SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Reforma / 2026 / Issue: 103

An Investigation on the Economic Determinants of Ecological Footprint in Turkiye

Cevat Gerni(BEYKENT UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0214-3879
Nazlı Gökçe(Atatürk Üniversitesi)0000-0001-7215-8753
Harun Demir(DOGUS UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-7778-2897
Ömer Selçuk Emsen(ATATURK UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1809-0513
Journal
Reforma
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-29
DOI
—
🏛️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 per capita income exerts a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint in both the short and long run.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Absract It is of critical importance for Turkiye to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in order to reach the level of developed countries, and in this context, to orient its activities toward reducing the ecological footprint.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, the effects of variables that are often examined separately in the ecological footprint literature are modeled within an integrated framework for Turkiye, using data for the period 1984–2020, and analyzed through the Augmented ARDL approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that per capita income exerts a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint in both the short and long run.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:ecological footprint · sustainable development goals · sustainable environment

Abstract

Absract It is of critical importance for Turkiye to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in order to reach the level of developed countries, and in this context, to orient its activities toward reducing the ecological footprint. In this regard, the ecological footprint is employed as an indicator of the extent to which the environment is demanded to sustain the existing economic consumption patterns of the population. In this study, the effects of variables that are often examined separately in the ecological footprint literature are modeled within an integrated framework for Turkiye, using data for the period 1984–2020, and analyzed through the Augmented ARDL approach. The findings indicate that per capita income exerts a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint in both the short and long run. Foreign trade is found to have a statistically significant negative impact on the ecological footprint in the short run, whereas its long-run effect is not statistically significant. Similarly, patent activity positively affects the ecological footprint in the short run, while no significant effect is detected in the long run. Urbanization is also found to increase the ecological footprint in the short run, although its long-run impact remains statistically insignificant. In contrast, renewable energy consumption significantly reduces the ecological footprint in the long run, while its short-run effect is not statistically significant. These findings underscore the importance of promoting environmentally sustainable production practices in Turkiye and strengthening policy frameworks that support renewable energy deployment and environmentally oriented innovation.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gerni, C., Gökçe, N., Demir, H., Emsen, Ö. S. (2026). An Investigation on the Economic Determinants of Ecological Footprint in Turkiye. Reforma, Issue: 103. https://ajindex.com/articles/1134996

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Kalkınma Planı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2026). On ikinci kalkınma planı. (Retrieved from https://onikinciplan.sbb.gov.tr/on-ikinci-kalkinma-plani-turkiye-buyuk-millet-meclisince-onaylandi, date: 10.03.2026)
  2. Aderinto, E. (2023). Urbanization and Environmental Unsustainability: An Ecological Footprint Analysis for Nigeria. Sustainability, Agri, Food and Environmental Research, 13, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.7770/safer-V12N1-art552
  3. Ali, M., Joof, F., Samour, A., Tursoy, T., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Radulescu, M. (2023). Testing the Impacts of Renewable Energy, Natural Resources Rent, and Technological Innovation on the Ecological Footprint in the USA: Evidence from Bootstrapping ARDL. Resources Policy, 86, 104139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104139
  4. Ali, S., Can, M., Shah, M. I., Jiang, J., Ahmed, Z., & Murshed, M. (2022). Exploring the Linkage between Export Diversification and Ecological Footprint: Evidence from Advanced Time Series Estimation Techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(25), 38395-38409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022- 18622-3
  5. Appiah, M., Li, M., Naeem, M. A., & Karim, S. (2023). Greening the Globe: Uncovering the Impact of Environmental Policy, Renewable Energy, and Innovation on Ecological Footprint. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122561
  6. Dam, M. M., Kaya, F., & Bekun, F. V. (2024). How does Technological Innovation Affect the Ecological Footprint? Evidence from E-7 Countries in the Background of the SDGs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 443, 141020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141020
  7. Gerni, C., Aslan, R., & Emsen, Ö. S. (2023). Türkiye’nin dışa bağımlılığını azaltma uygulamaları bağlamında yenilenebilir enerjide dönüşüm çabaları. In C. Gerni & B. Aşık (Eds.), Ekonomi Politikası (pp. 85–103). Ankara, Türkiye: Gazi Kitapevi.
  8. GFN Global Footprint Network. (2026). Global footprint network database. (Retrieved from https://data.footprintnetwork.org/? _ga=2.67743511.708288145.1704393846759928933.1687288666#/countryTrends?cn=5001&type=BCtot,EFCtot, date: 20.03.2026)
  9. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NBER Working Paper No. 3914). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
  10. Gülmez, A., Özdilek, E., & Karakaş, D. N. (2021). Ekonomik Büyüme, Ticari Açıklık ve Enerji Tüketiminin Ekolojik Ayak İzine Etkileri: G7 Ülkeleri İçin Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Econder International Academic Journal, 5(2), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.35342/econder.969114
  11. Kazemzadeh, E., Fuinhas, J. A., Koengkan, M., Osmani, F., & Silva, N. (2022a). Do Energy Efficiency and Export Quality Affect the Ecological Footprint in Emerging Countries? A Two-step Approach Using the SBM–DEA Model and Panel Quantile Regression. Environment Systems and Decisions, 42(4), 608-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-022-09846-2
  12. Kazemzadeh, E., Fuinhas, J. A., Koengkan, M., & Osmani, F. (2022b). The Heterogeneous Effect of Economic Complexity and Export Quality on the Ecological Footprint: A Two-step Club Convergence and Panel Quantile Regression Approach. Sustainability, 14(18), 11153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811153
  13. Kirikkaleli, D., Sofuoğlu, E., & Ojekemi, O. (2023). Does Patents on Environmental Technologies Matter for the Ecological Footprint in the USA? Evidence from the Novel Fourier ARDL Approach. Geoscience Frontiers, 14(4), 101564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101564
  14. Li, R., & Wang, Q. (2023). Does Renewable Energy Reduce Per Capita Carbon Emissions and Per Capita Ecological Footprint? New Evidence from 130 Countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101121
  15. Liu, H., Kim, H., Liang, S., & Kwon, O. S. (2018). Export Diversification and Ecological Footprint: A Comparative Study on EKC Theory among Korea, Japan, and China. Sustainability, 10(10), 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103657
  16. Magazzino, C. (2024). Ecological Footprint, Electricity Consumption, and Economic Growth in China: Geopolitical Risk and Natural Resources Governance. Empirical Economics, 66(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-023- 02460-4
  17. McNown, R., Sam, C. Y., & Goh, S. K. (2018). Bootstrapping the Autoregressive Distributed Lag Test for Cointegration. Applied Economics, 50(13), 1509-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643
  18. Niu, X., Dong, W., Niu, X., & Zafar, M. W. (2024). The Transition to Clean Energy and the External Balance of Goods and Services as Determinants of Energy and Environmental Sustainability. Gondwana Research, 127, 77-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.03.003
  19. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & 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
  20. Qing, L., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., & Haseeb, M. (2024). Towards the Vision of Going Green in South Asian Region: The Role of Technological Innovations, Renewable Energy and Natural Resources in Ecological Footprint during Globalization Mode. Resources Policy, 88, 104506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104506
  21. Quito, B., del Río‐Rama, M. D. L. C., Álvarez‐García, J., & Durán‐Sánchez, A. (2023). Impacts of Industrialization, Renewable Energy and Urbanization on the Global Ecological Footprint: A Quantile Regression Approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1529-1541. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3203
  22. Ramzan, M., Razi, U., Usman, M., Sarwar, S., Talan, A., & Mundi, H. S. (2024). Role of Nuclear Energy, Geothermal Energy, Agriculture, and Urbanization in Environmental Stewardship. Gondwana Research, 125, 150-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.08.006
  23. Rej, S., Nag, B., & Hossain, M. E. (2022). Can Renewable Energy and Export Help in Reducing Ecological Footprint of India? Empirical Evidence from Augmented ARDL Co-integration and Dynamic ARDL Simulations. Sustainability, 14(23), 15494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315494
  24. Ritu, R. K., & Kaur, A. (2024). Towards Environmental Sustainability: Nexus of Ecological Footprint, Human Capital, Economic Growth and Energy Consumption in India. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(1), 179-200. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-06-2023-0172
  25. Sam, C. Y., McNown, R., & Goh, S. K. (2019). An Augmented Autoregressive Distributed Lag Bounds Test for Cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.001
  26. Saqib, N., Ozturk, I., Usman, M., Sharif, A., & Razzaq, A. (2023a). Pollution Haven or Halo? How European Countries Leverage FDI, Energy, and Human Capital to Alleviate their Ecological Footprint. Gondwana Research, 116, 136- 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.12.018
  27. Saqib, N., Duran, I. A., & Ozturk, I. (2023b). Unraveling the Interrelationship of Digitalization, Renewable Energy, and Ecological Footprints within the EKC Framework: Empirical Insights from the United States. Sustainability, 15(13), 10663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310663
  28. Sungur, O., Bozkurt, E., & Altıner, A. (2023). Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Turizm İlişkisinin GUW Eşbütünleşme Testi ile Analizi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 15(29), 293-308. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1316865
  29. Tanveer, A., Song, H., Faheem, M., & Daud, A. (2025). Caring for the environment. How do deforestation, agricultural land, and urbanization degrade the environment? Fresh insight through the ARDL approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(5), 11527-11562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04368-6
  30. Tarkang, M. E., Adedoyin, F. F., & Bekun, F. V. (2023). An Investigation into the Role of Tourism Growth, Conventional Energy Consumption and Real Income on Ecological Footprint Nexus in France. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 12(1), https://doi.org/46-54. 10.14710/ijred.2023.43246
  31. Udemba, E. N., Khan, N. U., & Shah, S. A. R. (2024). Demographic Change Effect on Ecological Footprint: A Tripartite Study of Urbanization, Aging Population, and Environmental Mitigation Technology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 437, 140406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140406
  32. Ulucak, R., & Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Determinants of the Ecological Footprint: Role of Renewable Energy, Natural Resources, and Urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
  33. Wang, A., Rauf, A., Ozturk, I., Wu, J., Zhao, X., & Du, H. (2024). The Key to Sustainability: In-depth Investigation of Environmental Quality in G20 Countries through the Lens of Renewable Energy, Economic Complexity and Geopolitical Risk Resilience. Journal of Environmental Management, 352, 120045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120045
  34. WDI World Bank. (2026). World Bank online database. (Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/country/turkiye, date: 20.03.2026)