KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / SOSYAL BİLİMLER METİNLERİ / 2025 / Cilt: 2025 Sayı: 2

OECD Ülkelerinde Ekonomik Büyüme, Sermaye, Enerji Verimliliği, Yeşil Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi

The Relationship Between Economic Growth, Capital, Energy Productivity, Green Growth, and Ecological Footprint in OECD Countries

Süreyya Bakkal(NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0001-9226-2320
Sayfa
148–159
Yayın Tarihi
2025-10-27
🏛️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)

Bu sonuçlar dikkate alındığında; politika yapıcıları enerji verimliliği ve yeşil büyüme uygulamalarını destekleyici önlemler almalı diğer taraftan da ekonomik büyüme ve sermaye oluşumunun çevre üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerini minimize edici uygulamalara ağırlık vermelidirler.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Çevre kirliliği ile mücadelede uluslararası arenada ön plana çıkan teorik ve ampirik araştırmaların başında gelmeye devam etmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu nedenle bu çalışmanın temel amacı seçilmiş OECD ülkelerinde 1994-2020 döneminde çevre kirliliğinin temel ölçütlerinden biri olan ekolojik ayak izinin belirleyicilerini ampirik olarak incelemektir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu sonuçlar dikkate alındığında; politika yapıcıları enerji verimliliği ve yeşil büyüme uygulamalarını destekleyici önlemler almalı diğer taraftan da ekonomik büyüme ve sermaye oluşumunun çevre üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerini minimize edici uygulamalara ağırlık vermelidirler.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2020 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Ekolojik Ayak İzi · Enerji Verimliliği · Yeşil Büyüme

Özet

Çevre kirliliği ile mücadelede uluslararası arenada ön plana çıkan teorik ve ampirik araştırmaların başında gelmeye devam etmektedir. OECD ülkelerinin büyük bir kısmı çevre kirliliği göstergelerinde özellikle de ekolojik ayak izi verilerinde üst sıralarda yer alan ülkeler arasında gözükmektedir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmanın temel amacı seçilmiş OECD ülkelerinde 1994-2020 döneminde çevre kirliliğinin temel ölçütlerinden biri olan ekolojik ayak izinin belirleyicilerini ampirik olarak incelemektir. Panel veri tekniklerinden yeni yaklaşımların uygulandığı bu çalışma seriler arasında bir eşbütünleşmeyi ortaya çıkarmaktadır. CCE-MG tahminleri uzun dönemde ekonomik büyüme ve sermaye oluşumunun ekolojik ayak izini yükselterek çevre kirliliğini desteklediğini gösterir. Diğer taraftan enerji verimliliği ve yeşil büyüme ekolojik ayak izini düşürmekte dolayısıyla çevresel bozulmayı engellemektedir. Çalışmanın CCE-MG tahminleri AMG tahminleri ile de desteklenmektedir. Bu sonuçlar dikkate alındığında; politika yapıcıları enerji verimliliği ve yeşil büyüme uygulamalarını destekleyici önlemler almalı diğer taraftan da ekonomik büyüme ve sermaye oluşumunun çevre üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerini minimize edici uygulamalara ağırlık vermelidirler.

Abstract

Fighting against environmental pollution continues to be one of the leading theoretical and empirical researches in the international arena. Most OECD countries appear to be among the top countries in environmental pollution indicators, especially in ecological footprint data. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to empirically examine the determinants of the ecological footprint, one of the basic measures of environmental pollution in selected OECD countries in the period 1994-2020. This study, in which new approaches from panel data techniques are applied, reveals a cointegration between the series. CCE-MG estimates show that in the long run, economic growth and capital formation promote environmental pollution by increasing the ecological footprint. On the other hand, energy productivity and green growth reduce the ecological footprint, thus preventing environmental degradation. The study's CCE-MG estimates are also supported by AMG estimates. Considering these results; Policy makers should take measures to support energy productivity and green growth practices, and on the other hand, they should focus on practices that minimize the negative effects of economic growth and capital formation on the environment.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Bakkal, S. (2025). OECD Ülkelerinde Ekonomik Büyüme, Sermaye, Enerji Verimliliği, Yeşil Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi. SOSYAL BİLİMLER METİNLERİ, Cilt: 2025 Sayı: 2, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.56337/sbm.1777609

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (37)

  1. Addai, K., Ozbay, R.D., Castanho, R.A., Genc, S.Y., Couto, G. and Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Energy productivity and environmental degradation in Germany: Evidence from novel Fourier approaches. Sustainability, 14, 16911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416911
  2. Ahakwa, I. and Tackie, E.A. (2024). Natural resources as a double-edged sword towards ecological quality: Can environmental regulations and green human capital rectify the adverse impacts? Journal of Cleaner Production, 457, 142436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142436
  3. Akpanke, T.A., Deka, A., Ozdeser, H. and Seraj, M. (2024). Ecological footprint in the OECD countries: do energy efciency and renewable energy matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 15289-15301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32151-1
  4. Ali, M., Joof, F. and Radulescu, M. (2023). Testing the impacts of renewable energy, natural resources rent, and technological innovation on the ecological footprint in the USA: Evidence from Bootstrapping ARDL. Resources Policy, 86, 104139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104139
  5. Appiah, M., Li, M., Sehrish, S. and Abaji, E.E. (2023). Investigating the connections between innovation, natural resource extraction, and environmental pollution in OECD nations; Examining the role of capital formation. Resources Policy, 81, 103312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103312
  6. Bond, S. and Eberhardt, M. (2013). Accounting for unobserved heterogeneity in panel time series models. Working Paper. University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
  7. Dam, M.M., Durmaz, A., Bekun, F.V. and Tiwari, A.K. (2024). The role of green growth and institutional quality on environmental sustainability: A comparison of CO2 emissions, ecological footprint and inverted load capacity factor for OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 365, 121551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121551
  8. Ehigiamusoe, K.U., Guptan, V. and Lean, H.H. (2019). Impact of financial structure on environmental quality: evidence from panel and disaggregated data. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 14 (10-12), 359-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2020.1727066
  9. Famanta, M., Randhawa, A.A. and Yajing, J. (2024). The impact of green FDI on environmental quality in less developed countries: A case study of load capacity factor based on PCSE and FGLS techniques. Heliyon, 10, e28217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28217
  10. Hassan, A., Yang, J., Usman, A. Bilal, A. and Ullah, S. (2023). Green growth as a determinant of ecological footprint: Do ICT diffusion, environmental innovation, and natural resources matter? PLoS One, 18(9), e0287715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287715. eCollection 2023.
  11. Javed, A., Subhani, B.H., Javed, A. and Rapposelli, A. (2024). Accessing the efcacy of green growth, energy efciency, and green innovation for environmental performance in top manufacturing nations in the framework of sustainable development. Quality & Quantity, 58, 5829-5863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01918-6
  12. Józwik, B., Dogan, M. and Gürsoy, S. (2023).The impact of renewable energy consumption on environmental quality in central European countries: The mediating role of digitalization and financial development. Energies, 16, 7041. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16207041
  13. Kirikkaleli, D., Addai, K. and Castanho, R.A. (2023). Energy productivity, financial stability, and environmental degradation in an Eastern European country: Evidence from novel Fourier approaches. Heliyon, 9(7), e18073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18073
  14. Kızılgöl, Ö. and Öndes, H. (2022). Factors affecting the ecological footprint: A study on the OECD countries. Science of The Total Environment, 849, 157757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157757
  15. Koç, N., Bahadır, T. ve Koç, Ö.E. (2022). Türkiye’de çevre kirliliğinin belirleyicileri üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(4), 204-225. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1137098
  16. Li, Y., Wang, X., Imran, A., Aslam, M. and Mehmood, U. (2023). Analyzing the contribution of renewable energy and natural resources for sustainability in G-20 countries: How gross capital formation impacts ecological footprints. Heliyon, 9(8), e18882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18882
  17. Liu, Y., Sadiq, F., Ali, W. and 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, 123208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123208
  18. Maji, I.K., Habibullah, M.S., Saari, M.Y. and Abdul-Rahim, A.S. (2017) The nexus between energy price changes and environmental quality in Malaysia, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 12(10, 903-909. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2017.1323052
  19. Mughal, N., Arif, A., Jain, V., Chupradit, S., Shabbir, M.S., Ramos-Meza, C.S. and Zhanbayev, R. (2022). The role of technological innovation in environmental pollution, energy consumption and sustainable economic growth: Evidence from South Asian economies. Energy Strategy Reviews, 39, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100745
  20. Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 727-731. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237803
  21. Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0435, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
  22. Pesaran, M.H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74, 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
  23. Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  24. Pesaran, M.H. and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  25. Pham, D.T.T. and 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
  26. Sapci, O. and Shogren, J.F. (2018). Environmental quality, human capital and growth, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(2), 184-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2017.1384403
  27. Saqib, N., Ozturk, I. and Usman, M. (2023). Investigating the implications of technological innovations, financial inclusion, and renewable energy in diminishing ecological footprints levels in emerging economies. Geoscience Frontiers, 14, 101667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101667
  28. Shah, S.S., Murodova, G. and Khan, A. (2024). Achieving zero emission targets: The influence of green bonds on clean energy investment and environmental quality. Journal of Environmental Management, 364, 121485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121485
  29. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H.T. and Gursoy, S. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 73518-73533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27573-2
  30. Sugiharti, L., Akter, S., Das, M.K., Pattak, D.C., Esquivias, M.A. and Akter, S. (2025). Population dynamics, economic growth, energy mix, and environmental pollution in ASEAN: Exploring the role of renewable, nuclear, and nonrenewable energy using the CCEMG approach. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 26, 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100598
  31. Uddin, G.A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K. and Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.003
  32. Ullah, A., Dogan, M., Topcu, B.A. and Saadaoui, H. (2023). Modeling the impacts of technological innovation and financial development on environmental sustainability: New evidence from the world’s top 14 financially developed countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, 101229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101229
  33. Ullah, A., Dogan, M., Pervaiz, A., Bukhari, A.A.A., Akkus, H.T. and Dogan, H. (2024). The impact of digitalization, technological and financial innovation on environmental quality in OECD countries: Investigation of N-shaped EKC hypothesis. Technology in Society, 77, 102484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102484
  34. Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econometric Reviews, 24(3), 297-316. http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/LECR20
  35. Yılmazer, M. (2024). Türkiye’de ekolojik ayak izinin belirleyicileri: STIRPAT modeli. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 39 (3), 637-657. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1373210
  36. Zheng, S., Irfan, M. and Al-Faryan, M.A.S. (2023). Do renewable energy, urbanisation, and natural resources enhance environmental quality in China? Evidence from novel bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles. Resources Policy, 81, 103354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103354.
  37. Mughal, N., Arif, A., Jain, V., Chupradit, S., Shabbir, M.S., Ramos-Meza, C.S. and Zhanbayev, R. (2022). The role of technological innovation in environmental pollution, energy consumption and sustainable economic growth: Evidence from South Asian economies. Energy Strategy Reviews, 39, 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2021.100745