TÜRKİYE’DE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ İLİŞKİSİ: FOURİER BOOTSTRAP TESTLERİ İLE AMPİRİK BİR İNCELEME (1961–2022)

Öz

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, 1961-2022 döneminde Türkiye ekonomisinde ekonomik faaliyetler sonucunda yaşanan ekonomik büyümenin çevre üzerindeki etkisini analiz etmektir. Çevresel kaliteyi temsilen kullanılan ekolojik ayak izi değişkeni ekosisteme dair kapsamlı bir bakış açısı olanağı sağlamaktadır. Çalışma bağlamında Fourier tabanlı bootstrap yöntemler tercih edilmiştir. Fourier Bootstrap ADF testi, Fourier Bootstrap ADL eşbütünleşme testi, Fourier Bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto nedensellik testi ve Dinamik OLS (DOLS) yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, değişkenler arasında uzun dönemde anlamlı ve pozitif bir eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, değişkenler arasında çift yönlü bir nedensellik yapısı olduğu belirlenmiştir. DOLS analizleri ise ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik ayak izini uzun vadede pozitif yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar, ekonomik büyümenin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik açısından önemli problemler oluşturduğunu ve fosil yakıt bağımlılığı gibi faktörlerin ekolojik ayak izini artırdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmada, Türkiye’nin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik açısından düşük karbonlu ve kaynak verimliliğini önceleyen büyüme stratejilerine yönelmesi gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır. Ayrıca, çevre dostu politikaların geliştirilmesi, ayak izinin azaltılmasına ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerine katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Eşbütünleşme
• Türkiye Ekonomisi

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN TURKIYE: EVIDENCE FROM FOURIER BOOTSTRAP COINTEGRATION AND CAUSALITY ANALYSES (1961–2022)

Öz

This study aims to investigate the relationship between per capita ecological footprint and economic growth in the Turkish economy for the period 1961-2022. The ecological footprint, utilized as a proxy for environmental quality, offers a comprehensive perspective on the ecosystem. In this context, the Fourier-based bootstrap methods have been employed in the study. To achieve this, it employs Fourier Bootstrap ADF unit root tests, Fourier Bootstrap ADL cointegration tests, Fourier Bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto causality tests, and Dynamic OLS (DOLS) estimations. The findings indicate a significant long-run cointegration relationship between the two variables. Additionally, a bidirectional causality structure between economic growth and ecological footprint is detected. The DOLS results confirm that economic growth has a positive and statistically significant long-term impact on ecological footprint. These results highlight the environmental risks associated with economic growth models in Turkey, especially the continued reliance on fossil fuels and resource-intensive production structures. The study suggests that low-carbon and resource-efficient growth strategies should be prioritized to ensure environmental sustainability. Moreover, the development and implementation of environmentally friendly policies can help reduce the ecological footprint and contribute to sustainable development goals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Economic Growth
• Ecological Footprint
• Cointegration
• Turkish Economy

Kaynakça

1. Addai, K., Serener, B., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Empirical analysis of the relationship among urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprint: evidence from Eastern Europe. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(19), 27749-27760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17311-x
2. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W., & Ali, S. (2020). Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: an empirical analysis. Sustainable cities and society, 55, 102064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102064 Albayrak, Ö. K., Topal, S., & Çamkaya, S. (2022). The Impact of Economic Growth, Renewable Energy, Non-renewable Energy and Trade Openness on the Ecological Footprint and Forecasting in Turkiye: an Case of the ARDL and NMGM Forecasting Model. Alphanumeric Journal, 10(2), 139-154. https://. 10.17093/alphanumeric.1144398 Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Cil, A. B., Iscan, E., & Eren, A. A. (2023). Stochastic convergence of ecological footprint: new insights from a unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 22100-22114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23763-6
3. Baloch, M. A., Zhang, J., Iqbal, K., & Iqbal, Z. (2019). The effect of financial development on ecological footprint in BRI countries: evidence from panel data estimation. Environmental science and pollution research, 26, 6199-6208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3992-9
4. Banerjee, P., Arčabić, V., & Lee, H. (2017). Fourier ADL cointegration test to approximate smooth breaks with new evidence from crude oil market. Economic Modelling, 67, 114-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.11.004
5. Çağlar, A. E., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Akin, C. S. (2021). Analysing the ecological footprint in EU-5 countries under a scenario of carbon neutrality: Evidence from newly developed sharp and smooth structural breaks in unit root testing. Journal of Environmental Management, 295, 113155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113155
6. Danish, H. S., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N., & Zhang, J. W. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustain Cities Soc 47: 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516
7. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199. https://doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
8. Erat, V., Savaş, D. A., & Savaş, Y. (2023). Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasında Nedensellik İlişkisinin Analizi: Dalgacık Yöntemi Yaklaşımı. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 10(2), 1608-1626. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1282249

9. Ersin, Ö. Ö., Ustabaş, A., & Usman, O. (2024). The role of environmental innovation on ecologic footprint in nations with high technology exports concentrations in international trade. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, 123703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123703
10. Fadhila, R., Shabri, M., & Ali, Suddin. (2024). How do Economic Growth, Population Growth, and Urbanization Affect Ecological Footprint in Indonesia. International Journal of Social Science, Technology and Economics Management. 2(1), 94-105. https://doi.org/10.59781/PANY7890
11. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper No. w3914, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=232073
12. Gülmez, A., Altıntaş, N., & Kahraman, Ü. O. (2020). A puzzle over ecological footprint, energy consumption and economic growth: The case of Turkey. Environmental Ecological Statatistic 27 (4), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-020-00465-1
13. Hassan, S. T., Xia, E., Khan, N. H., & Shah, S. M. A. (2019). Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 2929-2938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3803-3
14. Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U., & Rafique, M. Z. (2021). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and ecological footprint: contextual evidences from Japan. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101460
15. Kardaşlar, A. (2022). Ekonomik Büyüme, Enerji Tüketimi ve Küreselleşme Sürecinin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Business and Economics Research Journal, 13(3), 385–401.https://doi.org/10.20409/berj.2022.379 Kepenek, Y., (2023). Türkiye ekonomisi, (33. Baskı). İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
16. Koç, S., & Savaş, Y. (2024). Ekonomik Büyüme, Ticari Açıklık ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi: Türkiye’den Kanıtlar. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(4), 1063-1073. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.149 6317
17. Mazlum, E. C. (2024). Linking Human Development Index, Urbanization, Economic Growth and the Ecological Footprint: The Case of MINT Countries. Kent Akademisi, 17(Sürdürülebilir İnsani Kalkınma ve Kent), 301-318. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1516464
18. Nazlıoğlu, S., Gormus, N. A., & Soytas, U. (2016). Oil prices and real estate investment trusts (REITs): Gradual-shift causality and volatility transmission analysis. Energy economics, 60, 168-175. https://doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.09.009
19. Pamuk, Ş. (2022). Türkiye’nin 200 Yıllık İktisadi Tarihi. İstanbul: Türkiye İs Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
20. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212
21. Sarwar, N., Junaid, A., & Alvi, S. (2024). Impact of urbanization and human development on ecological footprints in OECD and non-OECD countries. Heliyon, 10(19). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38058
22. Shahbaz, M., Dogan, M., Akkus, H. T., & Gursoy, S. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint: evidence from top 10 emitter countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(29), 73518-73533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27573-2
23. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., & 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
24. Sofuoğlu, E., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). The effect of mineral saving and energy on the ecological footprint in an emerging market: Evidence from novel Fourier based approaches. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 16(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-023-00328-w
25. Solarin, S. A., & Bello, M. O. (2018). Persistence of policy shocks to an environmental degradation index: the case of ecological footprint in 128 developed and developing countries. Ecological indicators, 89, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.01.064
26. Uddin, G. A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., & Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.003
27. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., & Doğan, M. (2023). The impact of economic growth, natural resources, urbanization and biocapacity on the ecological footprint: The case of Turkey. Sustainability, 15(17), 12855. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su151712855
28. Usman, M., Kousar, R., Yaseen, M. R., & Makhdum, M. S. A. (2020). An empirical nexus between economic growth, energy utilization, trade policy, and ecological footprint: a continent-wise comparison in upper-middle-income countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 38995-39018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09772-3
29. Uzar, U., & Eyuboglu, K. (2023). Does income inequality increase the ecological footprint in the US: evidence from FARDL test?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 9514-9529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22844-w
30. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. The new catalyst bioregional series. New Society Publishers
31. World Bank (2025). World Development Indicators: CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) – Turkiye.
32. Yılancı, V., Gorus, M. S., & Aydin, M. (2019). Are shocks to ecological footprint in OECD countries permanent or temporary?. Journal of cleaner production, 212, 270-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.299
33. Yingjun, Z., Jahan, S., & Qamruzzaman, M. (2024). Technological Innovation, Trade Openness, Natural Resources, and Environmental Sustainability in Egypt and Turkey: Evidence from Load Capacity Factor and Inverted Load Capacity Factor with Fourier Functions. Sustainability (2071-1050), 16(19). https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su16198643