Impact of Renewable Energy Consumption on Ecological Footprint in OECD Countries

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 945 - 968, 30.06.2025

Yusuf Muratoğlu

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1504461

Öz

Changes in economic growth have impacts on environmental degradation. The environmental impact of increases in GDP per capita has led policy makers to prevent the negative impact on environmental quality. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to determine whether there is a change in ecological footprints, an indicator of environmental degradation, as countries become richer. From this perspective, renewable energy can be considered as a solution tool to improve environmental quality while guiding environmental protection policies. In this study, the impact of changes in GDP per capita on ecological footprint is analyzed in relation to renewable energy consumption and demographic variables such as life expectancy at birth and population density. In the analysis of 38 OECD countries, a panel consisting of data from 1990-2020 is used. In addition, the Pooled Mean Group Autoregressive Distributed Lag (PMG/ARDL) estimator is used to obtain robust and unbiased results against heterogeneity and cross-sectional dependence. Empirical results show that renewable energy consumption, life expectancy at birth and population density reduce ecological footprint and improve environmental quality. The long-run results show that the effect of GDP per capita on ecological footprint is positive and significant, while the effect of the square of GDP per capita is negative and significant. While environmental degradation increases in the first stage of economic growth, it decreases after reaching the optimum level. There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic growth and ecological footprint.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environmental Economics , Renewable Resources and Conservation , Panel Data Models

OECD Ülkelerinde Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketiminin Ekolojik Ayak İzine Etkisi

Öz

Ekonomik büyümede meydana gelen değişmelerin çevresel bozulmaya etkileri mevcuttur. Kişi başına GSYH’daki artışların çevresel etkisi, politika yapıcılarını çevresel kalite üzerindeki olumsuz etkiyi önlemeye yöneltmiştir. Bu nedenle, ülkeler zenginleştikçe çevresel bozulmanın bir göstergesi olan ekolojik ayak izlerinde bir değişikliğin olup olmadığını saptamak politika yapıcılar açısından önemlidir. Bu açıdan değerlendirildiğinde çevresel koruma politikalarına yön verirken çevre kalitesini artırmada çözüm olarak yenilenebilir enerji bir çözüm aracı olarak düşünülebilir. Bu çalışmada kişi başına GSYH’da meydana gelen değişimlerin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ile doğumda beklenen yaşam süresi ve nüfus yoğunluğu gibi demografik değişkenlere bağlı olarak incelenmiştir. 38 OECD ülkesinin ele alındığı analizde 1990-2020 yılları arasında yer alan verilerden oluşan bir panel kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca çalışmada Havuzlanmış Ortalama Grup Otoregresif Dağıtılmış Gecikme (PMG/ARDL) tahmincisi kullanılarak heterojenlik ve yatay kesit bağımlılığı sorununa karşı sağlam ve yansız sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Ampirik sonuçlar yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin, doğumda beklenen yaşam süresinin ve nüfus yoğunluğunun ekolojik ayak izini azalttığını ve çevresel kaliteyi artırdığını göstermektedir. Uzun dönem sonuçları incelendiğinde kişi başına GSYH’nın ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi pozitif ve anlamlı iken kişi başına GSYH’nın karesinin etkisi negatif ve anlamlıdır. Ekonomik büyümenin ilk aşamasında çevresel bozulma artarken, optimum seviyeye ulaştıktan sonra çevresel bozulma azalmaktadır. Ekonomik büyüme ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ters U şeklinde bir ilişki mevcuttur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre Ekonomisi , Yenilenebilir Kaynaklar ve Koruma , Panel Veri Modelleri

Kaynakça

• Abid, M., Sakrafi. H., Gheraia, Z., & Abdelli, H. (2022). Does renewable energy consumption affect ecological footprints in Saudi Arabia? A bootstrap causality test. Renewable Energy, 189, 813-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.043
• Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy, 69, 101817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817
• Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A., & Hussain, N. (2022). Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and ecological footprint: Exploring the role of environmental regulations and democracy in sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 595-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2251
• Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M., & Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 18565-18582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
• Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., & Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological indicators, 48, 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.029
• Ansari, M. A. (2022). Re-visiting the Environmental Kürnetse curve for ASEAN: A comparison between ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112867
• Ansari, M.A., Haider, S. & Masood, T. (2021). Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries?. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 6719–6732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10786-0
• Apergis, N., Jebli, M. B., & Youssef, S. B. (2018). Does renewable energy consumption and health expenditures decrease carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence for sub-Saharan Africa countries.Renewable energy, 127,1011-1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.043
• Bekun, F. V., Emir, F., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Another look at the relationship between energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and economic growth in South Africa. Science of the Total Environment, 655, 759-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.271
• Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., ... & Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecological indicators, 24, 518-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.031
• Danish, Hassan, S. T., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N., & Zhang, J. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 47, 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516
• Danish, Ulucak, R., & Khan, S. U.-D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
• Destek, M. A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of cleaner production, 242, 118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537
• 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
• Hussain, M., Usman, M., Khan, J. A., Tarar, Z. H., & Sarwar, M. A. (2022). Reinvestigation of environmental Kuznets curve with ecological footprints: empirical analysis of economic growth and population density. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(1), e2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2276
• International Energy Agency (2023). Renewables 2023, Analysis and Forecast to 2028. International Energy Agency.
• International Energy Agency (2024). CO2 Emissions in 2023: A New Record High, But Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel?. International Energy Agency.
• Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics, 90(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4076(98)00023-2
• Kongbuamai, N., Bui, Q., & Nimsai, S. (2021). The effects of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption on the ecological footprint: the role of environmental policy in BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 27885-27899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12551-3
• Kongbuamai, N., Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., & Liu, Y. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint in Thailand: the influences of tourism, trade openness, and population density. Environmental science and pollution research, 27, 40171-40186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09977-6
• Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of econometrics, 108(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4076(01)00098-7
• Li, R., Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, 131207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131207
• Maji, I. K., & Adamu, S. (2021). The impact of renewable energy consumption on sectoral environmental quality in Nigeria. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100009
• Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Statistics 61 (1), 653–670. https://doi:10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1653
• Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration; asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the purchasing power parity hypothesis. Econ. Theory 20 (3), 597–625. https://doi:10.1017/S0266466604203073
• Pesaran, H., (2003), A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross Section Dependence, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0346, Faculty of Economics (DAE), University of Cambridge.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 0435(3), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94, 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474156
• Sayed, E. T., Wilberforce, T., Elsaid, K., Rabaia, M. K. H., Abdelkareem, M. A., Chae, K.-J., & Olabi, A. G. (2021). A critical review on environmental impacts of renewable energy systems and mitigation strategies: Wind, hydro, biomass and geothermal. Science of The Total Environment, 766, 144505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144505
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124867
• Sims, R. E. H. (2004). Renewable energy: A response to climate change. Solar Energy, 76(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00101-4
• Sinha, A., Shahbaz, M., & Balsalobre, D. (2017). Exploring the relationship between energy usage segregation and environmental degradation in N-11 countries. Journal of cleaner production, 168, 1217-1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.071
• Udemba, E. N., Shah, S. A. R., Philip, L. D., & Zhao, G. (2024). The mediating role of green energy and environmental policies in sustainable development for BRICS economies: A tripartite impact of entrepreneurial activities, urban development and economic growth on ecological footprint. Sustainable Development, 32(5), 4649-4670. https://doi.org/10.1002 /sd.2916
• Uğurlu, E. (2019). Renewable Energy Strategies for Sustainable Development in the European Union. Içinde D. Kurochkin, E. V. Shabliy, & E. Shittu (Ed.), Renewable Energy: International Perspectives on Sustainability (ss. 63-87). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14207-0_3
• Uğurlu, E. (2022). Renewale Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Içinde D. Kurochkin, M. J. Crawford, & E. V. Shabliy (Ed.), Energy Policy Advancement Climate Change Mitigation and International Environmental Justice. Springer International Publishing. https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/renewale-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/19933458
• Usman, O., Akadiri, S. S., & Adeshola, I. (2020). Role of renewable energy and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: Implications for environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(24), 30681-30693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09170-9
• Usman, O., Alola, A. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: Evidence from the US. Renewable Energy, 150, 266-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.151
• Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple tests for panel cointegration. Econ. Rev. 24 (3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474930500243019