KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / İşletme Bilimi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Assessing Environmental Policy Impact through the Ecological Footprint: The Case of Türkiye

Sacit Sarı

Sayfa
359–372
Yayın Tarihi
2025-07-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗

Abstract

This study investigates the long-term effectiveness of environmental policies in Türkiye by examining the stochastic properties of the ecological footprint (EF) and its six subcomponents, carbon footprint, cropland footprint, grazing land footprint, forest products footprint, fishing grounds footprint, and built-up land footprint over the period 1961–2022. Annual per capita data obtained from the Global Footprint Network are analyzed using two-unit root testing methodologies: the conventional Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test and the more robust RALS-LM unit root test, which accounts for structural breaks and non-normal error distributions. The findings reveal that both the EF and its largest component, the CF, are stationary, suggesting that past environmental policy interventions have yielded transitory effects. Only the CRF and FGF exhibit nonstationarity, indicating that agricultural and fisheries-related policies may have induced permanent shifts in environmental outcomes. Overall, the results suggest that environmental policies in Türkiye to date have not led to long-term and permanent improvements in the ecological footprint indicator. Therefore, it is concluded that policy design should be more comprehensive, consistent, and structurally transformative to achieve environmental sustainability.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Sarı, S. (2025). Assessing Environmental Policy Impact through the Ecological Footprint: The Case of Türkiye. İşletme Bilimi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 359–372. https://doi.org/10.22139/jobs.1701095

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Kaynakça (36)

  1. Adali, Z., Yeter, F., Çoban, M. N., & Sarı, S. (2025). Exploring the grazing land footprint’s stochastic behavior in the top dairy and meat-producing nations. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 30(1), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-024-10016-8
  2. Adebayo, T. S., Agyekum, E. B., Kamel, S., Zawbaa, H. M., & Altuntaş, M. (2022). Drivers of environmental degradation in Turkey: Designing an SDG framework through advanced quantile approaches. Energy Reports, 8, 2008-2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.020
  3. Alper, A. E., & Alper, F. Ö. (2021). Persistence of policy shocks to the ecological footprint of MINT countries. Ege Academic Review, 21(4), 427-440. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1015635
  4. Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Cil, A. B., Iscan, E., & Eren, A. A. (2023). Stochastic convergence of ecological footprint: new insights from a unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 22100-22114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23763-6
  5. Aytemiz, S., Coşkun, N., & Tuncer, İ. (2021). Testing the absolute purchasing power parity hypothesis under non-normal errors: Rals-Lm and Rals-Adf unit root tests. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(21), 57-72.
  6. Bayraktar, Y., Koc, K., Toprak, M., Ozyılmaz, A., Olgun, M. F., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Soylu, O. B. (2023). Convergence of per capita ecological footprint among BRICS-T countries: evidence from Fourier unit root test. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(22), 63022-63035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26532-1
  7. Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., & Koçak, E. (2019). Implications of Environmental Convergence: Continental Evidence Based on Ecological Footprint. In: Shahbaz, M., Balsalobre, D. (eds) Energy and Environmental Strategies in the Era of Globalization. Green Energy and Technology (p.133-165). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06001-5_6
  8. Caglar, A. E., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Akin, C. S. (2021). Analysing the ecological footprint in EU-5 countries under a scenario of carbon neutrality: Evidence from newly developed sharp and smooth structural breaks in unit root testing. Journal of Environmental Management, 295, 113155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113155
  9. Enders, W. (2015). Applied econometric time series fourth edition. University of Alabama.
  10. Hacıimamoğlu, T. (2023). Katar’da ekolojik ayak i̇zi ve alt bileşenlerinin durağanlığının test edilmesi: Kesirli frekanslı fourier birim kök analizi, Verimlilik Dergisi, Döngüsel Ekonomi ve Sürdürülebilirlik Özel Sayısı, 203-214. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1071540
  11. Hepsağ, A. (2022). Ekonometrik zaman serileri analizlerinde güncel yöntemler (WinRats Uygulamalı). Der Yayınları.
  12. Imperatives, S. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our common future. http://www.ask-force.org/web/Sustainability/Brundtland-Our-Common-Future-1987-2008.pdf
  13. Karaaslan, İ., & Karadavut, A. (2025). Determination of the stability of ecological footprint and its subcomponents in Türkiye: Fourier KPSS test. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 10(1), 77-89
  14. Kaya, S. K., & Göv, A. (2023). BRICS Ülkeleri ve Türkiye örneğinde ekolojik ayak izine yönelik çevresel politika şokları kalıcı mı? Bingöl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.33399/biibfad.1192998
  15. Meng, M., Lee, J., & Payne, J. E. (2017). RALS-LM unit root test with trend breaks and non-normal errors: Application to the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 21(1), 31-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/snde-2016-0050
  16. Mert, M., & Cağlar, A. E. (2019). Eviews ve Gauss Uygulamalı Zaman Serileri Analizi. Detay Yayıncılık.
  17. Network, G. F. (2021). Global footprint network. http://www.footprintnetwork.org
  18. OECD. (2019). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Turkey 2019, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309753-en
  19. Ozcan, B., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2019). Analyzing long lasting effects of environmental policies: Evidence from low, middle and high income economies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.025
  20. 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/10.1177/095624789200400212
  21. Solarin, S. A. (2019). Convergence in CO 2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: evidence from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 6167-6181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3993-8
  22. Solarin, S. A. (2020). Towards sustainable development: A multi‐country persistence analysis of forest products footprint using a stationarity test with smooth shifts. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1465-1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2099
  23. Solarin, S. A., & Bello, M. O. (2018). Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: The case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecological Indicators, 89, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064
  24. Solarin, S. A., Gil-Alana, L. A., & Lafuente, C. (2019). Persistence in carbon footprint emissions: An overview of 92 countries. Carbon Management, 10(4), 405-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2019.1620038
  25. Şener, F. N., & Tolunay, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir orman yönetimi süreçlerinde Türkiye’nin konum analizi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.270082
  26. Traoré, F., & Diop, I. (2021). Unit root tests: Common pitfalls and best practices. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. https://agrodep.org/sites/default/files/AGRODEP%20TN%2023_0.pdf
  27. Ullah, A., Tekbas ̧, M., & Dogan, M. (2023). The Impact of Economic Growth, Natural Resources, Urbanization and Biocapacity on the Ecological Footprint: The Case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15, 12855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712855
  28. Ulucak, R., & Apergis, N. (2018). Does convergence really matter for the environment? An application based on club convergence and on the ecological footprint concept for the EU countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.11.002
  29. Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
  30. Ulucak, R., & Lin, D. (2017). Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecological Indicators, 80, 337-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.020
  31. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. The new catalyst bioregional series. New Society Publishers
  32. Yilanci, V., & Abbas, S. (2023). Does the frequency of stochastic convergence in per capita ecological footprint matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(21), 59676-59688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26688-w
  33. Yilanci, V., Gorus, M. S., & Aydin, M. (2019). Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary? Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 270-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.299
  34. Yilanci, V., Pata, U. K., & Cutcu, I. (2022). Testing the persistence of shocks on ecological footprint and sub-accounts: Evidence from the big ten emerging markets. International Journal of Environmental Research, 16(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-021-00391-5
  35. Yilanci, V., Ulucak, R., & Ozgur, O. (2022). Insights for a sustainable environment: Analysing the persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprints of Mediterranean countries. Spatial Economic Analysis, 17(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2021.1919313
  36. Yurtkuran, S. (2020). N11 ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi yakınsaması: Fourier durağanlık testinden yeni kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191-210.