SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 53

THE DYNAMİCS OF TOURİSM DEMAND İN TURKEY: AN ANALYSİS İN THE CONTEXT OF STRUCTURAL BREAKS

TÜRKİYE’DE TURİZM TALEBİNİN DİNAMİKLERİ: YAPISAL KIRILMALAR BAĞLAMINDA BİR ANALİZ

Zafer Dönmez(Adıyaman Üniversitesi)0000-0002-9748-4149
Canan Sancar(GÜMÜŞHANE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, KELKİT SAĞLIK HİZMETLERİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-4578-9573
Yusuf Ekrem Akbaş(ADIYAMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9355-2802
Pages
952–985
Publication Date
2026-08-12
🏛️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)

In contrast, it was found that in the model estimated using the dummy variable added to represent the COVID-19 pandemic, the coefficients became statistically significant and the model was robust.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study analyses the potential effects of the real exchange rate, inflation, the ecological footprint and the social globalisation index on the determinants of tourism arrivals in Turkey for the period 1990–2024.
📊
Key Findings & Data:However, the Lumsdaine-Papell (1997) unit root test, which accounts for structural breaks, reveals that some variables are stationary at levels, highlighting the sensitivity of conventional tests to structural changes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In contrast, it was found that in the model estimated using the dummy variable added to represent the COVID-19 pandemic, the coefficients became statistically significant and the model was robust.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Turizm talebi · ARDL · yapısal kırılmalar

Abstract

This study analyses the potential effects of the real exchange rate, inflation, the ecological footprint and the social globalisation index on the determinants of tourism arrivals in Turkey for the period 1990–2024. Firstly, the stationarity properties of the time series were examined using ADF and GLS unit root tests. The results of these tests indicated that all time series contain a unit root. However, the Lumsdaine-Papell (1997) unit root test, which accounts for structural breaks, reveals that some variables are stationary at levels, highlighting the sensitivity of conventional tests to structural changes. The identified break dates are mainly concentrated around the 2001 economic crisis and the 2019–2020 COVID-19 pandemic period. The long-run relationships among variables are analyzed using both a standard ARDL model without structural breaks and an extended ARDL model including a dummy variable for 2020. The findings show that the model without structural breaks yields largely insignificant coefficients and exhibits instability. In contrast, it was found that in the model estimated using the dummy variable added to represent the COVID-19 pandemic, the coefficients became statistically significant and the model was robust. According to the long-term results, social globalisation and the ecological footprint have a positive impact on tourist arrivals, while the real exchange rate and inflation have negative effects. The findings reveal that tourism demand is highly sensitive to structural disruptions and global shocks.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de 1990–2024 dönemi için turist girişlerinin belirleyicileri üzerinde reel döviz kuru, enflasyon, ekolojik ayak izi ve sosyal küreselleşme endeksinin olası etkileri analiz edilmiştir. Öncelikle serilerin durağanlık özellikleri ADF ve GLS birim kök testleri ile incelenmiştir. Bu testlerin sonuçları ile tüm serilerin birim kök içerdiği tespit edilmiştir. Ancak yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan Lumsdaine-Papell (1997) birim kök testi sonuçları, bazı değişkenlerin düzeyde durağan olduğunu ortaya koyarak test sonuçlarının kırılmalara duyarlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Elde edilen kırılma tarihlerinin özellikle 2001 ekonomik krizi ve 2019–2020 COVID-19 Pandemisi dönemlerinde yoğunlaştığı belirlenmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki uzun dönem ilişkiler, hem yapısal kırılma içermeyen standart ARDL modeli hem de 2020 yılı için kukla değişken içeren ARDL modeli ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, yapısal kırılmaların dikkate alınmadığı modelde katsayıların büyük ölçüde anlamsız ve modelin istikrarsız olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, COVID-19 Pandemisini temsilen eklenen kukla değişken ile tahmin edilen modelde hem katsayıların anlamlı hale geldiği hem de modelin istikrarlı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Uzun dönem sonuçlarına göre sosyal küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi turist girişlerini pozitif yönde etkilerken, reel döviz kuru ve enflasyonun negatif etkileri bulunmaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, turizm talebinin yapısal kırılmalara ve küresel şoklara son derece duyarlı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dönmez, Z., Sancar, C., Akbaş, Y. E. (2026). THE DYNAMİCS OF TOURİSM DEMAND İN TURKEY: AN ANALYSİS İN THE CONTEXT OF STRUCTURAL BREAKS. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı: 53, 952–985. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.1941888

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (36)

  1. Akar, G. & Sarıtaş, T. (2020). Küreselleşmenin Turizme Etkisi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. Turkish Studies- Economy, 15(3), 1087-1102. https://dx.doi.org/10.47644/TurkishStudies.45461.
  2. Balım, H. & Durgun, A. (2022). Türkiye’de Turizm Enflasyon İlişkisinin Ampirik Analizi. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 6(2), 279-303. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1187013.
  3. Bozkurt, K. & Pekmezci, A. (2015). Turizm Talebi ve Döviz Kuru Şokları: Türk Turizm Sektörü İçin Ekonometrik Bir Analiz. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 10(2), 91-106. https://izlik.org/JA56PM96FW.
  4. Darıcı, B., Aydın, A., Ayhan, F., & Altaylar, M. (2023). Macroeconomic Determinants of Tourism Demand Toward Emerging Markets. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 73(2), 837-864.
  5. De Vita, G., Katircioglu, S., Altinay, L. et al. (2015). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in a tourism development context. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22, 16652–16663, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4861-4.
  6. Duran, M. S., & Bozkaya, Ş. (2022). Investigation of the Relationship Between Tourism, Energy, Growth and Environment in Asia-Pacific Countries by Second Generation Panel Causality Test. Journal of Tourism & Gastronomy Studies, 10(3), 1887-1907. DOI: 10.21325/jotags.2022.1072.
  7. Elliott G., Rothenberg T. J., and Stock J. H. (1996). Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root. Econometrica 64: 813–836.
  8. Erkan, B., Kara, O., & Harbalıoğlu, M. (2013). Türkiye’de Turizm Gelirlerinin Belirleyicileri. Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 39, 1-20. https://izlik.org/JA77KY79HE.
  9. Gidebo, H. B. (2021). Factors Determining İnternational Tourist Flow to Tourism Destinations: A Systematic Review. Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism, 12(1), 9-17.
  10. Gozgor, G. & Demir, E. (2018). The Effects of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Outbound Travel Expenditures. Journal of competitiveness, 10(3), 5-15.
  11. Gössling, S.; Scott, D. & Hall, C. M. (2021). Pandemics, Tourism and Global Change: A Rapid Assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1-20.
  12. Hunter, C. (2002). Sustainable tourism and the touristic ecological footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4(1), 7–20.
  13. Hunter, C., & Shaw, J. (2007). The ecological footprint as a key indicator of sustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 28(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2005.07.016
  14. Ibragimov, K., Perles Ribes, J. F. & Ramón Rodríguez, A. B. (2022). The Economic Determinants of Tourism in Central Asia: A gravity model applied approach. Tourism Economics. 28(7).
  15. Katırcıoğlu, S.T. (2014). International Tourism, Energy Consumption, and Environmental Pollution: The Case of Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.36: 180-187.
  16. Khan, I., & Hou, F. (2021). The dynamic links among energy consumption, tourism growth, and the ecological footprint: the role of environmental quality in 38 IEA countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(5), 5049–5062.
  17. Krasniqi, S., Dreshaj, K., & Shala Dreshaj, F. (2023). Determinants of Tourism Demand in Selected Countries of Meta: Empirical Panel Analysis. DETUROPE- The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism, 15(1), 23-46. doi: 10.32725/det.2023.002.
  18. Lumsdaine, R. L. & Papell, D. H. (1997). Multiple Trend Breaks and The Unit-Root Hypothesis. Review of economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212-218.
  19. MacKinnon & James Gordon (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11(6):601-618.
  20. Mete, E. (2021). Küreselleşme ve Politik İstikrarın Turizm Üzerine Etkileri. Ekonomi Maliye İşletme Dergisi, 4(2), 170-182.
  21. Mishra, D. R. (2025). Sustainable Ecotourism Practices and Destination Choice: Perspectives from Tourists. Available at SSRN 5235678.
  22. Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock, and The Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 1361-1401.
  23. Sahoo, M., Mohanty, P. P., Kaushik, S., Islam, M. K., & Rourt, L. (2024). Ecotourism or ecological concerns? Tracing the impact of economic policy uncertainty and natural resources on tourism-driven ecological footprints. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(21), 31314–31330.
  24. Shpak, N., Bondarenko, Yu., Sroka, W., Kulyniak, I., Tsymbalista, N. and Prosovych, O. (2022). Strategic Planning of the Recreational and Tourist İndustry Development: The Ukrainian Evidence. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge, 10(1), 100-122. doi:10.37335/ijek. v10i1.158.
  25. Song, H., Li, G., & Cao, Z. (2017). Tourism and Economic Globalization: An Emerging Research Agenda. Journal of Travel Research, 57(8), 999-1011.
  26. Sungur, O.; Bozkurt, E. & Altıner, A. (2023). Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Turizm İlişkisinin GUW Eşbütünleşme Testi ile Analizi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 15(29), 293-308. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1316865.
  27. Şeker, H., & Avşar, M. (2023). The Tourism-Based Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: Evidence from the Turkish Economy. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 16(2), 479-496.
  28. T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. (2026). Turizm gelirleri ve giderleri. Erişim adresi: https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/tr-201116/turizm-gelirleri-ve-giderleri.html.
  29. Tung, L. (2019). Does Exchange Rate Affect The Foreign Tourist Arrivals? Evidence in an Emerging Tourist Market. Management Science Letters. 9(8), 1141-1152.
  30. Ulucak, R., Yücel, A. G., & İlkay, S. Ç. (2020). Dynamics of Tourism Demand in Turkey: Panel Data Analysis Using Gravity Model. Tourism Economics, 26(8), 1394- 1414. ttps://doi.org/10.1177/1354816620901956.
  31. UNWTO. (2023). International Tourism Highlights (2023 ed.). World Tourism Organization.
  32. World Bank. (2023). World Development Indicators: International Tourism, Number of Arrivals (Turkey) and International Tourism Receipts. Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/.
  33. Yaylı, G. (2025). Türk Turizm Sektörünün Uluslararası Rekabetçiliği Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz (Doktora Tezi). Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bursa.
  34. Yıldız, G. A. & Yıldız, B. (2022). Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Çerçevesinde Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Türkiye Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz. Sayıştay Dergisi, 33(126), 473-498.
  35. Yurdakul, F., & Özgencil, G. (2017). Türkiye’deki Turizm Gelirinin Belirleyicileri ve Alternatif Turizm Gelirlerinin Önemi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 173-186. https://izlik.org/JA45AY36UU.
  36. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and The Unit-Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251–270. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1391541.