KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 3

Çevresel bozulmanın belirleyicileri ve göstergelere göre değişimi: BRICS-T ülkelerinden kanıtlar

Determinants of environmental degradation and their variation across indicators: Evidence from the BRICS-T countries

Esin Kendir0000-0003-0435-7499
Burcu Aslantaş Ateş(SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8896-5303
Harun Yakışık(ÇANKIRI KARATEKİN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9542-1614
Sayfa
1070–1089
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-26
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular, enerji kullanımının karbondioksit emisyonları ve ekolojik ayak izini artırırken karbon yoğunluğunu azalttığını göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Küresel ölçekte artan enerji kullanımı, ticari entegrasyon ve ekonomik büyüme, çevresel bozulmayı çok boyutlu bir olgu hâline getirmiştir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Analizde 2010–2020 dönemine ait panel veri kullanılmış; enerji kullanımı, ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık ve kurumsal kalite temel açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak ele alınmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular, enerji kullanımının karbondioksit emisyonları ve ekolojik ayak izini artırırken karbon yoğunluğunu azalttığını göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2010–2020 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Çevresel sürdürülebilirlik · Ekolojik ayak izi · Driscoll–Kraay tahmincisi

Özet

Küresel ölçekte artan enerji kullanımı, ticari entegrasyon ve ekonomik büyüme, çevresel bozulmayı çok boyutlu bir olgu hâline getirmiştir. Bu nedenle çevresel bozulmanın yalnızca karbondioksit emisyonlarıyla ölçülmesinin çevresel baskının tüm boyutlarını yansıtmada yetersiz kaldığı ileri sürülmektedir. Bu çalışma, BRICS-T ülkelerinde çevresel bozulmanın belirleyicilerini çevresel bozulmanın ekonomik ve düzenleyici kurumsal kapasiteyle olan ilişkisi üzerinden incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Analizde 2010–2020 dönemine ait panel veri kullanılmış; enerji kullanımı, ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık ve kurumsal kalite temel açıklayıcı değişkenler olarak ele alınmıştır. Uygun panel veri modeli Hausman testiyle belirlenmiş, model varsayımları çeşitli tanısal testlerle değerlendirilmiştir. Nihai tahminler Driscoll–Kraay dayanıklı standart hatalarıyla elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, enerji kullanımının karbondioksit emisyonları ve ekolojik ayak izini artırırken karbon yoğunluğunu azalttığını göstermektedir. Ticari açıklık ekolojik ayak izini azaltmakta, karbon yoğunluğunu ise artırmaktadır. Ekonomik büyüme yalnızca karbon yoğunluğu üzerinde anlamlı etki göstermiştir. Ayrıca kurumsal kalite göstergesinin etkilerinin kullanılan çevresel bozulma göstergesine göre farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir. Bu bulgular, çevre politikalarının farklı çevresel göstergeler dikkate alınarak daha etkili ve kapsamlı biçimde tasarlanması gerektiğine işaret etmektedir

Abstract

Rising energy use, deepening trade integration, and continued economic growth worldwide have made environmental degradation a multidimensional phenomenon. Accordingly, measuring environmental degradation solely in terms of carbon dioxide emissions may not fully capture the extent of environmental pressures. This study investigates the determinants of environmental degradation in BRICS-T countries using carbon dioxide emissions, the ecological footprint, and carbon intensity as alternative indicators. The analysis uses panel data covering the period 2010–2020 and includes energy use, economic growth, trade openness, and institutional quality as the main explanatory variables. The appropriate panel data model is selected using the Hausman test, and a series of diagnostic tests is conducted to identify potential violations of the model assumptions. The final models are estimated using Driscoll–Kraay robust standard errors. The findings indicate that energy use increases carbon dioxide emissions and the ecological footprint while reducing carbon intensity. Trade openness reduces the ecological footprint but increases carbon intensity. Economic growth has a statistically significant effect only on carbon intensity, whereas the effect of institutional quality varies across the three environmental indicators. These findings underscore the need for environmental policies that account for the multidimensional nature of environmental degradation.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kendir, E., Ateş, B. A., Yakışık, H. (2026). Çevresel bozulmanın belirleyicileri ve göstergelere göre değişimi: BRICS-T ülkelerinden kanıtlar. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 3, 1070–1089. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1927807

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (63)

  1. Referans1 Abid, M. (2016). Impact of economic, financial, and institutional factors on CO₂ emissions: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Utilities Policy, 41, 85–94.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.06.009
  2. Referans2 Acheampong, A. O., Dzator, J., ve Savage, D. A. (2021). Renewable energy, CO₂ emissions and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa: Does institutional quality matter? Journal of Policy Modeling, 43(5), 1070–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.03.011
  3. Referans3 Adebayo, T. S., Pata, U. K., ve Akadiri, S. S. (2024). A comparison of CO₂ emissions, load capacity factor, and ecological footprint for Thailand’s environmental sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 2203–2223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02810-9
  4. Referans4 Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M., ve Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(18), 18565-18582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
  5. Referans5 Akpanke, T. A., Deka, A., Ozdeser, H., ve Seraj, M. (2024). Ecological footprint in the OECD countries: Do energy efficiency and renewable energy matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 15289–15301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32151-1
  6. Referan6 sAllard, A., Takman, J., Uddin, G. S., ve Shahbaz, M. (2018). The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: An empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 5848–5861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0907-0
  7. Referans7 Almulhim, A. A., Inuwa, N., Chaouachi, M., ve Samour, A. (2025). Testing the impact of renewable energy and institutional quality on consumption-based CO₂ emissions: Fresh insights from MMQR approach. Sustainability, 17(2), 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020704
  8. Referans8 Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., ve Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review, 91(4), 877–908. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.4.877
  9. Referans9 Audi, M., Poulin, M., Ahmad, K., ve Ali, A. (2025). Modeling disaggregate globalization to carbon emissions in BRICS: A panel quantile regression analysis. Sustainability, 17(6), 2638. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062638
  10. Referans10 Aykırı, M. (2026). The Impact of Economıc Growth and Envıronmental Indıcators on Carbon Intensıty: Evıdence from Türkiye. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(33), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2026.008
  11. Referans11 Azimi, M. N., ve Rahman, M. M. (2023). Impact of institutional quality on ecological footprint: New insights from G20 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 423, 138670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138670
  12. Referans12 Bakri, M. A., Chia, Y.-E., ve Chia, R. C.-J. (2025). Trade openness and carbon emissions using threshold approach: evidence from selected Asian countries. Carbon Research, 4, Article 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-025-00211-x
  13. Referans13 Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D., ve Farhani, S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO₂ emissions? Energy Policy, 113, 356–367.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.050
  14. Referans14 Ben Youssef, A., ve Dahmani, M. (2024). Assessing the impact of digitalization, tax revenues, and energy resource capacity on environmental quality: Fresh evidence from CS-ARDL in the EKC framework. Sustainability, 16(2), 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020474
  15. Referans15 Bin Mohamad, A. H. H., ve Ab-Rahim, R. (2024). Do the various sources of energy consumption affect the environmental degradation in India?. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 13(2), 168-178. https://doi.org/10.61435/ijred.2024.55836
  16. Referans16 Charfeddine, L., ve Kahia, M. (2019). Impact of renewable energy consumption and financial development on CO2 emissions and economic growth in the MENA region: a panel vector autoregressive (PVAR) analysis. Renewable energy, 139, 198-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.010
  17. Referans17 Chen, C., Pinar, M., ve Stengos, T. (2022). Renewable energy and CO2 emissions: New evidence with the panel threshold model. Renewable Energy, 194, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.095
  18. Referans18 Clark, B., ve York, R. (2005). Carbon metabolism: Global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric rift. Theory and Society, 34(4), 391–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-005-1993-4
  19. Referans19 Daghbagi, H., Hasni, R., ve Ouerghi, I. (2025). The moderating effect of institutional quality on the relationship between structural change and CO₂ emissions in emerging economies. Ecological Indicators, 100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100817
  20. Referans20 Destek, M. A., ve 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, 118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537
  21. Referans21 Dietz, T., Rosa, E. A., ve York, R. (2007). Driving the human ecological footprint. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[13:DTHEF]2.0.CO;2
  22. Referans22 Dietz, T., ve Rosa, E. A. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 94(1), 175-179. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.1.175
  23. Referans23 Dinçer, S., & Akın, F. (2026). Türkiye’de Karbon Yoğunluğunun Azaltılmasında Dijitalleşme, Finansal Gelişme, Ticaret Açıklığı ve Ekonomik Büyümenin Rolü. BİLTÜRK Journal of Economics and Related Studies, 8, 259-276. https://doi.org/10.47103/bilturk.1986137
  24. Referans24 Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
  25. Referans25 Durgun, B. (2025). Karbon Yoğunluğunu Azaltmada Gelir Eşitsizliğinin Asimetrik Etkisi: Kurumsal Kalite Önemli mi?. Fiscaoeconomia, 9(1), 656-685. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1569931
  26. Referans26 Erkılıç, E., Gazeloğlu, C., ve Özgören Ünlü, E. (2025). Renewable energy solution to carbon emissions: BRICS countries in the grip of globalization and economic growth. Sustainability, 17(9), 4117. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094117
  27. Referans27 Ertan, İ. B., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2025). Gayrisafi yurt içi hasılanın karbon yoğunluğu, ticari küreselleşme ve yeşil ticari açıklık ilişkisi: AB ve Türkiye için panel nedensellik analizi. Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi E-Dergi, 14(2), 100-111. Doi: doi.org/10.47934/tefeas.14.02.02
  28. Referans28 Faizi, A., Ak, M. Z., Alsabhan, T. H., Shahzad, M. R., Alshagri, R., & Khan, S. (2025). Evaluating the role of renewable energy natural resources and globalization in environmental quality in OIC countries. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 33496. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16872-y
  29. Referans29 Gayen, D., Chatterjee, R., ve Roy, S. (2024). A review on environmental impacts of renewable energy for sustainable development. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 21(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05380-z
  30. Referans30 González-Álvarez, M. A., ve Montañés, A. (2023). CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth: Determining the stability of the 3E relationship. Economic Modelling, 120, 106195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106195
  31. Referans31 Grossman, G. M., ve Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
  32. Referans32 Huang, J., Berhe, M. W., Dossou, T. A. M., & Pan, X. M. (2022). The heterogeneous impacts of Sino-African trade relations on carbon intensity in Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 316, 115233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115233
  33. Referans33 Huang, Y., Rahman, S. U., Meo, M. S., Sibt-E. Ali, M., ve Khan, S. (2024). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve: Assessing the impact of climate policy uncertainty in the Belt and Road Initiative. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(36), 10579–10593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-31471-y
  34. Referans34 Ilyas, M., Mu, Z., Akhtar, S., Hassan, H., Shahzad, K., Aslam, B., ve Maqsood, S. (2024). Renewable energy, economic development, energy consumption and its impact on environmental quality: New evidence from South East Asian countries. Renewable Energy, 223, 119961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.119961
  35. Referans35 Issa, S. S., Tabash, M. I., Ahmed, A., Riyadh, H. A., Alnahhal, M., ve Varma, M. (2024). Investigating the relationship between energy consumption and environmental degradation with the moderating influence of technological innovation. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(9), 419. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17090419
  36. Referans36 Jóźwik, B., Kyophilavong, P., Dash, A. K., ve Gavryshkiv, A. V. (2022). Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in South Asian countries: The role of energy consumption and trade openness. Energies, 15(22), 8709. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228709
  37. Referans37 Kendir, E., ve Yakışık, H. (2025). Yenilenebilir Enerji Yatırımlarının Ekolojik Ayak İzine Etkisi: BRICS-T Ülkeleri Örneği. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(1), 540-557. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1615883
  38. Referans38 Khan, A., Sampene, A. K., ve Ali, S. (2023). Towards environmental degradation mitigation: The role of regulatory quality, technological innovation and government effectiveness in the CEMAC countries. Heliyon, 9(6), e17029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17029
  39. Referans39 Khan, H., Liu, W., ve Khan, I. (2022). Environmental innovation, trade openness and quality institutions: An integrated investigation about environmental sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 3832–3862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01590-y
  40. Referans40 Laurent, A., Olsen, S. I., ve Hauschild, M. Z. (2012). Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environmental Science ve Technology, 46(7), 4100–4108. https://doi.org/10.1021/es204163f
  41. Referans41 Li, H., Sibt-e-Ali, M., Ayub, B., ve Ullah, I. (2023). Analysing the impact of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty on environmental sustainability: Evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(34),53565–53578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26553-w
  42. Referans42 Narayan, P. K., ve Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy, 38(1), 661–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.005
  43. Referans43 Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Sharma, G., ve Shah, M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(16), 19616-19629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08466-0
  44. Referans44 Odei, S. A., Dunyo, S. K., ve Anderson, H. J. (2025). Research and development, economic growth, CO₂ emissions and environmental Kuznets curve. Sustainable Futures, 9, 100541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100541
  45. Referans45 Öztürk, İ., ve Acaravcı, A. (2010). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 3220–3225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.005
  46. Referans46 Pao, H.-T., ve Tsai, C.-M. (2010). CO₂ emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7850–7860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.08.045
  47. Referans47 Pata, U. K. (2021). Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO₂ emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries. Renewable Energy, 173, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.125
  48. Referans48 Pham, D. T., ve Nguyen, H. T. (2024). Effects of trade openness on environmental quality: Evidence from developing countries. Journal of Applied Economics, 27(1), 2339610. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2024.2339610
  49. Referans49 Rahman, M. M., ve Alam, K. (2022). CO₂ emissions in Asia–Pacific region: Do energy use, economic growth, financial development, and international trade have detrimental effects? Sustainability, 14(9), 5420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095420
  50. Referans50 Ritchie, H. (2025). Resource use matters, but material footprints are a poor way to measure it. Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20251125-173858/material-footprint-limitations.html
  51. Referans51 Sadorsky, P. (2014). The effect of urbanization on CO₂ emissions in emerging economies. Energy Economics, 41, 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.007
  52. Referans52 Shahbaz, M., Sharma, R., Sinha, A., ve Jiao, Z. (2021). Analyzing nonlinear impact of economic growth drivers on CO2 emissions: Designing an SDG framework for India. Energy Policy, 148, 111965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111965
  53. Referans53 Stern, D. I. (2004). The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
  54. Referans54 Tudor, C. D., Horobet, A., Mnohoghithei, I., Sova, R., & Belascu, L. (2023). Decarbonization through carbon intensity mitigation: evidence from global and income-based panels. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2023.2188420
  55. Referans55 Wang, Q., Li, Y., ve Li, R. (2024a). Ecological footprints, carbon emissions, and energy transitions: The impact of artificial intelligence (AI). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), Article 1043. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03520-5
  56. Referans56 Wang, Q., Wang, X., Li, R., Zhang, Y., Chen, L., ve Liu, H. (2024b). Reinvestigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) of carbon emissions and ecological footprint in 147 countries: A matter of trade protectionism. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 160. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02639-9
  57. Referans57 Wang, X., Bilal, R., ve Rehman, J. U. (2025). Economic development and carbon emissions across world regions: Exploring heterogeneous drivers. Journal of Environmental Management, 396, 128048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.128048
  58. Referans58 Yang, J.-H., Huang, H., Sanyal, S., Khan, S., Alam, M. M., ve Murshed, M. (2023). Heterogeneous effects of energy productivity improvement on consumption-based carbon footprints in developed and developing countries: The relevance of improving institutional quality. Gondwana Research, 124, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.06.013
  59. Referans59 York, R., Rosa, E. A., ve Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00188-5
  60. Referans60 Zafar, M. W., Saud, S., ve Hou, F. (2019). The impact of globalization and financial development on environmental quality: evidence from selected countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Environmental science and pollution research, 26(13), 13246-13262.
  61. Referans61 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04761-7
  62. Referans62 https://data.worldbank.org
  63. Referans63 https://www.footprintnetwork.org/