SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 32

AGRICULTURE, TAXES, AND FINANCE EFFECTS ON TÜRKİYE’S ENVIRONMENT: A FOURIER ANALYSIS

TARIM, VERGİLER VE FİNANSIN TÜRKİYE ÇEVRESİNE ETKİLERİ: FOURIER ANALİZİ

Serkan Şahin(TARSUS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1927-1092
Sefa Özbek(TARSUS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1043-2056
Mustafa Naimoğlu(BİNGÖL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-9684-159X
Pages
810–839
Publication Date
2025-12-30
🏛️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 value-added agriculture, environmental taxes, and increases in the agricultural area enhance environmental quality.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study explores the impact of value-added agriculture, environmental taxes, and financial development on environmental quality in the Turkish economy during the period 1994-2022.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings indicate that value-added agriculture, environmental taxes, and increases in the agricultural area enhance environmental quality.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, there is a unidirectional causality from financial development to environmental quality.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Tarımsal katma değer · çevre vergileri · finansal gelişme

Abstract

This study explores the impact of value-added agriculture, environmental taxes, and financial development on environmental quality in the Turkish economy during the period 1994-2022. Additionally, the agricultural area, which can also affect environmental quality, is added as a control variable in the research model. Long-term relationships are examined using traditional Shin cointegration and Fourier Shin cointegration methods, and long-term coefficients are examined through the extended least squares method with Fourier functions. Dynamic Least Squares method extended with Fourier functions is applied as a robustness test, followed by the Fourier Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis. The findings indicate that value-added agriculture, environmental taxes, and increases in the agricultural area enhance environmental quality. Developments in the financial structure, on the other hand, have a detrimental effect on environmental quality. Short-term causality test findings indicate that there is a bidirectional causal association between value-added agriculture, environmental taxes, agricultural area, and environmental quality. However, there is a unidirectional causality from financial development to environmental quality.

Özet

Bu çalışma Türkiye ekonomisinde 1994-2022 döneminde tarımsal katma değer, çevresel vergiler ve finansal gelişmenin çevre kalitesi üzerindeki etkilerine odaklanmaktadır. Ayrıca, çevre kalitesi üzerinde etkili olabilen tarımsal alan da kontrol değişkeni olarak araştırma modeline eklenmiştir. Geleneksel Shin eşbütünleşme ve Fourier Shin eşbütünleşme yöntemlerinden yararlanılarak uzun dönem ilişkiler incelenmiş ve uzun dönem katsayıları Fourier fonksiyonları ile genişletilmiş En Küçük Kareler yöntemiyle elde edilmiştir. Sağlamlık testi olarak ise Fourier fonksiyonları ile genişletilmiş Dinamik En Küçük Kareler yöntemi uygulanmış ardından Fourier Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sonuçlar tarımsal katma değer, çevresel vergiler ve tarımsal alanda meydana gelen artışların çevresel kaliteyi artırdığını göstermiştir. Finansal yapıdaki gelişmeler ise çevre kalitesini düşürücü bir etkiye sahiptir. Kısa dönem nedensellik testi, çevresel kalite ile tarımsal katma değer, çevresel vergiler ve tarımsal alan arasında iki yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Ancak, finansal gelişmeden çevresel kalite yönüne tek yönlü nedenselliğin olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şahin, S., Özbek, S., Naimoğlu, M. (2025). AGRICULTURE, TAXES, AND FINANCE EFFECTS ON TÜRKİYE’S ENVIRONMENT: A FOURIER ANALYSIS. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 32, 810–839. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2025.030

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (85)

  1. Acheampong, A. O. (2019). Modelling for insight: does financial development improve environmental quality?. Energy Economics, 83, 156-179. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.06.025.
  2. Agboola, M. O., & Bekun, F. V. (2019). Does agricultural value added induce environmental degradation? Empirical evidence from an agrarian country. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(27), 27660-27676. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-05943-z.
  3. AGMRC. (2024). Value added agriculture. USDA value-added Ag definition. https://www.agmrc.org.staging.premier.siteviz.com/value-added-agriculture (accessed 08.01.2025).
  4. Akkaya, Ş., & Hepsağ, A. (2021). Does fuel tax decrease carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey? Evidence from an asymmetric nonlinear cointegration test and error correction model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 35094-35101. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12907-9.
  5. Alamdarlo, H. N. (2016). Water consumption, agriculture value added and carbon dioxide emission in Iran, environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13, 2079-2090. doi: 10.1007/s13762-016-1005-4.
  6. Ali, M., Soomro, S. A., Bakari, H., Samour, A., & Tursoy, T. (2025). Does nuclear energy consumption contribute to load capacity factor? Modeling the effects of public debt and financial development in France. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 57(6), 103414. doi: 10.1016/j.net.2024.103414.
  7. Al-Mulali, U., Tang, C. F., & Öztürk, I. (2015). Does financial development reduce environmental degradation? Evidence from a panel study of 129 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 14891-14900. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-4726-x.
  8. Annor, L. D. J., Robaina, M., & Vieira, E. (2024). Climbing the green ladder in Sub-Saharan Africa: Dynamics of financial development, green energy, and load capacity factor. Environment Systems and Decisions, 44(3), 607-623. doi: 10.1007/s10669-023-09959-2.
  9. Aydın, M., & Bozatlı, O. (2022). Do transport taxes reduce air pollution in the top 10 countries with the highest transport tax revenues? A country-specific panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(36), 54181-54192. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19651-8.
  10. Baş, T., Kara, F., & Alola, A. A. (2021). The environmental aspects of agriculture, merchandize, share, and export value-added calibrations in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(44), 62677-62689. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15171-z.
  11. Becker, R., Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9892.2006.00478.x.
  12. Bekun, F. V., Yadav, A., Onwe, J. C., Fumey, M. P., & Ökmen, M. (2024). Assessment into the nexus between load capacity factor, population, government policy in form of environmental tax: Accessing evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 1-27. doi: 10.1108/IJESM-08-2024-0032.
  13. Bhattacharya, M., Paramati, S. R., Öztürk, I., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Evidence from top 38 countries. Applied Energy, 162, 733-741. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.104.
  14. Bilgin, E., & Yıldırım, Z. (2023). Çevre vergisi ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye ve seçili AB üye ülkeleri üzerine ampirik bir inceleme. U. Esen ve A. Gerçek (Ed.), Maliye Araştırmaları-6 (s. 71). Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
  15. Çelikkaya, A. (2011). Avrupa Birliği üyesi ülkelerde çevre vergisi reformları ve Türkiye’deki durumun değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 97-120.
  16. Çetin, M., Saygın, S., & Demir, H. (2020). Tarım sektörünün çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye ekonomisi için bir eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 329-345. doi: 10.33462/jotaf.678764.
  17. Christopoulos, D. K., & León-Ledesma, M. A. (2010). Smooth breaks and non-linear mean reversion: Post-Bretton Woods real exchange rates. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29(6), 1076-1093. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2010.02.003.
  18. Climate Watch. (2021). Historical GHG emissions. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions (accessed 08.01.2025).
  19. Dahmani, M. (2024). Environmental quality and sustainability: Exploring the role of environmental taxes, environment-related technologies, and R&D expenditure. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 26(2), 449-477. doi: 10.1007/s10018-023-00387-9.
  20. Değirmenci, T., & Aydın, M. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes on environmental pollution and unemployment: A panel co-integration analysis on the validity of double dividend hypothesis for selected African countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 28(3), 2231-2238. doi: 10.1002/ijfe.2505.
  21. Delikkaya, Ö., & Ataseven, Y. (2021). Türkiye’de çevre amaçlı tarım arazilerini koruma (ÇATAK) programı’nın değerlendirilmesi: Kastamonu ili araştırması. Tarım Ekonomisi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 126-139.
  22. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 49(4), 1057-1072. doi: 10.2307/1912517.
  23. Durmuş, S., Ağırkaya, M. B., & Akyol, H. (2025). Drivers of the load capacity factor in new industrialized countries: Economic growth, financial development and urbanization on load capacity factor. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 15(3), 184-195. doi: 10.32479/ijefi.18988.
  24. Eric, A. T., Ofori, K., & Frank, A. Y. (2024). Can Turkey's environmental pollution be mitigated by carbon footprint of bank loans, environmental protection expenditures and taxes? International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 11(8), 998-1015. doi: 10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1108078.
  25. Ertekin, Ş., & Dam, M. (2020). Türkiye’de çevre vergilerinin çevresel etkileri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 15, 66-87. doi: 10.19168/jyasar.655644.
  26. Esen, Ö., Yıldırım, D. Ç., & Yıldırım, S. (2021). Pollute less or tax more? Asymmetries in the EU environmental taxes–ecological balance nexus. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, 106662. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106662.
  27. Eştürk, Ö., Aydın, F. F., & Levent, C. (2023). Tarım ve sanayi sektörlerinin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi: Seçilmiş OECD üyesi ülkelerde ekonometrik bir uygulama. Ardahan Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 109-116. doi: 10.58588/aru-jfeas.1379450.
  28. FAO. (2016). The state of food and agriculture. Climate change, agriculture and food security. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/07bc7c6e-72e5-488d-b2f7-3c1499d098fb/content (accessed 08.01.2025).
  29. Global Footprint Network. (2025). Data. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/ (accessed 08.01.2025).
  30. Gökmenoğlu, K. K., & Taşpınar, N. (2018). Testing the agriculture-induced EKC hypothesis: The case of Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 22829-22841. doi: 10.1007/s11356-018-2330-6.
  31. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w3914.
  32. Gürbüz, İ. B., Nesirov, E., & Özkan, G. (2021). Does agricultural value-added induce environmental degradation? Evidence from Azerbaijan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 23099-23112. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-12228-3.
  33. IAEA. (2024). Greenhouse gas reduction. https://www.iaea.org/topics/greenhouse-gas-reduction (accessed 08.01.2025).
  34. IMF. (2025). Data. https://data.imf.org/?sk=4c514d48-b6ba-49ed-8ab9-52b0c1a0179b (accessed 14.01.2025).
  35. Javed, A., Usman, M., & Rapposelli, A. (2025). Transition toward a sustainable future: Exploring the role of green investment, environmental policy, and financial development in the context of load capacity factor in G‐7 countries. Sustainable Development, 33(2), 1589-1609. doi:10.1002/sd.3192.
  36. Javid, M., & Sharif, F. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve and financial development in Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 406-414. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.019.
  37. Karşıyakalı, B., Aydın, Ü., & Şanlısoy, S. (2024). The causal relationship between environmental taxes for sustainable development and greenhouse gas emissions (CO2): A case study of Türkiye. Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi E-Dergi, 13(1), 82-100. doi: 10.47934/tife.13.01.06.
  38. Kartal, M. T. (2024). Quantile-based effect of energy, transport, and total environmental tax on ecological footprint in EU5 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(13), 20033-20047. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-32214-3.
  39. Kırıkkaleli, D. (2023a). Does environmental tax matter for environmental degradation in the Netherlands? Evidence from novel Fourier-based estimators. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(20), 57481-57489. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-26583-4.
  40. Kırıkkaleli, D. (2023b). Environmental taxes and environmental quality in Canada. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(55), 117862-117870. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-30616-3.
  41. Latif, N., & Faridi, M. Z. (2023). Examining the impact of financial development on load capacity factor (LCF): System GMM analysis for Asian economies. Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, 1063212. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2022.1063212.
  42. Liu, G., Khan, M. A., Haider, A., & Uddin, M. (2022). Financial development and environmental degradation: Promoting low-carbon competitiveness in E7 economies’ industries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 16336. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192316336.
  43. Mahadevan, R. (2003). Productivity growth in Indian agriculture: The role of globalization and economic reform. Asia Pacific Development Journal, 10(2), 57-72. doi: 10.18356/5728288b-en.
  44. Nazlıoğlu, S., Görmüs, N. A., & Soytaş, U. (2016). Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy Economics, 60, 168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.009.
  45. Nguyen, T. T., Pham, T. A. T., & Tram, H. T. X. (2020). Role of information and communication technologies and innovation in driving carbon emissions and economic growth in selected G-20 countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 261, 110162. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110162.
  46. Nowak, A., & Schneider, C. (2017). Environmental characteristics, agricultural land use, and vulnerability to degradation in Malopolska Province (Poland). Science of the Total Environment, 590, 620-632. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.006.
  47. OECD. (2025). Data. https://www.oecd.org/en/data.html (accessed 14.01.2025).
  48. Okumuş, İ. (2020). Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, tarım ve CO2 emisyonu ilişkisi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(1), 21-34. doi: 10.20979/ueyd.659092.
  49. Özbay, Ü. (2024). Türkiye’de tarımsal faaliyetler karbon emisyonunu etkiler mi? ARDL testinden elde edilen kanıtlar. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(2), 536-546. doi: 10.30910/turkjans.1380091.
  50. Özbek, S. (2023). Sürdürülebilir çevre: çevre teknolojileri ve vergileri kapsamında ekonometrik bir inceleme. Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(Prof. Dr. Muammer ERDOĞAN Anısına Kongre Özel Sayısı), 63-91. doi: 10.33399/biibfad.1253043.
  51. Özbek, S., & Oğul, B. (2023). Türkiye’de tarım, orman alanları ve çevre ilişkisi. Tarsus Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 26-35.
  52. Özbek, S., & Şahin, S. (2025). Sustainable ıntentions, unsustainable outcomes: Green technologies, environmental taxes, and the carbon cost of economic growth. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, 9(1), 117-128. doi: 10.32571/ijct.1688965.
  53. Özkan, G. (2024). Katma değerli tarım, döngüsel ekonomi ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma: Ekonomik, çevresel ve sosyal perspektifler. JENAS Journal of Environmental and Natural Studies, 6(3), 287-298. doi:10.53472/jenas.1587727.
  54. Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75, 335-346. doi:10.2307/2336182.
  55. Rabhi, A., Soujaa, I. & Parsons, B. (2024). Do environmental taxes and renewable energy consumption play a role in climate change mitigation? International evidence from developing economies. Research in Globalization, 9, 100266. doi: 10.1016/j.resglo.2024.100266.
  56. Raihan, A. (2023). An econometric evaluation of the effects of economic growth, energy use, and agricultural value added on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 7(3), 665-696. doi:10.1007/s41685-023-00283-7.
  57. Rehman, A., Ulucak, R., Murshed, M., Ma, H. & Işık, C. (2021). Carbonization and atmospheric pollution in China: The asymmetric impacts of forests, livestock production, and economic progress on CO2 emissions. Journal of Environmental Management, 294, 113059. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113059.
  58. Ridwan, M., Aspy, N. N., Bala, S., Hossain, M. E., Akther, A., Eleais, M. & Esquivias, M. A. (2024). Determinants of environmental sustainability in the United States: analyzing the role of financial development and stock market capitalization using LCC framework. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 319-327. doi:10.1007/s43621-024-00539-1.
  59. Safi, A., Chen, Y., Wahab, S., Zheng, L. & Rjoub, H. (2021). Does environmental taxes achieve the carbon neutrality target of G7 economies? Evaluating the importance of environmental R&D. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112908. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112908.
  60. Sarıgül, S. S. & Topçu, B. A. (2021). The impact of environmental taxes on carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 3(1), 43-54.
  61. Sarpong, K. A., Xu, W., Gyamfi, B. A. & Ofori, E. K. (2023). Can environmental taxes and green-energy offer carbon-free E7 economies? An empirical analysis in the framework of COP-26. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(18), 51726-51739. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-27089-9.
  62. Schwert, G. W. (1989). Tests for unit roots: A monte carlo investigation. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 7(2), 147-159. doi: 10.2307/1391432.
  63. Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, S. J. H., Ahmad, N., & Alam, S. (2016). Financial development and environmental quality: The way forward. Energy Policy, 98, 353-364. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.002.
  64. Shahbaz, M., Nasir, M. A. & Roubaud, D. (2018). Environmental degradation in France: the effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations. Energy Economics, 74, 843-857. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.07.020.
  65. Shahbaz, M., Zeshan, M. & Afza, T. (2012). Is energy consumption effective to spur economic growth in Pakistan? New evidence from bounds test to level relationships and Granger causality tests. Economic Modelling, 29(6), 2310-2319. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.06.046.
  66. Shahzad, U. (2020). Environmental taxes, energy consumption, and environmental quality: Theoretical survey with policy implications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(20), 24848-24862. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-08965-0.
  67. Shayanmehr, S., Radmehr, R., Ali, E. B., Ofori, E. K., Adebayo, T. S. & Gyamfi, B. A. (2023). How do environmental tax and renewable energy contribute to ecological sustainability? New evidence from top renewable energy countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 30(6), 650-670. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2022.2124584.
  68. Shin, Y. (1994). A residual-based test of the null of cointegration against the alternative of no cointegration. Econometric Theory, 10(1), 91-115. doi: 10.1017/S0266466600008240.
  69. Siche, R., Pereira, L., Agostinho, F. & Ortega, E. (2010). Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 15(10), 3182-3192. doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027.
  70. Silajdzic, S. & Mehic, E. (2018). Do environmental taxes pay off? The impact of energy and transport taxes on CO2 emissions in transition economies. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 13(2), 126-143. doi: 10.2478/jeb-2018-0013.
  71. Statista (2023). Turkey: share of economic sectors in gross domestic product (GDP) from 2013 to 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/255494/share-of-economic-sectors-in-the-gross-domestic-product-in-turkey/ (accessed 08.01.2025).
  72. Stock, J. H. & Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, 61, 783-820. doi: 10.2307/2951763.
  73. Telatar, O. M. & Birinci, N. (2022). The effects of environmental tax on ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions: A nonlinear cointegration analysis on Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(29), 44335-44347. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19460-0.
  74. Tobin, I. & Cho, W. (2010). Performance tools and their impact on pollution reduction: An assessment of environmental taxation and R&D. International Review of Public Administration, 15(3), 53-65. doi: 10.1080/12294659.2010.10805156.
  75. Toda, H. Y. & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8.
  76. Tsong, C. C., Lee, C. F., Tsai, L. J. & Hu, T. C. (2016). The Fourier approximation and testing for the null of cointegration. Empirical Economics, 51(3), 1085-1113. doi: 10.1007/s00181-015-1021-y.
  77. Usman, M., Anwar, S., Yaseen, M. R., Makhdum, M. S. A., Kousar, R., & Jahanger, A. (2022). Unveiling the dynamic relationship between agriculture value addition, energy utilization, tourism and environmental degradation in South Asia. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(4), e2712. doi:10.1002/pa.2712.
  78. Wang, L., Vo, X. V., Shahbaz, M. & Ak, A. (2020). Globalization and carbon emissions: is there any role of agriculture value-added, financial development, and natural resource rent in the aftermath of COP21? Journal of Environmental Management, 268, 110712. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110712.
  79. World Bank (2023). Data. https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed 08.01.2025).
  80. World Bank (2025). World Bank Open Data. https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed 08.01.2025).
  81. Xu, L., Wang, X. & Guo, W. (2022). Does renewable energy adaptation, globalization, and financial development matter for environmental quality and economic progress? Evidence from panel of big five (B5) economies. Renewable Energy, 192, 631-640. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.068.
  82. Yavuz, E. (2022). Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine kanıtlar. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences (Joshas), 7(45), 1937-1945. doi: 10.31589/JOSHAS.784.
  83. Yin, Q., Lin, Y., Yuan, B. & Dong, Z. (2023). Does the environmental protection tax reduce environmental pollution? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(48), 106198-106213. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-28300-2.
  84. Zhu, Y., Taylor, D. & Wang, Z. (2023). The role of environmental taxes on carbon emissions in countries aiming for net-zero carbon emissions: Does renewable energy consumption matter? Renewable Energy, 218, 119239. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2023.119239.
  85. Zhuo, J. & Qamruzzaman, M. (2022). Do financial development, FDI, and globalization intensify environmental degradation through the channel of energy consumption: evidence from belt and road countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 2753–2772. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15796-0.