SavedAdd your journal

Journals / NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ / 2025 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND GREEN INNOVATION IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TOP 30 GREEN INNOVATION COUNTRIES

SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR KALKINMADA EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ VE YEŞİL YENİLİK ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: EN İYİ 30 YEŞİL YENİLİKÇİ ÜLKEDEN AMPİRİK KANITLAR

Sevilay Konya(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0483-4139
Pages
49–63
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️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 light of the findings, this study presents important findings in terms of sustainable development.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The concept of green innovation is extremely important in terms of ensuring sustainable development, reducing carbon footprint and ensuring environmental balance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the current article aims to investigate the relationship between ecological footprint and green innovation in achieving sustainable development in the top 30 green innovative countries from 1993 to 2022.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In light of the findings, this study presents important findings in terms of sustainable development.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Yeşil inovasyon · Sürdürülebilir kalkınma · ekolojik ayak izi

Abstract

The concept of green innovation is extremely important in terms of ensuring sustainable development, reducing carbon footprint and ensuring environmental balance. In this context, the current article aims to investigate the relationship between ecological footprint and green innovation in achieving sustainable development in the top 30 green innovative countries from 1993 to 2022. Several advanced panel data analysis methods and moments quantile regression (MMQR) methods were used to obtain estimates appropriate for the data set. As a result of the MMQR estimator, it was determined that the impact of renewable energy consumption and green innovation on the ecological footprint was negative in all quantiles. In light of the findings, this study presents important findings in terms of sustainable development.

Özet

Yeşil yenilik kavramı, sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın sağlanması, karbon ayak izinin azaltılması ve çevresel dengenin sağlanması açısından son derece önemli bir kavramdır. Bu bağlamda mevcut makalede 1993’den 2022 yılına kadar en iyi 30 yeşil yenilikçi ülkede sürdürülebilir kalkınmanın sağlanmasında ekolojik ayak izi ve yeşil yenilik arasındaki ilişkinin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Veri setine uygun tahminler elde etmek için bir dizi gelişmiş panel veri analizi yöntemleri ve momentler kantil regresyonu (MMQR) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. MMQR tahmincisi sonucunda tüm kantillerde ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde yenilebilir enerji tüketimi ve yeşil inovasyonun etkisinin negatif olduğu belirlenmiştir. Bu çalışma, elde edilen bulgular ışığında sürdürülebilir kalkınma açısından önemli bulgular sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Konya, S. (2025). ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT AND GREEN INNOVATION IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM TOP 30 GREEN INNOVATION COUNTRIES. NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ, Cilt: 13 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1809143

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Akyol, M., ve Mete, E. (2021). Çevresel teknolojik inovasyonların CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi - Istanbul Journal of Economics, 71(2), 569-590. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2021-935480
  2. Alofaysan, H. (2024). The effect of environmental smart technology and renewable energy on carbon footprint: a sustainability perspective from the MENA region. Energies, 17, 2624. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112624
  3. Bozkurt, E. ve Altıner A. (2024). Üretken Kapasitenin Ekonomik Kalkınma Üzerindeki Etkisi: MMQR ve CCE Yöntemlerinden Kanıtlar. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(4), 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1529850
  4. Barak, D., ve Koçoğlu, M. (2023). Çevresel Ar-Ge harcamalarını hızlandırmak karbon emisyonlarını azaltır mı?: Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi perspektifinde panel kantil regresyon kanıtları. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 25(45), 768-792.
  5. Bashir, M. F., Pan, Y., Shahbaz, M., ve Ghosh, S. (2023). How energy transition and environmental innovation ensure environmental sustainability? Contextual evidence from Top-10 manufacturing countries. Renewable Energy, 204, 697-709.
  6. Bersvendsen, T. ve Ditzen, J. (2020). xthst: testing for slope homogeneity in Stata. The Stata Journal, 21(1), s. 51-80.
  7. Bozatli, O. ve Akca H. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes, renewable energy consumption and environmental technology on the ecological footprint: evidence from advanced panel data analysis. J Environ Manag. 345, 118857.
  8. Chien, F., Chau, K. Y., Sadiq, M., Diep, G. L., Tran, T. K., ve Pham, T. H. A. (2023). What role renewable energy consumption, renewable electricity, energy use and import play in environmental quality?. Energy Reports, 10, 3826 - 3834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.10.024
  9. Çamkaya, S. (2024). Türkiye’de çevresel teknolojilerin çevresel kirlilik üzerindeki etkisi: fourier yaklaşımlarından ampirik kanıtlar. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 59(4), 2024-2043.
  10. Çetinkaya, O.A., Çatik, A.N., Balli, E. et al. (2024). Assessing the influence of green innovation and environmental policy stringency on CO2 emissions in BRICS. Environ Dev Sustain, 27, 26739–26759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04802-3
  11. Cevik, E., Kirci Altinkeski, B., Cevik, E. I. ve Dibooglu, S. (2022). Investor sentiments and stock markets during the COVID-19 pandemic. Financial Innovation, 8(1), 69.
  12. Cutcu, I., Cil, D., Karis, C. ve Kocak, S. (2024). Determining the green technology innovation accelerator and natural resources towards decarbonization for the EU countries: evidence from MMQR. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(12), 19002–19021
  13. Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C.N. et al. (2019). The effects of economic growth and innovation on CO2 emissions in different regions”. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 15028–15038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04891-y
  14. Dünya Bankası, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators, Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2025
  15. Erden Özsoy, C. ve Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve ekolojik ayak izi. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 53(619), 35-55.
  16. Eryer, A. (2024). Çevre Teknolojileri ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin karbondioksit emisyonu ile ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 1-17.
  17. Fan, J., Liao, Y. ve Yao, J. (2015). Power enhancement in high-dimensional cross-sectional tests. Econometrica, 83 (4), 1497–1541.
  18. Fernández, Y. F., López, M. F., ve Blanco, B. O. (2018). Innovation for sustainability: the impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. Journal of cleaner production, 172, 3459–3467.
  19. Ganda, F. (2019). The impact of ınnovation and technology investments on carbon emissions in selected organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 469-483.
  20. Hussain, M., Mir, G. M., Usman, M., Ye, C. ve Mansoor, S. (2022). Analysing the role of environment-related technologies and carbon emissions in emerging economies: A step towards sustainable development. Environmental Technology, 43 (3), 367-375. doi:10.1080/09593330.2020.1788171
  21. Javed, A., Rapposelli, A., Khan, F. ve 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. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 191, 122534.
  22. Javed, A., Subhani, B.H., Javed, A. et al. (2024). Accessing the efficacy of green growth, energy efficiency, and green innovation for environmental performance in top manufacturing nations in the framework of sustainable development. Qual Quant, 58, 5829–5863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01918-6
  23. Juodis, A. ve Reese, S. (2022). The incidental parameters problem in testing for remaining cross-section correlation. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40(3), 1191–1203.
  24. Kayacan, M. ve Erkut, B. (2023). Ecological footprint–technological innovations nexus: new empirical evidence from panel data estimations. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 30, 94565–94575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29122-3
  25. Koçak, E. ve Ulucak, Z.Ş. (2019).The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO2 emission reduction: estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 26, 14328–14338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04712-2
  26. Koseoglu, A., Yucel, A. G. ve Ulucak, R. (2022). Green innovation and ecological footprint relationship for a sustainable development: Evidence from top 20 green innovator countries. Sustainable Development, 30(5), 976-988. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2294
  27. Küresel Ayak İzi Ağı, https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/, Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2025
  28. Liao, J., Liu, X., Zhou, X. ve Tursunova, N. R. (2023). Analyzing the role of renewable energy transition and industrialization on ecological sustainability: can green innovation matter in OECD countries. Renew. Energy, 204,141-151.
  29. Lin, Y., Wang, Q.-J. ve Zheng, M.-Q. (2024). Nexus among digital economy, green ınnovation, and green development: evidence from China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 60(4), 704-723, DOI: 10.1080/1540496X.2023.2258260
  30. Luukkanen, J., Kaivo-oja, J., Vähäkari, N., O’Mahony, T., Korkeakoski, M., Panula-Ontto, J., Phonhalath, K., Nanthavong, K., Reincke, K., Vehmas, J. ve Hogarth, N. (2019). Green economic development in Lao PDR: A sustainability window analysis of green growth productivity and the efficiency gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.149
  31. Machado, J. A. ve Silva, J. S. (2019). Quantiles via moments. Journal of Econometrics, 213(1), 145-173.
  32. Mensah, C.N., Long, X., Boamah, K.B. et al. (2018). The effect of innovation on CO2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 25, 29678–29698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2968-0
  33. Nketiah, E., Song, H., Adjei, M., Obuobi, B. ve Adu-Gyamfi, G. (2024). Assessing the influence of research and development, environmental policies, and green technology on ecological footprint for achieving environmental sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 199, 114508.
  34. OECD, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&tm=DF_PAT_IND&pg=0&snb=1&vw=tb&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_PAT_IND%40DF_PAT_IND&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EPI&df[vs]=&pd=%2C&dq=.A.DEV.&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false, Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2025
  35. Oğul, B. (2022). Türkiye’de çevresel teknolojik inovasyonlar ekolojik ayak izini azaltıyor mu? ARDL sınır testi analizi. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (INIJOSS), 11(2), 409-427.
  36. Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-renewables?tab=table, Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2025
  37. Pesaran, H. M. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22 (2), 265–312.
  38. Pesaran, H. M. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Review, 34 (6–10), 1089–1117.
  39. Pesaran, H. M. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60 (1), 13–50.
  40. Pesaran, H. M., ve Xie, Y. (2021). A Bias-Corrected Cd Test for Error Cross- Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Models with Latent Factors. CESifo Working Paper Series 9234, CESifo.
  41. Ramzan, M., Razi, U., Quddoos, M. U., ve Adebayo, T. S. (2023). Do green innovation and financial globalization contribute to the ecological sustainability and energy transition in the United Kingdom? Policy insights from a bootstrap rolling window approach. Sustainable Development, 31(1), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2399
  42. Sachs, J. D. (2015). The age of sustainable development. New York: Columbia University Press.
  43. Türkiye’nin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Raporu (2012), http://awsassets.wwftr.panda.org/downloads/turkiyenin_ekolojik_ayak_izi_raporu.pdf, ISBN: 978-605-61279-9-1, Erişim Tarihi: 05.05.2025
  44. Wen, J., Mahmood, H., Khalid, S. ve Zakaria, M. (2025). Nexus between digital economy and environmental sustainability in BRICS: does green innovation matter?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2025(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4243
  45. Yağış, O. (2024). Türkiye’de teknolojik yenilikler ve ekonomik büyümenin çevre kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri: ARDL sınır testi. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(1), 103-117. doi: 10.11616/asbi.1391389
  46. Zhu, H,. Duan, L., Guo, Y., ve Yu, K. (2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: Evidence from panel quantile regression. Economic Modelling, 58, 237-248.
  47. OECD, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&tm=DF_PAT_IND&pg=0&snb=1&vw=tb&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_PAT_IND%40DF_PAT_IND&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EPI&df[vs]=&pd=%2C&dq=.A.DEV.&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false, Erişim Tarihi: 10.04.2025