SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1

SCALE EFFECT AND SHORT-TERM SHOCKS IN ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS ON THE INTEGRATION OF EUROPE AND TÜRKİYE

KARAYOLU YÜK TAŞIMACILIĞINDA ÖLÇEK ETKİSİ VE KISA DÖNEM ŞOKLAR: AVRUPA VE TÜRKİYE ENTEGRASYONU ÜZERİNE BİR PANEL VERİ ANALİZİ

Emre İpekçi(Samsun Üniversitesi)0000-0002-0389-2089
Pages
1528–1543
Publication Date
2026-09-21
🏛️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 results show that road emissions are not decoupled from economic growth in the context of short-term macroeconomic expansions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, the decoupling hypothesis between economic growth and environmental deterioration generated by transport is empirically explored, with a specific focus on road freight transport.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The expanded STIRPAT model is estimated using the First-Difference approach for a panel of 28 countries, including European countries and Türkiye, over the period 2004–2024, considering cross-sectional dependence that reflects interactions among countries’ transport networks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that road emissions are not decoupled from economic growth in the context of short-term macroeconomic expansions.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2004–2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Karayolu Emisyonları · Ulaştırma Ekonomisi · AB ETS

Abstract

In this paper, the decoupling hypothesis between economic growth and environmental deterioration generated by transport is empirically explored, with a specific focus on road freight transport. The expanded STIRPAT model is estimated using the First-Difference approach for a panel of 28 countries, including European countries and Türkiye, over the period 2004–2024, considering cross-sectional dependence that reflects interactions among countries’ transport networks. The results show that road emissions are not decoupled from economic growth in the context of short-term macroeconomic expansions. Furthermore, transport volume, representing the sectoral scale increase, is found to exert a statistically significant and positive pressure on emissions. According to the interaction model examining the structural differences between Europe and Türkiye, the long-run level model reveals that Türkiye exhibits a more carbon-intensive growth trajectory compared with the European average. However, in the model analyzing short-term shocks, the interaction coefficient for Türkiye is found to be statistically insignificant, confirming that its emission response to logistical shocks does not differ from the European average. In light of this econometric evidence, more effective operational management of existing transport volume, the expansion of domestic intermodal transport capacity, and regionally coordinated alignment with EU road Emissions Trading System (ETS) regulations are proposed as fundamental policy recommendations.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, ekonomik büyüme ile ulaştırma kaynaklı çevresel tahribat arasındaki ayrışma hipotezi karayolu yük taşımacılığı özelinde ampirik olarak sınanmıştır. Avrupa ülkeleri ve Türkiye’yi kapsayan 28 ülkelik panel veri seti (2004-2024) kullanılarak, ülkelerin ulaştırma ağlarındaki karşılıklı etkileşimini yansıtan yatay kesit bağımlılığı dikkate alınmış ve genişletilmiş STIRPAT modeli Birinci Farklar yöntemiyle tahmin edilmiştir. Bulgular, kısa vadeli makroekonomik genişleme dönemlerinde karayolu emisyonlarının ekonomik büyümeden ayrışmadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, sektörel ölçek artışını temsil eden taşıma hacminin emisyonlar üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bir baskı yarattığı tespit edilmiştir. Avrupa ve Türkiye arasındaki yapısal farkları inceleyen etkileşim modeline göre; uzun vadeli düzey modelinde Türkiye'nin Avrupa ortalamasına kıyasla daha karbon-yoğun bir büyüme sergilediği saptanmıştır. Ancak kısa dönemli şokların analiz edildiği modelde, Türkiye'ye ait etkileşim katsayısı istatistiksel olarak anlamsız bulunmuş ve lojistik şoklara verilen emisyon tepkisinin Avrupa ortalamasından farklılaşmadığı doğrulanmıştır. Bu ekonometrik kanıtlar ışığında; mevcut taşıma hacminin operasyonel olarak daha etkin yönetilmesi, yurt içi intermodal taşımacılık kapasitesinin artırılması ve AB karayolu Emisyon Ticaret Sistemi (ETS) regülasyonlarına bölgesel düzeyde eşgüdümlü entegrasyon sağlanması temel politika önerileri olarak sunulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

İpekçi, E. (2026). SCALE EFFECT AND SHORT-TERM SHOCKS IN ROAD FREIGHT TRANSPORT: A PANEL DATA ANALYSIS ON THE INTEGRATION OF EUROPE AND TÜRKİYE. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1, 1528–1543. https://doi.org/10.31671/doujournal.1960295

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric analysis of panel data. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53953-5
  2. Breitung, J., & Pesaran, M. H. (2008). Unit roots and cointegration in panels. In L. Mátyás & P. Sevestre (Eds), The econometrics of panel data: Fundamentals and recent developments in theory and practice (pp. 279–322). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75892-1_9
  3. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6
  4. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560.
  5. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-Integration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236
  6. Gökgöz, F., & Yanlıç, N. (2026). AB karayolu taşımacılığı çevresel etkinliğinin sürdürülebilir ulaştırma politikaları kapsamında değerlendirilmesi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 60.
  7. Guo, T., Chen, J., & Liu, P. (2022). Impact of emerging transport technologies on freight economic and environmental performance: A system dynamics view. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), 15077. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215077
  8. Guo, X., Shi, J., Ren, D., Ren, J., & Liu, Q. (2017). Correlations between air pollutant emission, logistic services, GDP, and urban population growth from vector autoregressive modeling: A case study of Beijing. Natural Hazards, 87(2), 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2799-1
  9. Holly, S., Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2010). A spatio-temporal model of house prices in the USA. Journal of Econometrics, Twenty Years of Cointegration, 158(1), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.03.040
  10. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
  11. Levin, A., Lin, C.-F., & James Chu, C.-S. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
  12. Li, H., Lu, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, T. (2013). Trends in road freight transportation carbon dioxide emissions and policies in China. Energy Policy, 57, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.070
  13. Liu, S., Li, C., Aziz, N., & Raza, A. (2023). Dynamic nexus between transportation, economic growth and environmental degradation in China: Fresh insights from the QARDL approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3), 2149590. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2149590
  14. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1631
  15. Özbekler, T. M. (2026). Ulaştırma koridorları kapsamında Türkiye’nin transit taşımacılıktaki rolü: lojistik ile katma değer üretimi üzerine ampirik bir inceleme. Verimlilik Dergisi, 60(2), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1786687
  16. Pablo-Romero, M. P., Cruz, L., & Barata, E. (2017). Testing the transport energy-environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the EU27 countries. Energy Economics, 62, 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.01.003
  17. Panayotou, T. (1995). Environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. In I. Ahmed & J. A. Doeleman (Eds), Beyond Rio (pp. 13–36). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24245-0_2
  18. Parker, S. (2024). Assessing progress in decoupling transport CO2 emissions from GDP growth since 1970. Empirical Economics, 66(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-023-02459-x
  19. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
  20. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  21. Shafik, N. (1994). Economic development and environmental quality: An econometric analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 46(Supplement_1), 757–773. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/46.Supplement_1.757
  22. Song, Y., Zhang, M., & Shan, C. (2019). Research on the decoupling trend and mitigation potential of CO2 emissions from China’s transport sector. Energy, 183, 837–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.07.011
  23. Suproń, B., & Łącka, I. (2023). Research on the relationship between CO2 emissions, road transport, economic growth and energy consumption on the example of the visegrad group countries. Energies, 16(3), 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16031340
  24. Tang, S., Wang, W., Cho, S., & Yan, H. (2018). Reducing emissions in transportation and inventory management: (R, Q) Policy with considerations of carbon reduction. European Journal of Operational Research, 269(1), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.010
  25. Tunahan, H., Karataş, A., Garip, B., & Atakan, G. (2023). Avrupa yeşi̇l mutabakat ı 55’e uyum: Türk loji̇sti̇k sektörü üzeri̇ne inceleme. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 22(1), 225–255. https://doi.org/10.32450/aacd.1327083
  26. TÜRKLİM. (2025, August 4). Türkiye limancılık sektörü 2025 raporu. https://www.turklim.org/turkiye-limancilik-sektoru-2025-raporu/
  27. UTİKAD. (2025). UTİKAD Lojistik sektörü raporu 2024. UTİKAD Lojistik Sektörü Raporu 2024
  28. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data, second edition. MIT Press.
  29. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351–365.