INVESTIGATING THE EKC VE LCC HYPOTHESES FOR TÜRKİYE: EVIDENCE FROM CROSS QUANTILOGRAM TEST

Öz

The rate of economic growth has started to increase with globalization activities in the world. However, environmental negativities such as excessive resource consumption and increased emissions have emerged with economic growth. Environmental negativities and concerns have led the global world to focus on the concept of sustainable growth. Within the scope of sustainable growth, this study analyzes the relationship between environmental pollution and economic growth for Türkiye between 1961Q1 and 2022Q4 with the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and load capacity curve (LCC) hypotheses. For this, the study uses the cross-quantilogram method. The findings show that the increase in economic growth in the short-term increases carbon dioxide emissions and ecological footprint, decreases the load capacity factor, and in the long term, economic growth increases environmental quality. These results indicate that the EKC and LCC hypotheses are valid in Türkiye. The study emphasizes that sustainable environmental growth strategies for Türkiye should be differentiated according to periods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• LCC
• EKC
• Türkiye
• Cross Quantilogram

TÜRKİYE İÇİN ÇKE VE YKE HİPOTEZLERİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI: ÇAPRAZ KANTİLOGRAM TESTİNDEN KANITLAR

Öz

Dünyada küreselleşme faaliyetleriyle birlikte ekonomik büyüme hızı artmaya başlamıştır. Ancak ekonomik büyümeyle birlikte aşırı kaynak tüketimi ve artan emisyonlar gibi çevresel olumsuzluklar ortaya çıkmıştır. Çevresel olumsuzluklar ve kaygılar küresel dünyanın sürdürülebilir büyüme kavramına odaklanmasına neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmada sürdürülebilir büyüme kapsamında Türkiye için 1961Q1 ile 2022Q4 yılları arasında çevre kirliliği ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişki çevresel Kuznets eğrisi (ÇKE) ve yük kapasitesi eğrisi (YKE) hipotezleriyle analiz edilmiştir. Bunun için çalışmada çapraz kantilogram yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, kısa dönemde ekonomik büyümedeki artışın karbondioksit emisyonlarını ve ekolojik ayak izini artırdığını, yük kapasitesi faktörünü azalttığını ve uzun dönemde ekonomik büyümenin çevre kalitesini artırdığını göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar Türkiye’de ÇKE ve YKE hipotezlerinin geçerli olduğunu belirtmektedir. Çalışmada Türkiye için sürdürülebilir çevresel büyüme stratejilerinin dönemlere göre farklılaştırılması gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• LCC
• EKC
• Türkiye
• Çapraz Kantilogram

Kaynakça

1. Abbasi, F., & Riaz, K. (2016). CO2 emissions and financial development in an emerging economy: an augmented VAR approach. Energy Policy, 90, 102-114.
2. Ahmed, A., Uddin, G. S., & Sohag, K. (2016). Biomass energy, technological progress and the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence from selected European countries. Biomass and Bioenergy, 90, 202-208.
3. Ali, S., Ghimire, A., Khan, A., Tariq, G., Shah, A. A., & Tariq, M. A. U. R. (2022). Modelling the nexus of carbon dioxide emissions, economic growth, electricity production and consumption: Assessing the evidence from Pakistan. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1075730.
4. Aung, T. S., Saboori, B., & Rasoulinezhad, E. (2017). Economic growth and environmental pollution in Myanmar: an analysis of environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 20487-20501.
5. Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., & Van, P. N. (2006). Economic development and CO2 emissions: A nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6-7), 1347-1363.
6. Beckerman, W. (1995). Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment?. In Growth, the Environment and the Distribution of Incomes (pp. 275-290). Edward Elgar Publishing.
7. Boluk, G., & Karaman, S. (2024). The impact of agriculture, energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: testing the agriculture-induced EKC for Türkiye. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26, 31817–31837.
8. Broock, W. A., Scheinkman, J. A., Dechert, W. D., & LeBaron, B. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197-235.

9. Caglar, A. E., Destek, M. A., & Manga, M. (2024). Analyzing the load capacity curve hypothesis for the Turkiye: A perspective for the sustainable environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, 141232.
10. Capasso, M., Hansen, T., Heiberg, J., Klitkou, A., & Steen, M. (2019). Green growth–A synthesis of scientific findings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 390-402.
11. Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138-154.
12. Coondoo, D., & Dinda, S. (2008). Carbon dioxide emission and income: A temporal analysis of cross-country distributional patterns. Ecological Economics, 65(2), 375-385.
13. Çamkaya, S., Kaya Y., & Karabayır, M. E. (2025). Do renewable and nuclear R&D expenditures affect environmental quality in France? An assessment from the perspective of the LCC hypothesis and SDGs. Energy, 135179.
14. Daştan, M. (2024). The Role of Renewable Energy, Technological Innovation, and Human Capital on Environmental Quality in Türkiye: Testing the LCC Hypothesis with Smooth Structural Shifts. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (65), 76-91.
15. Dijkgraaf, E., & Vollebergh, H. (2005). A test for parameter homogeneity in CO2 panel EKC estimations. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32(2), 229-39.
16. 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, 135038.
17. Du, L., Wei, C., & Cai, S. (2012). Economic development and carbon dioxide emissions in China: Provincial panel data analysis. China Economic Review, 23(2), 371-384.
18. Durmaz, N., & Lee, J. (2015). An empirical analysis of import demand function for Turkey: an ARDL bounds testing approach. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(4), 215-226.
19. Dutt, K. (2009). Governance, institutions and the environment-income relationship: a cross-country study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11, 705-723.
20. Erat, S., & Telli, A. (2020). Within the global circular economy: a special case of turkey towards energy transition. MRS Energy Sustain 7 (1): 1–10.
21. Erdogan, S. (2024). On the impact of natural resources on environmental sustainability in African countries: a comparative approach based on the EKC and LCC hypotheses. Resources Policy, 88, 104492.
22. Farhani, S., & Shahbaz, M. (2014). What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption and output is needed to initially mitigate CO2 emissions in MENA region?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 80-90.
23. Feng, Z., Durani, F., Anwar, A., Ahmad, P., Syed, Q. R., & Abbas, A. (2024). From brown to green: Are emerging countries moving in right direction? Testing the validity of LCC hypothesis. Energy & Environment, 0958305X241228519.
24. Global Footprint Network (2025). Country trends. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=231&type=BCpc,EFCpc.
25. Grossman, G., & Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement.
26. Guloglu, B., Caglar, A. E., & Pata, U. K. (2023). Analyzing the determinants of the load capacity factor in OECD countries: evidence from advanced quantile panel data methods. Gondwana Research, 118, 92-104.
27. Ha, N. T. T., Johari, S. M., Thuong, T. T. H., Phuong, N. T. M., & Anh, L. T. H. (2020). The impact of innovation on economic growth: the spillover effect of foreign direct investment. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 8(2), 708-714.
28. Han, H., Linton, O., Oka, T., & Whang, Y. J. (2016). The cross-quantilogram: Measuring quantile dependence and testing directional predictability between time series. Journal of Econometrics, 193(1), 251-270.
29. Hakkak, M., Altintaş, N., & Hakkak, S. (2023). Exploring the relationship between nuclear and renewable energy usage, ecological footprint, and load capacity factor: A study of the Russian Federation testing the EKC and LCC hypothesis. Renewable Energy Focus, 46, 356-366.
30. Hervieux, M. S., & Darné, O. (2016). Production and consumption-based approaches for the environmental Kuznets curve using ecological footprint. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 5(3), 318-334.
31. Iwata, H., Okada, K., & Samreth, S. (2010). Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 in France: the role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4057-4063.
32. Jin, X., Ahmed, Z., Pata, U. K., Kartal, M. T., & Erdogan, S. (2024). Do investments in green energy, energy efficiency, and nuclear energy R&D improve the load capacity factor? An augmented ARDL approach. Geoscience Frontiers, 15(4), 101646.
33. Khan, K. A., Hamid, A., Sharif, A., Syed, Q. R., & Anwar, A. (2025). Impact of adaptation technologies and green energy on environmental quality: Evidence from G8 economies. Gondwana Research, 139, 230-242.
34. Koenker, R., & Hallock, K. F. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of economic perspectives, 15(4), 143-156.
35. Kohler, M. (2013). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: A South African perspective. Energy Policy, 63, 1042-1050.
36. Linton, O., & Whang, Y. J. (2007). The quantilogram: With an application to evaluating directional predictability. Journal of Econometrics, 141(1), 250-282.
37. Marques, A. C., Fuinhas, J. A., & Leal, P. A. (2018). The impact of economic growth on CO2 emissions in Australia: the environmental Kuznets curve and the decoupling index. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 27283-27296.
38. Martinez-Alier, J. (1995). The environment as a luxury good or “too poor to be green”?. Ecological Economics, 13(1), 1-10.
39. Masron, T. A., & Subramaniam, Y. (2018). The environmental Kuznets curve in the presence of corruption in developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 12491-12506.
40. McBain, B., Lenzen, M., Wackernagel, M., & Albrecht, G. (2017). How long can global ecological overshoot last? In B. McBain, M. Lenzen, M. Wackernagel, & G. Albrecht, Global and Planetary Change (Vol. 155, p. 13). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.06.002
41. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth-club of rome.
42. Mehmood, U. (2022). Biomass energy consumption and its impacts on ecological footprints: analyzing the role of globalization and natural resources in the framework of EKC in SAARC countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(12), 17513-17519.
43. Mohamed, E. F., Abdullah, A., Jaaffar, A. H., & Osabohien, R. (2024). Reinvestigating the EKC hypothesis: Does renewable energy in power generation reduce carbon emissions and ecological footprint?. Energy Strategy Reviews, 53, 101387.
44. Ng, C. F., Yii, K. J., Lau, L. S., & Go, Y. H. (2022). Unemployment rate, clean energy, and ecological footprint in OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 42863–42872.
45. Niccolucci, V., Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Pulselli, R. M., Borsa, S., & Marchettini, N. (2008). Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 128(3), 162-166.
46. Our World in Data (2024). Per capita CO₂ emissions. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita.
47. 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, 135351.
48. Özokcu, S., & Özdemir, Ö. (2017). Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 639-647.
49. Pablo-Romero, M. D. P., & De Jesús, J. (2016). Economic growth and energy consumption: The energy-environmental Kuznets curve for Latin America and the Caribbean. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1343-1350.
50. Panayotou, T. (1993), Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development, Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office, Working Paper; WP238.
51. Pandey, S., Dogan, E., & Taskin, D. (2020). Production-based and consumption-based approaches for the energy-growth-environment nexus: evidence from Asian countries. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 23, 274-281.
52. Pao, H. T., Yu, H. C., & Yang, Y. H. (2011). Modeling the CO2 emissions, energy use, and economic growth in Russia. Energy, 36(8), 5094-5100.
53. Pata, U. K., & Kartal, M. T. (2023). Impact of nuclear and renewable energy sources on environment quality: Testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses for South Korea. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 55(2), 587-594.
54. Pata, U. K., & Yurtkuran, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, nüfus yoğunluğu ve finansal gelişmenin CO2 salimina etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 303-318.
55. Pata, U. K., & Yurtkuran, S. (2023). Is the EKC hypothesis valid in the five highly globalized countries of the European Union? An empirical investigation with smooth structural shifts. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(1), 17.
56. Pata, U. K., Caglar, A. E., Kartal, M. T., & Depren, S. K. (2023). Evaluation of the role of clean energy technologies, human capital, urbanization, and income on the environmental quality in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 402, 136802.
57. Saboori, B., Sulaiman, J., & Mohd, S. (2012). Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 51, 184-191.
58. Saboori, B., Sulaiman, J., & Mohd, S. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve and energy consumption in Malaysia: A cointegration approach. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 11(9), 861-867.
59. Sahoo, B., Behera, D. K., & Rahut, D. (2022). Decarbonization: examining the role of environmental innovation versus renewable energy use. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(32), 48704-48719.
60. Saqib, N., Duran, I. A., & Ozturk, I. (2023). Unraveling the interrelationship of digitalization, renewable energy, and ecological footprints within the EKC framework: empirical insights from the United States. Sustainability, 15(13), 10663.
61. Shahzad, U., Tiwari, S., Mohammed, K. S., & Zenchenko, S. (2024). Asymmetric nexus between renewable energy, economic progress, and ecological issues: Testing the LCC hypothesis in the context of sustainability perspective. Gondwana Research, 129, 465-475.
62. Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2021). Does renewable energy consumption reduce ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124867.
63. 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.
64. Tübitak (2023). Yeşil büyüme teknoloji yol haritası gübre sektörü teknolojik ihtiyaçlar ve çözümler. Tübitak yayınları. 1-116.
65. Ximei, K., Javaid, M. Q., Shams, T., & Sibt‐e‐Ali, M. (2025). Information and communication technology, economic globalization, and environmental sustainability in APEC nations: Insights from LCC and EKC hypotheses testing. Sustainable Development, 33(1), 878-903.
66. Wang, Y., Sun, X., & Guo, X. (2019). Environmental regulation and green productivity growth: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from OECD industrial sectors. Energy Policy, 132, 611-619.
67. Wang, S., Zafar, M. W., Vasbieva, D. G., & Yurtkuran, S. (2024). Economic growth, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and environmental quality: Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve and load capacity curve hypothesis. Gondwana Research, 129, 490-504.
68. Wajeetongratana, P. (2020). Economic growth and its key factors: an alternative view on the factors stimulating agriculture growth. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 175, p. 13028). EDP Sciences.
69. World Bank (2024). GDP per capita (constant 2015 US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.
70. Wu, Y., Anwar, A., Quynh, N. N., Abbas, A., & Cong, P. T. (2024). Impact of economic policy uncertainty and renewable energy on environmental quality: testing the LCC hypothesis for fast growing economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(25), 36405-36416.
71. Yap, J. T. (1998). Beyond 2000: Assessment of Economic Performance and an Agenda for Sustainable Growth. In J. T. Yap, RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://ideas.repec.org/p/phd/dpaper/dp_1998-28.html
72. Yurtkuran, S. (2020). N11 ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi yakınsaması: Fourier durağanlık testinden yeni kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191-210.
73. Yurtkuran, S. (2021). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği ve yeşil lojistik: Türkiye örneği. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24(45), 171-201.
74. Yurtkuran, S. (2022). Gelen turist sayısının en fazla olduğu 10 ülkede turizm ile CO2 salımı arasındaki ilişki: panel fourier Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (61), 281-303.
75. Yurtkuran, S., & Güneysu, 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.