SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 27 Issue: 3

DETERMINANTS OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN TÜRKIYE: THE ROLES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND HUMAN CAPITAL (1990–2023)

Hale Kırer Silva Lecuna(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1879-3315
Hikmet Gülçin Beken(GÜMÜŞHANE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GÜMÜŞHANE İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1664-456X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-22
🏛️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 of the study indicate that a significant portion of the changes in the ecological footprint is explained by macroeconomic variables such as energy consumption and income; the long-run contribution of human capital accumulation and renewable energy consumption becomes more prominent, highlighting their strategic importance for environmental sustainability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Improving environmental quality has become an essential goal in our society, as environmental degradation worsens and causes many problems, primarily harming the economic well-being of nations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, annual data for Türkiye from 1990-2023 were used to test the Vector Error Correction Model (VECM), employing indicators such as per capita income, energy use, and trade openness to explain the ecological footprint, with a specific focus on human capital and renewable energy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the study indicate that a significant portion of the changes in the ecological footprint is explained by macroeconomic variables such as energy consumption and income; the long-run contribution of human capital accumulation and renewable energy consumption becomes more prominent, highlighting their strategic importance for environmental sustainability.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ecological Footprint · Environmental Quality · Human Capital

Abstract

Improving environmental quality has become an essential goal in our society, as environmental degradation worsens and causes many problems, primarily harming the economic well-being of nations. The ecological footprint is preferred as a sustainability indicator in analyses due to its comprehensiveness and holistic approach to measuring environmental degradation. In this study, annual data for Türkiye from 1990-2023 were used to test the Vector Error Correction Model (VECM), employing indicators such as per capita income, energy use, and trade openness to explain the ecological footprint, with a specific focus on human capital and renewable energy. The results of the study indicate that a significant portion of the changes in the ecological footprint is explained by macroeconomic variables such as energy consumption and income; the long-run contribution of human capital accumulation and renewable energy consumption becomes more prominent, highlighting their strategic importance for environmental sustainability.

🔖

Cite This Article

Lecuna, H. K. S., Beken, H. G. (2026). DETERMINANTS OF ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN TÜRKIYE: THE ROLES OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND HUMAN CAPITAL (1990–2023). Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 27 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1913222

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (50)

  1. Abou Houran, M., & Mehmood, U. (2023). How institutional quality and renewable energy interact with ecological footprints: Do the human capital and economic complexity matter in the Next Eleven nations? Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26744-5
  2. Ahmed, Z., & Wang, Z. (2019). Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(26), 26782–26796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05911-7
  3. Akpanke, T. A., Deka, A., Ozdeser, H., & Seraj, M. (2024). Ecological footprint in the OECD countries: Do energy efficiency and renewable energy matter?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(10), 15289–15301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32151-1
  4. Akyol Özcan, K. (2024). Determinants of ecological footprint: A quantile regression approach. Systems, 12(2), 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12020059
  5. Almeida, D., Carvalho, L., Ferreira, P., Dionísio, A., & Haq, I. U. (2024). Global dynamics of environmental kuznets curve: A cross-correlation analysis of ıncome and CO2 emissions. Sustainability, 16(20), 9089. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16209089
  6. Al-mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., & 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
  7. Ansari, M. A., & Khan, N. A. (2021). Decomposing the trade-environment nexus for high income, upper and lower middle income countries: What do the composition, scale, and technique effect indicate?. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107122
  8. Azimi, M. N., & Rahman, M. M. (2024). Renewable energy and ecological footprint nexus: Evidence from dynamic panel threshold technique. Heliyon, 10(13):e33442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33442
  9. Benhabib, J., & Spiegel, M. M. (1994). The role of human capital in economic development evidence from aggregate cross-country data. Journal of Monetary Economics, 34(2), 143–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(94)90047-7
  10. Chen, Y., Lee, C.-C., & Chen, M. (2022). Ecological footprint, human capital, and urbanization. Energy & Environment, 33(3), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X211008610
  11. Danish, D., 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
  12. Daştan, M. (2024). The role of renewable energy, technological ınnovation, and human capital on environmental quality in Türkiye: Testing the LCC hypothesis with smooth structural shifts. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (65), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.53568/yyusbed.1480175
  13. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
  14. Dogan, E., Taspinar, N., & Gokmenoglu, K. K. (2019). Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy & Environment, 30(6), 1065–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X19834279
  15. Du, Y., & Sun, X. (2017). Economic development and environmental quality-A case study of China prefecture‐level cities. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 36(5), 1290–1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12598
  16. Fakher, H.-A. (2019). Investigating the determinant factors of environmental quality (based on ecological carbon footprint index). Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(10), 10276–10291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04452-3
  17. Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., & Timmer, M. P. (2015). The next generation of the penn world table. American Economic Review, 105(10), 3150–3182. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130954
  18. Fiala, N. (2008). Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecological Economics, 67(4), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.023
  19. Global Footprint Network. (2020). Ecological footprint accounting: Limitations and criticism (Version 1.2). https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2020/12/Footprint-Limitations-and-Criticism.pdf
  20. Global Footprint Network. (2025). Ecological Footprint Explorer - Open Data Platform [Data set]. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/
  21. International Energy Agency. (2025). IEA Energy Statistics Data Browser [Data set]. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/energy-statistics-data-browser
  22. Kozal, Ö. (2024). A comparative analysis on ecological footprint of consumption and import in premature deindustrialized countries. World Journal of Applied Economics, 10(2), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.22440/wjae.10.2.4
  23. Kuppens, L. (2025). Economic growth and its environmental impact: Can they coexist?. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 26(2), 1–3.
  24. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root? Journal of Econometrics, 54(1–3), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
  25. Li, X., Li, S., Li, C., Shi, J., & Wang, N. (2023). The impact of high-quality development on ecological footprint: An empirical research based on STIRPAT model. Ecological Indicators, 154, 110881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110881
  26. Lütkepohl, H. (2005). New introduction to multiple time series analysis. Springer Books, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27752-1
  27. MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 601-618. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2285154
  28. Muratoğlu, Y., & Varlık, S. (2025). The impact of economic growth and biocapacity on ecological footprint in EU countries. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(30), 863–882. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1713073
  29. Nathaniel, S. P., Yalçiner, K., & Bekun, F. V. (2021). Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor: Linking natural resources, renewable energy, human capital, and ecological footprint in BRICS. Resources Policy, 70, 101924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101924
  30. Okelele, D. O., Lokina, R., & Ruhinduka, R. D. (2022). Effect of trade openness on ecological footprint in sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Economic Review, 10(1), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.320575
  31. Polat, İ. H., Doğan, M. S., & Tosunoğlu, M. (2026). Ecological footprint dynamics in Türkiye: An econometric assessment within the framework of renewable energy, forest areas, economic growth, and urbanization. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 30–53. https://doi.org/10.59445/ijephss.1771253
  32. Radmehr, R., Shayanmehr, S., Ali, E. B., Ofori, E. K., Jasińska, E., & Jasiński, M. (2022). Exploring the nexus of renewable energy, ecological footprint, and economic growth through globalization and human capital in G7 economics. Sustainability, 14(19), 12227. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912227
  33. 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
  34. Saqib, N., Sharif, A., Razzaq, A., & Usman, M. (2022). Integration of renewable energy and technological innovation in realizing environmental sustainability: The role of human capital in EKC framework. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(6), 16372–16385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23345-6
  35. Sasikala, T., Samad, Z. A., Singh, N. R., Sathya, J., & Gayathri, J. (2025). Economic growth and environmental quality indicators. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 15(6), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.20471
  36. Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: Time series and cross-country evidence. Policy research Working Paper No. 904. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/833431468739515725/pdf/multi-page.pdf
  37. Singh, T. (2025). On the economic growth and environmental quality nexus in India. Applied Economics, 57(41), 6536–6553. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2024.2385753
  38. Stern, D. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
  39. Sustainability Directory. (2025). What are the limitations of using environmental footprint? https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-limitations-of-using-environmental-footprint/
  40. Syrovátka, M. (2020). On sustainability interpretations of the Ecological Footprint. Ecological Economics, 169, 106543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106543
  41. Thornbush, M. J. (2021). The ecological footprint as a sustainability metric: Implications for sustainability. Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62666-2
  42. Torun, M., Kılıç, C., Tayfur Akcan, A., & Arık, M. (2024). Determinants of ecological footprint in Türkiye: Evidence from the Fourier ARDL. Istanbul Journal of Economics / İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 74(2), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2023-1348087
  43. Ucan, O., Ozturk, I., & Turgut, E. (2023). Determinants of ecological footprint in BRICS countries: A panel data analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(10), 26839–26852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03755-3
  44. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers. Philadelphia.
  45. Wang, Q., Li, Y., & Li, R. (2024). Ecological footprints, carbon emissions, and energy transitions: The impact of artificial intelligence (AI). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1043. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03520-5
  46. Wang, X. (2021). Determinants of ecological and carbon footprints to assess the framework of environmental sustainability in BRICS countries: A panel ARDL and causality estimation model. Environmental Research, 197, 111111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111111
  47. Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. (2010). A review of the ecological footprint ındicator—perceptions and methods. Sustainability, 2(6), 1645–1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061645
  48. World Bank. (1992). World development report 1992: Development and the environment. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/995021468161962600/world-development-report-1992-development-and-the-environment
  49. World Bank. (2025). World Development Indicators [Data set]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator
  50. Zhou, D., Kongkuah, M., Twum, A. K., & Adam, I. (2024a). Assessing the impact of international trade on ecological footprint in Belt and Road Initiative countries. Heliyon, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26459