SavedAdd your journal

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

THE IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: AN APPLICATION FOR SELECTED EU MEMBER STATES FOR THE PERIOD 1981-2022

FOSİL YAKIT TÜKETİMİNİN EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİNE ETKİSİ: SEÇİLİ AB ÜYE ÜLKELERİNE YÖNELİK 1981-2022 DÖNEMİNİ KAPSAYAN BİR UYGULAMA

Leyla Baştan Töke(KTO Karatay Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2377-0249
Pages
64–79
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)

The test results show a long-term link between the elements.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study uses data from 1981 to 2022 to examine the consequences of using fossil fuels the ecological footprint in a few EU member states.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data from the top 6 nations with the largest fossil fuel use in 2022 and 2023 (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland) were used in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The test results show a long-term link between the elements.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekolojik ayak izi · çevresel sürdürülebilirlik · fosil yakıt tüketimi

Abstract

This study uses data from 1981 to 2022 to examine the consequences of using fossil fuels the ecological footprint in a few EU member states. Data from the top 6 nations with the largest fossil fuel use in 2022 and 2023 (Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland) were used in the study. Coal, natural gas, and oil consumption are the independent factors in the empirical study, while the dependent variable is the ecological footprint. To find the best model for the study's dataset, a unit-level cross-sectional dependence test was performed. In the subsequent phase, the data was subjected CIPS, Fisher PP, and ADF. The outcomes of these analyses showed that in the first difference, the series were stationary. Analyzing the model's cross-sectional dependence and homogeneity structure came next. According to the analysis, the model has a horizontal cross-sectional dependence and a heterogeneous structure. The second-generation Westerlund cointegration test was applied in light of this. The test results show a long-term link between the elements. The DOLSMG Estimator method was used in the last step to estimate the final model. Empirical results have shown that oil and natural gas have the same impact on the ecological footprint, while coal has a lower impact.

Özet

Bu çalışmada 1981-2022 yılları arasındaki veriler kullanılarak seçili AB üye ülkelerinde gerçekleşen fosil yakıt tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izine olan etkisi araştırılmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında, 2022 ve 2023 yıllarında en yüksek oranda fosil yakıt tüketimini gerçekleştiren ilk 6 ülkeye (Almanya, Fransa, Hollanda, İspanya, İtalya ve Polonya) ait veriler kullanılmıştır. Ampirik analizde bağımlı değişken ekolojik ayak izi iken; kömür tüketimi, petrol tüketimi ve doğal gaz tüketimi ise bağımsız değişken olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın veri setine uygun modelin tahmin edilmesi amacıyla öncelikle birim bazında yatay kesit bağımlılık testi uygulanmıştır. Bir sonraki adımda, panel birim kök testlerinden CIPS, Fisher PP ile Fisher ADF testleri uygulanmış ve bu analizler sonucunda serilerin durağanlığının birinci mertebede olduğu belirlenmiştir. Üçüncü aşamada, modelin yatay kesit bağımlılık durumu ve homojenlik yapısı incelenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda modelin yatay kesit bağımlılığına sahip ve heterojen bir yapıda olduğu belirlendiğinden, bu duruma uygun olarak Westerlund eş bütünleşme testi uygulanmıştır. Test sonuçları değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin uzun dönemli olduğunu göstermiştir. Son aşamada ise nihai model, DOLSMG Tahmincisi yöntemi ile tahmin edilmiştir. Ampirik sonuçlar ekolojik ayak izine petrol ve doğal gazın aynı oranda etki ettiğini; kömürün etkisinin ise daha düşük oranda olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Töke, L. B. (2025). THE IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: AN APPLICATION FOR SELECTED EU MEMBER STATES FOR THE PERIOD 1981-2022. NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ, Cilt: 13 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 64–79. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1811109

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Addai, K., Serener, B., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Empirical analysis of the relationship among urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprint: evidence from Eastern Europe. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 27749-27760.
  2. Adedoyin, F. F., Alola, A. A., & Bekun, F. V. (2020). An assessment of environmental sustainability corridor: The role of economic expansion and research and development in EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 713, 1-10.
  3. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W., Ali, S., & Danish. (2020). Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: An empirical analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55, 1-11.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., Kumar, P., Kumar, S., & Akram, V. (2022). Main determinants for ecological footprint: an econometric perspective from G20 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 7(3), 250-267.
  7. Arnaut, M., & Dada, J. T. (2023). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint: new insights from the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 17(6), 1137-1160
  8. Barbır, F., Veziroğlu, T. N., & Plas, H. J. (1990). Environmental Damage Due to Fossil Fuels Use. Hydrogen Energy, 15(10), 729-749.
  9. Baz, K., Xu, D., Ali, H., Ali, I., Khan, I., Khan, M. M., & Cheng, J. (2020). Asymmetric impact of energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: Using asymmetric and nonlinear approach. Science of the Total Environment, 718, 1-10.
  10. Belcaid, K., & El-Karimi, M. (2025). Climate Finance, Renewable Energy and Ecological Footprint Asymmetric Nexus in Developing Mediterranean Countries: PMG NARDL Panel Analysis. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-025-10086-2.
  11. Bucak, Ç., Önder Ö. A., & Çatık, A. N. (2024). Spatial effects of renewable and fossil energy consumption on the ecological footprint for the EU Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31:55204–55221.
  12. Charfeddine, L. (2017). The impact of energy consumption and economic development on Ecological Footprint and CO2 emissions: Evidence from a Markov Switching Equilibrium Correction Model. Energy Economics, 65, 355-374.
  13. Destek, M. A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 1-11.
  14. Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 29387–29396.
  15. Fusco, G., Campobasso, F., Laureti, L., Frittelli, M., Valente, D., & Petrosillo, I., (2023). The environmental impact of agriculture: An instrument to support public policy. Ecological Indicators, 147(2023) 109961.
  16. Georgescu, I., & Kinnunen, J. (2024). Effects of FDI, GDP and energy use on ecological footprint in Finland: An ARDL approach. World Development Sustainability, 4(2024) 100157.
  17. Ibrahiem, D.M., & Hanafy, S.A. (2020). Dynamic linkages amongst ecological footprints, fossil fuel energy consumption and globalization: an empirical analysis. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(6), 1549-1568.
  18. Liu, C., Niu, H., Hayyat, M., & Hao, V. (2025). Understanding the relationship between ecological footprints and renewable energy in BRICS nations: An economic perspective. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 118, 46-57.
  19. Liu, Y., Sadiq, F., Ali, W., & Kumail, T. (2022). Does tourism development, energy consumption, trade openness and economic growth matters for ecological footprint: Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve and pollution haven hypothesis for Pakistan. Energy, 245(2022) 123208.
  20. Martins, F., Felgueiras, C., Smitkova, M., & Caetano, N. (2019). Analysis of Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption and Environmental Impacts in European Countries. Energies, 12, 1-11.
  21. Nathaniel, S. P., Dauda, R. O., Ajide, B. K. (2025). Linking energy consumption to ecological footprint in sub-Saharan Africa with education as a moderator. Energy Geoscience, 6(2025) 199398
  22. Nathaniel, S. P., Murshed, M., & Bassim, M. (2021). The nexus between economic growth, energy use, international trade and ecological footprints: the role of environmental regulations in N11 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 6(6), 496-521.
  23. Özbek, S. (2023). Ekonomik büyüme, küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri üzerine ekonometrik biz analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(37), 123-138.
  24. Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing Power Parity Tests in Cointegrated Panels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83 (4), 727-731.
  25. Raghutla, C., Padmagirisan, P., Sakthivel, P., Chittedi, K. R., & Mishra, S. (2022). The effect of renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in N-11 countries: Evidence from Panel Quantile Regression Approach. Renewable Energy, 197, 125-137.
  26. Rashid, A., Irum, A., Malik, I. A., Ashraf, A., Rongqiong, L., Liu, G.,. Yousaf, B. (2018). Ecological footprint of Rawalpindi; Pakistan's first footprint analysis from urbanization perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 362-368.
  27. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2023). Energy. Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/energy. Erişim Tarihi: 18.04.2025
  28. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H. T., & Gursoy, S. (2023). The effect of fnancial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 73518-73533.
  29. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F., & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 1-14.
  30. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., & Sinha, A., (2020). Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57(2020) 102138.
  31. Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2021). Does renewable energy consumption reduce ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 1-13.
  32. Shojaeenia, M.A., (2024). How globalization and type of energy consumption affects ecological footprint? An inter continental panel quantile analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04794-0.
  33. Statistical Review of World Energy. (2024). Statistical Review of World Energy. Energy Institute: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review. Erişim Tarihi: 14.05.2025
  34. Sun, Q., Ma, R., Xi, Z., Wang, H., Jiang, C., & Chen, H., (2023). Nonlinear impacts of energy consumption and globalization on ecological footprint: Empirical research from BRICS countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 396(2023), 136488.
  35. Tarı, R. (2018). Ekonometri (13. b.). Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları.
  36. Tekin, B. ve Shahbaz, M. (2025). Assessing the impacts of financial development and agriculture, fisheries, and forestry value added on the ecological footprint of BRICS T nations. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 27:7277–7296.
  37. Tsompo, T., Sardianou, E., Horobet, A., Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A., & Kostakis, I., (2025). Balancing growth and sustainability: The impact of economic status, energy, trade and finance on the ecological footprint in selected ASEAN economies. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 5(2025) 100041.
  38. Uddin, G. A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., & Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166-175.
  39. Vackár, D. (2012). Ecological Footprint, environmental performance and biodiversity: A cross-national comparison. Ecological Indicators, 16, 40-46.
  40. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
  41. Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., Jayasinghe, P., Lin, D., Murthy, A., Neill, E., & Raven, P. (2021). The importance of resource security for poverty eradication. Nature sustainability, 4, 731-739.
  42. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Schulz, N. B., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Krausmann, F. (2004). Calculating national and global ecological footprint time series: resolving conceptual challenges. Land Use Policy, 21, 271-278.
  43. Wood, N., & Roelich, K. (2019). Tensions, capabilities, and justice in climate change mitigation of fossil fuels. Energy Research & Social Science, 52, 114-122.
  44. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2020). Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi (3. Baskı b.). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  45. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2021). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi-Stata Uygulamalı (6. Baskı b.). İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
  46. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2009). A tale of contrasting trends: Three measures of the ecological footprint in China, India, Japan and the United States, 1961-2003. Journal of World-Systems Research, 15(2), 134-146.
  47. Rashid, A., Irum, A., Malik, I. A., Ashraf, A., Rongqiong, L., Liu, G.,. Yousaf, B. (2018). Ecological footprint of Rawalpindi; Pakistan's first footprint analysis from urbanization perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 362-368.