Bitkisel ve hayvansal üretim karbon emisyonlarını nasıl etkiler? Türkiye’den ampirik kanıtlar

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Türkiye’de 1980-2022 dönemine ait veriler doğrultusunda yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, ticari açıklık, gayri safi yurt içi hâsıla ile bitkisel ve hayvansal üretimin CO2 emisyonları üzerindeki etkilerini analiz ederek, tarımsal faaliyetlerin çevresel kalite üzerindeki rolünü ortaya koymaktır. Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Çalışmada CO2 emisyonlarını etkileyen faktörleri incelemek ve modelin kısa ve uzun dönem ilişkilerini ortaya koymak için küçük örneklemlerde dahi güvenilir sonuçlar vermesiyle bilinen ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı kullanılmıştır. Analiz sürecinde öncelikle değişkenlerin durağanlığı ADF ve PP testleri ile değerlendirilmiş, ardından uzun dönemli ilişkiler tespit edilmiştir. Modelin güvenilirliği çeşitli tanısal testler ile doğrulanmakta ve değişkenlerin CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkileri ortaya konulmaktadır. Bulgular: ARDL testi sonuçları, değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli bir eşbütünleşme ilişkisi olduğunu göstermektedir. Hesaplanan uzun dönem katsayı sonuçlarına göre, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, bitkisel üretim ve hayvansal üretim CO2 emisyonlarını azaltıcı etkide bulunmaktadır. Buna karşılık, gayri safi yurt içi hasıla ve kentleşme CO2 emisyonlarını artıran faktörler olarak belirlenmiştir. Ticari açıklık değişkeni istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Özgünlük/Değer: Türkiye'de bitkisel ve hayvansal üretimin CO2 emisyonları üzerindeki etkisini ele alan çalışmaların sınırlı olduğu dikkat çekmektedir. Yenilenebilir enerji, kişi başına düşen GSYİH ve kentleşme gibi faktörlerin modele dahil edilmesi yapılacak analizler ile Türkiye’de çevre kalitesinin artırılmasına dönük gerek literatüre gerekse de politika önerileri için bir projeksiyon oluşacağı tahmin edilmektedir.

Keywords

• Tarımsal aktiviteler
• ARDL sınır testi
• çevresel kalite
• yenilenebilir enerji

How do crop and livestock production affect carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from Türkiye

Abstract

Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to reveal the role of agricultural activities on environmental quality by analysing the effects of renewable energy use, trade openness, gross domestic product and crop and livestock production on CO2 emissions in Türkiye for the period 1980-2022. Design/Methodology/Approach: In the study, the ARDL bounds test approach, known for providing reliable results even in small samples, is employed to examine the factors affecting CO2 emissions and to reveal the model’s short and long-run relationships. During the analysis process, the stationarity of the variables is first evaluated with ADF and PP tests, and then long-term relationships is determined. The reliability of the model is verified with various diagnostic tests, and the effects of the variables on CO2 emissions is revealed. Findings: The ARDL test results indicate that there is a long-run cointegration relationship between the variables. According to the calculated long-run coefficient results, renewable energy consumption, crop production and livestock production have a decreasing effect on CO2 emissions. On the other hand, gross domestic product and urbanisation are determined as factors that increase CO2 emissions. Originality/Value: It is noteworthy that studies on the impact of crop and livestock production on CO2 emissions in Türkiye are limited. It is estimated that the inclusion of factors such as renewable energy, GDP per capita and urbanisation in the model will provide a projection for both the literature and policy recommendations for improving environmental quality in Türkiye.

Keywords

• Agriculture activities
• ARDL bounds test
• environmental quality
• renewable energy

References

1. Adams, S. and Acheampong, A. O. (2019), “Reducing Carbon Emissions: The Role of Renewable Energy and Democracy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118245.
2. Akıncı, V. Y., Yıldırım, K. and Hacıimamoğlu, T. (2025), “Exploring the Impact of Economic Growth and Energy Consumption on Environmental Pollution in the TR90 Region: An Insight from the MMQR Approach”, Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(4), 743-762.
3. Ali, H. S., Abdul-Rahm, A. S. and Ribadu, M. B. (2017), “Urbanization and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Singapore: Evidence From The ARDL Approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 1967-1974.
4. Appiah, M., Li, M., Onifade, S. T. and Gyamfi, B. A. (2024), “Investigating Institutional Quality and Carbon Mitigation Drive in Sub-Saharan Africa: Are Growth Levels, Energy Use, Population, and Industrialization Consequential Factors?”, Energy & Environment, 35(4), 2031-2057.
5. Aslan, A., Altinoz, B. and Atay Polat, M. (2021), “The Nexus Among Climate Change, Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investments, and Financial Development: New Evidence From N‐11 Countries”, Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 40(3), e13585.
6. Ayyıldız, M. and Erdal, G. (2021), “The Relationship Between Carbon Dioxide Emission and Crop and Livestock Production Indexes: A Dynamic Common Correlated Effects Approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 597-610.
7. Bąk, I., Spoz, A., Zioło, M. and Dylewski, M. (2021), “Dynamic Analysis of The Similarity of Objects in Research on The Use of Renewable Energy Resources in European Union Countries”, Energies, 14(13), 3952.
8. Balogh, J. M. (2022), “The Impacts of Agricultural Development and Trade on CO2 Emissions? Evidence From The Non-European Union Countries”, Environmental Science & Policy, 137, 99-108.

9. Bashir, M. F., Pan, Y., Shahbaz, M. and Ghosh, S. (2023), “How Energy Transition and Environmental Innovation Ensure Environmental Sustainability? Contextual Evidence From Top-10 Manufacturing Countries”, Renewable Energy, 204, 697-709.
10. Bibi, F. and Jamil, M. (2025), “Trade and Environmental Quality: A Spatial Econometric Approach”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-23.
11. Cetin, M., Ecevit, E. and Yucel, A. G. (2018), “Structural Breaks, Urbanization and CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Turkey”, J Appl Econ Bus Res, 8(2), 122-139.
12. Chen, F., Jiang, G. and Kitila, G. M. (2021), “Trade Openness and CO2 Emissions: The Heterogeneous and Mediating Effects For The Belt and Road Countries”, Sustainability, 13(4), 1958.
13. Chowdhury, S., Khan, S., Sarker, M. F. H., Islam, M. K., Tamal, M. A. and Khan, N. A. (2022), “Does Agricultural Ecology Cause Environmental Degradation? Empirical Evidence From Bangladesh”, Heliyon, 8(6), e09750.
14. Çelik, Ş. (2024), “Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on The Effect of Animal Production on Climate Change From Past to Present”, Frontiers in Earth Science, 12, 1402407.
15. Çetin, M. and Can, A. (2024), “Çin ve Hindistan Ekonomilerinde Yenilenebilir Enerji Kullanımı-Çevresel Bozulma İlişkisi: Bir Bootstrap Eşbütünleşme Analizi”, Trakya University Journal of Social Science, 26(2), 581-596.
16. Çetin, M., Aslan, A. and Sarıgül, S. S. (2022), “Analysis of the Dynamics of Environmental Degradation for 18 Upper Middle-income Countries: The Role of Financial Development”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(43), 64647-64664.
17. Çetin, M., Sarıgül, S. S., Topcu, B. A., Alvarado, R. and Karataser, B. (2023), “Does Globalization Mitigate Environmental Degradation in Selected Emerging Economies? Assessment of the Role of Financial Development, Economic Growth, Renewable Energy Consumption and Urbanization”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(45), 100340-100359.
18. Çetin, M., Saygın, S. and Demir, H. (2020), “Tarım Sektörünün Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Bir Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi”, Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 329-345.
19. Çıtak, F., Uslu, H., Batmaz, O. and Hoş, S. (2021), “Do Renewable Energy and Natural Gas Consumption Mitigate CO2 Emissions in the USA? New Insights from NARDL Approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 63739-63750.
20. Dağ, K. and Aktaş, E. (2024), “İklim Değişikliğinin Türkiye Tarımına Etkileri”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 30(2), 173-181.
21. Değer, M. K. and Pata, U. K. (2017), “Türkiye’de Dış Ticaret ve Karbondioksit Salınımı Arasındaki İlişkilerin Simetrik ve Asimetrik Nedensellik Testleriyle Analizi”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 18(1), 31-44.
22. Dinda, S. (2004), “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey”, Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-455.
23. Dogan, E. and Seker, F. (2016), “Determinants of CO2 Emissions in The European Union: The Role of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy”, Renewable Energy, 94, 429-439.
24. Fatima, T., Shahzad, U. and Cui, L. (2021), “Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy Consumption, Trade and CO2 Emissions in High Emitter Countries: Does The Income Level Matter?”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(7), 1227-1251.
25. Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A. B. (1991), “Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement”, NBER Working Paper, (w3914).
26. Hossain, M. S. (2011), “Panel Estimation For CO2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, Trade Openness and Urbanization of Newly Industrialized Countries”, Energy Policy, 39(11), 6991-6999.
27. Inekwe, J., Maharaj, E. A. and Bhattacharya, M. (2020), “Drivers of Carbon Dioxide Emissions: An Empirical Investigation Using Hierarchical and Non-hierarchical Clustering Methods”, Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(1), 1-40.
28. Kırcı, B., Çetin, M., Saygın, S. and Alaşahan, Y. (2018), “Ekonomik Büyüme, Finansal Gelişme, Enerji Tüketimi ve Dış Ticaretin Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Ekonomisi için Bir Nedensellik Analizi (1960-2013)”, Balkan Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(13), 26-43.
29. Kuznets, S. (1955), "Economic Growth and Income Inequality", The American Economic Review, XLV.
30. Lee, K. S. and Choe, Y. C. (2019), “Environmental Performance of Organic Farming: Evidence From Korean Small-Holder Soybean Production”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 742-748.
31. Liu, X., Zhang, S. and Bae, J. (2017), “The Impact of Renewable Energy and Agriculture on Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Investigating The Environmental Kuznets Curve in Four Selected ASEAN Countries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1239-1247.
32. Luqman, M. (2024), “Transition Towards Natural Resource Rents and Green Technology to Achieve China's COP26 Success: A Novel Insights in The Case of Trade Openness and Environmental Pollution”, Resources Policy, 92, 105021.
33. Ma, B. and Ogata, S. (2024), “Impact of Urbanization on Carbon Dioxide Emissions—Evidence From 136 Countries and Regions”, Sustainability, 16(18), 7878.
34. McMichael Anthony, J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D. and Uauy, R. (2007), “Food, Livestock Production, Energy, Climate Change, and Health”, Series / Energy and Health 5, 1253-1263.
35. Ngoc Xuan, V. (2025), “Energy Factors Affecting Environmental Pollution For Sustainable Development Goals: The Case of India. Energy”, Exploration & Exploitation, 43(1), 410-450.
36. Okumuş, İ. (2020), “Türkiye’de Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi, Tarım ve CO2 Emisyonu İlişkisi”, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(1), 21-34.
37. Our World in Data (2025) available at: https://ourworldindata.org/data, (accessed 20 May 2025).
38. Ozturk, S., Cetin, M. and Demir, H. (2022), “Income Inequality and CO2 Emissions: Nonlinear Evidence from Turkey”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 11911-11928.
39. Özbay, Ü. (2024), “Türkiye’de Tarımsal Faaliyetler Karbon Emisyonunu Etkiler mi? ARDL Testinden Elde Edilen Kanıtlar”, Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 11(2), 536-546.
40. Özbay, Ü. (2024), “Türkiye’de Tarımsal Faaliyetler Karbon Emisyonunu Etkiler mi? ARDL Testinden Elde Edilen Kanıtlar”, Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 11(2), 536-546.
41. Özbek, S. and Özbek, B. (2024). “Does Climate Change Strengthen the Link between Environmental Degradation and Agricultural Output? Empirical Evidence on the Turkish Economy”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 30(1), 49-60.
42. Öztürk, S. and Saygın, S. (2020), “Türkiye’de 1974-2016 Döneminde Yapısal Kırılma Altında Kişi Başına Reel Gelir, Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar, Ticari Açıklık ve Karbon Emisyonları Arasındaki İlişki”, Sosyoekonomi, 28(44), 69-90.
43. Panayotou, T. (1999), Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development, ILO; Technology and Employment Programme: Geneva, Switzerland, 1993.
44. Paramati, S. R., Mo, D. and Gupta, R. (2017). “The Effects of Stock Market Growth and Renewable Energy Use on CO2 Emissions: Evidence From G20 Countries”, Energy Economics, 66, 360-371.
45. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (2001), “Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
46. Rahman, M. M., Saidi, K., & Mbarek, M. B. (2020). Economic Growth in South Asia: The Role of CO2 Emissions, Population Density and Trade Openness. Heliyon, 6(5), e03903.
47. Raihan, A. (2023), “An Econometric Evaluation of The Effects of Economic Growth, Energy Use, and Agricultural Value Added on Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Vietnam”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 7(3), 665-696.
48. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Nizam, M., Said, M. and Pereira, J. J. (2022), “Dynamic Impacts of Energy Use, Agricultural and Expansion, and Deforestation on CO2 Emissions in Malaysia”, Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 29(3), 477-507.
49. Rehman, A., Ma, H., Chishti, M. Z., Ozturk, I., Irfan, M. and Ahmad, M. (2021), “Asymmetric Investigation to Track The Effect of Urbanization, Energy Utilization, Fossil Fuel Energy and CO2 Emission on Economic Efficiency in China: Another Outlook”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 17319-17330.
50. Ren, S., Yuan, B., Ma, X. and Chen, X. (2014), “International Trade, FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) and Embodied CO2 Emissions: A Case Study of Chinas Industrial Sectors”, China Economic Review, 28, 123-134.
51. Sagynay, A. and Karadaş, H. A. (2024), “Çevre Kirliliği ve Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişki: Kazakistan için Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Uygulaması”, Sosyal Bilimlerde Nicel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(2), 79-95.
52. Sarkodie, S. A. and Owusu, P. A. (2017), “The Relationship Between Carbon Dioxide, crop and Food Production Index in Ghana: By Estimating the Long-run Elasticities and Variance Decomposition”, Environmental Engineering Research, 22(2), 193-202.
53. Shabani, Z. D. and Shahnazi, R. (2019), “Energy Consumption, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, İnformation and Communications Technology, and Gross Domestic Product in Iranian Economic Sectors: a Panel Causality Analysis”, Energy, 169, 1064-1078.
54. Tarı, R. (2019), Ekonometri (14. Basım), Umuttepe Yayın No:32. Kocaeli.
55. Todaro, M. P. and Smith, S. C. (2020). Economic Development, 13th Edition. Washington, WA.
56. Xu, A., Song, M., Wu, Y., Luo, Y., Zhu, Y. and Qiu, K. (2024), “Effects of New Urbanization on China's Carbon Emissions: A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on The Improved PSM-DID Model”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123164.
57. Zhang, J., Cherian, J., Parvez, A. M., Samad, S., Sial, M. S., Ali, M. A. and Khan, M. A. (2022). “Consequences of Sustainable Agricultural Productivity, Renewable Energy, and Environmental Decay: Recent Evidence From ASEAN Countries”, Sustainability, 14(6), 3556.
58. Zhang, L., Godil, D. I., Bibi, M., Khan, M. K., Sarwat, S. and Anser, M. K. (2021), “Caring for the Environment: How Human Capital, Natural Resources, and Economic Growth Interact with Environmental Degradation in Pakistan? A Dynamic ARDL Approach”, Science of the Total Environment, 774, 145553.
59. Zhou, G., Li, H., Ozturk, I. and Ullah, S. (2022), “Shocks in Agricultural Productivity and CO2 Emissions: New Environmental Challenges For China in The Green Economy”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 5790-5806.
60. Zhou, Y., Zhang, Z. and Lin, B. (2024), “The Impact of Economic Growth Targets on Environmental Pollution: A Study From Chinese Cities”, Growth and Change”, 56(1), e70014.