Relationship Between Human Development and Non-Carbon Ecological Footprint: A Different Perspective To Sustainable Development

Öz

The purpose of this research is to examine the effects of multidimensional human development index, renewable energy consumption, non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth on non-carbon ecological footprint for Turkey. The modified human development Kuznets curve was tested for this purpose using data from 1965 to 2016. With the use of non-carbon ecological footprint, it is aimed to investigate the local effects of environmental degradation. To produce reliable results, structural break methods were used, considering the economic and social transformations Turkey had experienced during the relevant period. The Carrion-i-Silvestre structural break unit root (2009) test was used to evaluate the stationarity of the variables. The cointegration relationship between the series was investigated using the Gregory-Hansen structural break cointegration test (1996), and the long and short term coefficients were estimated using the Fully Modified Least Squares (FMOLS) method. Finally, the causal relationship between the variables was explored by Hatemi-j (2012) asymmetric causality test. According to the empirical findings, there is an "Inverted U" relationship between multidimensional human development and non-carbon ecological footprint, and the series are cointegrated. It has been concluded that renewable energy consumption and economic growth contribute to the expansion of the non-carbon ecological footprint, while non-renewable energy consumption reduces the non-carbon ecological footprint and mitigates environmental degradation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Non-Carbon Ecological Footprint
• Human Development
• Sustainable Development

İNSANİ KALKINMA İLE KARBONSUZ EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ İLİŞKİSİ: SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR KALKINMAYA FARKLI BİR BAKIŞ AÇISI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye için çok boyutlu insani kalkınma endeksi, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, yenilenemez enerji tüketimi ve ekonomik büyümenin karbonsuz ayak izi üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmektir. Bu amaçla 1965-2016 dönemine ait veriler kullanılarak modifiye edilmiş insani kalkınma Kuznets eğrisi test edilmiştir. Karbonsuz ayak izinin kullanılması ile çevresel bozulmanın lokal etkilerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yapılan analizin güvenilir sonuçlar üretebilmesi amacıyla ilgili döneme ait Türkiye’nin yaşamış olduğu ekonomik ve sosyal dönüşümler dikkate alınarak yapısal kırılmalı metotlar kullanılmıştır. Değişkenlerin durağanlıkları Carrion-i-Silvestre yapısal kırılmalı birim kök testi (2009) ile araştırılmıştır. Gregory-Hansen yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme testi (1996) ile seriler arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi araştırılmış, Tam modifiye edilmiş en küçük kareler (FMOLS) yöntemiyle uzun ve kısa dönem katsayı tahmini yapılmıştır. Son olarak değişkenler arası nedensellik ilişkisi Hatemi-j (2012) asimetrik nedensellik testi ile araştırılmıştır. Yapılan ampirik analiz sonucunda çok boyutlu insani kalkınma ile karbonsuz ayak izi arasında “Ters U” ilişkisinin bulunduğu ve serilerin eşbütünleşik olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ile ekonomik büyümenin, karbonsuz ayak izini büyütürken yenilenemez enerji tüketiminin karbonsuz ayak izini küçülttüğü ve çevresel bozulmayı azaltığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbonsuz Ayak İzi
• İnsani Kalkınma
• Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma

Kaynakça

1. Agozie, D. Q., Akwasi Gyamfi, B., Victor Bekun, F., Ozturk, I. & Taha, A. (2022). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis from lens of economic complexity index for BRICS: Evidence from second generation panel analysis. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, 102597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102597
2. Ahmed, Z., & Wang, Z. (2019). Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(26), 26782–26796. https://doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05911-7
3. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W., Ali, S., & Danish. (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
4. Akbar, M., Hussain, A., Akbar, A., & Ullah, I. (2021). The dynamic association between healthcare spending, CO2 emissions, and human development index in OECD countries: Evidence from panel VAR model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(7), 10470–10489. https://10.1007/s10668-020-01066-5.
5. Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2018). How does environmental regulation affect production location of non-carbon ecological footprint? Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.030
6. Bano, S., Zhao, Y., Ahmad, A., Wang, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Identifying the impacts of human capital on carbon emissions in Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 1082–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.008
7. Beder, S. (2011). Environmental economics and ecological economics: The contribution of interdisciplinarity to understanding, influence and effectiveness. Environmental Conservation, 38(2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100021X
8. Bedir, S., & Yilmaz, V. M. (2016). CO2 emissions and human development in OECD countries: Granger causality analysis with a panel data approach. Eurasian Economic Review, 6(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-015-0037-2

9. Bieth, R. C. E. (2021). The influence of gross domestic product and Human Development Index on CO2 Emissions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1808(1), 12034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1808/1/012034
10. British Petroleum (BP). (2021). 31 Aralık 2021 tarihinde BP Statistical Review of World Energy. https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html adresinden alınmıştır.
11. Can, M., Oluc, I., Sturm, B., Guzel, I., Gavurova, B., & Popp, J. (2022). Nexus between trading non-green products and environment: Introducing Non-Green Trade Openness Index. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.950453
12. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L., Kim, D., & Perron, P. (2009). GLS-based unit root tests with multiple structural breaks under both the null and the alternative hypotheses. Econometric theory, 25(6), 1754–1792.
13. Costantini, V., & Monni, S. (2008). Environment, human development and economic growth. Ecological Economics, 64(4), 867–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.011
14. Danesh Miah, M., Farhad Hossain Masum, M., & Koike, M. (2010). Global observation of EKC hypothesis for CO2, SOx and NOx emission: A policy understanding for climate change mitigation in Bangladesh. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4643–4651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.022
15. Danish, & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101626
16. Dörffel, C., & Schuhmann, S. (2022). What is inclusive development? Introducing the Multidimensional Inclusiveness Index. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02860-y
17. Farhani, S., Mrizak, S., Chaibi, A., & Rault, C. (2014). The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainability: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 71, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.030
18. Gamal, A. A. M., & Dahalan, J. (2015). Estimating the size of the underground economy in the UAE: Evidence from Gregory-Hansen cointegration based currency demand approach. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 4(3), 183–206.
19. Global Footprint Network (2022). 1 Ocak 2022 tarihinde https://www.data.footprintnetwork.org/ adresinden erişilmiştir.
20. Göçer, İ., & Peker, O. (2014). Yabancı doğrudan yatırımların verimlilik etkisi: Türkiye, Çin Ve Hindistan Örnekleminde karşılaştırmalı çoklu yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme analizi. Verimlilik Dergisi, (1), 7–40.
21. Gregory, A. W., & Hansen, B. E. (1996). Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. Journal of econometrics, 70(1), 99–126.
22. Grossman, G., & Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of economic research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
23. Gunkel, G. (2009). Hydropower – A green energy? Tropical reservoirs and greenhouse gas emissions. CLEAN – Soil, Air, Water, 37(9), 726–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.200900062
24. Guo, R. (2018). Chapter 9 - Cross-border environmental pollution and management. R. B. T.-C.-B. R. M. (Third E. Guo (Ed.), (ss. 233–268). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64002-4.00009-X
25. Güzel, İ., & Oluç, İ. (2022). İhracat ürün çeşitlendirmesinin eEkolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 14(26), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1060437
26. Hanif, N., Arshed, N., & Aziz, O. (2020). On interaction of the energy: Human capital Kuznets curve? A case for technology innovation. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(8), 7559–7586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00536-9
27. Hatemi-j, A. (2012). Asymmetric causality tests with an application. Empirical Economics, 43(1), 447–456.
28. Hossain, M. A., & Chen, S. (2021). Nexus between Human Development Index (HDI) and CO2 emissions in a developing country: decoupling study evidence from Bangladesh. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(41), 58742–58754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14822-5
29. International Energy Agency (2022). Turkey - Countries & Regions - IEA. 16 Nisan 2022 tarihinde https://www.iea.org/countries/turkey adresinden erişilmiştir.
30. Jahanger, A., Usman, M., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations. Resources Policy, 76, 102569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569
31. Kassouri, Y., & Altıntaş, H. (2020). Human well-being versus ecological footprint in MENA countries: A trade-off? Journal of Environmental Management, 263, 110405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110405
32. Khan, S., Yahong, W., & Chandio, A. A. (2022). How does economic complexity affect ecological footprint in G-7 economies: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumptions and testing EKC hypothesis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(31), 47647–47660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19094-1
33. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental education research, 8(3), 239–260.
34. Kongbuamai, N., Bui, Q., Yousaf, H. M. A. U., & Liu, Y. (2020). The impact of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint: a case study of ASEAN countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(16), 19251–19264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08582-x
35. Langnel, Z., Amegavi, G. B., Donkor, P., & Mensah, J. K. (2021). Income inequality, human capital, natural resource abundance, and ecological footprint in ECOWAS member countries. Resources Policy, 74, 102255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102255
36. Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., Neill, E., … Wackernagel, M. (2018). Ecological footprint accounting for countries: Updates and results of the national footprint accounts, 2012–2018.Resources. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058
37. Long, X., Yu, H., Sun, M., Wang, X.-C., Klemeš, J. J., Xie, W., Wang, Y. (2020). Sustainability evaluation based on the Three-dimensional Ecological Footprint and Human Development Index: A case study on the four island regions in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 265, 110509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110509
38. Mahmood, N., Wang, Z., & Hassan, S. T. (2019). Renewable energy, economic growth, human capital, and CO2 emission: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(20), 20619–20630.
39. Masud, M. M., Al-Amin, A. Q., Junsheng, H., Ahmed, F., Yahaya, S. R., Akhtar, R., & Banna, H. (2016). Climate change issue and theory of planned behaviour: Relationship by empirical evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 613–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.080
40. McGillivray, M., & White, H. (1993). Measuring development? The UNDP’s human development index. Journal of International Development, 5(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3380050210
41. Murshed, M., Ferdaus, J., Rashid, S., Tanha, M. M., & Islam, M. J. (2021). The Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for deforestation in Bangladesh: An ARDL analysis with multiple structural breaks. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 6(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00188-w
42. Nathaniel, S. P., Yalçiner, K., & Bekun, F. V. (2021). Assessing the environmental sustainability corridor: Linking natural resources, renewable energy, human capital, and ecological footprint in BRICS. Resources Policy, 70, 101924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101924
43. Neumayer, E. (2001). The human development index and sustainability — a constructive proposal. Ecological Economics, 39(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00201-4 Oluç, İ. (2015). Kalkınmada beşeri sermayenin rolü Burdur uygulaması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
44. Oluç, İ., & Güzel, İ. (2022). Finansal küreselleşme ve çevre ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (50), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1056235
45. Oluc, I., Jebli, M. Ben, Can, M., Guzel, I., & Brusselaers, J. (2022). The productive capacity and environment: Evidence from OECD Countries. Available at SSRN.
46. Omoke, P. C., Nwani, C., Effiong, E. L., Evbuomwan, O. O., & Emenekwe, C. C. (2020). The impact of financial development on carbon, non-carbon, and total ecological footprint in Nigeria: New evidence from asymmetric dynamic analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(17), 21628–21646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08382-3
47. Özsoy, C. E. (2015). Düşük karbon ekonomisi ve Türkiye’nin karbon ayak izi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 4(9), 198–215.
48. Pata, U. K. (2021). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: Testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10446-3
49. Pata, U. K., Aydin, M., & Haouas, I. (2021). Are natural resources abundance and human development a solution for environmental pressure? Evidence from top ten countries with The largest ecological footprint. Resources Policy, 70, 101923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101923
50. Patchen, M. (2006). Public attitudes and behavior about climate change. Purdue climate change research center outreach publication, 601.
51. Rahman, M. M., Nepal, R., & Alam, K. (2021). Impacts of human capital, exports, economic growth and energy consumption on CO2 emissions of a cross-sectionally dependent panel: Evidence from the newly industrialized countries (NICs). Environmental Science & Policy, 121, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.017
52. Ravallion, M. (1997). Good and bad growth: The human development reports. World Development, 25(5), 631–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(96)00141-6
53. Sabir, S., & Gorus, M. S. (2019). The impact of globalization on ecological footprint: Empirical evidence from the South Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33387–33398.
54. Sagar, A. D., & Najam, A. (1998). The human development index: A critical review1 This paper is based, in part, on an earlier version presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the Academic Council of the United Nations System (ACUNS) held in Turin, Italy in June 1996.1. Ecological Economics, 25(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00168-7
55. Sala, S., Farioli, F., & Zamagni, A. (2013). Progress in sustainability science: Lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(9), 1653–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6
56. Sarkodie, S. A. (2021). Environmental performance, biocapacity, carbon & ecological footprint of nations: Drivers, trends and mitigation options. Science of The Total Environment, 751, 141912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141912
57. Sileem, H. H. M. (2020). The existence of modified environmental Kuznets curve for gender inequality in the MENA economies: panel data model. Sustainable Development and Social Responsibility, 1, 239–245.
58. Sinha, A., & Bhattacharya, J. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve estimation for NO2 emission: A case of Indian cities. Ecological Indicators, 67, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.025
59. Stern, D. I. (2018). The Environmental Kuznets Curve ☆. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09278-2
60. Stern, D. I., & Common, M. S. (2001). Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2), 162–178.
61. Tüleykan, H., & Demirci, Y. (2020). Sigortacılık sektörü ile İnsani Kalkınma Endeksi arasındaki ilişkinin analizi: 1985-2017 1. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 55(1), 111–133.
62. UNDP (2022). Human Development Index (HDI) | Human Development Reports. 9 Mart 2022 tarihinde https://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi?utm_source=EN&utm_medium=GSR&utm_content=US_UNDP_PaidSearch_Brand_English&utm_campaign=CENTRAL&c_src=CENTRAL&c_src2=GSR&gclid=Cj0KCQiAmpyRBhC-ARIsABs2EAo7pPob_il04CzIpfoUr8kH2R8gG3ca7FiD_hufw08tI adresinden erişilmiştir.
63. Venkatachalam, L. (2007). Environmental economics and ecological economics: Where they can converge? Ecological Economics, 61(2), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.012
64. Wang, Z., Rasool, Y., Asghar, M. M., & Wang, B. (2019). Dynamic linkages among CO2 emissions, human development, financial development, and globalization: Empirical evidence based on PMG long-run panel estimation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(36), 36248–36263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06556-2
65. Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecological economics research trends, 1, 1–11.
66. Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: The role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26), 32683–32694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4
67. Yıldırım, D. Ç., Yıldırım, S., Bostancı, S. H., & Turan, T. (2022). The nexus between human development and fishing footprint among mediterranean countries. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 176, 113426. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113426
68. Youssef, A. Ben, Boubaker, S., & Omri, A. (2020). Financial development and macroeconomic sustainability: Modeling based on a modified environmental Kuznets curve. Climatic Change, 163(2), 767–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02914-z
69. Zhang, B., Wang, B., & Wang, Z. (2017). Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 855–864.