AB Ülkeleri ve Türkiye'nin Çevresel Performanslarının Analizi

Öz

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkelerinin çevresel performans verimliliğini değerlendirmeyi ve Türkiye'nin bu ülkeler arasındaki konumunu hesaplamayı amaçlamaktadır. AB ülkeleri ve Türkiye'nin 2010-2022 dönemi performansı Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasıla (GSYH), Sera Gazı Emisyonları (SGE), Malzeme Akışları (MA) ve Ağaçla Kaplı Alan Kaybı (AKAK) değişkenleri kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu amaçla, Decoupling (Ayrıştırma) Analizi ve Malmquist Toplam Faktör Verimliliği (MTFV) Endeksi uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonucunda Litvanya, Slovakya, İsveç ve Türkiye'de verimlilik değişimi yaşanmamıştır. Aynı dönemde 12 ülke için verimlilik değişiminde artış, 12 ülke için ise azalış söz konusudur. Genel olarak, toplam faktör verimliliği çalışma dönemi boyunca 1 ülkede artmış, 27 ülkede ise azalmıştır. Teknik verimlilik değişiminde, diğer bir deyişle teknolojik gelişmede en fazla artış gösteren ülke yüzde 3,7 ile Macaristan oldu. Bu 28 ülkenin ayrışma esnekliklerine göre, SGE ve MA ayrışma esneklik endeksleri Türkiye ve Yunanistan için pozitiftir. Hırvatistan, Kıbrıs, Estonya, Fransa, Almanya, Portekiz ve İspanya için SGE ve MA'nin GSYH'den ayrışma endeksi o dönem için negatif esnektir. TCL'nin GSYH'den ayrışma endeksi için, Almanya söz konusu dönemde birden büyük bir esneklik göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Performans
• Decoupling
• Malmquist Endeksi

Analysis of the Environmental Performances of EU Countries and Türkiye

Öz

The paper aims to evaluate the environmental performance efficiency of (European Union (EU) countries and to calculate Türkiye's position among these countries. The performance of EU countries and Türkiye for the period 2010-2022 is assessed using the variables of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Material Flows (MF) and Tree Cover Loss (TCL). For this purpose, Decoupling Analysis and Malmquist Total Factor Productivity Index (MTFPI) were applied. As a result of the analysis, there was no productivity change in Lithuania, Slovakia, Sweden and Türkiye. In the same period, there is an increase in productivity change for 12 countries and a decrease for 12 countries. In general, total factor productivity increased in 1 country and decreased in 27 countries during the study period. The country with the highest increase in technical productivity change, in other words technological development, was Hungary with 3.7 percent. According to the decoupling elasticities of these 28 countries, the decoupling elasticity indices of GHG and MF are positive for Türkiye and Greece. For Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, France, France, Germany, Portugal and Spain, the decoupling index of GHG and MF from GDP is negatively elastic for that period. For the decoupling index of TCL from GDP, Germany shows an elasticity greater than one in that period.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Performance
• Decoupling
• Malmquist Index

Kaynakça

1. Bampatsou, C., Halkos, G., & Dimou, A. 2017. Determining economic productivity under environmental and resource pressures: an empirical application. Journal of Economic Structures, 6(1), 12.
2. Bodur, S., Küpeli, M. and Alp, İ. 2021. Decoupling Analysis of Environmental Pressures from Economic Growth in The EU-27 and Turkiye. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, vo.39, no.1, 29-38.
3. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE. 1982. The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity. Econometrica 1982;50:1393–1414.
4. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Lewin A. Y., Seiford, L. M. 1993. Data envelopment analysis: theory, methodology and application. Kluwer, Boston.
5. Coelli, T. 1996. A guide to DEAP version 2.1: a data envelopment analysis (computer) program. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, University of New England, Australia.
6. Cooper W.W., Seiford, L. M., Zhu, L. 2004. Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1-209.
7. European Commission. 2023. Commission staff working document, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels, 696 final.
8. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren B, Roos P. 1992. Productivity changes in Swedish pharamacies 1980–1989: a non-parametric Malmquist approach. The Journal of Productivity Analysis; 3:85–101.

9. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M, 2011. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel.
10. Fung, M. K. Y., Wan, K. K. H., Van Hui, Y., & Law, J. S. 2008. Productivity changes in Chinese airports 1995–2004. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(3), 521-542.
11. Juknys, R., Miškinis, V., & Dagiliūtė, R. 2005. New Eastern EU Member States: Decoupling of Environmental Impact from Fast Economy Growth. Environmental Research, Engineering & Management, 34(4).
12. Karaman, N. A. 2017. Determination the efficiency of banks in Turkiye using window analysis. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Science and Engineering. Hacettepe University. Ankara.
13. Lee, H. and Romero, J. 2023. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change Synthesis Report, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1-34.
14. Malmquist, S. 1953. Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica y de Investigacion Operativa, 4(2), 209-242.
15. Matsumoto, K., Makridou, G. and Doumpos, M. 2020. Evaluating environmental performance using data envelopment analysis: the case of European countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 272, 122637.
16. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2023. OECD Statistics. Available from: https://stats.oecd.org/ Accessed on 15 December 2023.
17. Shuai, C., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., & Tan, Y. 20199. A three-step strategy for decoupling economic growth from carbon emission: empirical evidences from 133 countries. Science of The Total Environment, 646, 524-543.
18. Sözen, A., Alp, İ. 2009. Comparison of Turkey's performance of greenhouse gas emissions and local/regional pollutants with EU countries. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5007-5018.
19. Sun, J.W., Merist, T. 1999. Measurement of dematerialization and materialization: a case analysis of energy saving and decarbonization in OECD countries, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, p.275-294.
20. Tapio, P. 2005. Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport Policy, 12(2), 137-151.
21. Wan, L., Wang, Z. L., & Ng, J. 2016. Measurement research on the decoupling effect of industries’ carbon emissions—Based on the equipment manufacturing industry in China. Energies, 9(11), 921.
22. Wang, X., Wei, Y., & Shao, Q. 2020. Decomposing the decoupling of CO2 emissions and economic growth in China’s iron and steel industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, 104509.
23. World Bank. World Development Indicators. Available from: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators Accessed on 15 December 2023.
24. WU Global Material Flows Database The materialflows register. http://www.materialflows.net Accessed 15 December 2023.
25. Yale University and Columbia University. 2022. 2022 Environmental Performance Index. Available from: https://epi.yale.edu/ Accessed on 15 December 2023.
26. Zhou, P., Ang, B.W. and Poh, K.L. 2006. Slack-based efficiency measures for modeling environmental performance. Ecological Economics, vol. 60, issue 1, 111-118.