ÇEVRESEL BOZULMAYI NE BELİRLER? SEÇİLMİŞ ÜLKELER İÇİN İKTİSADİ BÜYÜME, DIŞ TİCARET, KENTLEŞME VE YENİLENEBİLİR ENERJİNİN MALZEME AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışma; üretim ve tüketim süreçlerinde önemli ölçüde malzeme tüketimi gerçekleştiren on ülke için 1990-2022 döneminde, çevresel bozulmanın önemli bir göstergesi olan malzeme ayak izini belirleyen iktisadi faktörleri analiz etmektedir. İnceleme kapsamındaki ülkeler; uluslararası ticaretteki önemli rollerinden dolayı Almanya, ABD, Brezilya, Çin, Hindistan ve Japonya; çevreye duyarlı ve sürdürülebilir politikalara verdikleri önem nedeniyle Danimarka ve İsveç; doğal kaynaklara dayalı ekonomilere sahip olmaları dolayısıyla ise Avustralya ve Güney Afrika olarak seçilmiştir. Panel eş bütünleşme testi, kişi başına düşen gelir düzeyi, dış ticaret, kentleşme ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ile malzeme ayak izi arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişkileri analiz etmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, ekonomik büyümenin malzeme ayak izini anlamlı bir şekilde artırdığını, ticari açıklık ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin ise bu izi azalttığını ortaya koymaktadır. Kentleşmenin ise malzeme ayak izi üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir etkisi bulunamamıştır. Ülkeye özgü analizler, söz konusu faktörlerin etkilerinin ülkeler arasında farklılık gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Genel anlamda gelirin malzeme ayak izini arttırıcı, dış ticaretin ise azaltıcı etkisi bulunmaktadır. Ülke bazındaki farklılıklar arasında, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi çoğu ülkede malzeme ayak izini azaltmasına karşın, Brezilya ve Japonya’da bu izi arttırıcı etkide bulunduğu dikkat çekmektedir. Ayrıca kentleşmenin Avustralya ve İsveç’te malzeme ayak izini azaltıcı, Brezilya’da ise artırıcı etkisi olduğu görülmektedir. Sonuçlar, çevresel bozulmayı azaltmak ve kaynak verimliliğini artırmak için, her ülkenin ekonomik ve yapısal koşullarına uygun çevre politikaları geliştirmesinin ve ekonomik ve ticari politikaların çevresel sürdürülebilirlik ile uyumlu hale getirilmesinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevresel Bozulma
• İktisadi Büyüme
• Dış Ticaret
• Yenilenebilir Enerji Tüketimi
• Malzeme Ayak İzi

WHAT DETERMINES ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION? THE EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH, FOREIGN TRADE, URBANIZATION, AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ON MATERIAL FOOTPRINT IN SELECTED COUNTRIES

Öz

This study analyzes the economic factors determining the material footprint, a significant indicator of environmental degradation, for ten countries that engage in substantial material consumption during production and consumption processes over the 1990-2022 period. The countries included in the study are selected based on their significant roles in international trade-Germany, the United States, Brazil, China, India, and Japan; due to their commitment to environmentally sensitive and sustainable policies. Denmark and Sweden; and their resource-based economies-Australia and South Africa. Using panel cointegration tests, the research analyzes the long-term relationships between material footprint and per capita income level, trade, urbanization, and renewable energy consumption. The findings reveal that economic growth significantly increases the material footprint, while trade openness and renewable energy consumption are found to reduce. In contrast, urbanization does not have a statistically significant effect on the material footprint. Country-specific analyses indicate that the effects of these factors differ among countries. Overall, income has an increasing effect on the material footprint, whereas trade has a mitigating impact. Among the observed country-level differences, it is noteworthy that renewable energy consumption generally reduces the material footprint but has an increasing effect in Brazil and Japan. Furthermore, urbanization is found to decrease the material footprint in Australia and Sweden but increase it in Brazil. The results highlights the importance of developing country-specific environmental policies coordinating to their unique economic and structural conditions, as well as ensuring that economic and trade policies are accordant with environmental sustainability to mitigate environmental degradation and enhance resource efficiency.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Degradation
• Economic Growth
• Foreign Trade
• Renewable Energy Consumption
• Material Footprint

Kaynakça

1. Adebayo, T. S., Akinsola, G. D., Odugbesan, J. A., & Olanrewaju, V. O. (2021). Determinants of environmental degradation in Thailand: Empirical evidence from ARDL and wavelet coherence approaches. Pollution, 7(1), 181-196.
2. Agnolucci, P., Flachenecker, F., & Söderberg, M. (2017). The causal impact of economic growth on material use in Europe. Journal of Enviromental Economics and Policy, 6(4), 415-432.
3. Alola, A. A., Akadiri, S. S., & Usman, O. (2021). Domestic material consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-28 countries: Implications for environmental sustainability targets. Sustainable Development, 29, 388-397.
4. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., & Khan, N. A. (2020). Enviromental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecological Indicators, 115(106416), 1-14.
5. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., Kumar, P., Kumar, S., & Akram, V. (2022). Main determinants for ecological footprint: An econometric perspective from G20 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 7(3), 250-267.
6. Anwar, A., Chaudhary, A. R., & Malik, S. (2023). Modeling the macroeconomic determinants of environmental degradation in E‐7 countries: The role of technological innovation and institutional quality. Journal of Public Affairs, 23(1), 2834.
7. Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. England: John Wiley&Sons Ltd. West Sussex. 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.
8. Burki, U., & Tahir, M. (2022). Determinants of environmental degradation: Evidenced-based insights from ASEAN economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 306(114506), 1-10.

9. Chen, Y., Zhao, J., Lai, Z., Wang, Z., & Xia, H. (2019). Exploring the effects of economic growth, and renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on China’s CO2 emissions: Evidence from a regional panel analysis. Renewable energy, 140, 341-353.
10. Chu, L. K. (2022). Determinants of ecological footprint in OCED countries: Do environmental-related technologies reduce environmental degradation?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(16), 23779-23793.
11. Dada J. T., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2024). Linking per capita income, renewable energy, natural resources, trade, and Urbanisation to material footprint: Insights from Saudi Arabia. Energy Nexus, 13(100269), 1-9.
12. 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), 1-10.
13. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49, 431-455.
14. Dogan, E., Taspinar, N., & Gokmenoglu, K. K. (2019). Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy&Environment, 1-22.
15. Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: A novel estimator. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 17692, 1-26.
16. Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Wermer, P., Wackernagel, M., Niccolucci, V., & Tiezzi E. (2007). An exploration of the mathematics behind the ecological footprint. İçinde C. A Brebbia (Ed.), Ecodynamics: The prigogine legacy (ss. 249-256). Wit Press: Billerica, USA.
17. Gupta, M., Saini, S., & Sahoo, M. (2022). Determinants of ecological footprint and PM2.5: Role of urbanization, natural resources and technological innovation. Environmental Challenges, 100467, 1-12.
18. Kassouri, Y., Alola, A. A., & Savas, S. (2021). The dynamics of material consumption in phases of the economic cycle for selected emerging countries. Resources Policy, 70(101918), 1-9.
19. Koçak, E., & Sarıöz Gökten, Y. (2022). Kapitalizmde iktisadi küçülme mümkün mü? Malzeme ayak izi ve CO2 için panel veri analizi. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 20-36.
20. 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.
21. Liu, X., & Bae, J. (2018). Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 178-186.
22. Mukiyen Avcı, G. (2023). Malzeme Kuznets eğirisi hipotezi geçerli mi? CIVETS ülkelerinden ampirik kanıtlar, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 52, 336-351.
23. Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Adediran, A., Sharma, G., Shah, M., & Adeleye, N. (2019). Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: Including the excluded. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 27168-27179.
24. OECD (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050. The Consequences of Inaction. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-environmental-outlook-to-2050_9789264122246-en.html. sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 16.09.2024.
25. Ozturk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2010). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9), 3220-3225.
26. Pata, U. K., & Karlilar, S. (2024). The integrated influence of energy security risk and green innovation on the material footprint: An EKC analysis based on fossil material flows, Journal of Cleaner Production,435(140469), 1-10.
27. Pesaran, H. A. (2003). Simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics (DAE). Cambridge Working Papers.
28. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. https://ssrn.com/abstract=572504. sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 22.02.2023.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Razzaq, A., Ajaz, T., Li J. C., Irfan, M., & Suksatan, W. (2021). Investigating the asymmetric linkages between infrastructure development, green innovation, and consumption-based material footprint: Novel empirical estimations from highly resource-consuming economies, Resources Policy, 74(102320), 1-18.
32. Rehman, H., & Zeb, S. (2020). Determinants of environmental degradation in economy of Pakistan. Empirical Economic Review, 3(1), 83-105.
33. Regueiro-Ferreira, R. M., & Alonso-Fernandez, P. (2023). Interaction between renewable energy consumption and dematerialization: Insights based on the material footprint and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, Energy, 266 (126477), 1-12.
34. Sahoo, M., Saini, S., & Villanthenkodath, M. A. (2021). Determinants of material footprint in BRICS countries: An empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 37689-37704.
35. SDG (2023). Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 02.05. 2024.
36. Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q. M. A., Tiwari, A. K., & Leitão, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109-121.
37. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., & Sinha, A. (2020). Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57, 102138, 1-12.
38. Telega, I., & Telega, A. (2020). Driving factors of material consumption in European countries - spatial panel data analysis, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 9(3), 269-280.
39. Turgut, E., & Sarıöz Gökten, Y. (2022). Malzeme Kuznets eğrisi malzeme ayak izi için geçerli mi? G-7 ülkeleri örneği, Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 823-841.
40. Turgut, E., & Sarıöz Gökten, Y. (2023). Çevre kirliliğinin bir göstergesi olarak malzeme ayak izi için panel veri analizi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 32(1), 20-29.
41. Ucan, O., Ozturk, I., & Turgut, E. (2023). Determinants of ecological footprint in BRICS countries: A panel data analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-14.
42. Umar, M., Raza, M. Y., & Xu, Y. (2023). Determinants of CO2 emissions and economic progress: A case from a developing economy. Heliyon, 9(1), 1-12.
43. UN (1987). United Nations: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. our_common_futurebrundtlandreport1987.pdf. sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 20.10.2023.
44. UN (2023). United Nations: Conferences Environment and Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/stockholm1972. sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 10.09.2023.
45. UNSTAT (2024). SDG Indicator Metadata. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-08-04-01.pdf. sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 12.12.2024.
46. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
47. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers.
48. Wang, S., Li, Q., Fang, C., & Zhou, C. (2016). The relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment, 542, 360-371.
49. Weisz, H., & Steinberger, J. K. (2010). Reducing energy and material flows in cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2(3), 185-192.
50. Westerlund, J. (2005). New simple test for panel cointegration. Econometric Review,. 24(3), 297-316.
51. Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., & West, J. (2015). The Material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6271-6276.
52. Zhang, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, X. (2023). Impact of economic policy uncertainty, oil prices, and technological innovations on natural resources footprint in BRICS economies. Resources Policy, 86(104082), 1-12.