SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2025 / Cilt: 33 Sayı: 65

The Impact of Energy Security and Geopolitical Risk on Environmental Degradation in Türkiye: An EKC-Based Assessment Based on Fossil Material Footprint

Türkiye’de Enerji Güvenliği ve Jeopolitik Riskin Çevresel Bozulma Üzerindeki Etkisi: Fosil Malzeme Ayak İzine Dayalı Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Temelli Bir Değerlendirme

Serhat Çamkaya(KAFKAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4373-1922
Murat Akça(KAFKAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9974-8697
Samet Topal(KAFKAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2986-3697
Pages
361–379
Publication Date
2025-07-17
🏛️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 reveal that the EKC hypothesis is valid, and energy security and geopolitical risk reduce FMF in Türkiye.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the impact of geopolitical and energy security risk on the fossil material footprint (FMF) in Türkiye within the framework of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To this end, data for 1985-2018 and unit root, cointegration and estimators based on Fourier approaches are used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that the EKC hypothesis is valid, and energy security and geopolitical risk reduce FMF in Türkiye.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Malzeme Ayak İzi · Çevresel Bozulma · EKC

Abstract

This study examines the impact of geopolitical and energy security risk on the fossil material footprint (FMF) in Türkiye within the framework of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis. To this end, data for 1985-2018 and unit root, cointegration and estimators based on Fourier approaches are used. The findings reveal that the EKC hypothesis is valid, and energy security and geopolitical risk reduce FMF in Türkiye. In this context, Türkiye should invest more in renewable energy. In this way, Türkiye can mitigate the possible negative consequences of risks and alleviate the negative pressure on environmental degradation.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) hipotezi çerçevesinde fosil malzeme ayak izi üzerinde jeopolitik ve enerji güvenliği riskinin etkisini incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda, 1985-2018 dönemi verileri ve Fourier yaklaşımlarına dayalı birim kök, eşbütünleşme ve tahminciler kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, Türkiye’de EKC hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu ve enerji güvenliği ve jeopolitik riskin fosil malzeme ayak izini azalttığını ortaya koymuştur. Bu bağlamda, Türkiye yenilenebilir enerjiye daha fazla yatırım yapmalıdır. Bu sayede, Türkiye hem risklerin olası olumsuz sonuçlarını hafifletebilir hem de çevresel bozulma üzerindeki olumsuz baskıyı hafifletebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çamkaya, S., Akça, M., Topal, S., *, S. Ç. (2025). The Impact of Energy Security and Geopolitical Risk on Environmental Degradation in Türkiye: An EKC-Based Assessment Based on Fossil Material Footprint. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 65, 361–379. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.03.17

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Ahmed, Z. et al. (2021), “Linking Economic Globalization, Economic Growth, Financial Development, and Ecological Footprint: Evidence From Symmetric And Asymmetric ARDL”, Ecological Indicators, 121, 107060.
  2. Akram, V. & S. Bhargava (2023), “Club Convergence Analysis of Fossil Fuels Material Footprint at the Global Level”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(53), 114283-114293.
  3. Anser, M.K. et al. (2021), “Do Economic Policy Uncertainty and Geopolitical Risk Lead To Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Emerging Economies”, Sustainability, 13(11), 5866.
  4. Anser, M.K. et al. (2021), “Does Geopolitical Risk Escalate CO2 Emissions? Evidence from the BRICS Countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 48011-48021.
  5. Awosusi, A.A. et al. (2022), “A Roadmap Toward Achieving Sustainable Environment: Evaluating the Impact of Technological Innovation and Globalization on Load Capacity Factor”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3288.
  6. Balsalobre-Lorente, D. et al. (2018), “How Economic Growth, Renewable Electricity and Natural Resources Contribute To CO2 Emissions?”, Energy Policy, 113, 356-367.
  7. Balsalobre-Lorente, D. et al. (2024), “The Dampening Effect of Geopolitical Risk and Economic Policy Uncertainty in the Linkage between Economic Complexity and Environmental Degradation in the G-20”, Journal of Environmental Management, 351, 119679.
  8. Banerjee, P. et al. (2017), “Fourier ADL Cointegration Test to Approximate Smooth Breaks with New Evidence from Crude Oil Market”, Economic Modelling, 67, 114-124.
  9. Borozan, D. (2024), “Do Geopolitical and Energy Security Risks İnfluence Carbon Dioxide Emissions? Empirical Evidence from European Union Countries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 439, 140834.
  10. Caldara, D. & M. Iacoviello (2018), “Measuring Geopolitical Risk”, Federal Reserve Board, International Finance Discussion Paper, 1222.
  11. Cengiz, O. & M. Manga (2022), “ Is There Any Relationship between Geopolitical Risk and Climate Change?”, Ekonomski vjesnik/Econviews-Review of Contemporary Business, Entrepreneurship and Economic Issues, 35(1), 99-112.
  12. 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.
  13. Chu, L.K. (2023), “The Role of Energy Security and Economic Complexity in Renewable Energy Development: Evidence from G7 Countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(19), 56073-56093.
  14. Dickey, D.A. & W.A. Fuller (1979), “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431.
  15. Dong, K. et al. (2022), “Moving toward Carbon Neutrality: Assessing Natural Gas Import Security and Its Impact on CO2 Emissions”, Sustainable Development, 30(4), 751-770.
  16. Enders, W. & J. Lee (2012), “The Flexible Fourier form and Dickey-Fuller Type Unit Root Tests”, Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199.
  17. Farooq, F. et al. (2023), “Analyzing the Impact of Geopolitical Risk, and Renewable Energy Towards Sustainable Development in China”, iRASD Journal of Economics, 5(2), 422-440.
  18. GEI Global Energy Institute (2024), Security Risk Index,, 13.06.2024.
  19. GMFD Global Material Flows Database (2024), Material Flows Database,, 13.06.2024.
  20. Grossman, G.M. & A.B. Krueger (1991), “Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 3914, Cambridge, Mass.
  21. Heidari, H. et al. (2015), “Economic Growth, CO2 Emissions, and Energy Consumption in the Five ASEAN Countries”, International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 64, 785-791.
  22. Hussain, M. et al. (2021), “Comparative Re-Estimation of Environmental Degradation and Population Density in China: Evidence from the Maki’s regime shift approach”, Revista de Economía Mundial, 58, 29-50.
  23. Khan, A. et al. (2023), “Geopolitical Risk, Economic Uncertainty, and Militarization: Significant Agents of Energy Consumption and Environmental Quality”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 102, 107166.
  24. Kızılkaya, F. et al. (2024), “Does Geopolitical Risk Escalate Environmental Degradation in Turkey? Evidence from a Fourier Approach”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05258-1.
  25. Lawal, G.O. et al. (2023), “Geopolitical Risk, Globalization and Environmental Degradation in South Africa: Evidence from Advanced Quantiles Approach”, Problemy Ekorozwoju, 18(1), 207-215.
  26. Le, T.H. & C.P. Nguyen (2019), “Is Energy Security a Driver for Economic Growth? Evidence from a Global Sample”, Energy Policy, 129, 436-451.
  27. Nawaz, S.M.N. & S. Alvi (2018), “Energy Security for Socio-Economic and Environmental Sustainability in Pakistan”, Heliyon, 4(10), e00854.
  28. Oberle, B. et al. (2019), Global Resources Outlook: 2019, International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment, Paris, France.
  29. Pata, U.K. & C. Isik (2021), “Determinants of the Load Capacity Factor in China: A Novel Dynamic ARDL Approach for Ecological Footprint Accounting”, Resources Policy, 74, 102313.
  30. Pata, U.K. & D. Balsalobre-Lorente (2022), “Exploring the Impact of Tourism and Energy Consumption on the Load Capacity Factor in Turkey: A Novel Dynamic ARDL Approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(9), 13491-13503.
  31. Pata, U.K. & S. Karlilar (2024), “The Integrated Influence of Energy Security Risk and Green Innovation on the Material Footprint: An EKC Analysis Based on Fossil Material Flows”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 435, 140469.
  32. Pata, U.K. et al. (2023), “Environmental Reverberations of Geopolitical Risk and Economic Policy Uncertainty Resulting from the Russia-Ukraine Conflict: A Wavelet Based Approach for Sectoral CO2 Emissions”, Environmental Research, 231, 116034.
  33. Payne, J.E. et al. (2023), “The Effect of Economic Complexity and Energy Security on Measures of Energy Efficiency: Evidence from Panel Quantile Analysis”, Energy Policy, 177, 113547.
  34. POU (2024), Policyuncertainty,, 13.06.2024.
  35. Regueiro-Ferreira, R.M. & P. Alonso-Fernández (2023), “Interaction between Renewable Energy Consumption and Dematerialization: Insights Based on the Material Footprint and the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Energy, 266, 126477.
  36. Saadaoui, H. et al. (2024), “The Impacts of Hydroelectricity Generation, Financial Development, Geopolitical Risk, Income, and Foreign Direct İnvestment on Carbon Emissions in Turkey”, Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 26(2), 239-261.
  37. Shah, S.A.A. et al. (2019), “Energy Security and Environmental Sustainability Index of South Asian Countries: A Composite Index Approach”, Ecological Indicators, 106, 105507.
  38. Shittu, W. et al. (2021), “An Investigation of the Nexus between Natural Resources, Environmental Performance, Energy Security and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from Asia”, Resources Policy, 73, 102227.
  39. Tugcu, C.T. & A.N. Menegaki (2024), “The Impact of Renewable Energy Generation on Energy Security: Evidence from the G7 Countries”, Gondwana Research, 125, 253-265.
  40. Usman, O. et al. (2024), “Energy Security-Related Risks and the Quest to Attain USA’s Net-Zero Emissions Targets by 2050: A Dynamic ARDL Simulations Modeling Approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(12), 18797-18812.
  41. Wang, K.H. et al. (2023), “Energy Security and CO2 Emissions: New Evidence from Time-Varying and Quantile-Varying Aspects”, Energy, 273, 127164.
  42. WDI (2024), World Development Indicators,, 13.06.2024.
  43. Xu, D. et al. (2022), “Load Capacity Factor and Financial Globalization in Brazil: The Role of Renewable Energy and Urbanization”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 823185.
  44. Yang, M. et al. (2024), “Determinants of Load Capacity Factor in BRICS Countries: A Panel Data Analysis”, Natural Resources Forum, 48(2), 525-548.
  45. Zhao, W. et al. (2021), “Geopolitical Risks, Energy Consumption, and CO2 Emissions in BRICS: An Asymmetric Analysis”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 39668-39679.