Türkiye’de Ekolojik Ayak İzi Dinamikleri: Yenilenebilir Enerji, Orman Alanları, Ekonomik Büyüme ve Kentleşme Bağlamında Ekonometrik Bir Değerlendirme

Öz

Çevre kalitesi günümüzde sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve insan refahı açısından küresel ölçekte en kritik konulardan biri haline gelmiştir. Türkiye’de ise hızlı ekonomik büyüme ve artan kentleşme süreci, çevresel sürdürülebilirlik politikalarının önemini daha da artırmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, 1991–2021 dönemi için Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, orman alanları ve ekonomik gelişmenin çevre kalitesindeki etkileri, sanayileşme ve kentleşme değişkenleri de dahil edilerek ARDL sınır testi yöntemiyle uzun vadeli olarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ile orman alanlarının genişlemesinin çevre kalitesini artırıcı etkiler yarattığını göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, ekonomik büyüme ve kentleşme ekolojik dengeyi bozarak çevre kalitesini düşürmektedir. Sanayileşmenin ise çevresel etkilerinin doğrudan değil, dolaylı yollarla ortaya çıktığı görülmüştür. Bu sonuçlar, Türkiye’de çevresel sürdürülebilirlik hedeflerine ulaşabilmek için karbon yutak kapasitesini artırmaya yönelik politikaların güçlendirilmesi, yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarının teşvik edilmesi ve kentleşmenin çevreye duyarlı bir çerçevede planlanması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Gelecek çalışmalarda karbon emisyonu, sera gazı salınımı, hava kirliliği ve su kullanımı gibi farklı çevresel göstergelerin analize dahil edilmesi çevre kalitesinin daha kapsamlı değerlendirilmesine katkı sağlayacaktır. Ayrıca yeşil finansman, teknoloji yatırımları ve enerji verimliliği politikalarının eklenmesi, büyüme-sürdürülebilirlik ilişkisinin daha derinlemesine incelenmesine olanak tanıyacak ve politika yapıcılara daha uygulanabilir yol haritaları sunacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevre kalitesi
• Ekolojik Ayakizi
• Orman alanı
• ARDL
• ECM

Ecological Footprint Dynamics in Türkiye: An Econometric Assessment Within The Framework of Renewable Energy, Forest Areas, Economic Growth, and Urbanization

Öz

Environmental quality (EQ) has become one of the most critical global issues in terms of sustainable development and human well-being. In Türkiye, rapid economic growth (GR) and increasing urbanization (URB) have further heightened the importance of environmental sustainability (ES) policies. This research analyzes the long-run influence of renewable energy (REN) consumption, forest areas, and economic growth on EQ in Türkiye for the period 1991–2021, incorporating industrialization and URB as additional variables, through the ARDL bounds testing approach. The findings revealed that REN consumption and the expansion of forest areas significantly improve EQ in Türkiye. In contrast, economic growth and URB were found to deteriorate ecological balance and reduce EQ. Moreover, the impact of industrialization appears to be indirect rather than direct. The findings indicated that achieving environmental sustainability in Türkiye requires stronger policies to improve carbon sink capacity, greater support for renewable energy investments, and the adoption of eco-friendly urban planning strategies. A broader assessment of EQ may be obtained in subsequent studies by integrating further ecological indicators, including carbon emissions (CO2), greenhouse gases, air pollution metrics, and water utilization. In addition, the consideration of variables such as green financing, technology-related investments, and energy-saving policies may enhance the analysis of the economic growth – environmental sustainability nexus, delivering more applicable insights for policymakers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental quality
• Ecological footprint
• Forest area
• ARDL
• ECM

Kaynakça

1. Abid, M., Gheraia, Z., and 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
2. Abokyi, E., Appiah-Konadu, P., Abokyi, F., and Oteng-Abayie, E. F. (2019). Industrial growth and emissions of CO2 in Ghana: the role of financial development and fossil fuel consumption. Energy Reports, 5, 1339-1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.09.002
3. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Murshed, M., Shehzad, K., Akram, R., Cui, L., and Khan, Z. (2021). Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7 countries: does financial globalization matter? Sustainable Cities and Society, 70, 102881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102881
4. Ahmed, E. M., and Elfaki, K. E. (2024). Enhancing environmental quality and economic growth through potential effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy in Asian economies. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 22914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73679-z
5. Alam, I., and Quazi, R. (2003). Determinants of Capital Flight: An Econometric Case Study of Bangladesh, International Review of Applied Economics, 17(1), 85-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713673164
6. Al-Mulali, U., and Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.004
7. Alnour, M. (2022). Do innovation in environmental-related technologies and renewable energies mitigate the transport-based CO2 emissions in Turkey? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 902562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.902562
8. Alnour, M., and Atik, H. (2021). The dynamic implications of globalization and renewable energy in Turkey. Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(2), 288-314.

9. Alola, A. A., Yalçiner, K., Alola, U. V., and Saint Akadiri, S. (2019). The role of renewable energy, immigration and real income in environmental sustainability target. Evidence from Europe's largest states. Science of the Total Environment, 674, 307-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.163
10. Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Ozayturk, G., and Mike, F. (2022). Testing the long-run impact of economic growth, energy consumption, and globalization on ecological footprint: new evidence from Fourier bootstrap ARDL and Fourier bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto test results. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18610-7
11. Alruweili, F. (2023). Impact of GDP growth on the ecological footprint: Theoretical and empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(5), 120-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.05.015
12. Altin, H. (2025). The impact of population growth and economic growth on carbon emissions in Turkey: stirpat model in ARDL form. Journal of Management and Economic Studies, 7(2), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.26677/TR1010.2025.1556
13. Alvarado, R., Ortiz, C., Jiménez, N., Ochoa-Jiménez, D., and Tillaguango, B. (2021). Ecological footprint, air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international trade. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125589
14. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., and Masood, T. (2021). Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(6), 6719-6732. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-020-10786-0
15. Anwar, A., Sinha, A., Sharif, A., Siddique, M., Irshad, S., Anwar, W., and Malik, S. (2022). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy consumption, financial development, and CO2 emissions: Evidence from selected Asian countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01716-2
16. Aydın, Ş., Öztutuş, F., and Polat, İ. H. (2024). The impact of financial development, foreign direct investment and geopolitical risk on CO2 emissions: evidence from Turkey. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(3), 1617-1640. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1513450
17. Banerjee, A., Dolado, J., and Mestre, R. (1998). “Error‐correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single‐equation framework”. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(3), 267-283.
18. Begum R. A., Raihan A, and Said M. N. M., (2020). Dynamic impacts of economic growth and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions in Malaysia. Sustainability 12(22):9375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229375
19. Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., and Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 37(2), 149-163.
20. Çakmak, E. E., and Acar, S. (2022). The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy and ecological footprint: An empirical evidence from most oil-producing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352, 131548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131548
21. Charfeddine, L., and 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
22. Chen, Y., Lee, C. C., and Chen, M. (2022). Ecological footprint, human capital, and urbanization. Energy and Environment, 33(3), 487- 510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X211008610
23. Costanza, R. (2000). The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 341-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00150-0
24. Cramer, W., Guiot, J., Fader, M., Garrabou, J., Gattuso, J. P., Iglesias, A., ... and Xoplaki, E. (2018). Climate change and interconnected risks to sustainable development in the Mediterranean. Nature Climate Change, 8(11), 972-980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0299-2
25. Cui, L., Weng, S., Nadeem, A. M., Rafique, M. Z., and Shahzad, U. (2022). Exploring the role of renewable energy, urbanization and structural change for environmental sustainability: Comparative analysis for practical implications. Renewable Energy, 184, 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.11.075
26. Danish, Ulucak, R., and 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
27. Destek, M., and A. Sinha. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organization for economic Cooperation and development countries, MPRA Paper No. 104246.
28. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, reindustrialization and environmental degradation: Evidence from ecological footprint of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126612
29. Dickey, D. A., and Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
30. Emir, F., Philip, L. D., and Sertoglu, K. (2022). Assessing the influence of urbanization and energy on carbon emissions of Turkey: evidence using the new RALS analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(38), 57905-57917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19953-x
31. Eriçok, R. E., and V. Yılancı (2013). Eğitim harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Sınır testi yaklaşımı. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 8(1), 87-101.
32. Global Footprint Network. (2025). Earth Overshoot Day 2025: How the Date Was Calculated. https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/
33. Granger, C. W. J., and Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2, 111-120.
34. Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic Econometrics (Forth Edition). 814-818. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
35. Gupta, M., Saini, S., and Sahoo, M. (2022). Determinants of ecological footprint and PM2. 5: Role of urbanization, natural resources and technological innovation. Environmental Challenges, 7, 100467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100467
36. Hassan, S. T., Xia, E., Khan, N. H., and 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
37. Johansen, S., and K. Juselius (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1990.mp52002003.x
38. Kendir, E., and Yakışık, H. (2025). Yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarının ekolojik ayak izine etkisi: BRICS-T ülkeleri örneği. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(1), 540-557. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1615883
39. Khan, I., Zakari, A., Ahmad, M., Irfan, M., and Hou, F. (2022). Linking energy transitions, energy consumption, and environmental sustainability in OECD countries. Gondwana Research, 103, 445-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.10.026
40. Khan, Y., Khan, M. A., and Zafar, S. (2023). Dynamic linkages among energy consumption, urbanization and ecological footprint: empirical evidence from NARDL approach. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 34(6), 1534-1554. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2023MEnvQ..34.1534K/doi:10.1108/MEQ-10-2022-0278
41. Kılavuz, E., and Doğan, I. (2021). Economic growth, openness, industry and CO2 modelling: are regulatory policies important in Turkish economies? International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 16(2), 476-487. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctaa070
42. Koçak, E. (2024). Yenilenebilir enerjinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerine etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(1), 256-265. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1411258
43. Kocoglu, M., Nghiem, X. H., Barak, D., Bruna, K., and Jahanger, A. (2024). Can forests realize the carbon neutrality dream? Evidence from a global sample. Journal of Environmental Management, 366, 121827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121827
44. Kongbuamai, N., Bui, Q., and 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
45. Kumaran, V. V., Ridzuan, A. R., Senadjki, A., Kanaan, A. M. J., and Esquivias, M. A. (2024). The impacts of income inequality, forest area, and technology innovations on ecological footprint in Indonesia: ARDL and ML approach. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00585-9
46. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
47. Liu, X., and Bae, J. (2018). Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.156
48. Liu, X., Liu, M., Huang, Y., and Meo, M. S. (2022). Analysis of asymmetries in the nexus between bioenergy and ecological footprint: Evidence from European economies. Biomass and Bioenergy, 167, 106605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106605
49. Mahmood, H., Alkhateeb, T. T. Y., and Furqan, M. (2020). Industrialization, urbanization and CO2 emissions in Saudi Arabia: Asymmetry analysis. Energy Reports, 6, 1553-1560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.06.004
50. Musah, A., and Yakubu, I. (2022). Exploring industrialization and environmental sustainability dynamics in ghana: a fully modified least squares approach. Technological Sustainability, 2(2), 142-155. https://doi.org/10.1108/techs-06-2022-0028
51. Nan, Y., Sun, R., He, M., Sun, Y., and Li, Y. (2022). Does renewable energy consumption reduce energy ecological footprint: evidence from China. Environmental Research: Ecology, 2(1), 015003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-664x/aca76c
52. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests”, Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
53. Narayan, P. K., and S. Narayan (2005). Estimating income and price elasticities of imports for Fiji in a cointegration framework, Economic Modelling, 22, 423-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2004.06.004
54. Narayan, P. K., and Smyth R. (2006). What determines migration flows from low-income to high-income countries? an empirical investigation of Fiji-U.S. migration 1972-2001. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(2), 332-342. https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byj019
55. Narayan, P. K., and Smyth, R. (2005a). Electricity consumption, employment and real income in Australia evidence from multivariate granger causality tests. Energy Policy, 33(9), 1109-1116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.11.010
56. Narayan, P. K., and Smyth, R. (2005b). Trade liberalization and economic growth in Fiji. an empirical assessment using the ARDL approach”, Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 10(1), 96-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354786042000309099
57. Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Adediran, A., Sharma, G., Shah, M., and Adeleye, N. (2019). Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: Including the excluded. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 27168-27179. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-019-05924-2
58. Ojaghlou, M., Ugurlu, E., Kadłubek, M., and Thalassinos, E. (2023). Economic activities and management issues for the environment: an environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and STIRPAT analysis in Turkey. Resources, 12(5), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050057
59. Ozcan, B., Tzeremes, P. G., and Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 84, 203-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.04.010
60. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. ILO Working Papers.
61. Pata U. K. (2018b). The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: Revisiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy. 160:1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.095
62. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-1088-6
63. 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, 846-861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10446-3
64. Pata, U. K., and Pata, S. K. (2025). Effects of forest area, environmental patents and financial progress on carbon emissions in Azerbaijan. In BIO Web of Conferences. 151, EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202515102003
65. Pata, U. K., and 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104249
66. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., and R. J. Smith (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
67. Phillips, P. C., and Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
68. Polat, I. H., Tosunoğlu, M., and Aslan, T. (2025a). Analyzing the ageing population and healthcare expenditures from an environmental sustainability perspective for the eu countries: A spatial approach. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(31), 168-200. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2025.007
69. Polat, I. H., Tosunoğlu, M., and Gümüş, M. (2025b). The balancing act: can corruption control and the accountability save public efficiency in India? Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 26(2), 464-490. https://doi.org/10.17494/ogusbd.1682596
70. Polat, I. H., Yapraklı, S., and Çamkaya, S. (2024). Impact of nuclear and renewable energy on CO2 emissions in OECD countries under the STIRPAT model: Evidence from the CS-ARDL Model. International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences, 14(1), 258-283. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14176539
71. Rahman, M. M., Mohanty, A. K., and Rahman, M. H. (2024). Renewable energy, forestry, economic growth, and demographic impact on carbon footprint in India: does forestry and renewable energy matter to reduce emission? Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 14(2), 415-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13412-024-00912-6
72. Raihan, A., and Tuspekova, A. (2022). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, industrialization, tourism, agriculture, and forests on carbon emissions in Turkey. Carbon Research, 1(1), 20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s44246-022-00019-z
73. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., Rahman, M., and Mahmood, A. (2022). Nexus between carbon emissions, economic growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, industrialization, technological innovation, and forest area towards achieving environmental sustainability in Bangladesh. Energy and Climate Change, 3, 100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2022.100080
74. Rees W. E. (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environ Urban. 4(2):121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212
75. Rees W., and Wackernagel M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 16(4–6):223–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_35
76. Sarwar, N., Junaid, A., and 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
77. Sezer, S. (2025). The potential impacts of green transformation on the Turkish economy and foreign trade: A conceptual framework based on the SDGs. Journal of Lifestyle and SDGs Review, 5(5), e6678-e6678. https://doi.org/10.47172/2965-730X.SDGsReview.v5.n05.pe06678
78. Sofuoğlu, E., Alver, A., and Bozali, N. (2023). An empirical study on the impact of urbanization on environmental quality in Turkey. Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 8(1), 204-212.
79. Tarı, R., and D. Ç. Yıldırım (2009). Döviz kuru belirsizliğinin ihracata etkisi: Türkiye için bir uygulama. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 16(2), 95-105.
80. Tosunoğlu, M. (2024). The relationship between technological innovation and economic growth in EU Countries: A system GMM approach. Verimlilik Dergisi, 58(4), 651-662. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1440264
81. Tosunoğlu, M., and Uçal, H. (2025). The relationship between energy consumption and economic growth: cointegration and causality approaches. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (67), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1464319
82. Ullah, A., Tekbaş, M., and 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
83. Ulucak, R., and Khan, S. U.D. (2020). Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
84. United Nations. (2024). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
85. Usman, O., Akadiri, S. S., and 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
86. Uygur, B., and Serengil, Y. (2016). Carbon sequestration potential of forest biomass in Turkey. Biochar: A Regional Supply Chain Approach in View of Climate Change Mitigation (pp. 184-195). Cambridge University Press, 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337974.010
87. Wackernagel M. (1994). Ecological Footprint and Appropriated Carrying Capacity: A Tool for Planning Toward Sustainability. PhD Thesis, The University of British Columbia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2455747117699722
88. Wang, Q., Ge, Y., and Li, R. (2025). Does improving economic efficiency reduce ecological footprint? The role of financial development, renewable energy, and industrialization. Energy and Environment, 36(2), 729-755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231183914
89. World Bank. (2024). World Development Indicators. https://data.worldbank.org
90. World Development Indicators (WDI), 2024. World Bank collection of development indicators, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
91. Yasin, I., Ahmad, N., and Chaudhary, M. A. (2020). Catechizing the environmental-impression of urbanization, financial development, and political institutions: a circumstance of ecological footprints in 110 developed and less-developed countries. Social Indicators Research, 147(2), 621-649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02163-3
92. Yildiz, T., and Göktürk, T. B. (2019). Sanayileşme, şehirleşme ve çevre kirliliği arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye için bir ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı. Journal of Academic Value Studies, 5(2), 217-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.23929/javs.824
93. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F., and Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019). The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: The case of the United States. Resources Policy, 63, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101428
94. Zheng, Y., Wang, M., Ma, X., Zhu, C., and Gao, Q. (2024). The dynamic relationship between industrial structure upgrading and carbon emissions: New evidence from Chinese provincial data. Sustainability, 16(22), 10118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210118.