerde pozitif olmakla birlikte, sadece ekolojik ayak izi göstergesinin bağımlı değişken olduğu modelde istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır. Böylece Türkiye’de çevre kirliliği ve ekonomik büyüme arasında pozitif bir ilişki belirlenirken, enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izini artırdığı söylenebilir. Bulgular yalnızca kirlilik emisyonlarını değil aynı zamanda çevresel bozulma için ekolojik ayak izini de dikkate almanın gerekli olduğunu gösterir. Bu sonuçlar Türkiye için birçok politika önerisini gündeme getiriyor. Çevresel bozulma ile ekonomik büyüme arasında ters U şeklinde bir ilişkinin varlığı, aslında Türkiye'deki başarılı uzun vadeli sürdürülebilir büyümeyi göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Öcal, O., Altınöz, B., Aslan, A. (2020). The Effects of Economic Growth and Energy Consumption on Ecological Footprint And Carbon Emissions: Evidence From Turkey. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 667–681. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.773461

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (42)

  1. Acar, S. and Aşıcı, A.A. (2017). Nature and economic growth in Turkey: what does ecological footprint imply?, Middle East Development Journal, 9(1), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2017.1288475
  2. Al-Mulali, U. and Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
  3. Al-Mulali, U., Choong, W.-W., Sheau-Ting, L. and Mohammed, A.H. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological Indicators, 48, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.029
  4. Apergis, N. and Ozturk, İ. (2015). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecological Indicators, 52, 16-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.026
  5. Aşıcı, A. A. and Acar, S. (2018). How does environmental regulation affect production location of noncarbon ecological footprint?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 927-936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.030
  6. Aslan, A., Destek, M. A. and Okumus, I. (2018). Sectoral carbon emissions and economic growth in the US: Further evidence from rolling window estimation method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200(1), 402-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.237
  7. Atici, C. (2009). Carbon emissions in Central and Eastern Europe: Environmental Kuznets curve and implications for sustainable development. Sustainable Development 17(3), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.372
  8. Aydin, C., Esen, Ö. and Aydin, R. (2019). Is the ecological footprint related to the Kuznets curve a real process or rationalizing the ecological consequences of the affluence? Evidence from PSTR approach. Ecological Indicators, 98, 543-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.034
  9. Azam, M. and Khan, A.Q. (2016). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A comparative empirical study for low, lower middle, upper middle and high income countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 63, 556–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.052
  10. Bagliani, M., Bravo, G. and Dalmazzone, S. (2008). A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecological Economics, 65(3), 650- 661.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.010
  11. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D. and Farhani, S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 113, 356- 367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.050
  12. Bello, M.O., Solarin, S.A. and Yen, Y.Y. (2018). The impact of electricity consumption on CO2 emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and ecological footprint: The role of hydropower in an emerging economy. Journal of Environmental Management, 219, 218-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.101
  13. Bulut, Ü. (2020). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: An environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1793425
  14. Charfeddine, L. (2017). The impact of energy consumption and economic development on ecological footprint and CO2 emissions: Evidence from a Markov switching equilibrium correction model. Energy Economics, 65, 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.05.009
  15. Charfeddine, L. and Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.031
  16. Destek, M. A. and Sarkodie, S.A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The role of energy and financial development. Science of The Total Environment, 650(2), 2483-2489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.017
  17. Destek, M.A., Ulucak R. and Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(29), 29387–29396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2911-4
  18. Dickey, D. A. and Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 427–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348
  19. Dogan, E., Taspinar, N. and Gokmenoglu, K.K. (2019). Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy & Environment, 30(6), 1065-1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X19834279
  20. Friedl, B. B. and Getzner, M. (2003). Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecological Economics, 45, 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00008-9
  21. Granger, C.W.J. (1988). Some recent developments in a concept of causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39, 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(88)90045-0
  22. Grossman, G. and Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. (NBER Working Paper No. 3914). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w3914
  23. Jebli, M. B., Youssef, S. B. and Ozturk, I. (2016). Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis; The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031
  24. Kais, S. and Sami, H. (2016). An econometric study of the impact of economic growth and energy use on carbon emissions: Panel data evidence from fifty eight countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 59, 1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.054
  25. Mrabet, Z. and Alsamara, M. (2017). Testing the Kuznets curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1366-1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.039
  26. Nasir, M. and Rehman, F.U. (2011). Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: An empirical investigation. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1857-1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.025
  27. Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U. and Saboori, B. (2016). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 1916–1928. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-5447-x
  28. Pablo-Romero, M.P. and De Jesús, J. (2016). Economic growth and energy consumption: The energyenvironmental Kuznets curve for Latin America and the Caribbean. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1343–1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.029
  29. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (WEP Working Paper No. 238). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1993/93B09_31_engl.pdf
  30. Pata, U. K. (2018). The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy, 160(1), 1115-1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.095
  31. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (1996). Testing for the ‘existence of a long-run relationship (DAE Working Paper No. 9622). Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/9622.html
  32. Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
  33. Shahbaz, M., Mahalik, M.K., Shah, S. H. and Sote, J.R. (2016). Time-varying analysis of CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth nexus: Statistical experience in next 11 countries. Energy Policy, 98, 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.011
  34. Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S.A., Hammoudeh, S. and Shahzad, S.J. (2017). Bounds testing approach to analyzing the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis with structural beaks: The role of biomass energy consumption in the United States. Energy Economics, 68, 548–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.10.004
  35. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I. and Sinha, A. (2020). Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57, 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
  36. Soytas, U., Sari, R. and Ewing, B.T. (2007). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 482-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.009
  37. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Uddin, G.A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K. and Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.003
  39. Ulucak, R. and Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
  40. Van den Bergh, J. C. and Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecological economics, 29(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00032-4
  41. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint, reducing human impact on the earth (The new Catalyst Bioregional Series 9). Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
  42. Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X. and Xiao, Y. (2013). Estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve for ecological footprint at the global level; A spatial econometric approach. Ecological Indicators, 34, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.021