KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / ETÜ Sentez İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2025 / Sayı: 16

Sürdürülebilirlik Mümkün Mü? Türkiye’de Büyüme, Finansal Gelişme ve Askeri Harcamalar Arasında Fourier Temelli Bir Denge Arayışı

Is Sustainability Possible? A Fourier-Based Quest for Balance Among Growth, Financial Development, and Military Expenditures in Türkiye

Oğuzhan Demir(Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi)0000-0001-6320-5562
Dilek Özdemir(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8048-7730
Sayfa
1–32
Yayın Tarihi
2025-12-31
🏛️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)

Elde edilen bulgular, söz konusu üç makroekonomik değişkenin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde uzun vadede istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve negatif yönlü etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, Türkiye ekonomisine ilişkin 1970–2022 dönemini kapsayan veriler ışığında, ekonomik büyüme, finansal gelişme ve askeri harcamaların çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkilerini Yük Kapasite Faktörü (LCF) çerçevesinde ampirik olarak analiz etmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Elde edilen bulgular, söz konusu üç makroekonomik değişkenin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde uzun vadede istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve negatif yönlü etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Fourier temelli ekonometrik tekniklerin uygulanması bakımından da literatüre yöntemsel katkı sağlayan bu çalışma, çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin çok boyutlu belirleyicilerine dair önemli bulgular sunmaktadır.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2022 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Çevresel Kalite · Ekonomik Büyüme · Finansal Gelişme

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye ekonomisine ilişkin 1970–2022 dönemini kapsayan veriler ışığında, ekonomik büyüme, finansal gelişme ve askeri harcamaların çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki etkilerini Yük Kapasite Faktörü (LCF) çerçevesinde ampirik olarak analiz etmektedir. Ampirik analizde, yapısal kırılmaları ve doğrusal olmayan eğilimleri dikkate alabilen Fourier tabanlı birim kök, eşbütünleşme ve dinamik en küçük kareler (DOLS) yöntemlerinden yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, söz konusu üç makroekonomik değişkenin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde uzun vadede istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve negatif yönlü etkiler yarattığını ortaya koymaktadır. Fourier terimlerinin anlamlılığı ise, çevre-ekonomi ilişkisinde yapısal dalgalanmaların belirleyici rol oynadığını göstermektedir. Bu kapsamda çalışma, sürdürülebilir büyüme, yeşil finansman ve çevre dostu savunma politikalarının önemine vurgu yapmakta; çevresel sınırları gözeten bütüncül bir makroekonomik politika tasarımının gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır. Fourier temelli ekonometrik tekniklerin uygulanması bakımından da literatüre yöntemsel katkı sağlayan bu çalışma, çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin çok boyutlu belirleyicilerine dair önemli bulgular sunmaktadır.

Abstract

This study empirically analyzes the impact of economic growth, financial development, and military expenditures on environmental sustainability within the framework of the Load Capacity Factor (LCF), using data for Türkiye covering the period 1970–2022. The empirical strategy employs Fourier-based unit root, cointegration, and dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) methods, which account for structural breaks and nonlinear trends. The results indicate that all three macroeconomic variables have statistically significant and negative long-run effects on environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the statistical significance of the Fourier terms suggests that structural fluctuations play a decisive role in shaping the relationship between the economy and the environment. In this context, the study highlights the importance of sustainable growth, green finance, and environmentally responsible defense strategies, emphasizing the necessity of a holistic macroeconomic policy framework that respects ecological limits. By incorporating Fourier-based econometric techniques, the study also provides a methodological contribution to the literature and offers novel insights into the multidimensional determinants of environmental sustainability.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Demir, O., Özdemir, D. (2025). Sürdürülebilirlik Mümkün Mü? Türkiye’de Büyüme, Finansal Gelişme ve Askeri Harcamalar Arasında Fourier Temelli Bir Denge Arayışı. ETÜ Sentez İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 16, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18096145

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (109)

  1. Abbasi, K. R., Oyebanji, M. O., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). CO2 intensity of GDP, energy productivity and environmental degradation in Iceland: evidence from novel Fourier based estimators. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 18(1), 2214906. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2023.2214906
  2. Adebayo, T. S., Akinsola, G. D., Odugbesan, J. A., & Olanrewaju, V. O. (2021). Determinants of environmental degradation in Thailand: empirical evidence from ARDL and wavelet coherence approaches. Pollution, 7(1), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2020.309083.885
  3. Ahmad, M., Khan, Z., Ur Rahman, Z., & Khan, S. (2018). Does financial development asymmetrically affect CO2 emissions in China? An application of the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) model. Carbon Management, 9(6), 631-644. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1529998
  4. Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Murshed, M., Vaseer, A. I., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). The trade-off between energy consumption, economic growth, militarization, and CO2 emissions: does the treadmill of destruction exist in the modern world?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(12), 18063-18076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17068-3
  5. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W., & Mansoor, S. (2020). Analyzing the linkage between military spending, economic growth, and ecological footprint in Pakistan: evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(33), 41551-41567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10076-9
  6. Akinsola, G. D., Awosusi, A. A., Kirikkaleli, D., Umarbeyli, S., Adeshola, I., & Adebayo, T. S. (2022). Ecological footprint, public-private partnership investment in energy, and financial development in Brazil: a gradual shift causality approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(7), 10077-10090. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15791-5
  7. Aleksandrova, A. (2017). Optimizing environmental risk management using economic tools. Available at SSRN 2983056. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2983056
  8. Ali, M., Kirikkaleli, D., ve Altuntaş, M. (2024). The nexus between CO2 intensity of GDP and environmental degradation in South European countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(5), 11089-11100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03217-w
  9. Anwar, A., Sinha, A., Sharif, A., Siddique, M., Irshad, S., Anwar, W., & Malik, S. (2022). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy consumption, financial development, and CO2 emissions: evidence from selected Asian countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(5), 6556-6576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01716-2
  10. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., & Mestre, R. (1998). Error‐correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single‐equation framework. Journal of time series analysis, 19(3), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9892.00091
  11. Banerjee, P., Arčabić, V., & Lee, H. (2017). Fourier ADL cointegration test to approximate smooth breaks with new evidence from crude oil market. Economic Modelling, 67, 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.11.004
  12. Bargaoui, S. A., ve Nouri, F. Z. (2017). Dynamic panel data analysis of CO2 emissions driving forces. Journal of Economics Studies and Research, 2017(2017), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.5171/2017.947798
  13. Bartelmus, P. (1997). Whither economics? From optimality to sustainability?. Environment and Development Economics, 2(3), 323-345. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X97000065
  14. Beckerman, W. (1972). “Environment”,“Needs” And Real Income Comparisons (1). Review of Income and Wealth, 18(4), 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1972.tb00960.x
  15. Bildirici, M. (2018). Impact of military on biofuels consumption and GHG emissions: the evidence from G7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(14), 13560-13568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1545-x
  16. Bildirici, M. (2019). CO2 emissions and militarisation in G20 countries: Panel cointegratrion and causality approaches. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, 22(1), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOGCT.2019.102279
  17. Bildirici, M. E. (2017). The causal link among militarization, economic growth, CO2 emission, and energy consumption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(5), 4625-4636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8158-z
  18. Bilgili, F., Koçak, E., & Bulut, Ü. (2016). The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 838-845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.080
  19. Borghesi, S., (2006). Income inequality and the environmental Kuznets curve. In: Basili, M., Franzini, M., Vercelli, A. (Eds.), Environment, Inequality and Collective Action. Routledge, London, UK.
  20. Borowy, I. (2013). Global health and development: conceptualizing health between economic growth and environmental sustainability. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 68(3), 451-485. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jrr076
  21. Bradford, J. H., ve Stoner, A. M. (2014). The treadmill of destruction and ecological exchange in comparative perspective: a panel study of the biological capacity of nations, 1961-2007. Contemporary Journal of Anthropology and Sociology, 4(2), 87-113.
  22. Bradford, J. H., ve Stoner, A. M. (2017). The treadmill of destruction in comparative perspective: a panel study of military spending and carbon emissions, 1960-2014. Journal of World-Systems Research, 23(2), 298-325. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2017.688
  23. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future—Call for action. Environmental conservation, 14(4), 291-294. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900016805
  24. Çağlar, A. E., ve Yavuz, E. (2023). The role of environmental protection expenditures and renewable energy consumption in the context of ecological challenges: Insights from the European Union with the novel panel econometric approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 331, 117317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117317
  25. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, Riverside Press (Cambridge Mass.). https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/Silent_Spring-Rachel_Carson-1962.pdf
  26. Chang, S., Chen, B., & Song, Y. (2023). Militarization, renewable energy utilization, and ecological footprints: Evidence from RCEP economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 391, 136298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136298
  27. Christopoulos, D. K., ve León-Ledesma, M. A. (2010). Smooth breaks and non-linear mean reversion: Post-Bretton Woods real exchange rates. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29(6), 1076-1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2010.02.003
  28. Clark, B., ve Jorgenson, A. K. (2012). The treadmill of destruction and the environmental impacts of militaries 1. Sociology Compass, 6(7), 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00474.x
  29. Clark, B., Jorgenson, A. K., & Kentor, J. (2010). Militarization and energy consumption: A test of treadmill of destruction theory in comparative perspective. International Journal of Sociology, 40(2), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.2753/IJS0020-7659400202
  30. Collins, A., ve Flynn, A. (2015). The ecological footprint: New developments in policy and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  31. de Bruyn, S. M. (2000). The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. In Economic Growth and the Environment: An Empirical Analysis (pp. 77-98). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4068-3_5
  32. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, reindustrialization and environmental degradation: Evidence from ecological footprint of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126612
  33. Dogan, E., ve Shah, S. F. (2021). Analyzing the role of renewable energy and energy intensity in the ecological footprint of the United Arab Emirates. Sustainability, 14(1), 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010227
  34. Duit, A. (2016). Environmental politics among advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0141
  35. Esteve, V., ve Requena, F. (2006). A cointegration analysis of car advertising and sales data in the presence of structural change. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 13(1), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13571510500520036
  36. Frischmann, B. M., ve Ramello, G. B. (2023). Externalities, scarcity, and abundance. Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 7, 1111446. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.1111446
  37. Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Military expenditure, financial development and environmental degradation in Turkey: a comparison of CO2 emissions and ecological footprint. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(1), 986-997. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.1831
  38. Gould, K. A. (2007). The ecological costs of militarization. Peace Review, 19(3), 331-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402650701524873
  39. Grossman G.M. ve Krueger A.B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Working Paper No.3914. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
  40. Güneysu, Y. (2023). Türkiye’de finansal gelişme, küreselleşme ve sanayileşmenin yük kapasite faktörü üzerindeki etkisi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 934-946. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3131921
  41. Jenkins, B. (1993). Economic rationality and sustainable development: Conflicts and implementation. Economic Papers: A journal of applied economics and policy, 12(2), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-3441.1993.tb00883.x
  42. Jones, R. L. (1974). Environmental‐Impact Assessment for Plant Design and Operation. Journal‐American Water Works Association, 66(5), 286-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.1974.tb02027.x
  43. Jorgenson, A. K. (2005). Unpacking international power and the ecological footprints of nations: A quantitative cross-national study. Sociological perspectives, 48(3), 383-402. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2005.48.3.383
  44. Jorgenson, A. K., ve Clark, B. (2009). The economy, military, and ecologically unequal exchange relationships in comparative perspective: a panel study of the ecological footprints of nations, 1975—2000. Social Problems, 56(4), 621-646. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2009.56.4.621
  45. Jorgenson, A. K., Clark, B., & Givens, J. E. (2012). The environmental impacts of militarization in comparative perspective: an overlooked relationship. Nature and Culture, 7(3), 314-337. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2012.070304
  46. Khan, K. A., Cong, P. T., Abbas, A., Ahmad, P., Quynh, N. N., Nguyen, M. Q., & Anwar, A. (2025). Navigating the environmental impact of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty: Evidence from load capacity curve hypothesis in BRICST economies. In Natural Resources Forum (Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 3511-3530). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12538
  47. Khan, M. K., Abbas, F., Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Ahmed, Z., & Anser, M. K. (2021). Moving towards sustainability: how do natural resources, financial development, and economic growth interact with the ecological footprint in Malaysia? A dynamic ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(39), 55579-55591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14686-9
  48. Kirikkaleli, D., Awosusi, A. A., Adebayo, T. S., & Otrakçı, C. (2023). Enhancing environmental quality in Portugal: can CO2 intensity of GDP and renewable energy consumption be the solution?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(18), 53796-53806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26191-2
  49. Kirikkaleli, D., Güngör, H., & Adebayo, T. S. (2022). Consumption‐based carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in Chile. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 1123-1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2945
  50. Knez-Riedl, J. (2010). The contribution of environmental economics to understanding and solving the problems of the scarcity of goods. Nature and humans, 1-6. https://www.irdo.si/skupni-cd/cdji/cd-irdo-2010/images/3-5-3-knez-riedl.pdf
  51. Koçak, E., ve Uzay, N. (2017). Türkiye’de demokrasi ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Ampirik bir araştırma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 24(3), 705-723. https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.305737
  52. Konuk, F., Kaya, E., Akpınar, S., & Yıldız, Ş. (2024). The relationship between military expenditures, financial development and environmental pollution in G7 countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 1087-1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01122-1
  53. Kwakwa, P. A. (2022). The effect of industrialization, militarization, and government expenditure on carbon dioxide emissions in Ghana. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(56), 85229-85242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21187-w
  54. LaDuke, W. (1999). All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. South End Press.
  55. Ludlow, J., & Enders, W. (2000). Estimating non-linear ARMA models using Fourier coefficients. International Journal of Forecasting, 16(3), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(00)00048-0
  56. Lyeonov, S., Pimonenko, T., Bilan, Y., Štreimikienė, D., & Mentel, G. (2019). Assessment of green investments’ impact on sustainable development: Linking gross domestic product per capita, greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy. Energies, 12(20), 3891. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12203891
  57. Magnus Theisen, O. (2008). Blood and soil? Resource scarcity and internal armed conflict revisited. Journal of Peace Research, 45(6), 801-818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343308096157
  58. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth - Club of Rome, Club of Rome. Switzerland.
  59. Nathaniel, S. P., Adeleye, N., & Adedoyin, F. F. (2021). Natural resource abundance, renewable energy, and ecological footprint linkage in MENA countries. Estudios De Economía Aplicada, 39(2), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.25115/eea.v39i2.3927
  60. Ngoc, B. H., ve Awan, A. (2022). Does financial development reinforce ecological footprint in Singapore? Evidence from ARDL and Bayesian analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(16), 24219-24233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17565-5
  61. Nguyen, H. T., Van Nguyen, S., Dau, V. H., Le, A. T. H., Nguyen, K. V., Nguyen, D. P.,. & Bui, H. M. (2022). The nexus between greenhouse gases, economic growth, energy and trade openness in Vietnam. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 28, 102912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102912
  62. Noubissi Domguia, E., ve Poumie, B. (2019). Economic growth, military spending and environmental degradation in Africa. MPRA Paper No. 97455. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/97455
  63. Obekpa, H. O., Alola, A. A., Adejo, A. M., & Echebiri, C. (2025). Examining the drivers of ecological footprint components: Is pursuing food security environmentally costly for Nigeria?. Ecological Indicators, 170, 113009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.113009
  64. Okezie, B. N., Nwani, C., Nnam, H. I., & Onuoha, P. I. (2023). Testing the income-finance-trade-environment nexus based on the ecological load capacity factor: Frequency-domain causality evidence from Nigeria. Heliyon, 9(9), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19584
  65. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Annual Report 2020: Build Back Letter. 23 Temmuz 2025. https://files.nettsteder.regjeringen.no/wpuploads01/sites/263/2021/06/OECD_Annual-Report-2020_UU.pdf
  66. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. International labour organization.
  67. Parenti, C. (2011). Tropic of chaos: climate change and the new geography of violence. Bold Type Books.
  68. Pata, U. K. (2018). Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of cleaner production, 187, 770-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.236
  69. Pata, U. K., ve Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Exploring the impact of tourism and energy consumption on the load capacity factor in Turkey: a novel dynamic ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(9), 13491-13503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16675-4
  70. Pata, U. K., ve Isik, C. (2021). Determinants of the load capacity factor in China: a novel dynamic ARDL approach for ecological footprint accounting. Resources Policy, 74, 102313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102313
  71. Pata, U. K., ve Yurtkuran, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, nüfus yoğunluğu ve finansal gelişmenin CO2 salimina etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 303-318. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.441173
  72. Pata, U. K., Destek, M. A., Manga, M., & Cengiz, O. (2023). Militarization of NATO countries sparks climate change? Investigating the moderating role of technological progress and financial development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 409, 137241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137241
  73. Pata, U.K. (2019). Enerji tüketimi çeşitleri ile çevresel kuznets eğrisinin ampirik olarak analizi: Türkiye örneği [Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.
  74. Pei, Y., Wu, Z., Cukurovali, A., & Yue, X. G. (2023). Financial development, industrial structure and environmental sustainability: new evidence from Japan. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 36(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2154239
  75. Putman, R. J., ve Wratten, S. D. (1984). The organism and its environment. In Principles of Ecology (pp. 15-42). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  76. Radmehr, R., Shayanmehr, S., Ali, E. B., Ofori, E. K., Jasińska, E., & Jasiński, M. (2022). Exploring the nexus of renewable energy, ecological footprint, and economic growth through globalization and human capital in G7 economics. Sustainability, 14(19), 12227. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912227
  77. Raihan, A., Rashid, M., Voumik, L. C., Akter, S., & Esquivias, M. A. (2023). The dynamic impacts of economic growth, financial globalization, fossil fuel, renewable energy, and urbanization on load capacity factor in Mexico. Sustainability, 15(18), 13462. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813462
  78. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455747117699722
  79. Rees, W.E., ve Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability. EIA Rev. 16, 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_35
  80. Rong, L., Wang, Z., & Li, Z. (2024). Unraveling the role of Financial Risk, social globalization and Economic Risk towards attaining sustainable environment in China: Does resources curse still holds. Resources Policy, 88, 104375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104375
  81. Sadorsky, P. (2010). The impact of financial development on energy consumption in emerging economies. Energy policy, 38(5), 2528-2535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.048
  82. Samour, A., Radmehr, R., Ali, E. B., Shayanmehr, S., Ofori, E. K., Porhajašová, J. I.,. & Dimnwobi, S. K. (2024). The role of financial inclusion and technological innovation in stimulating environmental sustainability in the European countries: A new perspective based on load capacity factor. Heliyon, 10(22). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39970
  83. Santana, D. B. (2002). Resisting toxic militarism: Vieques versus the US Navy. Social Justice, 29(1/2 (87-88), 37-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768117
  84. Selden, T. M., ve Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions?. Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 27(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1031
  85. Shafik, N., ve Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank Publications.
  86. Shahbaz, M. (2013). Does financial instability increase environmental degradation? Fresh evidence from Pakistan. Economic modelling, 33, 537-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2013.04.035
  87. 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
  88. Siche, R., Pereira, L., Agostinho, F., & Ortega, E. (2010). Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. Communications in nonlinear science and numerical simulation, 15(10), 3182-3192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027
  89. Simon, J. (1977). The Economics of Population Growth. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  90. Simon, J. (1981). The Ultimate Resource. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  91. Smith, C. L., Hooks, G., & Lengefeld, M. (2014). The war on drugs in Colombia: The environment, the treadmill of destruction and risk-transfer militarism. Journal of World-Systems Research, 20(2), 185-206. https://scispace.com/pdf/the-war-on-drugs-in-colombia-the-environment-the-treadmill-2uf5g01exi.pdf
  92. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press.
  93. Stock, J. H., ve Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 783-820. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951763
  94. Sun, Y., Guan, W., Mehmood, U., & Yang, X. (2022). Asymmetric impacts of natural resources on ecological footprints: Exploring the role of economic growth, FDI and renewable energy in G-11 countries. Resources Policy, 79, 103026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103026
  95. Tisdell, C. (2012). The Nature of Ecological and Environmental Economics and its Growing Importance. Working Paper No. 186. Brisbane: University of Queensland. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.140865
  96. Türedi, S., ve Yıldız, F. (2022). Militarizasyon MENA Ülkelerinde Çevresel Kirliliği Nasıl Etkiliyor?. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.1.0010
  97. Ullah, A., Raza, K., Nadeem, M., Mehmood, U., Agyekum, E. B., Elnaggar, M. F.,. & Kamel, S. (2022). Does globalization cause greenhouse gas emissions in Pakistan? A promise to enlighten the value of environmental quality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8678. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148678
  98. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). (1992). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June 1992, Vol. 1: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference. United Nations publication, A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1. 23 Temmuz 2025. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf.
  99. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 23 Temmuz 2025. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf.
  100. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2015). Paris Agreement. 23 Temmuz 2025. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
  101. Venkateswarlu, C. (2013). Role of the judiciary in environment protection in India. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(10), 260-274.
  102. Wooldridge, J. M. (2018). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (7th ed.). South- Western College Pub.
  103. York, R. (2008). De-carbonization in former Soviet republics, 1992–2000. The ecological consequences of de-modernization. Social Problems, 55(3), 370-390. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2008.55.3.370
  104. Yurtkuran, S., ve Guneysu, Y. (2023). Financial inclusion and environmental pollution in Türkiye: Fresh evidence from load capacity curve using AARDL method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(47), 104450-104463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29766-1
  105. Zandi, G., Haseeb, M., & Zainal Abidin, I. S. (2019). The impact of democracy, corruption and military expenditure on environmental degradation: evidence from top six Asean countries. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(4), 333-340. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7443
  106. Zhang, Y. J. (2011). The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: An empirical analysis in China. Energy policy, 39(4), 2197-2203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.026
  107. Nguyen, H. T., Van Nguyen, S., Dau, V. H., Le, A. T. H., Nguyen, K. V., Nguyen, D. P.,. & Bui, H. M. (2022). The nexus between greenhouse gases, economic growth, energy and trade openness in Vietnam. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 28, 102912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102912
  108. Samour, A., Radmehr, R., Ali, E. B., Shayanmehr, S., Ofori, E. K., Porhajašová, J. I.,. & Dimnwobi, S. K. (2024). The role of financial inclusion and technological innovation in stimulating environmental sustainability in the European countries: A new perspective based on load capacity factor. Heliyon, 10(22). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39970
  109. Ullah, A., Raza, K., Nadeem, M., Mehmood, U., Agyekum, E. B., Elnaggar, M. F.,. & Kamel, S. (2022). Does globalization cause greenhouse gas emissions in Pakistan? A promise to enlighten the value of environmental quality. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8678. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148678