SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GDP, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AGRICULTURE AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FOR INDONESIA

GSİYH, YENİLENEBİLİR ENERJİ, TARIM VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ İLİŞKİSİ: ENDONEZYA İÇİN AMPİRİK ANALİZ

Havanur Ergün Tatar(BARTIN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4284-9083
Pages
1000–1017
Publication Date
2026-06-27
🏛️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)

As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that agriculture increases the ecological footprint, whereas renewable energy consumption reduces the ecological footprint.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:For Indonesia, the energy-environment nexus and agriculture have an important place in terms of analyzing ecological degradation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The relationship in question is analyzed using the data for the period 1991-2021 with fractional fourier approaches.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that agriculture increases the ecological footprint, whereas renewable energy consumption reduces the ecological footprint.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Yenilenebilir Enerji · Tarım · GSYİH

Abstract

For Indonesia, the energy-environment nexus and agriculture have an important place in terms of analyzing ecological degradation. Renewable energy consumption and correct agricultural practices contribute positively to environmental sustainability. The energy that agriculture, which is important especially for the growing population, is based on is very important. In other words, agriculture's source from non-renewable energy will cause environmental degradation. At this point, the effect of agriculture and renewable energy consumption on the ecological footprint is an important issue that needs to be addressed. For this purpose, in Indonesia, one of the important agricultural countries, the effect of renewable energy consumption and agriculture on the ecological footprint is analyzed. The relationship in question is analyzed using the data for the period 1991-2021 with fractional fourier approaches. Analyses are made with Fractional Frequency Fourier ADF Unit Root Test and Fractional Frequency Fourier-ADL Cointegration Test. As a result of the unit root examination, it is revealed that the variables are stationary in terms of difference. Then, the existence of a cointegration relationship is determined. FMOLS and DOLS are applied as coefficient estimators. As a result of the analysis, it is concluded that agriculture increases the ecological footprint, whereas renewable energy consumption reduces the ecological footprint.

Özet

Endonezya için enerji-çevre bağlantısı ve tarım ekolojik bozulmanın analiz edilmesi noktasında önemli bir yere sahiptir. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve doğru tarım uygulamaları çevresel sürdürülebilirliğe olumlu katkı sunmaktadır. Özellikle büyüyen nüfus için önemli olan tarımın dayandığı enerji çok önemlidir. Yani tarımın kaynağını, yenilenemeyen enerjiden alması çevresel bozulmaya sebep olacaktır. Bu noktada, tarım ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izine etkisi ele alınması gereken önemli bir konudur. Bu amaçla önemli tarım ülkelerinden biri olan Endonezya’da, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve tarımın ekolojik ayak izine etkisi analiz edilmiştir. Söz konusu ilişki 1991-2021 dönemini verileri kullanılarak, kesirli fourier yaklaşımlarıyla analiz edilmiştir. Kesirli Frekanslı Fourier ADF Birim Kök Testi ve Kesirli Frekanslı Fourier-ADL Eşbütünleşme Testi ile analizler yapılmıştır. Birim kök incelemesi neticesinde değişkenlerin fark itibariyle durağan olduğu ortaya konulmuştur. Sonrasında ise eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Katsayı tahmincisi olarak FMOLS ve DOLS uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonucunda, tarımın ekolojik ayak izini arttırdığı buna karşın yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izini azalttığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tatar, H. E. (2026). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GDP, RENEWABLE ENERGY, AGRICULTURE AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS FOR INDONESIA. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2, 1000–1017. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1702701

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Abdunnur, A. (2020). Nexus of fisheries and agriculture production and urbanization on ecological footprint: New evidence from Indonesian economy. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(3), 190-195.
  2. Acevedo-Ramos J.A., Valencia, C.F., & Valencia, C.D. (2023). The Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Colombia: Impact of economic development on greenhouse gas emissions and ecological footprint. Sustainability, 15, 3738.
  3. Adebayo, T. S., Kartal, M. T., Ağa, M., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). Role of country risks and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Evidence from MINT countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 327, 116884.
  4. AEDS. (2025). Renewable energy target of Indonesia, https://aseanenergy.org/policy/renewable-energy-target-of-indonesia/ sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 18.02.2025.
  5. 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.
  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.
  7. Alola, A. A., Akadiri, S. S., & Usman, O. (2021). Domestic material consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-28 countries: Implications for environmental sustainability targets. Sustainable Development, 29, 388-397.
  8. Alola, A. A., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 685, 702-709.
  9. Ansari, M. A. (2022). Re-visiting the Environmental Kuznets curve for ASEAN: A comparison between ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112867.
  10. Banerjee, P., Arčabić, V., & Lee, H. (2017). Fourier ADL cointegration test to approximate smooth breaks with new evidence from crude oil market. Economic Modelling, 67, 114-124.
  11. Becker, R., Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2006). A stationary test in the presence of an unknown number of smoot breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
  12. Bekun, F. V., Uzuner, G., Meo, M. S., & Yadav, A. (2024). Another look at energy consumption and environmental sustainability target through the lens of the load capacity factor: Accessing evidence from MINT economies. In Natural Resources Forum, 1-18.
  13. Bello M.O., Solarin S. A., & Yen, YY (2018). The impact of electricity consumption on CO2 emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and ecological footprint: The role of hydropower in an emerging economy. J Environ Manage, 219, 218–230.
  14. Bozoklu, S., Yilanci, V., & Gorus, M.S. (2020). Persistence in per capita energy consumption: A Fractional Integration approach with a Fourier Function. Energy Economics, 91,104926.
  15. Caglar, A. E., Mert, M., & Boluk, G. (2021). Testing the role of information and communication technologies and renewable energy consumption in ecological footprint quality: Evidence from world top 10 pollutant footprint countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 298, 126784.
  16. Christopoulos, D.K., & Leon-Ledesma, M.A. (2011). International output convergence, breaks, and asymmetric adjustment. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics. 15(3).
  17. Danish, 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.
  18. Dom, G. E. (2024). Integrating ecological footprint in spatial planning: assessing land use, food security, and sustainability in Indonesia. Spatial Planning & Management Science, 1(2), 82-88.
  19. Engle, R. F & Granger, C.W.J. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251-276.
  20. Ewing, B., Goldfinger, S., Wackernagel, M., Stechbart, M., Rizk, S.M., Reed, A., & Kitzes, J. (2008). The Ecological Footprint Atlas. Global Footprint Network.
  21. Fajriyah, L., Kuntjoro, Y. D., Murtiana, S., & Millatie, P. A. (2024). The carbon footprint of fossil power plants and potential opportunities for renewable energy (palm oil biodiesel) to reduce carbon emissions in Indonesia. International Journal Of Humanities Education And Social Sciences, 3(4), 1962-1967.
  22. Georgescu, I., & Kinnunen, J. (2024). Effects of FDI, GDP and energy use on ecological footprint in Finland: An ARDL approach. World Development Sustainability, 4, 100157.
  23. GFN (2025). Ecological Footprint, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 18.01.2025.
  24. Granger, C. W. (1981). Some properties of time series data and their use in econometric model specification. Journal of Econometrics, 16, 121-130.
  25. Grossman, G.M., & A.B. Krueger (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
  26. Idroes, G. M., Hardi, I., Rahman, M. H., Afjal, M., Noviandy, T. R., & Idroes, R. (2024). The dynamic impact of non-renewable and renewable energy on carbon dioxide emissions and ecological footprint in Indonesia. Carbon Research, 3(1), 35.
  27. Idroes, G. M., Hilal, I. S., Hafizah, I., Hamaguchi, Y., de Bruyn, C., Agustina, M.,. & Stancu, S. (2025). do natural disasters, fossil fuels, and renewable energy affect CO2 emissions and the ecological footprint?. Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, 3(1), 47-63.
  28. Ilkay, S. C., Yılancı, V., Ulucak, R., & Jones, K. (2021). Technology spillovers and sustainable environment: Evidence from time-series analyses with Fourier extension. Journal of Environmental Management, 294, 113033.
  29. IRENA. (2022). Indonesia Energy Transition Outlook. https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2022/Oct/IRENA_Indonesia_energy_transition_outlook_2022.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 17.01.2025.
  30. Jaelani, A., Firdaus, S., & Jumena, J. (2017). Renewable energy policy in Indonesia: The Qur’anic scientific signals in Islamic economics perspective. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7(4), 193-204.
  31. Javed, A., Rapposelli, A., Khan, F., & Javed, A. (2023). The impact of green technology innovation, environmental taxes, and renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Italy: Fresh evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, 122534.
  32. Karaçay Çakmak, H. (2003). Kalkınma iktisadı literatüründe gelişme kavramının evrimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 21(2), 49-68.
  33. Kumaran, V. V., Ridzuan, A. R., Senadjki, A., Kanaan, A. M. J., & Esquivias, M. A. (2024). The impacts of income inequality, forest area, and technology innovations on ecological footprint in Indonesia: ARDL and ML approach. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 373.
  34. Kurniawan, R., Kusuma, A. C., Sumargo, B., Gio, P. U., Wongsonadi, S. K., & Sasmita, K. (2024). The role of renewable energy and foreign direct investment toward environmental degradation convergence to achieve sustainability: evidence from ASEAN countries. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(6), 2312-2335.
  35. Kurniawan, R., Nugroho, N. A. A., Fudholi, A., Purwanto, A., Sumargo, B., Gio, P. U., & Wongsonadi, S. K. (2024). The ecological footprint of industrial value added and energy consumption in Indonesia. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(5), 1127-1153.
  36. Li, L., Ali, A., Li, S., & Zhang, T. (2023). A dynamic relationship between renewable energy, agriculture, globalization, and ecological footprint of the five most populous countries in Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
  37. Mattila, T. (2012). Any sustainable decoupling in the Finnish economy? A comparison of the pathways and sensitivities of GDP and ecological footprint 2002–2005. Ecological Indicators, 16, 128-134.
  38. Mrabet, Z., & Alsamara, M. (2017). Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 70, 1366-1375.
  39. Muoneke, O. B., Okere, K. I., & Nwaeze, C. N. (2022). Agriculture, globalization, and ecological footprint: the role of agriculture beyond the tipping point in the Philippines. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(36), 54652-54676.
  40. NaderiMahdei, K., Bahrami, A., Aazami, M., & Sheklabadi, M. (2015). Assessment of agricultural farming systems sustainability in Hamedan province: Using ecological footprint analysis (case study: irrigated wheat). Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 17, 1409-1420.
  41. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86(5), 2057-2070.
  42. Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Sharma, G., & Shah, M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 19616-19629.
  43. Omay, T. (2015). Fractional frequency flexible fourier form to approximate smooth breaks in unit root testing. Econ. Letters, 134, 123–126.
  44. Orhan, G. (2004). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma, ekolojik modernizasyon ve Türkiye çevre politikası. Çevre Bilim & Teknoloji, 2(1), 13-28.
  45. Özkan, Ş., & Miçooğulları, S. A. (2024). Türkiye’de çevresel sürdürülebilirlik: Ekonomik büyüme, tarım, yenilenebilir enerji ve ticaretin rolleri. İçinde E. Karapınar Kocağ & M. İnce Yenilmez (Ed.). Güncel Mikro İktisat Uygulamaları. Gaziantep.
  46. Pata, U. K. (2021). Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy, 173, 197-208.
  47. Purwanto, S. K., Sinaga, O., & Sidik, M. H. J. (2021). Culprits of increased non-renewable energy consumption in Indonesia: Role of inflation, poverty and debts. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(6), 560-566.
  48. Qiao, H., Zheng, F., Jiang, H., & Dong, K. (2019). The greenhouse effect of the agriculture-economic growth-renewable energy nexus: Evidence from G20 countries. Science of the Total Environment, 671, 722-731.
  49. Raihan, A., Tanchangya, T., Rahman, J., & Ridwan, M. (2024). The influence of agriculture, renewable energy, international trade, and economic growth on India’s environmental sustainability. Journal of Environmental and Energy Economics, 3(1), 37-53.
  50. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Ridwan, M., Akter, S., Ridzuan, A. R., Wahjoedi,. & Ismail, N. A. (2024). Indonesia’s path to sustainability: exploring the ıntersections of ecological footprint, technology, global trade, financial development and renewable energy. In Opportunities and Risks in AI for Business Development, 1, (1-13).
  51. Rees, W.E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4, 121–130.
  52. Salari, T. E., Roumiani, A., & Kazemzadeh, E. (2021). Globalization, renewable energy consumption, and agricultural production impacts on ecological footprint in emerging countries: Using quantile regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 49627-49641.
  53. Santoso, E., Aulia, B., Siswanto, V., & Ilma, A. (2017). Ecological footprint abalysis for regional development in Mojokerto Regency, East Java Province-Indonesia. Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology. 368.
  54. Saqib, N. (2022). Nexus between the renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption and carbon footprints: Evidence from Asian emerging economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(38), 58326-58340.
  55. Sarkodie, S.A., & Owusu, P.A. (2016). The relationship between carbon dioxide and agriculture in Ghana: A comparison of VECM and ARDL model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 10968-10982.
  56. Ullah, A.; Tekbaş, M., & Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the EF: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15, 12855.
  57. Valencia, Y., & Zhang, E. S. (2022). Assessing the Impact of GDP, agriculture, forestry, and fishing value added, and livestock production ındex on CO2 emissions in the Philippines. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting Studies, 4(1), 516-535.
  58. Van Tran, H., Tran, A. V., Bui Hoang, N., & Mai, T. N. H. (2024). Asymmetric effects of foreign direct investment and globalization on ecological footprint in Indonesia. Plos one, 19(1), e0297046.
  59. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
  60. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Moran, D., Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S., Deumling, D. & Murray, M. (2005). National footprint and biocapacity accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method, Global Footprint Network Advancing The Sciences og Sustainability, 1-33.
  61. Worldbank (2023). World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 16.11.2024.
  62. Yılmaz, V. (2017). Yeşil büyüme ve Türkiye'de uygulanabilirliği (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi) Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sivas.
  63. Zeraibi, A., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Murshed, M. (2021). The influences of renewable electricity generation, technological innovation, financial development, and economic growth on ecological footprints in ASEAN-5 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(37), 51003-51021.
  64. Idroes, G. M., Hilal, I. S., Hafizah, I., Hamaguchi, Y., de Bruyn, C., Agustina, M.,. & Stancu, S. (2025). do natural disasters, fossil fuels, and renewable energy affect CO2 emissions and the ecological footprint?. Ekonomikalia Journal of Economics, 3(1), 47-63.
  65. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Ridwan, M., Akter, S., Ridzuan, A. R., Wahjoedi,. & Ismail, N. A. (2024). Indonesia’s path to sustainability: exploring the ıntersections of ecological footprint, technology, global trade, financial development and renewable energy. In Opportunities and Risks in AI for Business Development, 1, (1-13).