SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1

The Effects of Natural Resource Use, Renewable Energy, Financial Development, Technological Innovation, Foreign Direct Investment, and GDP per Capita on Environmental Pollution: Evidence from G7 Countries

Doğal Kaynak Kullanımı, Yenilenebilir Enerji, Finansal Gelişme, Teknolojik Yenilik, Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım ve Kişi Başına GSYİH’nın Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkileri: G7 Ülkelerinden Kanıtlar

Nur Esra Bekereci(KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4625-5132
İlyas Okumuş(KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2225-4215
Mustafa Hakan Şimşek(KAHRAMANMARAŞ SÜTÇÜ İMAM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3488-0902
Pages
56–66
Publication Date
2026-02-24
🏛️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)

Overall, the findings emphasize the need for policy frameworks that align with sustainable development goals.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the relationships between natural resource use, renewable energy consumption, financial development, information and communication technologies (ICT), foreign direct investment (FDI), and per capita GDP in G7 countries over the period 1981–2022, with the ecological footprint considered as an indicator of environmental sustainability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis begins with Westerlund’s (2007) panel cointegration test to confirm the presence of a long-run equilibrium relationship and then employs Pesaran’s (2006) Common Correlated Effects Mean Group (CCE-MG) estimator to assess long-term effects.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the findings emphasize the need for policy frameworks that align with sustainable development goals.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekolojik Ayak İzi · Sürdürülebilir Gelişim · G7 Ülkeleri

Abstract

This study examines the relationships between natural resource use, renewable energy consumption, financial development, information and communication technologies (ICT), foreign direct investment (FDI), and per capita GDP in G7 countries over the period 1981–2022, with the ecological footprint considered as an indicator of environmental sustainability. The analysis begins with Westerlund’s (2007) panel cointegration test to confirm the presence of a long-run equilibrium relationship and then employs Pesaran’s (2006) Common Correlated Effects Mean Group (CCE-MG) estimator to assess long-term effects. The results support the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis, showing that economic growth at first worsens environmental quality but later contributes to improvements as income rises. In addition, renewable energy use and ICT development help to ease environmental pressures, while natural resource dependence and financial development increase them. FDI, however, is found to have no significant impact. Overall, the findings emphasize the need for policy frameworks that align with sustainable development goals.

Özet

Bu çalışma, 1981–2022 döneminde G7 ülkeleri için ekolojik ayak izini sürdürülebilir çevresel performans göstergesi olarak değerlendirerek doğal kaynak kullanımı, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, finansal gelişme, bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri, doğrudan yabancı yatırım ve kişi başına GSYİH ilişkilerini analiz etmektedir. Çalışmada panel eşbütünleşme testi ile uzun dönem denge ilişkisi doğrulanmış, ardından CCE-MG tahmincisiyle uzun vadeli etkiler incelenmiştir. Ampirik bulgular, ekonomik büyümenin başlangıçta çevresel bozulmayı artırdığını, ancak gelir düzeyi yükseldiğinde çevrenin iyileştiğini göstererek Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (ÇKE) hipotezini desteklemektedir. Yenilenebilir enerji ile bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri (BİT) çevre üzerinde azaltıcı etki yaparken; doğal kaynak kullanımının ve finansal gelişmenin çevresel baskıyı artırdığı, doğrudan yabancı yatırımların ise anlamlı etkisinin olmadığı bulunmuştur. Çalışma, sürdürülebilir büyüme hedefleriyle uyumlu politika çerçevelerine ihtiyaç olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bekereci, N. E., Okumuş, İ., Şimşek, M. H. (2026). The Effects of Natural Resource Use, Renewable Energy, Financial Development, Technological Innovation, Foreign Direct Investment, and GDP per Capita on Environmental Pollution: Evidence from G7 Countries. Akdeniz İİBF Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 1, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.25294/auiibfd.1778005

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (75)

  1. Adebayo, T. S., Ullah, S., Kartal, M. T., Ali, K., Pata, U. K., & Ağa, M. (2023). Endorsing sustainable development in BRICS: The role of technological innovation, renewable energy consumption, and natural resources in limiting carbon emission. Science of the Total Environment, 859, 160181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160181
  2. Al-Mulali, U., Saboori, B., & Ozturk, I. (2015a). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy, 76, 123-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.019
  3. Al-Mulali, U., Tang, C. F., & Ozturk, I. (2015). Does financial development reduce environmental degradation? Evidence from a panel study of 129 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(19), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4726-x
  4. Alssadek, M., & Benhin, J. (2023). Natural resource curse: A literature survey and comparative assessment of regional groupings of oil-rich countries. Resources Policy, 84, 103741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103741
  5. Ang, J.B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4772-4778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.03.032
  6. Aytun, C., Erdogan, S., Pata, U. K., & Cengiz, O. (2024). Associating environmental quality, human capital, financial development and technological innovation in 19 middle-income countries: A disaggregated ecological footprint approach. Technology in Society, 76, 102445.
  7. Bah, M. M., Abdulwakil, M. M., & Azam, M. (2020). Income heterogeneity and the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Sub-Saharan African countries. GeoJournal, 85, 617–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708- 019-09985-1
  8. Birol, Y. E. (2021). Düzeltme: Doğal gaz arz güvenliği açısından Avrupa birliği ülkeleri ve Türkiye üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (44), 451-467. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.940976
  9. Boutabba, M. A. (2014). The impact of financial development, income, energy and trade on carbon emissions: evidence from the Indian economy. Economic Modelling, 40, 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2014.03.005
  10. Bölük, G., & Mert, M. (2014). Fossil & renewable energy consumption, GHGs (greenhouse gases) and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of EU (European Union) countries. Energy, 74, 439-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.008
  11. Cao, Y., & Xiang, S. (2023). Natural resources volatility and causal associations for BRICS countries: Evidence from Covid-19 data. Resources Policy, 80, 103165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103165
  12. Cole, M. A., Elliott, R. J., & Fredriksson, P. G. (2006). Endogenous pollution havens: Does FDI influence environmental regulations?. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 108(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2006.00439.x
  13. Çakmak, A. İ., & Tosun, B. (2017). Economic growth–income distribution relation: Investigation of Kuznets hypothesis on selected countries. Kocaeli University Journal of Social Sciences, 33, 33–44.
  14. Dar, J. A. ve Asif, M. (2018). Does financial development improve environmental quality in Turkey? An application of endogenous structural breaks based cointegration approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 29(2), 368-384. doi:10.1108/MEQ-02-2017-0021.
  15. Demirgil, B., & Birol, Y. E. (2020). Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye için bir Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 68-83.
  16. Destek, M. A. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin Türkiye için incelenmesi: STIRPAT modelinden bulgular. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 268–283.
  17. 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
  18. Ekins, P. (1997). The Kuznets curve for the environment and economic growth: Examining the evidence. Environment and Planning a, 29(5), 805-830. https://doi.org/10.1068/a290805
  19. Erdogan, S., Pata, U. K., & Solarin, S. A. (2023). Towards carbon-neutral world: The effect of renewable energy investments and technologies in G7 countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 186, 113683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113683
  20. 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.
  21. Farhani, S., & Ozturk, I. (2015). Causal relationship between CO 2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 15663-15676.
  22. Feng, L., Shang, S., Gao, X., An, S., & Han, X. (2023). CO2 emissions are first aggravated and then alleviated with economic growth in China: A new multidimensional EKC analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(13), 37516-37534.
  23. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement, NBER Working Paper Series, 3914
  24. Han, J., Raghutla, C., Chittedi, K. R., Tan, Z., & Koondhar, M. A. (2022). How natural resources affect financial development? Fresh evidence from top-10 natural resource abundant countries. Resources Policy, 76, 102647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resourpol.2022.102647
  25. Hoffmann, R., Lee, C. G., Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association, 17(3), 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1196
  26. Ikram, M., Zhang, Q., Sroufe, R. & Shah, SZA (2020). Towards a sustainable environment: The nexus between ISO 14001, renewable energy consumption, access to electricity, agriculture and CO₂ emissions in SAARC countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 22, 218-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.03.011
  27. Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). The role of renewable versus non-renewable energy to the level of CO2 emissions a panel analysis of sub-Saharan Africa’s Βig 10 electricity generators. Renewable Energy, 123, 36-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.041
  28. Iwata, H., Okada, K., & Samreth, S. (2010). Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: The role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4057-4063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.031
  29. Kaika, D., & Zervas, E. (2013). The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory—Part A: Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy policy, 62, 1392-1402.
  30. Karaca, C. (2012). Ekonomik kalkınma ve çevre kirliliği ilişkisi: Gelişmekte olan ülkeler üzerine ampirik bir analiz. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 21(3), 139-156.
  31. Kaypak, Ş. (2013). Çevre sorunlarının çözümünde küresel çevre politikalarının önemi. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31, 17-34.
  32. Ke, H., Dai, S., & Yu, H. (2022). Effect of green innovation efficiency on ecological footprint in 283 Chinese cities from 2008 to 2018. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(2), 2841-2860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01556-0
  33. Keller, W., & Levinson, A. (1999). Environmental compliance costs and foreign direct investment inflows to US states, NBER Working Paper Series. 7369. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w7369
  34. Kumaş, K., Akyüz, A. Ö., Zaman, M., & Güngör, A. (2019). Sürdürülebilir bir çevre için karbon ayak izi tespiti: MAKÜ Bucak Sağlık Yüksekokulu örneği. El-Cezeri, 6(1), 108-117. https://doi.org/10.31202/ecjse.459478
  35. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 2-28.
  36. Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K., & Eng, Y. K. (2014). Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: Do foreign direct investment and trade matter?. Energy Policy, 68, 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.002
  37. Lean, H. H., & Smyth, R. (2010). CO2 emissions, electricity consumption and output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, 87, 1858-1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.02.003
  38. Li, R., Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, 131207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131207
  39. Mersmann, K. (2021, November 17). Reducing emissions to mitigate climate change could yield dramatic health benefits by 2030. NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/earth-and-climate/reducing-emissions-to-mitigate-climate-change-could-yield-dramatic-health-benefits-by-2030/
  40. Mughal, N., Arif, A., Jain, V., Chupradit, S., Shabbir, M. S., Ramos-Meza, C. S., & Zhanbayev, R. (2022). The role of technological innovation in environmental pollution, energy consumption and sustainable economic growth: Evidence from South Asian economies. Energy Strategy Reviews, 39, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100745
  41. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86(5), 2057-2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10175-7
  42. Nathaniel, S. P., Adeleye, N., & Adedoyin, F. F. (2021). Natural resource abundance, renewable energy, and ecological footprint linkage in MENA countries. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.25115/EEA.V39I2.3927
  43. Nejati, M., & Shah, M. I. (2023). How does ICT trade shape environmental impacts across the north-south regions? Intra-regional and Inter-regional perspective from dynamic CGE model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186, 122168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122168
  44. Ozturk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics, 36, 262-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.025
  45. Özpolat, A., & Özsoy, F. N. (2021). Yenilenebilir enerji kaynakları çevresel bozulmayı azaltıyor mu? Türkiye örneği. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 13(24), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.794600
  46. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (No. 992927783402676). International Labour Organization.
  47. Panayotou, T. (2000). Economic growth and the environment (CID Working Paper Series 2000.56). Harvard University, Cambridge.
  48. Persyn, D., & Westerlund, J. (2008). Error-correction–based cointegration tests for panel data. The Stata Journal, 8(2), 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0800800205
  49. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1.
  50. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
  51. Pesaran, M. H., & Tosetti, E. (2011). Large panels with common factors and spatial correlation. Journal of Econometrics, 161(2), 182-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.12.003
  52. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  53. Qian, X., Wang, D., Wang, J., Chen, S., 2021. Resource curse, environmental regulation and transformation of coal-mining cities in China. Resources Policy. 74, 101447 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101447
  54. Saboori, B., Sulaiman, J., & Mohd, S. (2012). Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: A cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 51, 184-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.065
  55. Saidi, K., & Omri, A. (2020). Reducing CO2 emissions in OECD countries: Do renewable and nuclear energy matter?. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 126, 103425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2020.103425
  56. Sehrawat, M., Giri, A.K. ve Mohapatra, G. (2015). The impact of financial development, economic growth and energy consumption on environmental degradation. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 26(5), 666-682. doi:10.1108/MEQ-05-2014-0063
  57. Selden, T. M., & Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
  58. Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: Time-series and cross-country evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank Publications.
  59. Shahbaz, M., Dube, S., Ozturk, I., & Jalil, A. (2015). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Portugal. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(2), 475-481.
  60. Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S. A., Mahmood, H., & Arouri, M. (2013). Does financial development reduce CO2 emissions in Malaysian economy? A time series analysis. Economic Modelling, 35, 145-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.06.037
  61. Suki, N. M., Sharif, A., Afshan, S., & Suki, N. M. (2020). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia: The role of globalization in sustainable environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121669
  62. Şenpınar, A., & Gençoğlu, M. T. (2006). Yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarının çevresel etkileri açısından karşılaştırılması. Fırat Üniversitesi Doğu Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 49-54.
  63. Talu, N., Demir, M.E., Deniz, A. C., & Tosun, O. (2021) Türkiye’de iklim değişikliğine uyum eyleminin güçlendirilmesi projesi. https://iklimeuyum.org/dokumanlar/Turkiyede_Iklim_Degisikligine_Uyum_Calismalari.pdf
  64. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J. P., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.025
  65. Tekbaş, M. (2023). The relationship between financial innovation and environmental pollution in OECD countries. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 5(3), 195-207.
  66. Temelli, F. ve Şahin, D. (2019). Yükselen piyasa ekonomilerinde finansal gelişme, ekonomik büyüme ve teknolojik gelişmenin çevresel kalite üzerine etkisinin analizi. Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(2), 577-593. doi:10.14230/joiss706
  67. Tiwari, A. K., Shahbaz, M., & Hye, Q. M. A. (2013). The environmental Kuznets curve and the role of coal consumption in India: Cointegration and causality analysis in an open economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 519-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.031
  68. Türk, S. M. (2024). Yeşil teknoloji. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 33(1), 33-48.
  69. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., & Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855.
  70. Vo, D. H., Vo, A. T., Ho, C. M., & Nguyen, H. M. (2020). The role of renewable energy, alternative and nuclear energy in mitigating carbon emissions in the CPTPP countries. Renewable Energy, 161, 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.07.093
  71. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
  72. Xin, D., Zhi Sheng, Z., & Jiahui, S. (2022). How technological innovation influences environmental pollution: Evidence from China. Complexity, 2022(1), 5535310. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5535310
  73. Yavuz, N. Ç. (2014). CO2 emission, energy consumption, and economic growth for Turkey: Evidence from a cointegration test with a structural break. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 9(3), 229-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2011.567222
  74. Yıldırım, M., Destek, M. A., & Özsoy, F. N. (2017). Doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar ve kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 99-111.
  75. Qian, X., Wang, D., Wang, J., Chen, S., 2021. Resource curse, environmental regulation and transformation of coal-mining cities in China. Resources Policy. 74, 101447 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101447