Gelir Eşitsizliği ve Ticari Açıklığın Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği

Year 2023, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 1 - 17, 15.06.2023

Ergün Aktürk , Sena Gültekin

Abstract

Küresel ısınma, gıda/su krizi, çevre kirliliği ve sürdürülebilirlik konuları son dönemde oldukça önemli hale gelmiş, Birleşmiş Milletler'in Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefleri doğrultusunda çevre konusu oldukça ön plana çıkmıştır. Bunun sonucunda bu alanda önemli bir literatür oluşmuştur. Konu hakkındaki literatür incelendiğinde çevre için genellikle çevre kirliliğini temsil eden karbondioksit emisyonunun kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir. Ancak söz konusu değişken çevre konusunu bir bütün olarak ele almaktan oldukça uzaktır. Bu nedenle son dönem çalışmalarında ekolojik ayak izinin kullanılmaya başlandığı görülmektedir. Mevcut çalışmada Türkiye için 1990-2018 döneminde gelir eşitsizliği ve ticari açıklığın ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri incelenmiştir. Bu doğrultuda iki farklı ARDL modeli oluşturularak analiz yapılmıştır. İlk modelde, eşitsizlik ve nüfus artışının ekolojik ayak izini düşürdüğü, gıda üretim endeksinin ise artırdığı görülmüştür. Ticari açıklık ise anlamsızdır. İkinci modelde ise, gelir eşitsizliği ve ticari açıklık ekolojik ayak izini düşürürken, GSYİH, yenilenebilir enerji ve nüfusun ekolojik ayak izini artırdığı bulunmuştur.

Keywords

ekolojik ayak izi, gelir eşitsizliği, ticari açıklık

References

• Acar, S. ve Aşıcı, A. A. (2017). Nature and economic growth in Turkey: what does ecological footprint imply?. Middle East Development Journal, 9(1), 101-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2017.1288475 Altay Topcu, B. (2021). The impact of export, import, and renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting, 8(1), p.31-38. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2021.1376
• Apaydin, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayakizi üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.695836
• Beşe, E. ve Friday, H. S. (2022). The relationship between external debt and emissions and ecological footprint through economic growth: Turkey. Cogent Economics & Finance, 10(1), 2063525. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2022.2063525
• Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., Koçak, E. ve İlkay, S. Ç. (2020). Does globalization matter for environmental sustainability? Empirical investigation for Turkey by Markov regime switching models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(1), 1087-1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06996-w
• Brown, R.L., Durbin, J., Evans ve J.M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relations over time. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 37, 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1975.tb01532.x
• 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
• Chen, H., Chen, R., Bernard, S. ve Rahman, I. (2019). US hotel industry revenue: An ARDL bounds testing approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1720-1743. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2018-0031
• Demir, C., Cergibozan, R. ve Gök, A. (2019). Income inequality and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Energy & Environment, 30(3), 444-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0958305X18793109
• Destek, M. A. (2019). Türkiye’de gelir dağılımının çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkileri üzerine bir inceleme. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 1477-1488. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.556006
• 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
• Destek, M. A. ve Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from organization for economic co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537
• Dumrul, Y. ve Kılıçarslan, Z. (2020). Türkiye’nin uluslararası ticareti ve ekolojik ayak izi. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 9(3), 1589-1597. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.558346
• Ekeocha, D. O. (2021). Urbanization, inequality, economic development and ecological footprint: Searching for turning points and regional homogeneity in Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 291, 125244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125244
• Ersungur, Ş. M., Tığtepe, E. ve Kılıç, F. (2022). Ekonomik karmaşıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi. İşletme Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.33416/baybem.1118496
• FAO. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6340e.pdf
• Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K. ve Lazarus, E. (2014). Ecological footprint: Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 173, 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.019
• Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Rafique, S. ve Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). The asymmetric effect of tourism, financial development, and globalization on ecological footprint in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(32), 40109-40120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09937-0
• GFN. (2012). Executive Summary: Turkey’s Ecological Footprint Report. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_Executive_Summary-Conclusion.pdf
• GFN. (2016). Living Planet Report 2016 Technical Supplement: Ecological Footprint. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/technical_supplement_ecological_footprint_2016.pdf
• Gokmenoglu, K. K., Taspinar, N. ve 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
• Güzel, İ. ve Oluç, İ. (2022). İhracat ürün çeşitlendirmesinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 14(26), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1060437
• Gülmez, A., Altıntaş, N. ve Kahraman, Ü. O. (2020). A puzzle over ecological footprint, energy consumption and economic growth: The case of Turkey. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(4), 753-768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-020-00465-1
• Karasoy, A. (2021). Küreselleşme, sanayileşme ve şehirleşmenin Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izine etkisinin genişletilmiş ARDL yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 208-231. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsbd.929092
• Kirikkaleli, D., Adebayo, T. S., Khan, Z. ve Ali, S. (2021). Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(11), 14009-14017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11654-7
• Köksal, C., Işik, M. ve Katircioğlu, S. (2020). The role of shadow economies in ecological footprint quality: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(12), 13457-13466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07956-5
• Langnel, Z., Amegavi, G. B., Donkor, P. ve Mensah, J. K. (2021). Income inequality, human capital, natural resource abundance, and ecological footprint in ECOWAS member countries. Resources Policy, 74, 102255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102255
• Mahesh, M. (2016). The effects of trade openness on income inequality-evidence from BRIC countries. Economics Bulletin, 36(3), 1751-1761.
• Narayan, P. K. ve Smyth, R. (2006). What determines migration flows from low‐income to high‐income countries? An empirical investigation of Fiji–Us migration 1972–2001. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(2), 332-342. https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byj019
• Nathaniel, S., Anyanwu, O. ve Shah, M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(13), 14601-14613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08017-7
• Niccolucci, V., Galli, A., Reed, A., Neri, E., Wackernagel, M. ve Bastianoni, S. (2011). Towards a 3D national ecological footprint geography. Ecological Modelling, 222(16), 2939-2944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.04.020
• Öcal, O., Altinöz, B. VE Aslan, A. (2020). The effects of economic growth and energy consumption on ecological footprint and carbon emissions: Evidence from Turkey. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 667-681. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.773461
• Ozturk, S., Cetin, M. ve Demir, H. (2021). Income inequality and CO2 emissions: nonlinear evidence from Turkey. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 11911–11928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01922-y
• Özsoy, F. N. (2021). Türkiye’de yolsuzluk ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.762565
• Pata, U. K. (2021). Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy, 173, 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.125
• Pellegrini, G., Ingrao, C., Camposeo, S., Tricase, C., Conto, F. ve Huisingh, D. (2016). Application of water footprint to olive growing systems in the Apulia region: a comparative assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2407-2418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.088
• Pesaran, M.H. ve Shin, Y. (1999). An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. In: Strom, S. (Ed.), Econometrics and Economic Theory in 20th Century: The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium, Chapter 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
• Schaefer, F., Luksch, U., Steinbach, N., Cabeça, J. ve Hanauer, J. (2006). Ecological footprint and biocapacity: the world’s ability to regenerate resources and absorb waste in a limited time period. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3888793/5835641/KS-AU-06-001-EN.PDF
• Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I. ve Sinha, A. (2020). Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57, 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
• Silajdzic, S. ve Mehic, E. (2018). Trade openness and economic growth: Empirical evidence from transition economies. In Bobek, V. (Ed.) Trade and Global Market, IntechOpen, Rijeka, Ch. 2.
• Solt, F. (2016). The standardized world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly, 97(5), 1267-1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12295
• Solt, F. (2020). Measuring income inequality across countries and over time: The standardized world income inequality database. Social Science Quarterly, 101(3), 1183-1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12795
• Telatar, O. M. ve Birinci, N. (2022). The effects of environmental tax on ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions: A nonlinear cointegration analysis on Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 44335–44347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18740-y
• Toth, G. ve Szigeti, C. (2016). The historical ecological footprint: From over-population to over-consumption. Ecological Indicators, 60, 283-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.040
• Udemba, E. N. (2020). Ecological implication of offshored economic activities in Turkey: Foreign direct investment perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 38015-38028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09629-9
• Ursavaş, N. (2021). Türkiye’de demokrasinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 56(4), 2745-2757. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.21.11.1720
• WWF. (2019). EU overshoot day living beyond nature’s limit. http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_eu_overshoot_day___living_beyond_nature_s_limits_web.pdf
• WWF. (2020). Living Planet Report 2020- Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Almond, R.E.A., Grooten M. and Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland. https://wwfin.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_2020_full_report.pdf
• Yavuz, E. (2021). Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine kanıtlar, Journal Of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 7(45),1937-1945. http://dx.doi.org/10.31589/JOSHAS.784