Ekonomik Büyüme ve Kentleşmenin Sürdürülebilir Çevre Üzerindeki Etkisi: Seçilmiş AB Ülkelerinde LCC Hipotezinin Geçerliliğinin Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada seçilmiş 15-AB ülkesinde (Avusturya, Belçika, Danimarka, Finlandiya, Fransa, Almanya, Yunanistan, Macaristan, İrlanda, İtalya, Lüksemburg, Hollanda, Portekiz, İspanya ve İsveç) ekonomik büyüme ve kentleşmenin sürdürülebilir çevre üzerindeki etkisinin Yük Kapasite Eğrisi (LCC) hipotezi çerçevesinde test edilerek geçerliliğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Yöntem: Çalışmada 1961-2022 döneminde seçilmiş 15-AB ülkesinde LCC hipotezinin geçerliliği Westerlund ECM Panel Eşbütünleşme, Ortalama Grup Dinamik En Küçük Kareler (DOLSMG) ile Canning ve Pedroni (2008) Nedensellik yöntemleri kullanılarak test edilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışma bulguları ekonomik büyüme ile Yük Kapasite Faktörü (LCF) arasında U şeklinde bir ilişki olduğunu ve LCC hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. Başlangıçta ekonomik büyümenin artmasıyla birlikte LCF azalma eğilimi göstermekte ancak belirli bir büyüme seviyesinden sonra Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Hasıla’daki (GSYİH) artış LCF üzerinde pozitif bir etki meydana getirmektedir. Ülke bazında elde edilen bulgular, Danimarka, Almanya, Macaristan, İrlanda, İtalya ve İspanya’da LCC hipotezinin geçerli olduğunu doğrulamaktadır. Ayrıca, uzun dönemde kentleşme oranındaki artışın LCF üzerinde pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu bulgu ekolojik modernizasyon teorisini desteklemektedir. Nedensellik analizleri ise ekonomik büyüme ile hem LCF hem de kentleşme arasında çift yönlü, kentleşmeden LCF’ye ise tek yönlü bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuçlar: Çalışma, çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanmasında ekonomik büyüme ve kentleşme politikalarının önemli olduğunu ve dengeli bir şekilde yürütülmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, elde edilen bulgular ülkelerin sürdürülebilir büyüme ve sürdürülebilir çevre stratejileri geliştirmelerine yönelik politika tasarımlarına katkı sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sürdürülebilir Büyüme
• Sürdürülebilir Çevre
• Kentleşme
• LCC Hipotezi
• AB Ülkeleri

The Impact of Economic Growth and Urbanisation on Sustainable Environment: Analysing the Validity of the LCC Hypothesis in Selected EU Countries

Öz

Aim: This study aims to examine the validity of the impact of economic growth and urbanisation on the sustainable environment in 15 selected EU countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden) by testing the Load Capacity Curve (LCC) hypothesis. Method: In the study, the validity of the LCC hypothesis in selected 15 EU countries for the period 1961-2022 is tested using Westerlund ECM Panel Cointegration, Dynamic Least Squares Mean Group (DOLSMG), and Canning and Pedroni's (2008) Causality methods. Findings: The findings of the study show that there is a U-shaped relationship between economic growth and Load Capacity Factor (LCF), and the LCC hypothesis is valid. Initially, LCF tends to decrease with increasing economic growth, but after a certain level of growth, the increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) positively affects LCF. The country-specific findings confirm that the LCC hypothesis is valid in Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, and Spain. Moreover, in the long run, the increase in urbanisation rate has a positive and statistically significant effect on LCF. This finding supports the ecological modernisation theory. Causality analyses reveal that there is a bidirectional relationship between economic growth and both LCF and urbanisation, and a unidirectional relationship from urbanisation to LCF. Conclusions: The study emphasises that economic growth and urbanisation policies are important in ensuring environmental sustainability and should be carried out in a balanced manner. In this direction, the findings aim to contribute to the policy designs of countries to develop sustainable growth and sustainable environmental strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sustainable Growth
• Sustainable Environment
• Urbanisation
• LCC Hypothesis
• EU Countries

Kaynakça

1. ADEBAYO, T. S., OZTURK, I., AĞA, M., UHUNAMUREU, S. E., KIRIKKALELI, D., & SHALE, K. (2023). Role of natural gas and nuclear energy consumption in fostering environmental sustainability in India. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 11030. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38189-4
2. AFSHAN, S., & YAQOOB, T. (2023). Unravelling the efficacy of green innovation and taxation in promoting environmental quality: a dual-model assessment of testing the LCC theory in emerging economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 416, 137850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137850
3. AHMED, Z., WANG, Z., ALI, S. (2019) Investigating the non-linear relationship between urbanization and CO2 emissions: an empirical analysis. Air Qual Atmos Heal 12,945–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00711-x
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139573
5. ASLAN, M. (2025). Türkiye’de çevresel sürdürülebilirliği artırmada yenilenemeyen enerji verimliliğinin rolü, EKC ve LCC hipotezleri: kesirli fourier ARDL yaklaşımı ile bulgular. Sosyoekonomi, 33(64), 493-518. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2025.02.21
6. AYAD, H. (2023). Investigating the fishing grounds load capacity curve in G7 nations: Evaluating the influence of human capital and renewable energy use. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 194, 115413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115413
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.174
8. BOZATLI, O., & AKCA, H. (2024). Does the composition of environmental regulation matter for ecological sustainability? Evidence from Fourier ARDL under the EKC and LCC Hypotheses. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 26(12), 4305-4323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024-02838-7

9. BREUSCH, T. S., & PAGAN, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1): 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
10. CAGLAR, A. E., DESTEK, M. A., & MANGA, M. (2024). Analyzing the load capacity curve hypothesis for the Turkiye: a perspective for the sustainable environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, 141232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141232
11. CANNING, D., & PEDRONI, P. (2008). Infrastructure, long-run economic growth and causality tests for cointegrated panels. The Manchester School, 76(5), 504-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2008.01073
12. ÇAMKAYA, S. (2024). LCC Hipotezi çerçevesinde çevresel kalite ve kentleşme arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye’den ampirik kanıtlar. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(2), 739-760. http://dx.doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1435550
13. DENG, S., TIWARI, S., KHAN, S., HOSSAIN, M. R., & CHEN, R. (2024). Investigating the load capacity curve (LCC) hypothesis in leading emitter economies: Role of clean energy and energy security for sustainable development. Gondwana Research, 128, 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.10.020
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135038
15. ERDOGAN, S. (2024). On the impact of natural resources on environmental sustainability in African countries: a comparative approach based on the EKC and LCC hypotheses. Resources Policy, 88, 104492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104492
16. FAREED, Z., SALEM, S., ADEBAYO, T. S., PATA, U. K., & SHAHZAD, F. (2021). Role of export diversification and renewable energy on the load capacity factor in Indonesia: A Fourier quantile causality approach. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 770152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.770152
17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-28680-w
18. GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK (GFN) (16.03.2025). Global footprint network data. Erişim tarihi: 16.03.2025, https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.49451686.1037141276.167360942720110#/
19. GROSMAN, G.M. &KRUEGER, A.B. (1991), Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement, NBER, 3914
20. GÜNEYSU, Y. (2023). Türkiye’de finansal gelişme, küreselleşme ve sanayileşmenin Yük Kapasite Faktörü üzerindeki etkisi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 934-946. http://dx.doi.org/10.36362/gumus.1294618
21. KAO, C. D., CHIANG, M.-H., & CHEN, B. (1999). International R&D spillovers: An application of estimation and inference in panel cointegration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(51), 691-709. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.0610s1691
22. KHAN, Z., ALI, S., UMAR, M., KIRIKKALELI, D., & JIAO, Z. (2020). Consumptionbased carbon emissions and international trade in G7 countries: The role of environmental innovation and renewable energy. Science of the Total Environment, 730, 138945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138945
23. ÖKTEN, S., & ÖKTEN, A. (2018). Avrupa Birliği politikaları perspektifinde sürdürülebilir kent. Akademia Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 408-425. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/asj/issue/40224/479047
24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01321-0
25. PATA, U. K., & KARTAL, M. T. (2023). Impact of nuclear and renewable energy sources on environment quality: Testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses for South Korea. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 55(2), 587-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.10.027
26. PATA, U. K., & TANRIÖVER, B. (2023). Is the Load Capacity Curve Hypothesis Valid for the Top Ten Tourism Destinations? Sustainability,15(2), 2-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15020960
27. PATA, U. K., KARTAL, M. T., ERDOGAN S., & SARKODIE, S. A. (2023). The role of renewable and nuclear energy R&D expenditures and income on environmental quality in Germany: Scrutinizing the EKC and LCC hypotheses with smooth structural changes. Applied Energy, 342, 121138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121138
28. PEDRONI, P. (2001). Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(4), 727-731. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301753237803
29. PESARAN, M. H. & YAMAGATA, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1): 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
30. PESARAN, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics Faculty of Economics, (No. 0435). University of Cambridge. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370002214340987648
31. PESARAN, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2): 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
32. PESARAN, M. H., ULLAH, A., & YAMAGATA, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1): 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
33. PESARAN, M.H. ve SMITH, R.P. (1995). Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogenous panels, Journal of Econometrics, 68, 79-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01644-F
34. POUMANYVONG, P., KANEKO, S. (2010) Does urbanization lead to less energy use and lower CO2 emissions? A cross-country analysis. Ecol Econ 70, 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.029
35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15111-x
36. SHAHBAZ, M., CHAUDHARY, A.R.& OZTURK, I. (2017) Does urbanization cause increasing energy demand in Pakistan? Empirical evidence from STIRPAT model. Energy. 122, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.080
37. SHAHZAD, U., TIWARI, S., MOHAMMED, K. S., & ZENCHENKO, S. (2024). Asymmetric nexus between renewable energy, economic progress, and ecological issues: Testing the LCC hypothesis in the context of sustainability perspective. Gondwana Research, 129, 465-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.07.008
38. SHANG, Y., RAZZAQ, A., CHUPRADIT, S., AN, N. B., & ABDUL-SAMAD, Z. (2022). The role of renewable energy consumption and health expenditures in improving load capacity factor in ASEAN countries: Exploring new paradigm using advance panel models. Renewable Energy, 191, 715-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.013
39. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027
40. SWAMY, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2): 311-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
41. UÇAR, M., ÜLGER, M., & ATAMER, M. A. (2025). Effects of economic growth and energy consumptions on environmental degradation within the framework of LCC hypothesis in BRICS countries. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 72(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.47743/saeb-2025-0002
42. ULUSOY, A., & VURAL, T. (2001). Kentleşmenin sosyo ekonomik etkileri. Belediye Dergisi, 7(12), 8-14. https://kadirgurbetci.com.tr/yonetim/dosya/e8fd2e0154hnk.pdf
43. WANG, S., ZAFAR, M. W., VASBIEVA, D. G., & YURTKURAN, S. (2024). Economic growth, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and environmental quality: Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve and load capacity curve hypothesis. Gondwana Research, 129, 490-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.06.009
44. WESTERLUND, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
45. WORLD BANK. (10.02.2025). Gross domestic product per capita (constant 2015 US$). Erişim tarihi: 10.02.2025, https://data.worldbank.org
46. WORLD BANK. (10.02.2025). Urban population (% of total population). Erişim tarihi: 10.02.2025, https://data.worldbank.org
47. XU, D., SALEM, S., AWOSUSI, A. A., ABDURAKHMANOV, G., ALTUNTAŞ, M., OLUWAJANA, 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.823185
48. YANG, M., SHE, D., ABBAS, S., AI, F., & ADEBAYO, T. S. (2023). Environmental cost of financial development within the framework of the load capacity curve hypothesis in the BRICS economies: do renewable energy consumption and natural resources mitigate some burden? Geological Journal, 58(10), 3915-3927. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.4817
49. YERDELEN TATOĞLU, F. (2020). Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi Stata Uygulamalı (3. Baskı). İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
50. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29017-3