The impact of agricultural value added, urbanisation and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality in MINT countries

Öz

In this paper, the effects of agricultural value added, urbanisation and energy consumption on environmental quality in MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey) countries were analysed for the period between 1992-2019. In the first stage of the study the panel analysis was used then the existence of horizontal cross-section dependence between the variables was tested and then the CIPS test, was used to test the stationarity of the series. In the paper where the existence of homogeneity was tested with the Delta test, the long-run relationship between the series was tested with the Pedroni panel cointegration test. Finally, the effects of agricultural value added, urbanisation and energy consumption on the environment were analysed by fully modified least squares estimator (FMOLS) analysis. According to the FMOLS results, the increase in agricultural value added and urbanisation rate has a negative impact on environmental quality, while renewable energy consumption has a positive impact on environmental quality. The results of the study show that more environmentally friendly policies should be developed and implemented in the agricultural production process in the country group in question, renewable energy investments and consumption should be increased, and the urbanisation rate should be taken under control and environmentally friendly new generation city plans should be put into effect urgently.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• agricultural added value
• urbanisation
• renewable energy
• environment
• ecological footprint

MİNT ülkelerinde tarımsal katma değer, şehirleşme ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin çevresel kalite üzerindeki etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmada MINT (Meksika, Endonezya, Nijerya, Türkiye) ülkelerinde tarımsal katma değer, şehirleşme ve enerji tüketiminin çevresel kalite üzerindeki etkisi 1992-2019 yılları arası dönem için analiz edilmiştir. Panel analiz yönteminin kullanıldığı çalışmada değişkenler arasındaki yatay kesit bağımlılığının olmasından dolayı serilerin durağanlığı ikinci nesil birim kök testlerinden biri olan CIPS testi ile sınanmıştır. Delta testi ile homojenliğin varlığının test edildiği çalışmada seriler arasındaki uzun dönemli ilişki Pedroni panel eşbütünleşme testi ile sınanmıştır. Son olarak tam değiştirilmiş en küçük kareler tahmincisi (FMOLS) analizi ile tarımsal katma değer, şehirleşme ve enerji tüketiminin çevre üzerindeki etkisi analiz edilmiştir. FMOLS sonuçlarına göre tarımsal katma değerde ve şehirleşme hızında meydana gelen artış çevre kalitesi üzerinde negatif etkiye sahipken yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi çevre kalitesi üzerinde pozitif etkiye sahiptir. Çalışma sonuçları söz konusu ülke grubunda tarımsal üretim sürecinde daha çevreci politikaların geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması gerektiğini, yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarının ve tüketiminin arttırılması gerektiğini ve şehirleşme hızının kontrol altına alınarak çevreye duyarlı yeni nesil şehir planlarının ivedi şekilde yürürlüğe konulması gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• makro ekonomi
• tarımsal katma değer
• şehirleşme
• yenilenebilir enerji
• çevre
• ekolojik ayak izi

Teşekkür

Çalışmalarımızda gerek duyulan olanak için Üniversitelerimize teşekkür ederiz.

Kaynakça

1. Agboola M.O., Bekun F.V. (2019). Does Agricultural Value Added Induce Environmental Degradation, Empirical Evidence from an Agrarian Country. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res, 26, 27660–27676.
2. Akyol, M. (2023). The Relationship between Urbanization, Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions Panel Ardl Analysis for Newly Industrialized Countries, Planlama, 33(3):421–431 | doi: 10.14744/planlama.2023.82788.
3. Akpan, U. F. ve Akpan, G. E. (2012). The Contribution of Energy Consumption to Climate Change: A Feasible Policy Direction, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2(1), 21-33.
4. Aktürk, E ve Gültekin, S. (2024). The impact of food production on ecological footprint in Turkey: an analysis across agriculture, livestock, and aquaculture, Environment, Development and Sustainability.
5. Alhassan, H. (2021). The effect of agricultural total factor productivity on environmental degradation in sub-Saharan Africa, Scientific African, 12, e00740.
6. Al-mulali, U., Che Sab, N.B., Fereidouni, H.G. (2012). Exploring the bi-directional long run relationship between urbanization, energy consumption, and carbon dioxide emission, Energy, 46, 156-167.
7. Apergis N., Payne J. E. (2010). Energy consumption and growth in South America: Evidence from a panel error correction model. Energy Economics, 32(6), 1421–1426.
8. Arouri M. E. H., Youssef A. B., M’henni H. ve Rault C. (2012). Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and North African countries. Energy Policy, 45, 342–349.

9. Asif M., Sharma R. B., Adow A. H. E. (2015). An empirical investigation of the relationship between economic growth, urbanization, energy consumption, and CO2 emission in GCC countries: A panel data analysis. Asian Social Science, 11(21), 270–284.
10. Asumadu-Sarkodie S., Owusu P.A. (2016). The Relationship between Carbon Dioxide and Agriculture in Ghana: A Comparison of VECM and ARDL Model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 23:10968–10982.
11. Azam, M., ve Khan, A.Q. (2016). Urbanization and environmental degradation: Evidence from four SAARC Countries—Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 35(3), 823-832.
12. Azimi, M.N., ve Rahman, M.M. (2024). Renewable energy and ecological footprint nexus: Evidence from dynamic panel threshold technique, Heliyon, 10(13), e33442.
13. Aziz, N., Sharif, A., Raza, A. ve Rong, K. (2020). Revisiting the role of forestry, agriculture, and renewable energy in testing environment Kuznets curve in Pakistan: evidence from Quantile ARDL approach, Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 10115–10128.
14. Behera, S.R., Dash, D.P. 2017. The effect of urbanization, energy consumption, and foreign direct investment on the carbon dioxide emission in the SSEA (South and Southeast Asian) region, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 96-106.
15. Bilgen, S. (2014). Structure and environmental impact of global energy consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8, 890-902.
16. Breusch, T.S. and Pagan, A.R. (1980) The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Application to Model Specification in Econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-253.
17. Chen, Y., Lee, C.C. ve Chen, M. (2022). Ecological footprint, human capital, and urbanization Energy Environ., 33(3):487-510.
18. Cüre, B. (2022). Kimyasal ve Organik Gübrelerin Çevre Üzerine Etkisi, Biyosistem Mühendisliği Dergisi, 3(2):98-107.
19. Güler, E.Ö. ve Börüban, C. (2019). Tarımsal üretimin ve ölçek etkisinin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi, Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28(3), 1-11.
20. Gündüz, H.İ. (2017). Testing for slope homogeneity in dynamic panels using the wild bootstrap test, Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sayı:26 2017 53-59.
21. IEA. (2024). International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, IEA Publications.
22. Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H. and Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit root in heterogeneus panels, Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53-74.
23. Isik, C., Ongan, S. ve Özdemir, D. (2019). The economic growth/development and environmental degradation: evidence from the US state-level EKC hypothesis, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26:30772–30781.
24. Karasoy, A. (2021). Küreselleşme, sanayileşme ve şehirleşmenin Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izine etkisinin genişletilmiş ARDL yöntemiyle incelenmesi, Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14 (1), 208-231.
25. Karaer, F. ve Gürlük, S. (2003). Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde tarım-çevre-ekonomi etkileşimi, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 4 (2), 197-206
26. Liu, R., Dong, X., Wang, X., Zhang, P., Liu, M. ve Zhang, Y. (2023). Relationship and driving factors between urbanization and natural ecosystem health in China, Ecological Indicators, 147, 109972.
27. Ma, L., Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Yu, L. ve Zhu, Y. (2022). Environmental effects and their causes of agricultural production: Evidence from the farming regions of China, Ecological Indicators, 144, 109549.
28. Muoneke, O. B., Okere, K. I., & Nwaeze, C. N. (2022). Agriculture, globalization, and ecological footprint: The role of agriculture beyond the tipping point in the Philippines. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(36), 54652–54676.
29. Odugbesan, J. A., ve Rjoub, H. (2020). Relationship Among Economic Growth, Energy Consumption, CO2 Emission, and Urbanization: Evidence From MINT Countries. Sage Open, 10(2).
30. Pandey, K.K. ve Rastogi, H. (2019). Effect of energy consumption & economic growth on environmental degradation in India: A time series modelling, Energy Procedia, 2(1), 4232-4237.
31. Panwar, N.L., Kaushik, S.C. ve Kothari, S. (2011). Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 1513-1524.
32. Pata, U. K. (2021). Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy, 173, 197–208.
33. Pedroni, P. (1996). Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels and the Case of Purchasing Power Parity. Working Paper 96-020. Indiana University.
34. Pedroni, P. (1999), Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61: 653-670.
35. Pedroni, P. (2000) Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels. Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, 93-130.
36. Pedroni, P. (2004). Critical Values for Cointegration Tests In Heterogeneous Panels With Multiple Regressors, Oxford Bulletin of Economics And Statistics, Special Issue, 0305-9049, 653-670.
37. Peker, A.E. (2012). Konya İli Domates Üretiminde Tarımsal İlaç Kullanımına Yönelik Çevresel Duyarlılık Analizi, Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der., 2(1): 47-54.
38. Pesaran, M. H. 2004. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, CWPE, 0435.
39. Pesaran, H.M. (2007). A Simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265–312.
40. Pesaran, M. H. and Yamagata, T. (2008). “Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, Sayı:142, ss. 50–93.
41. Raza, A., Habib, Y. ve Hashmi, S.H. (2023). Impact of technological innovation and renewable energy on ecological footprint in G20 countries: the moderating role of institutional quality, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 30, 95376-95393.
42. Ridzuan N.H., Marwan N.F., Khalid N., Ali, M.H., ve Tseng M.L. (2020). Effects of agriculture, renewable energy, and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 160, 104879.
43. Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Muzaffar, A.T., Ahmed, K., Jabran, M.A. (2016). How urbanization affects CO2 emissions in Malaysia?: the application of STIRPAT model, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 83-93.
44. Shi, A. (2003). The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975–1996: evidence from pooled cross-country data. Ecol Econ, 44(1), 29–42.
45. Sofuoğlu, E., Alver, A. ve 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.
46. Tatoğlu, F.Y. (2013). İleri Panel Veri Analizi: Stata Uygulamalı, 2. Baskı, Beta Yayınları.
47. Tatoğlu, F.Y. (2017). Panel zaman serileri analizi: Stata uygulamalı, Beta Yayınları.
48. The United Nations, 2018. China's urban population will increase by 255 million in 2050. Retrieved from, 5-16.
49. Topal, M.H. (2017). Çifte Kazanç Hipotezinin OECD Ekonomileri İçin Testi: Panel Eşbütünleşme ve Nedensellik Analizi, Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2:(4), 2-20.
50. Udemba, E. N. (2021a). Pakistan ecological footprint and major driving forces, could foreign direct investment and agriculture be among In S. S. Muthu (Ed.), Assessment of Ecological Footprints (pp. 109–122), Springer Singapore.
51. Wang, L., Mehmood, U., Agyekum, E. B., Uhunamure, S. E., & Shale, K. (2022). Associating Renewable Energy, Globalization, Agriculture, and Ecological Footprints: Implications for Sustainable Environment in South Asian Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10162.
52. Wang S., Li G., Fang C. (2018). Urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from countries with different income levels. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81(Pt. 2), 2144–2159.
53. Xu, X., Nadeem, M., Niazi, M. (2024). The Impact of the Agricultural System on the Environmental Footprints: New Insights from Contemporary Chinese Agricultural Perspecti. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 33(5), 5943-5952.
54. Xue, L., Haseeb, M., Mahmood, H., Alkhateeb, T.T.Y. ve Murshed, M. (2021). Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation: evidence from selected south asian economies, Sustain. Times, 13 (4), 1-20.