Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2023 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 55

Spatial Analysis of Industrialization Effects on Municipalities’ Environmental Protection Expenditures: The Case of Turkey

Belediyelerin Çevre Koruma Harcamaları Üzerinde Sanayileşmenin Etkilerinin Mekânsal Analizi: Türkiye Örneği

Pages
397–416
Publication Date
2023-01-31
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)

The results of this study may provide decision-makers with a different perspective in planning and coordinating environmental protection expenditures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Environmental protection expenditures made by municipalities are affected by various factors, especially the level of industrialisation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This is the first study to examine the effects of industrialisation on the per capita environmental protection expenditures of municipalities in Turkey between 2007-2016.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of this study may provide decision-makers with a different perspective in planning and coordinating environmental protection expenditures.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2007-2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çevre Koruma Harcamaları · Bölgesel Kamu Harcamaları · Belediyeler

Abstract

Environmental protection expenditures made by municipalities are affected by various factors, especially the level of industrialisation. This is the first study to examine the effects of industrialisation on the per capita environmental protection expenditures of municipalities in Turkey between 2007-2016. The Spatial Durbin Model is used to account for the spatial dependence and spillover effects between neighbouring municipalities. The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) The increase in industrialisation requires more environmental protection expenditures. (2) Spatial model has a significant but negative effect, showing that per capita environmental protection expenditures are concentrated in specific regions and cause the free-rider problem. (3) The increase in per capita environmental revenues increases per capita environmental protection expenditures. (4) As expected, population density and land area increase environmental protection per capita. The results of this study may provide decision-makers with a different perspective in planning and coordinating environmental protection expenditures.

Özet

Belediyelerin yapmış oldukları çevre koruma harcamaları başta sanayileşme düzeyi olmak üzere çeşitli faktörlerden etkilenmektedir. Bu çalışma 2007-2016 yılları arasında Türkiye’de belediyelerin kişi başı çevre koruma harcamaları üzerinde sanayileşmenin etkilerini inceleyen ilk çalışmadır. Komşu il belediyeleri arasındaki mekânsal bağımlılık ve saçılım etkilerini dikkate almak için çalışmada Mekânsal Durbin Modeli kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın temel bulguları şu şekildedir: (1) Sanayileşme düzeyinin artması daha fazla çevre koruma harcaması yapılmasını gerektirmektedir. (2) Mekânsal modelin anlamlı fakat negatif bir etkiye sahip olması kişi başı çevre koruma harcamalarının belli bölgelerde yoğunlaştığını ve bedavacılık problemine yol açtığını göstermektedir. (3) Kişi başı çevre gelirlerinin artması kişi başı çevre koruma harcamalarını artırmaktadır. (4) Nüfus yoğunluğu ve yüzölçümü daha fazla kişi başı çevre korumasını beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları karar vericilere çevre koruma harcamalarının planlanmasında ve koordine edilmesinde farklı bir bakış açısı sağlayabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIZILTAN, M., YERELİ, A. B. (2023). Spatial Analysis of Industrialization Effects on Municipalities’ Environmental Protection Expenditures: The Case of Turkey. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 55, 397–416. https://ajindex.com/articles/880168

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Akbulut, H. & A.B. Yereli (2016), “Kamu Gelirleri ve Kamu Harcamaları Nedensellik İlişkisi: 2006- 2015 Dönemi İçin Türkiye Örneği”, Sosyoekonomi, 24(1), 103-120.
  2. Anselin, L. & A.K. Bera (1998), “Spatial dependence in linear regression models with an introduction to spatial econometrics”, in: A. Ullah & D.E.A. Giles (eds.), Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics (237-289), New York: Marcel Dekker. Anselin, L. & R.J.G.M. Florax (1995), “Small Sample Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Regression Models: Some Further Results”, in: L. Anselin & R.J.G.M. Florax (eds.), New Directions in Spatial Econometrics (21-74), Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. Anselin, L. & S. Rey (1991), “Properties of Tests for Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models”, Geographical Analysis, 23(2), 112-131.
  3. Anselin, L. (1988), Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  4. Anselin, L. (1992), SpaceStat tutorial: A workbook for using SpaceStat in the analysis of spatial data, Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Anselin, L. (1995), “Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA”, Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93-115.
  5. Anselin, L. (1996), “The Moran Scatterplot as an ESDA Tool to Assess Local Instability in Spatial Association”, in: M. Fisher et al. (eds.), Spatial analytical perspectives on GIS (111-125), London: Taylor and Francis. Anselin, L. (2002), “Under the hood: Issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models”, Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 247-267.
  6. Anselin, L. (2003), GeoDaTM 0.9 User’s Guide, Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science,, 25.12.2020.
  7. Arbolino, R. et al. (2020), “Who achieves the efficiency? A new approach to measure ‘local energy efficiency’”, Ecological Indicators, 110, 105875. Beer, C. & A. Riedl (2012), “Modelling spatial externalities in panel data: The Spatial Durbin model revisited*”, Papers in Regional Science, 91(2), 299-318.
  8. Blanc-Brude, F. et al. (2014), “The FDI location decision: Distance and the effects of spatial dependence”, International Business Review, 23(4), 797-810.
  9. Broietti, C. et al. (2018), “Public expenditure and the environmental management of Brazilian municipalities: a panel data model”, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(7), 630-641.
  10. Brueckner, J.K. (2003), “Strategic Interaction Among Governments: An Overview of Empirical Studies”, International Regional Science Review, 26(2), 175-188.
  11. Burnett, J.W. e