SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Izmir Democracy University Social Sciences Journal / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAX, PATENTS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES AND GLOBALIZATION ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: AN ECONOMETRIC APPLICATION ON TURKEY

ÇEVRE VERGİSİ, ÇEVRE TEKNOLOJİLERİNE İLİŞKİN PATENTLERİN VE KÜRESELLEŞMENİN EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÜZERİNE EKONOMETRİK BİR UYGULAMA

Özlem Eştürk(ARDAHAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4324-0912
Fatma Fehime Aydın(VAN YUZUNCU YIL UNIVERSITY, VOCATIONAL SCHOOL)0000-0002-7026-6889
Cemalettin Levent(AĞRI İBRAHİM ÇEÇEN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7147-1027
Pages
1–17
Publication Date
2026-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️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)

A 1% increase in the globalization index is projected to increase the ecological footprint by 1.314% according to the OLS method, 1.529% according to the DOLS method, 1.376% according to the FMOLS method and 1.371% according to the CCR method.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Consumption of natural resources along with globalization and technological advancements have played a leading role in environmental degradation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, it is aimed to investigate the determinants of the ecological footprint on globalization, patents on environmental technologies and environmental taxes for the period 1994-2019 in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A 1% increase in the globalization index is projected to increase the ecological footprint by 1.314% according to the OLS method, 1.529% according to the DOLS method, 1.376% according to the FMOLS method and 1.371% according to the CCR method.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Ekolojik Ayak İzi · Küreselleşme · Çevre Teknolojileri

Abstract

Consumption of natural resources along with globalization and technological advancements have played a leading role in environmental degradation. In this study, it is aimed to investigate the determinants of the ecological footprint on globalization, patents on environmental technologies and environmental taxes for the period 1994-2019 in Turkey. In the study, Granger causality analysis was applied to examine the causality relationship between the variables, and mutual causality relationships were observed between globalization and ecological footprint, and between environmental taxes and the number of patents on environmental technologies. A unidirectional causality was determined from the number of patents related to environmental technologies and environmental taxes to globalization. Furthermore, the coefficients obtained using OLS, DOLS, FMOLS and CCR tests in the study were compatible with the results of the Granger Causality Analysis. While the coefficients of patents and environmental taxes on environmental technologies were insignificant in these four methods, it was observed that the effect of the globalization index on the ecological footprint was positive. A 1% increase in the globalization index is projected to increase the ecological footprint by 1.314% according to the OLS method, 1.529% according to the DOLS method, 1.376% according to the FMOLS method and 1.371% according to the CCR method.

Özet

Küreselleşme ve teknolojik gelişmelerle birlikte doğal kaynakların tüketilmesi, çevresel bozulmalarda başat rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de 1994-2019 dönemine ait küreselleşme, çevre teknolojilerine ilişkin patentlerin ve çevresel vergilerin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki belirleyiciliği araştırılması amaçlanmaktadır. Çalışmada, değişkenler arasında nedensellik ilişkisinin incelenmesi amacıyla Granger nedensellik analizi uygulanmış ve küreselleşme ile ekolojik ayak izi arasında, çevre vergileri ve çevre teknolojilerine ilişkin patent sayısı arasında karşılıklı nedensellik ilişkileri gözlenmiştir. Çevre teknolojilerine ilişkin patent sayısı ve çevre vergilerinden küreselleşmeye doğru ise tek yönlü nedensellik tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca çalışmada OLS, DOLS, FMOLS ve CCR testleri kullanılarak elde edilen katsayılar Granger Nedensellik Analizi sonuçları ile uyumlu çıkmıştır. Bu dört yöntemde de çevre teknolojilerine ilişkin patentler ve çevre vergilerinin katsayıları anlamsız çıkarken, küreselleşme endeksinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde etkisinin pozitif olduğu gözlenmiştir. Küreselleşme endeksinde meydana gelecek %1’lik artış ekolojik ayak izini OLS yöntemine göre %1.314, DOLS yöntemine göre %1.529, FMOLS yöntemine göre %1.376 ve CCR yöntemine göre %1.371 artıracaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Eştürk, Ö., Aydın, F. F., Levent, C. (2026). THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAX, PATENTS RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES AND GLOBALIZATION ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: AN ECONOMETRIC APPLICATION ON TURKEY. Izmir Democracy University Social Sciences Journal, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 1–17. https://ajindex.com/articles/1499784

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (33)

  1. Ahmed, A., Uddin, G. S., & Sohag, K. (2016). Biomass energy, technological progress and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from selected European Countries. Biomass and Bioenergy, 90, 202-208.
  2. Akyol, M., & Mete, E. (2021). Çevresel Teknolojik İnovasyonların CO2 Emisyonu Üzerindeki Etkisi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 71(2), 569-590.
  3. Apaydın, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23-42.
  4. Aydın, M. (2020). Seçilmiş OECD Ülkelerinde Çevre Vergilerinin Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkileri: Yapısal Kırılmalı Nedensellik Testinde Kanıtlar, UİİİD- IJEAS, 2020 (28):137-154.
  5. Bilgin, E., & Yıldırım Z. (2023) Çevre Vergisi ile Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye ve Seçili AB Üye Ülkeleri Üzerine Ampirik Bir İnceleme, Maliye Araştırmaları-6, Ekin Basım Yayım Dağıtım, Aralık 2023
  6. Chiou-Wei, S. Z., Chen, C. F. ve Zhu, Z (2008). Economic growth and energy consumption revisited — evidence from Linear and Nonlinear Granger Causality. Energy Economics, 30, 3063–3076.
  7. Çeliköz, Y. S., Yıldız, T., Arslan, Ü., & Kırmızıoğlu, H. (2022). The Relationship Between Economic Globalization And Ecological Footprint: Empirical Evıdence For Developed And Developing Countries, Agricultural and Resource Economics International Scientific E-Journal, 8(4):109-133.
  8. Dauda, L., Long, X., Mensah, C. N., Salman, M., Boamah, K. B., Ampon-Wireko, S., & Dogbe, C. S. K. (2021). Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125143.
  9. Dickey, D.A., Fuller, W.A. (1979). Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a UnitRoot. Econometrica, 74: 427-431.
  10. Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S. H., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). Ecological footprint atlas 2010. Global footprint network. Retrieved from Oakland: Global Footprint Network. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/ Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf
  11. Global Footprint Network. (2022). https://www.footprintnetwork.org/ adresinden 30 Haziran 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  12. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438.
  13. Gu, W., Zhao, X., Yan, X., Wang, C., & Li, Q. (2019). Energy technological progress, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117666.
  14. Hotunluoğlu, H. (2007). Karbon Vergisi Teorisi ve Uygulaması, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
  15. Keho, Y. (2023). Does Globalization Cause Environmental Degradation in Developing Economies? Evidence from Cote d’Ivoire Using Ecological Footprint. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(4), 455.
  16. Khan, D., &Ullah, A. (2019). Testing the relationship between globalization and carbon dioxide emissions in Pakistan: does environmental Kuznets curve exist? Environ Sci Pollut, 1-15.
  17. KOF Swiss Economic Institute. (2022). https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html adresinden 30 Haziran 2024 tarihinde alınmıştır.
  18. Kutlar, A., Gulmez, A., Kabasakal, A., & Kutlar, S. (2022). Ecological footprint, energy usage, and economic progress relationship: the MINT countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 4457-4480.
  19. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint and human well-being nexus: accounting for broad-based financial development, globalization, and natural resources in the Next-11 countries. Future Business Journal, 7(1), 24.
  20. OECD, (2024). Environmental Taxes are Environmentally Related Tax Revenues, https://data.oecd.org/envpolicy/environmental-tax.htm
  21. OECD, (2024). Patents on Environment Teknologies, https://data.oecd.org/envpolicy/patents-on-environment-technologies.htm#indicator-chart
  22. 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.
  23. Özbek, S. (2023). Ekonomik Büyüme, Küreselleşme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: ASEAN-5 Ülkeleri Üzerine Ekonometrik Bir Analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(37), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.1144317
  24. Phillips, P.C.B., Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75(2): 335-346.
  25. Shahbaz, M., Mallick, H., Mahalik, M. K., & Loganathan, N. (2015). Does globalization impede environmental quality in India? Ecological Indicators, 52, 379-393.
  26. 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.
  27. Topal, M. H. (2017). Çifte Kazanç Hipotezinin OECD Ekonomileri İçin Testi: Panel Eş Bütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 2(4), 1-20.
  28. Uzar, U., & Eyuboglu, K. (2023). Does income inequality increase the ecological footprint in the US: evidence from FARDL test? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 9514-9529.
  29. Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Yin, J. (2012). Energy technology patents-CO2 emissions nexus: An empirical analysis from China. Energy Policy, 42, 248-260.
  30. Wojcıech, C., Derek, W. D. F. (1999). New Directions in Econometric, Practice Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2nd Edition, UK.
  31. Xiong, Z., & Li, H. (2019). Ecological deficit tax: A tax design and simulation of compensation for ecosystem service value based on ecological footprint in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 1128-1137.
  32. Yavuz, E. (2021). Çevre Vergileri İle Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Üzerine Kanıtlar, Internatıonal Journal Of Socıal, Humanıtıes And Admınıstratıve Scıences, JOSHAS Journal, 7(45), 1937-1945
  33. You, W., & Lv, Z. (2018). Spillover effects of economic globalization on CO2 emissions: A spatial panel approach. Energy Econ, 73, 248-257.