KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2

Türkiye’de kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi mi, yoksa kirlilik hale hipotezi mi geçerlidir?: Genişletilmiş sınır testi (A-ARDL) yaklaşımı

Is the pollution haven hypothesis or the pollution halo hypothesis valid in Türkiye?: An augmented bounds test (A-ARDL) approach

Oğuzhan Demir(Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi)0000-0001-6320-5562
Dilek Özdemir(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8048-7730
Sevda Yapraklı(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1902-899X
Sayfa
807–824
Yayın Tarihi
2025-06-27
🏛️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, DYY’nin kısa ve uzun dönemde CO₂ emisyonlarını artırdığını ve KSH’nin Türkiye için geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların (DYY) çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisini Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi (KSH) ve Kirlilik Hale Hipotezi (KHH) kapsamında analiz etmektedir. 1975-2022 dönemine ait karbon emisyonları, kişi başına enerji tüketimi, DYY girişleri, ticari açıklık, gayrisafi sabit sermaye oluşumu ve ekonomik büyüme değişkenleri kullanılarak Genişletilmiş Sınır Testi (A-ARDL) yöntemi uygulanmıştır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Ayrıca, enerji verimliliğini artıran yapısal dönüşüm politikalarının uygulanması, karbon emisyonlarını azaltma noktasında kritik bir rol oynayacaktır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular, DYY’nin kısa ve uzun dönemde CO₂ emisyonlarını artırdığını ve KSH’nin Türkiye için geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2022 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi · Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar · Kirlilik Hale Hipotezi

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların (DYY) çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisini Kirlilik Sığınağı Hipotezi (KSH) ve Kirlilik Hale Hipotezi (KHH) kapsamında analiz etmektedir. 1975-2022 dönemine ait karbon emisyonları, kişi başına enerji tüketimi, DYY girişleri, ticari açıklık, gayrisafi sabit sermaye oluşumu ve ekonomik büyüme değişkenleri kullanılarak Genişletilmiş Sınır Testi (A-ARDL) yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, DYY’nin kısa ve uzun dönemde CO₂ emisyonlarını artırdığını ve KSH’nin Türkiye için geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. Özellikle enerji yoğun ve karbon salınımı yüksek sektörlere yönelen DYY’ler, çevresel sürdürülebilirliği tehdit etmektedir. Bu sonuçlar, DYY politikalarının çevre dostu teknolojilere ve yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarına yönlendirilmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, enerji verimliliğini artıran yapısal dönüşüm politikalarının uygulanması, karbon emisyonlarını azaltma noktasında kritik bir rol oynayacaktır. Gelecekte yapılacak çalışmalarda sektörel ve bölgesel düzeyde analizlerin derinleştirilmesi, DYY’lerin çevresel etkilerini daha kapsamlı bir şekilde ortaya koyacaktır.

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on environmental pollution in Türkiye, with reference to the Pollution Haven Hypothesis (PHH) and the Pollution Halo Effect (PHE). Employing the Augmented Autoregressive Distributed Lag (A-ARDL) approach, the analysis covers the period 1975–2022 using a set of variables including carbon emissions, per capita energy consumption, FDI inflows, trade openness, gross fixed capital formation, and economic growth. Empirical findings indicate that FDI contributes to an increase in CO₂ emissions in both the short and long term, thereby providing strong evidence in support of the PHH in the case of Türkiye. In particular, FDI inflows targeting energy-intensive and carbon-intensive sectors appear to undermine environmental sustainability. These results underscore the necessity of redirecting FDI toward environmentally sustainable technologies and renewable energy investments. Moreover, the implementation of structural transformation policies aimed at improving energy efficiency is expected to play a pivotal role in mitigating carbon emissions. Future research would benefit from more disaggregated, sector-specific and regionally focused analyses to capture the heterogeneous environmental effects of FDI more comprehensively.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Demir, O., Özdemir, D., Yapraklı, S. (2025). Türkiye’de kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi mi, yoksa kirlilik hale hipotezi mi geçerlidir?: Genişletilmiş sınır testi (A-ARDL) yaklaşımı. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 807–824. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1517522

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (77)

  1. Acharyya, J. (2009). FDI, growth and the environment: Evidence from India on CO2 emission during the last two decades, Journal of Economic Development, 34(1), 43-58. https://jed.cau.ac.kr/archives/34-1/34-1-3.pdf
  2. Acheampong, A.O., Adams, A. & Boateng, E. (2019). Do globalization and renewable energy contribute to carbon emissions mitigation in sub-saharan Africa?, Science of the Total Environment, 677, 436-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.353
  3. Aissaoui, R. & Fabian, F. (2021). Globalization, economic development, and corruption: A cross-lagged contingency perspective, Journal of International Business Policy, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-020-00091-5
  4. Ajide, K. B. & Adeniyi, O. (2010). FDI and the environment in developing economies: Evidence from Nigeria, Environmental Research Journal, 4(4), 291-297. https://doi.org/10.3923/erj.2010.291.297
  5. Akram, R., Fareed, Z., Xiaoli, G., Zulfiqar, B. & Shahzad, F. (2022). Investigating the existence of asymmetric environmental kuznets curve and pollution haven hypothesis in China: Fresh evidence from QARDL and quantile granger causality, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(33), 50454-50470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18785-z
  6. Anwar, N. & Elfaki, K. E. (2021). Examining the relationship between energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in Indonesia: Do capital and trade openness matter?, International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 10(4), 769-778. https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.2021.37822
  7. Aytemiz, S. (2009). Küreselleşme koşullarında dünya ekonomisinde doğrudan yabancı yatırımlara genel bir bakış, Toplum ve Demokrasi Dergisi, 3(6), 189-202. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/toplumdd/issue/22722/242507
  8. Bakhsh, K., Rose, S., Ali, M. F., Ahmad, N. & Shahbaz, M. (2017). Economic growth, CO2 emissions, renewable waste and FDI relation in Pakistan: New evidences from 3SLS, Journal of Environmental Management, 196, 627-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.029
  9. Balıbey, M. (2015). Relationships among CO2 emissions, economic growth and foreign direct investment and the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in Turkey, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(4), 1042-1049. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijeeep/issue/31915/351034
  10. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Driha, O. M., Leitão, N. C. & Murshed, M. (2021). The carbon dioxide neutralizing effect of energy innovation on international tourism in EU-5 countries under the prism of the EKC hypothesis, Journal of Environmental Management, 298, 113513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113513
  11. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibáñez-Luzón, L., Usman, M. & Shahbaz, M. (2022). The environmental kuznets curve, based on the economic complexity, and the pollution haven hypothesis in PIIGS countries, Renewable Energy, 185, 1441-1455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.059
  12. Buluş, G. C. & Koç, S. (2021). The effects of FDI and government expenditures on environmental pollution in Korea: The pollution haven hypothesis revisited, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(28), 38238-38253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13462-z
  13. Bulut, U. (2021). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: An environmental kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1793425
  14. Chien, F., Hsu, C. C., Zhang, Y. & Sadiq, M. (2023). Sustainable assessment and analysis of energy consumption impact on carbon emission in G7 economies: Mediating role of foreign direct investment, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 57, 103111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103111
  15. Chiriluș, A. & Costea, A. (2023). The effect of FDI on environmental degradation in Romania: Testing the pollution haven hypothesis, Sustainability, 15(13), 10733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310733
  16. Chung, S. (2014). Environmental regulation and foreign direct ınvestment: Evidence from South Korea, Journal of Development Economics, 108, 222-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.01.003
  17. Çağlar, A. E. (2022). Türkiye'de çevresel kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin araştırılmasında çevresel patentlerin rolü: Genişletilmiş ARDL ile kanıtlar, Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(4), 913-929. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1100797
  18. Çil, N. (2023). Re-examination of pollution haven hypothesis for Turkey with fourier approach, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 10024-10036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22800-8
  19. Destek, M. A., & Okumuş, I. (2019). Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? Evidence from ecological footprint, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 23689-23695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05614-z
  20. Firoj, M., Sultana, N., Khanom, S., Rashid, M. H. U. & Sultana, A. (2023). Pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental kuznets curve of Bangladesh: An empirical investigation, Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 7(1), 197-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-022-00258-3
  21. Gökmenoğlu, K., & Taşpınar, N. (2016). The relationship between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: The case of Turkey, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(5), 706-723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2015.1119876
  22. Grossman, G. M. & Helpman, E. (2015). Globalization and growth, American Economic Review, 105(5), 100-104. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151068
  23. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey”, Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.012
  24. Hamid, I., Alam, M. S., Murshed, M., Jena, P. K., Sha, N. & Alam, M. N. (2021). The roles of foreign direct investments, economic growth, and capital investments in decarbonizing the economy of Oman, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17246-3
  25. Haryanto, R. D., Rahmawati, Y., Altamirano, O. G. R., Ahsani, S. F., Hudang, A. K., & Haryanto, T. (2022). An empirical investigation between FDI, tourism, and trade on CO2 emission in Asia: Testing environmental Kuznet curve and pollution haven hypothesis, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 12(4), 385-393. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.13242
  26. Hernandez Soto, G. (2023). Assessing the FDI- load capacity factor relationship in Spain: An ARDL approach, Preprints 2023, 2023061080. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202306.1080.v1
  27. Hille, E., Shahbaz, M. & Moosa, I. (2019). The impact of FDI on regional air pollution in the Republic of Korea: A way ahead to achieve the green growth strategy?, Energy Economics, 81, 308-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.04.004
  28. Hoffmann, R., Lee, C. G., Ramasamy, B. & Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A granger causality test using panel data, Journal of International Development, 17(3), 311317. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1196
  29. Işıksal, A. Z., Samour, A. & Reşatoğlu, N. G. (2019). Testing the impact of real interest rate, income, and energy consumption on Turkey’s CO2 emissions, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20219-20231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04987-5
  30. Javed, A., Fuinhas, J. A. & Rapposelli, A. (2023). Asymmetric nexus between green technology innovations, economic policy uncertainty, and environmental sustainability: Evidence from Italy, Energies, 16(8), 3557. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16083557
  31. Katırcıoğlu, S. & Katırcıoğlu, S. (2018). Testing the role of fiscal policy in the environmental degradation: The case of Turkey, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 5616-5630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0906-1
  32. Keh, C. G., Tan, Y. T., Tang, S. E., Sim, J. J., & Lee, C. Y. (2023). Evaluating the role of forested area, agricultural land, energy consumption and foreign direct ınvestment on CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Environment Management, 8(32), 72-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.35631/JTHEM.832006
  33. Khan, A. & Safdar, S. (2022). Symmetric and asymmetric analysis of trade and environment in Pakistan, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22669-7
  34. Kılıçarslan, Z. & Dumrul, Y. (2017). Foreign direct investments and CO2 emissions relationship: The case of Turkey, Business & Economics Research Journal, 8(4), 647-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.20409/berj.2017.73
  35. Kirkpatrick, C. & Shimamoto, K. (2008). The effect of environmental regulation on the locational choice of Japanese foreign direct investment, Applied Economics, 40(11), 1399-1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600794330
  36. Kivyiro, P. & Arminen, H. (2014). Carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and foreign direct investment: causality analysis for sub-saharan Africa, Energy, 74, 595-606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.025
  37. Koçak, E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Turkey: New evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(1), 790-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0468-2
  38. Kubicová, J. (2014). Testing greenhouse gasses in Slovakia for environmental kuznets curve and pollution haven hypothesis, Journal of International Studies, 7(2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2014/7-2/14
  39. Lau, L. S., Choong, C. K. & Eng, Y. K. (2014). Investigation of the environmental kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: Do foreign direct ınvestment and trade matter?, Energy Policy, 68, 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.002
  40. Lee, J. & Strazicich, M. C. (2013). Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break, Economics Bulletin, 33(4), 2483-2492. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-13-00296.html
  41. Marques, A. C. & Caetano, R. V. (2022). Do greater amounts of FDI cause higher pollution levels? Evidence from OECD countries, Journal of Policy Modeling, 44(1), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.10.004
  42. Martínez-Zarzoso, I. & Maruotti, A. (2011). The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: Evidence from developing countries, Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1344-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.009
  43. Mcnown, R., Sam, C. Y. & Goh, S. K. (2018). Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration, Applied Economics, 50(13), 1509–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643
  44. Mensah, C. N., Dauda, L., Boamah, K. B. & Salman, M. (2021). One district one factory policy of Ghana, a transition to a low-carbon habitable economy?, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 703-721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00604-5
  45. Mert, M. & Cağlar, A. E. (2020). Testing pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses for Turkey: A new perspective, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 32933-32943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09469-7
  46. Mishkin, F. S. (2009). Globalization and financial development, Journal of Development Economics, 89(2), 164-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.11.004
  47. Mui-Yin, C., Chin-Hong, P., Teo, C. L. & Joseph, J. (2018). The determinants of CO2 emissions in Malaysia: A new aspect, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 190-194. http://hdl.handle.net/11159/1932
  48. Mutafoglu T.H. (2012). Foreign direct investment, pollution, and economic growth evidence from Turkey, Journal of Developing Societies, 28(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X1245378
  49. Narayan, P. K. & Popp, S. (2010). A new unit root test with two structural breaks in level and slope at unknown time, Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(9), 1425–1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760903039883
  50. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests, Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979–1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
  51. Nepal, R., Paija, N., Tyagi, B. & Harvie, C. (2021). Energy security, economic growth and environmental sustainability in India: Does FDI and trade openness play a role?, Journal of Environmental Management, 281, 111886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111886
  52. Neves, S. A., Marques, A. C. & Patrício, M. (2020). Determinants of CO2 emissions in European Union countries: Does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution?, Economic Analysis and Policy, 68, 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.09.005
  53. Öztürk, Z. & Öz, D. (2016). The relationship between energy consumption, income, foreign direct investment, and CO2 emissions: The case of Turkey, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 269–288. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ckuiibfd/issue/32908/365624
  54. Pata U.K. (2018). The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: Revisiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey, Energy, 160, 1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.095
  55. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
  56. Rana, R. & Sharma, M. (2019). Dynamic causality testing for EKC hypothesis, pollution haven hypothesis and international trade in India, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 28(3), 348-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1542451
  57. Rezza, A. A. (2013). FDI and pollution havens: Evidence from the Norwegian manufacturing sector, Ecological Economics, 90, 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.03.014
  58. Sam, C. Y., Mcnown, R. & Goh, S. K. (2019). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration, Economic Modelling, 80, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.001
  59. Schwert, G. W. (1989). Tests for unit roots: A monte carlo investigation, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102753410354
  60. Seyidoğlu, H. (2009). Uluslararası İktisat: Teori, Politika ve Uygulama, İstanbul: Güzem Can Yayınları.
  61. Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Sinha, A. (2019). Foreign direct Investment–CO2 emissions nexus in Middle East and North African countries: Importance of biomass energy consumption, Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 603-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.282
  62. Shahbaz, M., Nasir, M. A. & Roubaud, D. (2018). Environmental degradation in France: The effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations, Energy Economics, 74, 843-857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.07.020
  63. Shahzad, S. J. H., Kumar, R. R., Zakaria, M. & Hurr, M. (2017). Carbon emission, energy consumption, trade openness and financial development in Pakistan: A revisit, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.042
  64. Sun, C., Zhang, F. & Xu, M. (2017). Investigation of pollution haven hypothesis for China: An ARDL approach with breakpoint unit root tests. Journal of Cleaner Production, 161, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.119
  65. Tang C.F. & Tan Bw (2015). The impact of energy consumption, income and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam, Energy, 79, 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.033.
  66. Terzi, H. & Pata, U.K. (2020). Is the pollution haven hypothesis (phh) valid for Turkey?, Panoeconomicus, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.2298/pan161229016t
  67. Ur Rahman, Z., Chongbo, W. & Ahmad, M. (2019). An (a) symmetric analysis of the pollution haven hypothesis in the context of Pakistan: A non-linear approach, Carbon Management, 10(3), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1577179
  68. Usman, M., Kousar, R., Makhdum, M. S. A., Yaseen, M. R. & Nadeem, A. M. (2022). Do financial development, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness contribute to ıncrease carbon emission in Pakistan? An insight based on ARDL bound testing approach, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02062-z
  69. Wen, J., Mughal, B., Zhao, J., Shabbir, M.S., Niedbała, G., Jain, V. & Anwar, A. (2021). Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission, Energy Policy, 153, 112230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112230
  70. Xu, J., Zhou, M. & Li, H. (2016). ARDL-based research on the nexus among FDI, environmental regulation, and energy consumption in Shanghai (China), Natural Hazards, 84(1), 551-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2441-7
  71. Yanchun, Y. (2010). FDI and China’s carbon dioxide emissions: 1978–2008, In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management, 289-293. http://www4.pucsp.br/icim/ingles/downloads/papers_2010/part_3/FDI%20and%20China_s%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions%201978_2008.pdf
  72. Yapraklı, S. (2013). Enerjiye Dayalı Büyüme: Türk Sanayi Sektörü Üzerine Uygulamalar, 1. Baskı, İstanbul, Beta Yayınevi.
  73. Yılancı, V., Çütcü, I., Çayır, B. & Sağlam, M. S. (2023). Pollution haven or pollution halo in the fishing footprint: Evidence from Indonesia, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 188, 114626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114626
  74. Yurtkuran, S. & Terzi, H. (2018). Çevresel kuznets eğrisinin ampirik olarak analizi: Meksika örneği, Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 20, 267-284. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.350401
  75. Yurtkuran, S. (2020). Türkiye’de kirlilik sığınağı hipotezi geçerli mi? Fourier eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik yöntemlerinden kanıtlar, Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 13(24), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.873130
  76. Zhang, C. & Zhou, X. (2016). Does foreign direct investment lead to lower CO2 emissions? Evidence from a regional analysis in China, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 943-951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.226
  77. Zivot, E. & Andrews, D.W.K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102753410372