Makroekonomik Değişkenlerin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Dinamik Etkisi: BRICS-T Ülkelerinden Kanıtlar

Öz

Çevresel sürdürülebilirlik literatüründe son dönemde ekolojik ayak izi büyük ölçüde çevresel tahribatın en önemli göstergesi arasında görülmektedir. Ancak ekonomik büyüme, ekosistem hizmetleri, biyoçeşitlilik ve insan refahı ile ilişkisindeki netlik eksikliğinden dolayı çevresel sürdürülebilirliğe yönelik ciddi akademik ve politik ilgi, ekolojik ayak izine tam olarak yansımamıştır. Bu bakımdan çalışma, 1992-2022 dönemi için BRICS-T ülkelerinde makroekonomik değişkenlerin ekolojik ayak üzerindeki dinamik etkisini inceleyerek literatürü genişletmektedir. Westerlund ve Edgerton (2007) testlerinin sonuçları değişkenlerin uzun dönemli ilişkisini doğrulamaktadır. Eşbütünleşme panel geneli tahminci katsayı sonuçları, ekonomik büyüme ve doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımındaki %1’lik artış ekolojik ayak izini sırasıyla % 0,197 ve % 0,046 oranında arttırmakta iken ticari açıklık ekolojik ayak izini % 0,240 oranında azaltmaktadır. Nedensellik test sonuçları Rusya ve Güney Afrika ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izinden gelire doğru Hindistan, Çin ve Türkiye’de ise gelirden ekolojik ayak izine doğru tek yönlü; Çin’de ekolojik ayak izi ile ticari açıklık arasında çift yönlü, Rusya ve Türkiye’de ticari açıklık ile ekolojik ayak izi arasında tek yönlü; Hindistan, Çin ve Türkiye’de doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımlar ile ekolojik ayak izi arasında tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkileri mevcuttur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Çevre
• Sürdürülebilirlik
• Dinamik Panel Veri Analizi

Dynamic Impact of Macroeconomic Variables on Ecological Footprint: Evidence from BRICS-T Countries

Öz

In the environmental sustainability literature, ecological footprint has recently been seen as one of the most important indicators of environmental destruction. However, serious academic and policy attention to environmental sustainability has not been fully reflected in the ecological footprint due to a lack of clarity in its relationship with economic growth, ecosystem services, biodiversity and human well-being. In this regard, the study expands the literature by examining the dynamic impact of macroeconomic variables on the ecological pillar in BRICS-T countries for the period 1992-2022. The results of Westerlund and Edgerton (2007) tests confirm the long-term relationship of the variables. Co-integration panel-wide estimator coefficient results show that a 1% increase in economic growth and foreign direct investment increases the ecological footprint by 0.197% and 0.046%, respectively, while trade openness reduces the ecological footprint by 0.240%. Causality test results are unidirectional, from ecological footprint to income in Russia and South African countries, and from economic growth to ecological footprint in India, China and Turkey; In China, the relationship between ecological footprint and trade openness is bidirectional, and in Russia and Turkey, the relationship between trade openness and ecological footprint is unidirectional; There are unidirectional causal relationships between foreign direct investments and ecological footprint in India, China and Turkey

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecological Footprint
• Environmet
• Sustainability
• Dynamic Panel Data Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z. ve Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: An advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy, 69, 101817.
2. Alola, A. A., Bekun, F.V. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci Total Environ 685, 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.139
3. Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., Kumar, P., Kumar, S. ve Akram, V. (2022). Main determinants for ecological footprint: An econometric perspective from G20 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 7(3), 250-267.
4. Aşıcı, A. A. ve Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint?. Ecological Indicators, 61, 707-714.
5. Bagliani, M., Bravo, G. ve Dalmazonne, S. (2008). A consumption-based approach to environmental kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicators. Ecological Economics, 65(3), 650-661.
6. Breusch, T. S. ve 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.
7. Bucak, Ç. (2022). Ekonomik özgürlük endeksi, insani gelişme endeksi ve ekolojik ayak izi: E7 ülkeleri için ampirik bir analiz. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(23), 141-158.
8. Canas, A., Ferrao, P. ve Conceicao, P. (2003). A new environmental Kuznets curve? Relationship between direct material input and income per capita: Evidence from industrialised countries. Ecological Economics, 46(2), 217-229.

9. Caviglia-Harris, J.L., Chambers, D. ve Kahn, J.R. (2009). Taking the ‘U’ out of Kuznets. A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, 68(4),1149-1159.
10. Charfeddine, L. ve 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.
11. Chen, Q., Madni, G. R. ve Shahzad, A. A. (2023). The usage of spatial econometric approach to explore the determinants of ecological footprint in BRI countries. Plos one, 18(10), e0288683.
12. Chen, S. T. ve Chang, H. T. (2016). Factors that affect the ecological footprint depending on the different income levels. Aims Energy, 4(4), 557-573.
13. Chowdhury, M. A. F., Shanto, P. A., Ahmed, A. ve Rumana, R. H. (2021). Does foreign direct investments impair the ecological footprint? New evidence from the panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 14372-14385.
14. Danish, A., Baloch, M,A., Mahmood, N. ve Zhang, J,W. (2019). Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Science of the Total Environment 678, 632–638.
15. Destek, M. A. ve Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118537.
16. Diao, X., Zeng, S., Tam, C. M. ve Tam, V. W. (2009). EKC analysis for studying economic growth and environmental quality: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(5), 541-548.
17. Doğan, E., Taspinar, N. ve Gokmenoglu, K. K. (2019). Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries. Energy & Environment, 30(6), 1065-1086.
18. Duman, E. (2023). Seçilmiş ekonomik değişkenlerin ekolojik ayak izine etkisinin analizi: BRICS-T ülkeleri örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 31(58), 277-288.
19. Emirmahmutoğlu, F. ve Köse, N. (2011). Testing for granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28, 870-876.
20. Global Footprint Network (2023). www.footprintnetwork.org/ Erişim Tarihi 20.11.2023.
21. Grossman, G. ve Krueger, A. (1995). Economic environment and the economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
22. Gülmez, A., Altıntaş, N. ve Kahraman, Ü.O. (2020). A puzzle over ecological footprint, energy consumption and economic growth: The case of Turkey. Environmental Ecological Statatistic 27(4), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-020-00465-1
23. Gülmez, A., Özdilek, E. ve Karakaş, D. N. (2021). Ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık ve enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izine etkileri: G7 ülkeleri için panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Econder International Academic Journal, 5(2), 329-342.
24. Islam, M. S., Hossain, M. E., Khan, M. A., Rana, M. J., Ema, N. S. ve Bekun, F. V. (2022). Heading towards sustainable environment: exploring the dynamic linkage among selected macroeconomic variables and ecological footprint using a novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-20.
25. Kızılgöl, Ö. ve Öndes, H. (2022). Factors affecting the ecological footprint: A study on the OECD countries. Science of the Total Environment, 849, 157757.
26. Kong, Y. ve Khan, R. (2019). To examine environmental pollution by economic growth and their impact in an environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) among developed and developing countries. PloS one, 14(3), e0209532.
27. Kongbuamai, N., Bui, Q. ve 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.
28. Majeed, M. T. ve Mazhar, M. (2019). Financial development and ecological footprint: A global panel data analysis. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 13(2), 487-514.
29. Moore, J., Kissinger, M. ve Rees, W,E. (2013). An urban metabolism and ecological footprint assessment of Metro Vancouver. J Environ Manage 124, 51–61.
30. Mrabet, Z., AlSamara, M. ve Hezam Jarallah, S. (2017). The impact of economic development on environmental degradation in Qatar. Environmental and ecological statistics, 24, 7-38.
31. Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Adediran, A., Sharma, G., Shah, M. ve Adeleye, N. (2019). Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: Including the Excluded, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 27168–27179.
32. Nazlıoğlu, S. ve Karul, C. (2017, July). Panel LM Unit Root Test With Gradual Structural Shifts, 40th International Panel Data Conference, Thessaloniki-Greece.
33. Pata, U. K. ve Caglar, A. E. (2021). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: Evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy, 216, 119220.
34. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Available at SSRN 572504.
35. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure, Econometrica, 74 (4), 967-1012.
36. Pesaran, M. H. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
37. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The econometrics journal, 11(1), 105-127.
38. Ramezani, M., Abolhassani, L., Shahnoushi, F. N., Burgess, D. ve Aminizadeh, M. (2022). Ecological footprint and its determinants in MENA countries: A spatial econometric approach. Sustainability, 14(18), 11708.
39. Rudolph, A. ve Figge, L. (2017). Determinants of ecological footprints: What is the role of globalization?. Ecological Indicators, 81, 348-361.
40. Sabir, S. ve Gorus, M. S. (2019). The impact of globalization on ecological footprint: Empirical evidence from the South Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 33387-33398.
41. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shadzad, F. ve Shadzad, K. (2020). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods, Journal of Cleaner Production, 279(2021), 123806.
42. Stern, D.I., Common, M.S. ve Barbier, E.B. (1996). Ekonomik büyüme ve çevresel bozulma: Çevresel kuznets eğrisi ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma. Dünya kalkınması , 24(7), 1151-1160.
43. Türkmen, S., Ağır, H. ve Günay, E. (2019). Seçi̇lmi̇ş OECD ülkeleri̇nde ar-ge ve ekonomi̇k büyüme: Panel eşbütünleşme yaklaşımından yeni̇ kanıtlar. Bilgi Ekonomisi ve Yönetimi Dergisi, 14(2), 89-101.
44. Uddin, G. A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K. ve Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, 77, 166-175.
45. Udemba, E. N. (2020). A sustainable study of economic growth and development amidst ecological footprint: New insight from Nigerian Perspective. Science of the total environment, 732, 139270.
46. Ulucak, R. ve Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.
47. Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers.
48. Wang, J. ve Dong, K. (2019). What drives environmental degradation? Evidence from 14 Sub-Saharan African countries. Science of the Total Environment, 656, 165-173.
49. Westerlund, J. ve Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97,185–190.
50. World Bank (2023). World development indicators, Erişim adresi: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators Erişim Tarihi: 09.12.2023.
51. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F. ve 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, 101428.