AB ülkelerinde tarımsal üretim, ekonomik büyüme, yenilenebilir ve fosil enerji tüketiminin yük kapasite faktörü üzerindeki etkisi: MMQR metodolojisinden kanıtlar

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, 2000–2023 döneminde 24 Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkesinde ekonomik büyüme, tarımsal üretim ve yenilenebilir ile fosil enerji tüketiminin yük kapasitesi faktörü üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. AMG (Genişletilmiş Ortalama Grup), CCE (Ortak Korelasyon Etkileri) ve Momentler Yöntemi ile Kantil Regresyon (MMQR) tahmin yöntemlerini kullanarak, çalışma tarım–çevre ilişkisini incelemekte ve AB bağlamında Yük Kapasite Eğrisi (LCC) hipotezini test ederek literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır.

Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Birim kök, eşbütünleşme ve yatay kesit bağımlılığı testlerinin ardından, çalışmada uzun dönem analiz için AMG ve CCE tahmin yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Tahminlerde olası dağılım asimetrilerini ve normal dağılım varsayımına aykırılıkları dikkate almak amacıyla MMQR yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Ayrıca, tahmin edilen katsayıların 10. ve 90. kantiller arasında homojen olup olmadığını istatistiksel olarak değerlendirmek için Wald testi gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Ampirik bulgular, AB ülkelerinde LCC hipotezinin geçerli olmadığını göstermektedir. Tarımsal üretim çevresel kaliteyi artırmakta olup, bu durum sürdürülebilir ve kaynak verimli tarım uygulamalarının çevre üzerindeki olumlu etkisini yansıtmaktadır. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi çevre dostu niteliği nedeniyle çevresel kaliteyi artırırken, fosil enerji tüketimi karbon yoğun yapısı nedeniyle çevresel kaliteyi sürekli olumsuz etkilemektedir. Wald testi sonuçları, tahmin edilen katsayıların tüm kantillerde homojen olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu sonuç, ekonomik büyüme, enerji geçişi ve tarımsal üretimin çevresel kalite üzerindeki etkilerinin, farklı çevresel performans seviyelerine sahip ülkelerde yapısal olarak istikrarlı ve tutarlı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Özgünlük/Değer: Bu çalışma, tarım–çevresel kalite ilişkisini geleneksel çevresel bozulma göstergelerinin ötesine taşıyarak ve yük kapasitesi faktörünü çevresel kaliteyi daha kapsamlı ölçen bir gösterge olarak kullanarak literatüre katkıda bulunmaktadır. Önceki çalışmalar ortalama etkiler üzerine odaklanırken bu çalışmada MMQR yöntemi uygulanmış ve katsayı eşitliği testi gerçekleştirilerek AB ülkelerinde çevresel kaliteyi belirleyen etkenlerin yapısal olarak istikrarlı olduğu gösterilmiştir.

Keywords

• Tarımsal üretim
• ekonomik büyüme
• enerji tüketimi
• yük kapasite faktörü
• kantil regresyon

The role of agricultural production, economic growth, renewable and fossil energy consumption on load capacity factor in the EU countries: Evidents from MMQR methodology

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the effects of economic growth, agricultural production, and renewable and fossil energy consumption on environmental quality, measured by the load capacity factor, in 24 European Union (EU) countries over the period 2000–2023. By focusing on the load capacity factor and employing the augmented mean group (AMG), common correlated effects (CCE), and method of moments quantile regression (MMQR) estimators, the study contributes to the literature by examining the agriculture–environment nexus and testing the Load Capacity Curve (LCC) hypothesis within the EU context.

Design/Methodology/Approach: Following the confirmation of unit root, cointegration, and cross-sectional dependence, the study employs AMG and CCE estimators for the initial long-run analysis. To account for potential distributional asymmetries and non-normality, MMQR is applied. Furthermore, a Wald test for coefficient equality is conducted to statistically assess whether the estimated effects vary across the 10th to 90th quantiles or remain structurally stable.

Findings: The empirical results indicate that the LCC hypothesis does not hold for EU countries. Agricultural production is found to improve environmental quality, likely reflecting the adoption of sustainable and resource-efficient farming practices in the region. Renewable energy consumption enhances environmental resilience, highlighting its role in reducing ecological pressures, whereas fossil energy consumption consistently deteriorates environmental quality due to its carbon-intensive nature. Crucially, the Wald test results indicate that the estimated coefficients are statistically homogeneous across all quantiles, suggesting that the impacts of economic growth, energy transition, and agricultural productivity are structurally stable and consistent across countries with varying levels of environmental performance.

Originality/Value: This study contributes to the literature by extending the analysis of agriculture–environment interactions beyond conventional environmental pressure indicators and by adopting the load capacity factor as a more comprehensive measure of environmental resilience. Unlike previous studies that focus on average effects, this research applies the MMQR method and tests for coefficient equality, suggesting that the drivers of environmental quality in the EU are structurally stable across countries.

Keywords

• Agricultural production
• economic growth
• energy consumption
• load capacity factor
• quantile regression

References

1. Ali, Z., Yang, J., Ali, A., and Khan, A. (2024), “Balancing agriculture, environment and natural resources: insights from Pakistan’s load capacity factor analysis”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 1227–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-023-02673-2
2. Alvarado, R., Ortiz, C., Jiménez, N., Ochoa-Jiménez, D., and Tillaguango, B. (2021), “Ecological footprint, air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international trade”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 288 No. 125589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125589
3. Apoorva, M. S., and Kundlas, K. (2024), “Negative impacts of intensive agricultural practices on environment and ecosystem: A review”, International Journal of Research in Agronomy, Vol. 7 No. 12, pp. 285-289. https://doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2024.v7.i12d.2146
4. Arezki, R., Landau, J-P., and Ploeg, R. (2024), “Why the EU must reset its Green Deal — or be left behind”, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03918-w (accessed 28 February 2026).
5. Boluk, G., and 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, Vol. 26, pp. 31817–31837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04672-9
6. Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (2001), “Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A Guide for Social Scientists”, Routledge.
7. Breusch, T. S., and Pagan, A. R. (1980), “The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics”, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 239–253.
8. Bucak, Ç., and Çatık, A. N. (2025), “Spillover effects of economic complexity on load capacity factor in the EU: a spatial econometrics perspective”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2025.2462229

9. Cozim-Melges, F., Ripoll-Bosch, R., Veen, G. F., Oggiano, P., Bianchi, F. J. J. A., van der Putten, W. H., and van Zanten, H. H. E. (2024), “Farming practices to enhance biodiversity across biomes: A systematic review”, Biodiversity, Vol. 3 No 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00034-x
10. Demirkol, E. C. (2022), “Impacts of modern agriculture on environment and sustainable agriculture”, Journal of Life Economics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 171-182. https://doi.org/10.15637/jlecon.9.3.05
11. Dogan, A., and Pata, U. K. (2022), “The role of ICT, RandD spending and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Testing the LCC hypothesis for G7 countries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 380 No. 135038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135038
12. European Commission. (2025a), “Sustainable agricultural practices and methods”, available at: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/cap-my-country/sustainability/environmental-sustainability/sustainable-agricultural-practices-and-methods_en (accessed 17 December 2025).
13. European Commission. (2025b), “Taking the lead on climate change”, available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/eu-climate-change/ (accessed 17 December 2025).
14. FAO. (2025), “Value of Agricultural Production”, available at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QV (accessed 11 December 2025).
15. Feng, Z., Durani, F., Anwar, A., Ahmad, P., Syed, Q. R., and Abbas, A. (2025), “From brown to green: Are emerging countries moving in right direction? Testing the validity of LCC hypothesis”, Energy and Environment, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 3714–3736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X241228519
16. Galvao, Jr. A. F. (2011), “Quantile regression for dynamic panel data with fixed effects”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 164 No. 1, pp. 142-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.02.016
17. Göksu, S. (2025), “Relationship between Livestock and Crop Production Indexes with Load Capacity Factor in Türkiye: Empirical Evidence from LCC Hypothesis”, Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, Vol. 22(4), 1046–1060. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1648378
18. Jiaduo, E., Kibria, Md. G., Aspy, N. N., Ullah, E., and Hossain, Md. E. (2023), “The Impact of Agricultural Employment and Technological Innovation on the Environment: Evidence from BRICS Nations Considering a Novel Environmental Sustainability Indicator”, Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 15083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015083
19. Li, L., Ali, A., Li, S., and Zhang, T. (2023), “A dynamic relationship between renewable energy, agriculture, globalization, and ecological footprint of the five most populous countries in Asia”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28546-1
20. Li, L., Chen, Q., and Mehmood, U. (2023), “Analyzing the Validity of Load Capability Curve: How Economic Complexity, Renewable Energy, RandD, and Communication Technologies Take Their Part in G-20 Countries”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 30 No. 40, pp. 92068–92083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28436-6
21. Machado, J. A. F., and Silva, J. M. C. S. (2019), “Quantiles via moments”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 213 No. 1, pp. 145–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2019.04.009
22. Olanipekun, I. O., Olasehinde-Williams, G. O., and Alao, R. O. (2019), “Agriculture and environmental degradation in Africa: The role of income”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 692, pp. 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.129
23. Our World in Data. (2025), “Energy Mix”, available at: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix#fossil-fuels-what-share-of-energy-comes-from-fossil-fuels (accessed 11 December 2025).
24. Özbek, S., and Şahin, S. (2025), “Moderating role of globalization in agriculture–environment nexus: insights from the inverted load capacity factor”, Agricultural and Food Economics, Vol. 13 No. 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-025-00412-3
25. Pata, U. K. (2021), “Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 173, pp. 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.125
26. Pata, U. K, and 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, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 587–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.10.027
27. Persyn, D., and Westerlund, J. (2008), Error-correction–based cointegration tests for panel data. The Stata Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 232–241.
28. Pesaran, M. H., (2004), “General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels”. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0435. University of Cambridge.
29. Pesaran, M. H. (2006), “Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure”. Econometrica, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 967–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.xVU 411
30. Pesaran, M. H. (2007), “A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence”, Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
31. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., and Yamagata, T. (2008), “A bias-adjusted LM test of error crosssection Independence”, The Econometrics Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
32. Pesaran, M. H., and Yamagata, T. (2008), “Testing slope homogeneity in large panels”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 142, pp. 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
33. Raihan, A. (2025), “Dynamic forces of energy, economic, and environmental factors on Thailand’s load capacity”, Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06669-4
34. Raihan, A., Rashid, M., Voumik, L. C., Akter, S., and Esquivias, M. A. (2023), “The Dynamic Impacts of Economic Growth, Financial Globalization, Fossil Fuel, Renewable Energy, and Urbanization on Load Capacity Factor in Mexico”, Sustainability, Vol. 15 No. 13462. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813462
35. Ruiz, J., Martin-Moreno, J. M., and Perez, R. (2023), “Mid-term policy considerations of the EU green deal”, Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol. 50 No. 101239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101239
36. Salari, T. E., Roumiani, A., and Kazemzadeh, E. (2021), “Globalization, renewable energy consumption, and agricultural production impacts on ecological footprint in emerging countries: using quantile regression approach”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28, pp. 49627–49641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14204-x
37. Shahbaz, M., Aydın, M., Değirmenci, T., and Bozatlı, O. (2025), “The role of agriculture-forestry-fisheries sectors, biodiversity expenditures, and renewable energy on environmental quality for The Netherlands: Evidence from novel Fourier ARDL”, Natural Resources Forum. Vol. 49, pp. 2978–2997 https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12517
38. Shang, Y., Razzaq, A., Chupradit, S., An, N. B., and 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, Vol. 191, pp. 715–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.013
39. Sun, Y., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., Korkut Pata, U., and Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2024), “New insights from the STIPART model on how environmental-related technologies, natural resources and the use of the renewable energy influence load capacity factor”, Gondwana Research, Vol. 129, pp. 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.05.018
40. Udemba, E. N. (2020a), “A sustainable study of economic growth and development amidst ecological footprint: New insight from Nigerian Perspective”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 732 No. 139270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139270
41. Udemba, E. N. (2020b), “Mediation of foreign direct investment and agriculture towards ecological footprint: a shift from single perspective to a more inclusive perspective for India”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 27, pp. 26817–26834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09024-4
42. UN. (2025a), “Goal 2: Zero Hunger”, available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ (accessed 13 December 2025).
43. UN. (2025b), “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy”, available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/ (accessed 17 December 2025).
44. UNDP. (2023), “Climate Change, Environmental Degradation, Conflict, And Displacement in the Arab States Region”, available at: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-06/climate_environmental_security_rbas_policy_brief_may_2023.pdf (accessed 17 December 2025).
45. UNDP. (2025), "What is the sustainable energy transition and why is it key to tackling climate change?", available at: https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/what-sustainable-energy-transition-and-why-it-key-tackling-climate-change (accessed 17 December 2025).
46. UNEP. (2025), “UNEP and the Sustainable Development Goals”, available at: https://www.unep.org/topics/sustainable-development-goals (accessed 17 December 2025).
47. Vogel, J., and Hickel, J. (2023), “Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO2–GDP decoupling in high-income countries”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 7 No. 9, pp. e759–e769. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00174-2
48. Warsame, A. A., Mohamed, J., and Mohamed, A. A. (2023), “The relationship between environmental degradation, agricultural crops, and livestock production in Somalia”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 30, pp. 7825–7835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22595-8
49. Westerlund, J., and Edgerton, D. L. (2007), “A panel bootstrap cointegration test”, Economics Letters, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
50. World Bank. (2025), “World Development Indicators”, available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 11 December 2025).
51. Xu, D., Salem, S., Awosusi, A. A., Abdurakhmanova, G., Altuntaş, M., Oluwajana, D., Kirikkaleli, D., and Ojekemi, O. (2022), “Load Capacity Factor and Financial Globalization in Brazil: The Role of Renewable Energy and Urbanization”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, Vol. 9 No. 823185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.823185
52. York University. (2025), “National Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts”, available at: https://footprint.info.yorku.ca/data/ (accessed 11 December 2025).