The Relationship between Environmental Quality and Urbanization under the LCC Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence from Türkiye

Öz

The load capacity factor is a recently developed and highly comprehensive environmental quality indicator that takes into account not only the consumption side of nature but also the supply side. Therefore, recent studies have used the load capacity factor as an environmental quality indicator. In this context, unlike the previous literature, this study aims to test the long-run effect of economic growth and urbanization on the load capacity factor in Türkiye within the framework of the load capacity curve (LCC) hypothesis. Annual data for the period 1961-2022 and Fourier-based time series techniques (ADF, ADL, and FMOLS) are used to test this effect. Moreover, the long-run robustness of the study is also tested using Fourier-based DOLS and fractional frequency flexible Fourier Toda-Yamamoto (FFFF-TY) causality techniques. The empirical findings of the study indicate that the LCC hypothesis is valid in Türkiye, but income in Türkiye is not sufficient to improve environmental quality. Moreover, the findings reveal that increasing urbanization deteriorates environmental quality by reducing the load capacity factor. Based on the empirical findings, policymakers in Türkiye should urgently implement some policies to improve environmental quality. For this, policymakers should take steps to invest more in renewable energy sources. In addition, necessary steps should be taken to establish green growth. Finally, comprehensive environmental strategies should be developed and implemented with common stakeholders to establish sustainable urbanization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• LCC Hypothesis
• Environmental Quality
• Urbanization
• FADL
• Türkiye

LCC Hipotezi Çerçevesinde Çevresel Kalite ve Kentleşme Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye’den Ampirik Kanıtlar

Öz

Yük kapasitesi faktörü, son zamanlarda geliştirilen ve doğanın sadece tüketim tarafını değil, aynı zamanda arz tarafını dikkate alan son derece kapsamlı bir çevresel kalite göstergesidir. Bu yüzden son dönem çalışmalara bakıldığında yük kapasitesi faktörünün çevresel kalite göstergesi olarak kullanıldığı görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, önceki literatürden farklı olarak Türkiye’de yük kapasitesi eğrisi (LCC) hipotezi çerçevesinde yük kapasitesi faktörü üzerinde ekonomik büyümenin ve kentleşmenin uzun dönemli etkisini test etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Söz konusu etkinin testi için 1961-2022 dönemi arasındaki yıllık veriler ve Fourier temelli zaman serisi teknikleri (ADF, ADL ve FMOLS) kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, çalışmanın uzun dönem sağlamlık sınaması yine Fourier temelli DOLS ve kesirli frekanslı esnek Fourier Toda-Yamamoto (FFFF-TY) nedensellik teknikleriyle sınanmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen ampirik bulgular, Türkiye’de LCC hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu fakat Türkiye’deki gelirin çevresel kaliteyi iyileştirebilecek seviyede olmadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, bulgular artan kentleşmenin yük kapasitesi faktörünü azaltarak çevresel kaliteyi bozduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ampirik bulgulardan hareketle, Türkiye’deki politika yapıcılar çevresel kalitenin arttırılması için bazı politikaları ivedilikle hayata geçirmelidir. Bunun için politika yapıcılar, daha fazla yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına yatırım yapacak adımları atmalıdır. Ayrıca, yeşil büyümenin tesisi için de gerekli adımlar atılmalıdır. Son olarak, sürdürülebilir kentleşmenin tesisi için ortak paydaşlarla kapsamlı çevresel stratejiler oluşturulmalı ve uygulamaya konmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• LCC Hipotezi
• Çevresel Kalite
• Kentleşme
• FADL
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N. & Nawaz, K. (2020b). Moving Towards a Sustainable Environment: The Dynamic Linkage between Natural Resources, Human Capital, Urbanization, Economic Growth, and Ecological Footprint in China. Resources Policy, 67, 101677.
2. Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z. & Ali, S. (2019). Investigating the Non-Linear Relationship between Urbanization and CO2 Emissions: An Empirical Analysis. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 12, 945-953.
3. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W. & Ali, S. (2020a). Linking Urbanization, Human Capital, and the Ecological Footprint in G7 Countries: An Empirical Analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55, 102064.
4. Aslam, B., Zhang, G., Amjad, M. A., Guo, S. & Ji, M. (2023). Does the Impact of Financial Development Reinforce Sustainability Ecological Footprint? Fresh Evidence from Middle and High-Income Economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 429, 139573.
5. Aslan, A., Altinoz, B. & Ozsolak, B. (2021). The Link between Urbanization and Air Pollution In Turkey: Evidence from Dynamic Autoregressive Distributed Lag Simulations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(37), 52370-52380.
6. 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.
7. Bekhet, H. A. & Othman, N. S. (2017). Impact of Urbanization Growth on Malaysia CO2 Emissions: Evidence from the Dynamic Relationship. Journal of Cleaner Production, 154, 374-388.
8. BP. (2023). British Petroleum. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

9. Caglar, A. E., Daştan, M., Mehmood, U. & Avci, S. B. (2023). Assessing the Connection between Competitive Industrial Performance on Load Capacity Factor within the LCC Framework: Implications for Sustainable Policy in BRICS Economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-18.
10. Can, G. & Kılıç, F. Türkiye'de Sanayileşme ve Kentleşmenin Çevresel Tahribat Üzerindeki Etkisi: ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 17(2), 66-76.
11. Cetin, M., Ecevit, E. & Yucel, A. G. (2018). Structural Breaks, Urbanization and CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 8(2), 122-139.
12. Chekouri, S. M., Chibi, A. & Benbouziane, M. (2023). The Impact of Natural Resource Abundance on Ecological Footprint: Evidence from Algeria. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(26), 69289-69306.
13. Christopoulos, D. K. & Leon-Ledesma, M. A. (2011). International Output Convergence, Breaks, and Asymmetric Adjustment. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 15(3).
14. Danish, W. Z. & Wang, Z. (2019). Investigation of the Ecological Footprint’s Driving Factors: What We Learn from the Experience of Emerging Economies. Sustainable Cities and Society, 49, 101626.
15. Destek, M. A. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Türkiye için İncelenmesi: STIRPAT Modelinden Bulgular. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 268-283.
16. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431.
17. Dogan, A. & Pata, U. K. (2022). The Role of ICT, R&D Spending and Renewable Energy Consumption on Environmental Quality: Testing the LCC Hypothesis for G7 Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 380, 135038.
18. Enders, W. & Jones, P. (2016). Grain Prices, Oil Prices, and Multiple Smooth Breaks in a VAR. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 20(4), 399-419.
19. Enders, W. & Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey-Fuller Type Unit Root Tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199.
20. Fang, Z., Wang, T., & Yang, C. (2024). Nexus among Natural Resources, Environmental Sustainability, and Political Risk: Testing the Load Capacity Factor Curve Hypothesis. Resources Policy, 90, 104791.
21. Georgescu, I. & Kinnunen, J. (2023). The Role of Foreign Direct Investments, Urbanization, Productivity, and Energy Consumption in Finland’s Carbon Emissions: An ARDL Approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(37), 87685-87694.
22. GFN. (2024). Global Footprint Network. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.49451686.1037141276.16736094272011084777.1635584313#/.
23. Gnangoin, T. Y., Kassi, D. F. & Kongrong, O. (2023). Urbanization and CO2 Emissions in Belt and Road Initiative Economies: Analyzing the Mitigating Effect of Human Capital in Asian Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(17), 50376-50391.
24. Göksu, S. & Göçoğlu, V. (2023). Effects of Urbanization, Forestation, Internet Use, Energy Consumption, and Gross Domestic Product on Environmental Degradation in Türkiye. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(10), 11373-11390.
25. Grossman, G. & Krueger, A. (1991) Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. Cambridge, MA.
26. Guloglu, B., Caglar, A. E., & Pata, U. K. (2023). Analyzing the Determinants of The Load Capacity Factor in OECD Countries: Evidence from Advanced Quantile Panel Data Methods. Gondwana Research, 118, 92-104.
27. Güneysu, Y. (2023). Türkiye’de Finansal Gelişme, Küreselleşme ve Sanayileşmenin Yük Kapasite Faktörü Üzerindeki Etkisi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 934-946.
28. Hakkak, M., Altintaş, N., & Hakkak, S. (2023). Exploring the Relationship between Nuclear and Renewable Energy Usage, Ecological Footprint, and Load Capacity Factor: A Study of the Russian Federation Testing the EKC and LCC Hypothesis. Renewable Energy Focus, 46, 356-366.
29. Haouas, I., Haseeb, M., Azam, M. & Rehman, Z. U. (2023). Do Demographic Factors Affect the Environment? Empirical Evidence from the Middle East and North African Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-19.
30. Kılıç, C., Ünzüle, K. & Balan, F. (2020). Kentleşme ve Sanayileşmenin CO2 Emisyonu Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye için ARDL Sınır Testi Yaklaşımı. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(2), 182-196.
31. Koç, N., Saraç, T. B. & Koç, Ö. E. (2022). Türkiye’de Çevre Kirliliğinin Belirleyicileri Üzerine Ekonometrik Bir Analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(4), 204-225.
32. Kong, Y., Donkor, M., Jin, C., Musah, M. & Nkyi, J. A. (2024). Do Financial Development, Urbanization, Economic Growth and Renewable Energy Promote the Emission Mitigation Agenda of Africa? Evidence from Models that Account for Cross-Sectional Dependence and Slope Heterogeneity. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 1-19.
33. Lin, S., Wang, S., Marinova, D., Zhao, D. & Hong, J. (2017). Impacts of Urbanization and Real Economic Development on CO2 Emissions in Non-High Income Countries: Empirical Research Based on the Extended STIRPAT Model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 952-966.
34. Ma, X., Ge, J. & Wang, W. (2017). The Relationship Between Urbanization, Income Growth and Carbon Dioxide Emissions and the Policy Implications for China: A Cointegrated Vector Error Correction (VEC) Analysis. Natural Hazards, 87, 1017-1033.
35. Mehmood, U. & Mansoor, A. (2021). CO2 Emissions and the Role of Urbanization in East Asian and Pacific Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(41), 58549-58557.
36. Nazlioglu, 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.
37. Okumuş, İ. (2020). Türkiye’de Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi, Tarım ve CO2 Emisyonu İlişkisi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(1), 21-34.
38. OWD. (2023). Our World Data. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy?tab=chart&country=~TUR
39. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development. ILO, Working Paper 238, Technology and Environment Programme, Geneva, 1-22.
40. Pata, U. K. & Samour, A. (2022). Do Renewable and Nuclear Energy Enhance Environmental Quality in France? A New EKC Approach with the Load Capacity Factor. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 149, 104249.
41. Pata, U. K. & Yilanci, V. (2020). Financial Development, Globalization and Ecological Footprint in G7: Further Evidence from Threshold Cointegration and Fractional Frequency Causality Tests. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(4), 803-825.
42. Pata, U. K. (2018a). The Effect of Urbanization and Industrialization on Carbon Emissions in Turkey: Evidence from ARDL Bounds Testing Procedure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(8), 7740-7747.
43. Pata, U. K. (2018b). Renewable Energy Consumption, Urbanization, Financial Development, Income and CO2 Emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC Hypothesis with Structural Breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 770-779.
44. Pata, U. K. (2021). Do Renewable Energy and Health Expenditures Improve Load Capacity Factor in the USA and Japan? A New Approach to Environmental Issues. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(9), 1427-1439.
45. Pata, U. K., & Ertugrul, H. M. (2023). Do the Kyoto Protocol, Geopolitical Risks, Human Capital and Natural Resources Affect the Sustainability Limit? A New Environmental Approach Based on the LCC Hypothesis. Resources Policy, 81, 103352.
46. Qayyum, U., Sabir, S. & Anjum, S. (2021). Urbanization, Informal Economy, and Ecological Footprint Quality in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 67011-67021.
47. Ramzan, M., Razi, U., Usman, M., Sarwar, S., Talan, A. & Mundi, H. S. (2024). Role of Nuclear Energy, Geothermal Energy, Agriculture, and Urbanization in Environmental Stewardship. Gondwana Research, 125, 150-167.
48. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological Footprints and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: What Urban Economics Leaves Out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121-130.
49. Salman, M., Zha, D. & Wang, G. (2022). Interplay between Urbanization and Ecological Footprints: Differential Roles of Indigenous and Foreign Innovations in ASEAN-4. Environmental Science & Policy, 127, 161-180.
50. Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Muzaffar, A. T., Ahmed, K. & Jabran, M. A. (2016). How Urbanization Affects CO2 Emissions in Malaysia? The Application of STIRPAT Model. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 83-93.
51. Siche, R., Pereira, L., Agostinho, F. & Ortega, E. (2010). Convergence of Ecological Footprint and Emergy Analysis as a Sustainability Indicator of Countries: Peru as Case Study. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 15(10), 3182-3192.
52. Ulucak, R. & Apergis, N. (2018). Does Convergence Really Matter for the Environment? An Application Based on Club Convergence and on the Ecological Footprint Concept for the EU Countries. Environmental Science & Policy, 80, 21-27.
53. WDI. (2024). World Bank Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
54. Xu, D., Salem, S., Awosusi, A. A., Abdurakhmanova, G., Altuntaş, M., Oluwajana, D., Kırıkkaleli, D. & Ojekemi, O. (2022). Load Capacity Factor and Financial Globalization in Brazil: The role of Renewable Energy and Urbanization. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 823185.
55. Yurtkuran, S., & Güneysu, Y. (2023). Financial inclusion and environmental pollution in Türkiye: Fresh evidence from load capacity curve using AARDL method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(47), 104450-104463.
56. Zhu, P., Ahmed, Z., Pata, U. K., Khan, S. & Abbas, S. (2023). Analyzing Economic Growth, Eco-Innovation, and Ecological Quality Nexus in E-7 Countries: Accounting for Non-Linear Impacts of Urbanization by Using a New Measure of Ecological Quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(41), 94242-94254.
57. Zhu, Q., & Peng, X. (2012). The Impacts of Population Change on Carbon Emissions in China during 1978–2008. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 36, 1-8.