SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Agriculture / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 4

The Effects of Environmental Taxes, Sustainable Development, and Environmental Protection Expenditures on the Ecological Footprint: Panel Data Evidence from European Union Countries

Yasin Söğüt(KASTAMONU ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7274-0591
Ahmet Bağcı(Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı)0000-0002-2029-6641
Mohammad Qudratullah0009-0002-8430-3967
Pages
591–602
Publication Date
2026-07-15
🏛️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 environmental taxes have a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the effects of environmental taxes, sustainable development level, and environmental protection expenditures on the ecological footprint in European Union countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analysis is conducted using a balanced panel dataset covering 24 countries over the period 1995-2021.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that environmental taxes have a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2021 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ecological footprint · Environmental taxes · Environmental protection expenditures

Abstract

This study examines the effects of environmental taxes, sustainable development level, and environmental protection expenditures on the ecological footprint in European Union countries. The analysis is conducted using a balanced panel dataset covering 24 countries over the period 1995-2021. The ecological footprint is used as the dependent variable, while environmental taxes, the Sustainable Development Index, and environmental protection expenditures are included as explanatory variables. The empirical procedure includes descriptive statistics, the VIF test, cross-sectional dependence tests, the Fisher-ADF panel unit root test, panel model selection tests, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation diagnostics, Park-Kmenta FGLS and Beck-Katz PCSE estimations, the Delta homogeneity test, and the Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test. The findings reveal that environmental taxes have a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint. In contrast, the Sustainable Development Index and environmental protection expenditures have negative and statistically significant effects, indicating that improvements in sustainable development performance and environmental protection spending contribute to reducing ecological pressure. The causality results also suggest dynamic interactions between the ecological footprint and the explanatory variables. Based on these findings, environmental taxes should be designed not merely as revenue-generating instruments but as policy tools that effectively transform environmental behavior, while environmental protection expenditures should be allocated in a more targeted and performance-oriented manner.

Özet

This study examines the effects of environmental taxes, sustainable development level, and environmental protection expenditures on the ecological footprint in European Union countries. The analysis is conducted using a balanced panel dataset covering 24 countries over the period 1995-2021. The ecological footprint is used as the dependent variable, while environmental taxes, the Sustainable Development Index, and environmental protection expenditures are included as explanatory variables. The empirical procedure includes descriptive statistics, the VIF test, cross-sectional dependence tests, the Fisher-ADF panel unit root test, panel model selection tests, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation diagnostics, Park-Kmenta FGLS and Beck-Katz PCSE estimations, the Delta homogeneity test, and the Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test. The findings reveal that environmental taxes have a positive and statistically significant effect on the ecological footprint. In contrast, the Sustainable Development Index and environmental protection expenditures have negative and statistically significant effects, indicating that improvements in sustainable development performance and environmental protection spending contribute to reducing ecological pressure. The causality results also suggest dynamic interactions between the ecological footprint and the explanatory variables. Based on these findings, environmental taxes should be designed not merely as revenue-generating instruments but as policy tools that effectively transform environmental behavior, while environmental protection expenditures should be allocated in a more targeted and performance-oriented manner.

🔖

Cite This Article

Söğüt, Y., Bağcı, A., Qudratullah, M. (2026). The Effects of Environmental Taxes, Sustainable Development, and Environmental Protection Expenditures on the Ecological Footprint: Panel Data Evidence from European Union Countries. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 4, 591–602. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1963380

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A., & Hussain, N. (2022). Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and ecological footprint: Exploring the role of environmental regulations and democracy in sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 595-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2251
  2. Aydın, A. H., & Çamur, Ö. (2017). Avrupa Birliği çevre politikaları ve çevre eylem programları üzerine bir inceleme. Bingöl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(13), 21-44.
  3. Barrell, A., Dobrzanski, P., Bobowski, S., Siuda, K., & Chmielowiec, S. (2021). Efficiency of environmental protection expenditures in EU countries. Energies, 14(24), 8443. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248443
  4. Berigel, S., & Eroğlu, İ. (2025). N-11 ülkelerinde ekonomik karmaşıklık ve bm sürdürülebilir kalkınma endeksi ilişkisi: Dumıtrescu-Hurlın panel nedensellik analizi. Uluslararası Sosyal ve Ekonomik Çalışmalar Dergisi, 6(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.62001/gsijses.1624922
  5. Bilgin, E., & Yildirim, Z. (2023). Çevre vergisi ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye ve seçili AB üye ülkeleri üzerine ampirik bir inceleme. Maliye Araştırmaları-6, 2023, 71.
  6. Bişgin, A. (2025). Türkiye’de Çevre Vergileri Ekolojik Ayak İzini Azaltmada Etkin mi? Fourier Yaklaşımı. MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 14(4), 1557-1569. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.1504481
  7. Bozoğlu, O., & Ciğerim, E. (2022). Sürdürülebilirlik, sürdürülebilir kalkinma ve sürdürülebilir üniversiteler. Socrates Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Researches, 8(18), 146-158. https://doi.org/10.51293/socrates.273
  8. Broniewicz, E. (2011). Environmental protection expenditure in European Union. Environmental Management in Practice, 21(36), 2-28.
  9. Çağlar, A. E., & Yavuz, E. (2023). The role of environmental protection expenditures and renewable energy consumption in the context of ecological challenges: Insights from the European Union with the novel panel econometric approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 331, 117317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117317
  10. Campbell, B. M., Hansen, J., Rioux, J., Stirling, C. M., & Twomlow, S. (2018). Urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (SDG 13): transforming agriculture and food systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 34, 13-20.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.06.005
  11. Çelikay, F. (2024). Doğal kaynaklarin verimli kullanimi ve gelecek nesiller için sürdürülebilir bir dünya inşasi üzerine. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi, Tasarruf Ekonomisi ve Sürdürülebilirlik Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi.
  12. Chen, M., Jiandong, W., & Saleem, H. (2022). The role of environmental taxes and stringent environmental policies in attaining the environmental quality: Evidence from OECD and non-OECD countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 972354. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.972354
  13. Çokgezen, J. (2007). Avrupa Birliği çevre politikası ve Türkiye. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(2), 91-115. https://izlik.org/JA82MC92DD
  14. Coşkun, S. (2024). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri, neoliberalizm ve çalışma hayatı: Türkiye, OECD ülkeleri ve dünya üzerine bir inceleme. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 19(2), 289-312. https://doi.org/10.17550/akademikincelemeler.1400985
  15. Fang, G., Yang, K., Chen, G., Ren, X., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2023). Exploring the effectiveness of fiscal decentralization in environmental expenditure based on the CO2 ecological footprint in urban China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02227-3
  16. Glasby, G. P. (2002). Sustainable development: The need for a new paradigm. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4(4), 333-345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024138010770
  17. Global Footprint Network. (2026). Global Footprint Network data platform. Retrieved May 4, 2026, from https://data.footprintnetwork.org/
  18. International Monetary Fund. (2026). Climate data. Retrieved May 4, 2026, from https://climatedata.imf.org/datasets/d22a6decd9b147fd9040f793082b219b_0/explore
  19. Işık Taçyıldız, S. Ş. (2025). Prediction of albumen height based on egg quality traitsby principal components regression. Black Sea Journal of Statistics, 1(2), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18234774
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122534
  21. Kapçak, S. (2024). Döngüsel ekonomi bileşenlerinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi: Panel veri analizi. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 8(1), 124-138. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1425770
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32214-3
  23. Kılınç, E. C. (2021). Ekolojik ayak izi-enerji ar-ge harcamaları ilişkisi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 527-541. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.723064
  24. Krajewski, P. (2016). The impact of public environmental protection expenditure on economic growth. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 11(2), 99-104.
  25. Lee, C. C., & Chang, C. P. (2008). New evidence on the convergence of per capita carbon dioxide emissions from panel seemingly unrelated regressions augmented Dickey–Fuller tests. Energy, 33(9), 1468-1475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.05.002
  26. Li, X., Xiao, L., Tian, C., Zhu, B., & Chevallier, J. (2022). Impacts of the ecological footprint on sustainable development: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352, 131472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131472
  27. Magoti, E., Mabula, S., & Ngong’ho, S. B. (2020). Triple deficit hypothesis: A panel ARDL and Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality for East African countries. African Journal of Economic Review, 8(1), 144-161.
  28. Moran, D. D., Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J. A., Goldfinger, S. H., & Boutaud, A. (2008). Measuring sustainable development—Nation by nation. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 470-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.017
  29. Murshed, M., Rahman, M. A., Alam, M. S., Ahmad, P., & Dagar, V. (2021). The nexus between environmental regulations, economic growth, and environmental sustainability: linking environmental patents to ecological footprint reduction in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 49967-49988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13381-z
  30. OECD. (2026). Environmental tax. Retrieved May 5, 2026, from https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/environmental-tax.html
  31. Özsoy, C. E., & Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve ekolojik ayak izi. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 619, 35-55. https://izlik.org/JA67HR53DH
  32. Pesaran, M.H., A. Ullah and T. Yamagata (2008). A bias adjusted LM test of error cross section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
  33. Qingxiang, L., Zhihong, J., Qun, H., & Yong, Y. (2008). The experimental detecting and adjusting of the precipitation data homogeneity in the Yangtze Delta. Journal of Applied Meteorological Science, 19(2), 219-226.
  34. Rafique, M. Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M., & Huang, S. (2022). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: An empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy, 238, 121753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121753
  35. Schreiber, S. (2008). The Hausman test statistic can be negative even asymptotically. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 228(4), 394-405.
  36. Şenel, K., & Kalaycı, C. (2025). Türkiye’de çevre vergileri, ekonomik büyüme, sürdürülebilir kalkınma ile ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: ARDL yaklaşımı. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 26(3), 584-600. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1673259
  37. Shut’ko, L., Samorodova, L., & Ivanov, A. (2020). Ecological footprint and decoupling in the sustainable development of a region. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 174, p. 04058).
  38. Söğüt, Y. (2024). Yeşil bütçelemeye yönelik çevresel araçların yük kapasitesi eğrisi çerçevesinde incelenmesi: Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinden kanıtlar = Examining environmental instruments for green budgeting within the framework of the load capacity curve: Evidence from European Union countries (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Maliye Anabilim Dalı.
  39. Sustainable Development Index. (2026). Sustainable Development Index. Retrieved May 5, 2026, from https://www.sustainabledevelopmentindex.org/
  40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18740-y
  41. Tosunoğlu, B. (2014). Sürdürülebilir küresel refah göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 132-149. https://izlik.org/JA74UP96WG
  42. Ünal, H., & Aktuğ, M. (2022). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi kapsamında Türkiye’de çevre kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. İnsan ve Toplum, 12(1), 113-136. https://izlik.org/JA86JR79GM
  43. Vancauteren, M., & Weiserbs, D. (2011). Intra-European trade of manufacturing goods: An extension of the gravity model. International Econometric Review, 3(1), 1-24. https://izlik.org/JA56YL92GD
  44. Yılmaz, S. (2025). The impact of environmental protection expenditures on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability, 17(7), 3192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073192
  45. Zakari, A., Khan, I., Tan, D., Alvarado, R., & Dagar, V. (2022). Energy efficiency and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Energy, 239, 122365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122365