Doğal Kaynaklar, Enerji Dönüşümü ve Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik: Türkiye'nin Stratejik Kaynak Potansiyelinden Kanıtlar

Abstract

Bu çalışma iki temel amaca hizmet etmektedir. Birincisi, Türkiye ekonomisinde doğal kaynak rantları, enerji dönüşümü, ekonomik büyüme ve çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişkileri açıklamaktır. İkincisi, Türkiye'nin açık ara dünya lideri olduğu bor madenciliğinin çevresel sürdürülebilirliğe katkısını değerlendirmektir. Bu çalışma, 1970-2021 yılları arasındaki verileri kullanarak yapısal kırılmalı ARDL sınır testini kullanmaktadır. Kısa vadeli sonuçlar, ekonomik büyüme ve çevresel bozulma arasında ters U ilişkisinin bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca, doğal kaynak rantlarının çevresel bozulmayı artırdığı, yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin azalttığı ve fosil yakıt kullanımının ise artırdığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Uzun vadede de benzer bulgular elde edilerek Ters Yük Kapasitesi Eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği doğrulanmıştır. Bu sonuç, doğal kaynak laneti hipotezinin çevresel boyutunu da doğrulamaktadır. Uzun vadeli sonuçların sağlamlığını doğrulamak için DOLS tahmincisi kullanılmıştır. Son olarak, çalışma Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizini kullanmıştır. Bu sonuçlar, Türkiye'nin kaynak gelirlerini tüketim odaklı büyüme yerine yenilenebilir ve düşük karbonlu enerji yatırımlarına yönlendirmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Yeşil inovasyonun geliştirilmesi ve sürdürülebilirlik hedeflerinin enerji planlamasına entegre edilmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Türkiye'nin en stratejik doğal kaynaklarından biri olan borun, sürdürülebilir enerji teknolojilerine ve ülkenin düşük karbonlu, kaynak verimli ve çevre dostu bir ekonomiye geçişine önemli katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Bor
• Çevresel bozulma
• Doğal kaynak rantı
• Yenilenebilir enerji
• Türkiye

Natural Resources, Energy Transition, and Environmental Sustainability: Evidence from Turkey’s Strategic Resource Potential

Abstract

This study pursues two main objectives. The first is to explain the relationships between natural resource rents, energy transformation, economic growth, and environmental degradation in the Turkish economy. The second is to assess the contribution of boron mining, in which Türkiye is a clear world leader, to environmental sustainability. This study utilizes the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds test with structural breaks using data from 1970 to 2021. The short-term results demonstrate that an inverted-U relationship exists between economic growth and environmental degradation. Moreover, the findings indicate that natural resource rents exert a positive effect on environmental degradation, whereas renewable energy consumption contributes to its mitigation. Conversely, fossil fuel consumption is associated with heightened environmental deterioration. Similar findings are obtained in the long term, confirming the validity of the Inverse Load Capacity Curve hypothesis. This result also confirms the environmental dimension of the natural resource curse hypothesis. The dynamic ordinary least square (DOLS) estimator was employed to verify the robustness of the long-run results. Finally, the study utilized Toda-Yamamoto causality analysis. These results emphasize Türkiye's need to channel its resource revenues toward renewable and low-carbon energy investments rather than consumption-driven growth. It is crucial to develop green innovation and integrate sustainability goals into energy planning. In this context, boron, one of Türkiye's most strategic natural resources, is considered to significantly contribute to sustainable energy technologies and the country's transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient, and environmentally friendly economy.

Keywords

• Boron
• Environmental degradation
• Natural resource rent
• Renewable energy
• Türkiye

References

1. The United Nations Environment Programme. (2025, 28 April). Facts about the nature crisis. https://www.unep.org/facts-about-nature-crisis
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Summary for policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
3. Global Footprint Network. (2025). Design our future. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-scenario-tool
4. One Planet Network. (2025). Natural-resource use and environmental impacts. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/SDG-12/natural-resource-use-environmental-impacts
5. Hastorun, S. (2022). The Mineral Industry of Turkey. 2019 Minerals Yearbook. https://pubs.usgs.gov/myb/vol3/2019/myb3-2019-turkey.pdf
6. Howe, P. D. (1998). A review of boron effects in the environment. Biological Trace Element Research, 66, 153-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02783135
7. Yiğitbaşıoğlu, H. (2004). Türkiye için önemli bir maden: Bor. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1501/Cogbil_0000000046
8. Eti Maden. (2025). Bor Sektör Raporu 2024. https://www.etimaden.gov.tr/storage/2025/2024%20BOR%20SEKT%C3%96R%20RAPORU/2024%20YILI%20BOR%20SEKTOR%20RAPORU.pdf

9. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper Series, 3914. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
10. Sarkodie, S. A., & Strezov, V. (2018). Empirical study of the Environmental Kuznets curve and Environmental Sustainability curve hypothesis for Australia, China, Ghana and USA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.039
11. B. E., & Akan, D. M. (2015). EKC hypothesis and the effect of innovation: A panel data analysis. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.201519952
12. Dogan, A., & Pata, U. K. (2022). The role of ICT, R&D spending and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Testing the LCC hypothesis for G7 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 380(1), 135038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135038
13. Özbek, S., & Şahin, S. (2025). Moderating role of globalization in agriculture-environment nexus: Insights from the inverted load capacity factor. Agricultural and Food Economics, 13(73). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-025-00412-3
14. Al-mulali, U., Ozturk, I., & Lean, H. H., (2015). The influence of economic growth, urbanization, trade openness, financial development, and renewable energy on pollution in Europe. Natural Hazards, 79, 621-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1865-9
15. Langnel, Z., & Amegavi, G. B. (2020). Globalization, electricity consumption and ecological footprint: An autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63, 102482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102482
16. Shang, Y., Razzaq, A., Chupradit, S., Binh, N. & Abdul-Samad, Z. (2022). The role of renewable energy consumption and health expenditures in improving load capacity factor in ASEAN countries: Exploring new paradigm using advance panel models. Renewable Energy, 191, 715-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.013
17. Ridwan, M., Aspy, N. N., Bala, S., Hossain, M. E., Akther, A., Eleais, M., & Esquivias, M. A. (2024). Determinants of environmental sustainability in the United States: Analyzing the role of financial development and stock market capitalization using LCC framework. Discover Sustainability, 5(319). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00539-1
18. Durmus, S., Agırkaya, M. B., & Akyol, H. (2025). Drivers of the load capacity factor in new industrialized countries: Economic growth, financial development and urbanization on load capacity factor. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 15(3), 184-195. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.18988
19. Dam, M. M., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2023). Renewable energy consumption, real income, trade openness, and inverted load capacity factor nexus in Turkiye: Revisiting the EKC hypothesis with environmental sustainability. Sustainable Horizons, 8, 100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2023.100063
20. Aguiar, C., & Camps, I. (2024). Exploring the potential of boron-nitride nanobelts in environmental applications: Greenhouse gases capture. Surfaces and Interfaces, 52, 104874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2024.104874
21. Castilla-Martinez, C. A., Meléndez-González, P. C., & Demirci, U. B. (2025). Borocarbonitrides for decarbonization: From CO2 utilization to renewable fuel synthesis. Nanoenergy Advances, 5(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/nanoenergyadv5020006
22. Deliboran, A. (2020). Neden bor? Borun çevre ile insan, hayvan ve bitki sağlığı açısından önemi. Bahçe, 49(2), 127-141. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/bahce/article/878479
23. Damette, O., & Delacote, P. (2009). The environmental resource curse hypothesis: The forest case. Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere. https://hal.science/hal-01189378/document
24. Yang, X., Li, N., Mu, H., Zhang, M., Pang, J. & Ahmad, M. (2021). Study on the long-term and short-term effects of globalization and population aging on ecological footprint in OECD countries. Ecological Complexity, 47, 100946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2021.100946
25. Kızılgöl, Ö., & 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
26. Khan, I., Zakari, A., Ahmad, M., Irfan, M., & Hou, F. (2022). Linking energy transitions, energy consumption, and environmental sustainability in OECD countries. Gondwana Research, 103, 445-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.10.026
27. Adebayo, T., Eweade, B., Özkan, O. & Ozsahin, D. (2024). Effects of energy security and financial development on load capacity factor in the USA: A wavelet kernel-based regularized least squares approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. 27, 4215-4232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024-03109-1
28. Bulut, U., Atay-Polat, M., & Bulut, A. S. (2024). Environmental deterioration, renewable energy, natural resource rents, and schooling in Türkiye: Does the degree of energy transition matter for environmental quality?. Journal of Environmental Management, 365, 121639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121639
29. Boulanouar, Z., & Essid, L. (2023). Extending the resource curse hypothesis to sustainability: Unveiling the environmental impacts of natural resources rents and subsidies in fossil fuel-rich MENA countries. Resources Policy, 87(Part A), 104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104330
30. Türkbay, T., Laratte, B., Çolak, A., Çoruh, S., & Elevli, B. (2022). Life cycle assessment of boron industry from mining to refined products. Sustainability, 14(3), 1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031787
31. Kaygusuz, K. (2002). Environmental impacts of energy utilisation and renewable energy policies in Turkey. Energy Policy, 30(8), 689-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00032-0
32. Akpınar, A., Kömürcü, M. İ., Kankal, M., Özölçer, İ. H., & Kaygusuz, K. (2008). Energy situation and renewables in Turkey and environmental effects of energy use. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(8), 2013-2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.04.011
33. Ozyurt, O. (2010). Energy issues and renewables for sustainable development in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 2976-2985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.002
34. Keleş, S., & Bilgen, S. (2012). Renewable energy sources in Turkey for climate change mitigation and energy sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(7), 5199-5206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.026
35. Saleem, H., Khan, M. B., & Shabbir, M. S. (2020). The role of financial development, energy demand, and technological change in environmental sustainability agenda: Evidence from selected Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 5266-5280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07039-0
36. Khalid, K., Usman, M., & Mehdi, M. A. (2020). The determinants of environmental quality in the SAARC region: A spatial heterogeneous panel data approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 6422-6436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10896-9
37. Mujtaba, A., Jena, P. K., Bekun, F. V., & Sahu, P. K. (2022). Symmetric and asymmetric impact of economic growth, capital formation, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on environment in OECD countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160, 112300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112300
38. Fan, L., Usman, M., Haseeb, M. & Kamal, M. (2024). The impact of financial development and energy consumption on ecological footprint in economic complexity‐based EKC framework: New evidence from BRICS‐T region. Natural Resources Forum, 49(2), 1536-1559. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12448
39. Chien F., Hsu C. C., Öztürk İ., Sharif A., & Sadiq M. (2022). The role of renewable energy and urbanization towards greenhouse gas emission in top Asian countries: Evidence from advance panel estimations. Renewable Energy, 186, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.118
40. Akhayere, E., Kartal, M. T., Adebayo, T. S. & Kavaz, D. (2023). Role of energy consumption and trade openness towards environmental sustainability in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 21156-21168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23639-9
41. Alola, A. A., Özkan, O., & Usman, O. (2023). Role of non-renewable energy efficiency and renewable energy in driving environmental sustainability in India: Evidence from the load capacity factor hypothesis. Energies, 16(6), 2847. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16062847
42. Samour, A., Radmehr, R., Ali, E., Shayanmeh, S., Ofori, E., Ivaniˇ, J., & Dimnwobi, S. (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), e39970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39970
43. Dam, M. M., Acar, Y., Kaya, F., & Durmaz, A. (2024). Exploring the impact of life expectancy, environmental policy stringency and renewable energy consumption on the environmental sustainability: Testing of inverted load capacity curve hypotheses. SSRN Paper. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4699548
44. The World Bank Group. (2025). https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
45. Global Change Data Lab. (2025). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org
46. Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics. (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin https://greatcollege.edu.et/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Damodar-Gujarati-Dawn-Porter-Basic-Econometrics-McGraw-Hill-Education-2008-1.pdf
47. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press. https://ipcid.org/evaluation/apoio/Wooldridge%20-%20Cross-section%20and%20Panel%20Data.pdf
48. Said, S. E. & Dickey, D. A. (1984). Testing for unit roots in autoregressive-moving average models of unknown order. Biometrika, 71(3), 599-607. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336570
49. Phillips, P. C. B. & P. Perron, (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
50. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1979.10482531
51. Perron, P. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica, 57(6), 1361-1401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913712
52. Bai, J., & Perron, P. (2003). Critical values for multiple structural change tests. The Econometrics Journal, 6(1), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00102
53. Perron, P. (2005). Dealing with structural breaks. Palgrave Handbook of Econometrics, (pp.278-352). Working Papers Series. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pierre-Perron/publication/4998524_Dealing_with_Structural_Breaks/links/0deec528ab21d602ce000000/Dealing-with-Structural-Breaks.pdf
54. Özbek, S., Ceylan, R., & Karademir, C. (2025). Does income growth primarily affect ecological footprint or renewable energy? New evidence from India in the context of the Kuznets hypothesis. Carbon Footprints, 4(30). https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/cf.2025.43
55. Pesaran, M. Hashem, Shin, Y., & Smith, Richard 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. Narayan, P. K., & Narayan, S. (2006). Savings behaviour in Fiji: An empirical assessment using the ardl approach to cointegration. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(7), 468-480. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290610673243
57. Şahin, G., & Çelik, B. (2025). Examining the relationships between advertising expenditures and technology in the us economy with the ardl bounds test. Journal of Business Research, 17(3), 1895-1911. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2025.2070
58. Tsong, C. C., Lee, C. F., Tsai, L. J., & Hu, T. C. (2016). The Fourier approximation and testing for the null of cointegration. Empirical Economics, 51, 1085-1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-015-1028-6
59. Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica, 61(4), 783-820. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951763
60. Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01616-8
61. Vogelsang, T. J. (1993). Essays on testing for nonstationarities and structural change in time series models. (Publication No. 9407125) [Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University]. University Microfilms International.
62. Balaylar, N. A., & Duygulu, A. A. (2004). Türkiye’de para ikamesi olgusu ve para talebinin istikrari [The phenomenon of currency substitution and the stability of money demand in Turkey]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 33-55. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/211289
63. Egeli, H. A., & Egeli, H. (2008). Bir geçis ekonomisi olarak Kırgızistan’ın dıs borçlarının sürdürebilirliği [Sustainability of Kyrgyzstan's external debt as a transition economy]. Sosyoekonomi, 7(7), 11-26. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/197621
64. Zellner, A. (1962). An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348-368. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281644
65. Özbek, S., & Naimoğlu, M. (2025). The effectiveness of renewable energy technology under the EKC hypothesis and the impact of fossil and nuclear energy investments on the UK's ecological footprint. Energy, 322, 135351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.135351
66. Imran, M., Alam, M. S., Jijian, Z., Ozturk, I., Wahab, S., & Doğan, M. (2025). From resource curse to green growth: Exploring the role of energy utilization and natural resource abundance in economic development. Natural Resources Forum, 49(2), 2025-2047. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12461