İnsani Kalkınma Endeksi, Kentleşme, Ekonomik Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: MINT Ülkeleri Örneği

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı insani kalkınma endeksi, kentleşme, ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisini MINT ülkelerinde (Meksika, Hindistan, Nijerya ve Türkiye) 2003-2022 yılları için araştırmaktır. Öncelikle insani kalkınma endeksi, kentleşme, ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki eşbütünleşme ilişkisi Gengenbach, Urbain ve Westerlund (2016) panel eşbütünleşme ile incelenmiştir. Eşbütünleşme analizi neticesinde değişkenlerin eşbütünleşik olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Uzun dönemli ilişki DOLSMG yöntemi ile tahmin edilmiştir. DOLSMG tahmincisine göre MINT ülkelerinde insani kalkınma endeksindeki % 1’lik artışın ekolojik ayak izini % 1.89 azalttığı belirlenmiştir, kentleşmedeki % 1’lik artış ekolojik ayak izini % 0.22 arttırmıştır ve ekonomik büyümedeki % 1’lik artış ise ekolojik ayak izini önemsiz derecede arttırmıştır. İkinci olarak insani kalkınma endeksi, kentleşme, ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) panel nedensellik analizi ile incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre MINT ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi ile kentleşme arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi vardır. Ayrıca, çalışmanın bulguları ekolojik ayak izinden insani kalkınma endeksine doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğunu ve ekonomik büyümeden ekolojik ayak izine doğru tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İnsani Kalkınma Endeksi
• Kentleşme
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Ekolojik Ayak İzi

Linking Human Development Index, Urbanization, Economic Growth and the Ecological Footprint: The Case of MINT Countries

Öz

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between human development index, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprint in MINT countries (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkiye) for the years 2003-2022. First of all, the cointegration relationship between human development index, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprint was examined with Gengenbach, Urbain and Westerlund (2016) panel cointegration. As a result of the cointegration analysis, it was concluded that the variables were cointegrated. The long-term relationship was estimated by the DOLSMG method. According to the DOLSMG estimator, it was determined that a 1% increase in the human development index in MINT countries reduced the ecological footprint by 1.89%, a 1% increase in urbanization increased the ecological footprint by 0.22%, and a 1% increase in economic growth increased the ecological footprint insignificantly. Secondly, the relationship between human development index, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprint was examined with Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) panel causality analysis. According to the findings, there is a bidirectional causality relationship between ecological footprint and urbanization in MINT countries. Additionally, the findings of the study show that there is a unidirectional causality relationship from ecological footprint to human development index and a unidirectional causality relationship from economic growth to ecological footprint.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Human Development Index
• Urbanization
• Economic Growth
• Ecological Footprint

Kaynakça

1. 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, 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05911-7
2. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Murshed, M., Shehzad, K., Akram, R., Cui, L., & 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
3. Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M. W., & Ali, S. (2020). Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: an empirical analysis. Sustainable cities and society, 55, 102064.
4. Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., & Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological indicators, 48, 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.029.
5. Arif, M., Gill, A. R. & Ali, M. (2023). Analyzing the non-linear association between urbanization and ecological footprint: an empirical analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(50), 109063-109076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30012-x
6. Bagliani, M., Bravo, G., & Dalmazzone, S. (2008). A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecological Economics, 65(3), 650-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.010
7. Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N. & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.028
8. Caviglia-Harris, J. L., Chambers, D., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.006

9. Cebeci Mazlum, E. (2023). Ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: E7 ülkeleri örneği. Uluslararası Anadolu Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.47525/ulasbid.1235614
10. Charfeddine, L. (2017). The impact of energy consumption and economic development on ecological footprint and CO2 emissions: evidence from a Markov switching equilibrium correction model. Energy Economics, 65, 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.05.009
11. Charfeddine, L., & 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
12. Chen, Y., Lee, C.-C. & Chen, M. (2022). Ecological footprint, human capital, and urbanization. Energy & Environment, 33(3), 487- 510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X211008610
13. Chowdhury, M. A. F., Shanto, P. A., Ahmed, A., & 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(12), 14372-14385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11518-0
14. Danish, K., Hassan S. T., Baloch M. A., Mahmood, N. & Zang. J. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustain Cities Soc 47:101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516
15. Destek, M. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2483-2489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.017
16. Dong, K., Hochman, G., Zhang, Y., Sun, R., Li, H., & Liao, H. (2018). CO2 emissions, economic and population growth, and renewable energy: empirical evidence across regions. Energy Economics, 75, 180-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.08.017
17. Dumitrescu, E. & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460.
18. Ghita, S. I., Saseanu, A. S., Gogonea, R. M., & Huidumac-Petrescu, C. E. (2018). Perspectives of ecological footprint in European context under the impact of information society and sustainable development. Sustainability, 10 (9), 3224.
19. Gülmez, A., Ozdilek, E., & Türkseven, D. N. (2021). Ekonomik Büyüme, Ticari Açıklık ve Enerji Tüketiminin Ekolojik Ayak İzine Etkileri: G7 Ülkeleri İçin Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Econder International Academic Journal, 5(2), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.35342/econder.969114
20. Hassan, S.T., Xia, E., Khan, N.H. et al. (2019). Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 2929–2938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3803-3
21. Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U., & Rafique, M. Z. (2021). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and ecological footprint: contextual evidences from Japan. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101460
22. Kassouri, Y., & Altıntas, 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
23. Khan, Y., Khan, M. A. & 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://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-10-2022-0278
24. Mrabet, Z., & Alsamara, M. (2017). Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1366-1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.039
25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05924-2
26. Nathaniel, S. P. (2021). Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal, 86, 2057-2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10175-7
27. Ozkan, O. & Coban, M. N. (2022). Türkiye’de Kirlilik hale hipotezi ve ekonomik büyüme, ekonomik küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi bağlantısı: KRLS’den kanıtlar. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 18(4), 1049-1068. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1143139
28. 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
29. Pesaran, H. M., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing SlopeHomogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
30. 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.
31. Sarkodie, S. A., & Strezov, V. (2018). Empirical study of the environmental Kuznets curve and environmental sustainability curve hypothesis for Australia, China, Ghana and USA. Journal of cleaner production, 201, 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.039
32. Tosunoglu, B. (2014). Sürdürülebilir küresel refah göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 132-149.
33. Uddin, G.A., Salahuddin, M., Alam, K., & Gow, J. (2017). Ecological footprint and real ıncome: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators, (77), 166- 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.01.003
34. Ullah, A., Tekbas, M., & Dogan, 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
35. Ulucak, R. & Kocak, E. (2018). Economic growth and environment: Econometric analysis for OECD countries. Dünya Enerji Kongresi 2018. Amsterdam, Hollanda
36. Ulucak, R., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191.
37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
38. Ulger, M., Ucar, M., Atamer, M. A. & Apaydın, S. (2024). Kentleşme, Yenilenebilir Enerji ve İnovasyon ile Ekonomik Büyüme ve Ekolojik Ayak İzi Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkileri: Çok Yüksek İnsani Gelişme Düzeyindeki Ülkeler Örneği. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(2), 449-462. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1485357
39. UNDP, (2005), Human Development Report, 2005, New York.
40. Yıldırım, D. C., 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
41. Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X., & Xiao, Y. (2013). Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: A spatial econometric approach. Ecological Indicators, 34, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.021
42. Zadgaonkar, L. A., & Mandavgane, S. A. (2020). Framework for calculating ecological footprint of process industries in local hectares using emergy and LCA approach. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 22, 2207-2221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01970-4