Environmental Impacts in G7 Nations: Analyzing the Influence of Economic Growth, Energy Dynamics, and Urbanization on the Ecological Footprint

Öz

This research examines the factors affecting the ecological footprint among G7 countries between 1990 and 2021, focusing on energy consumption, per capita income, renewable energy usage, and the effects of urbanization. For the analysis of the study, second-generation tests such as unit root, cointegration, long-term coefficient estimators like the Augmented Mean Group (AMG) and Common Correlated Effects Mean Group (CCEMG), and the Dumitrescu Hurlin Panel Causality methods are used in the context of cross-sectional dependence and slope homogeneity test results. According to the results of the analysis, the increase in per capita income and non-renewable energy consumption plays a significant role in the increase of the ecological footprint. This situation, along with industrialization and dependence on fossil fuels, is causing an increase in environmental degradation. Another factor, the use of renewable energy, is found to have no impact on reducing the ecological footprint. The connection between urbanization and ecological footprint shows that environmental degradation decreases with urbanization. The causal relationship of the ecological footprint with other variables occurs as follows. There is a bidirectional causal relationship between ecological footprint and renewable energy consumption, while there is a unidirectional causal relationship between ecological footprint and per capita income, energy consumption, and urbanization.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecological Footprint
• Energy Consumption
• Urbanization
• Panel Data

G7 Ülkelerinde Çevresel Etkiler: Ekonomik Büyüme, Enerji Dinamikleri ve Kentleşmenin Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkisinin Analizi

Öz

Bu araştırma, 1990 ile 2021 yılları arasında G7 ülkeleri içinde ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde etkili olan faktörleri, enerji tüketimi, kişi başına gelir, yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı ve kentleşme etkilerine odaklanarak incelemektedir. Çalışmanın analizi için yatay kesit bağımlılığı, eğim homojenliği testleri sonuçları bağlamında ikinci nesil testlerden olan birim kök, eşbütünleşme, uzun dönem katsayı tahmincilerinden Geliştirilmiş Ortalama Grup (AMG) ve Ortak Korelasyonlu Etkiler Ortalama Grup (CCEMG) ve Dumitrescu Hurlin Panel Nedensellik yöntemleri kullanılmaktadır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre kişi başına gelirde ve yenilenemez enerji tüketiminin artışı ekolojik ayak izinin artmasında önemli bir rol oynadığını ortaya koyuyor. Bu durum da sanayileşme ve fosil yakıtlara bağımlılıkla birlikte çevresel bozulmanın artmasına neden olmaktadır. Diğer bir faktör olan yenilenebilir enerji kullanımın ise ekolojik ayak izini azaltmada bir etki göstermediği sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Kentleşme ile ekolojik ayak izi bağlantısı ise şehirleşme ile birlikte çevresel bozulmanın azalacağı yönünde etkiler göstermektedir. Ekolojik ayak izinin diğer değişkenlerle olan nedensellik ilişkisi ise şu şekilde gerçekleşmektedir. Ekolojik ayak izi ile yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi arasında çift yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi ekolojik ayak izi ve kişi başına gelir, enerji tüketimi, kentleşme sarasında tek yönlü nedensellik ilişkisi bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik Ayak İzi
• Enerji Tüketimi
• Kentleşme
• Panel Veri

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, S., & Jones, P. (2021). Financial incentives and clean technology adoption: Their role in ecological footprint reduction. Ecological Economics, 180, 106890.
2. Al-mulali, U., & 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.
3. Alola, A. A., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 685, 702-709.
4. Bai, X. (2007). Integrating global environmental concerns into urban management: The scale and readiness arguments. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(2), 15-29.
5. Bilgili, F., Koçak, E., & Bulut, Ü. (2016). The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: A revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 838-845.
6. Bithas, K., & Christofakis, M. (2006). Environmental management in urban areas: Challenges and perspectives for sustainable development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8(3), 417-435.
7. 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.
8. 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.

9. Chen, H., Tackie, E. A., Ahakwa, I., Musah, M., Salakpi, A., Alfred, M., & Atingabili, S. (2022). Does energy consumption, economic growth, urbanization, and population growth influence carbon emissions in the BRICS? Evidence from panel models robust to cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(25), 37598–37616.
10. Dietz, T., & Rosa, E.A. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94(1), 175-9.
11. Dogan, E., & Seker, F. (2016). The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1074–1085.
12. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460.
13. Dworatzek, P., Miller, E., Lo, K., Howarth, E., & Kazubowski-Houston, S. (2024). National Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, 2024 Edition. (Version 1.0). [Data set and metadata]. Produced for Footprint Data Foundation by York University Ecological Footprint Initiative in partnership with Global Footprint Network.
14. Eberhardt, M. & Teal, F. (2010). Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production. University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
15. Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of Population Growth. Science, 171(3977), 1212-1217.
16. Energy Institute. (2023). Primary energy consumption per capita. Available from: http://www.energyinstitute.org/data.
17. Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., & Lazarus, E. (2014). Ecological Footprint: Implications for biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 173, 121–132.
18. Garcia, M., & Rivas, D. (2002). Energy efficiency policies and their environmental impacts: A European perspective. Energy Policy, 150, 112448.
19. Global Footprint Network. (2023). Country Trends and Data for G7.
20. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.
21. Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M. & Ozturk, I. (2022). Dynamic association between ICT, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: Is there any difference between E-7 (developing) and G-7 (developed) countries?. Technology in Society, 68, 101853.
22. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.
23. IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
24. Jorgenson, A. K. (2012). The sociology of ecologically unequal exchange and carbon dioxide emissions, 1960–2005. Social Science Research, 41(2), 242–252.
25. Khan, Z., Malik, M. Y., & Latif, K. (2022). Renewable energy and its role in mitigating ecological degradation in G20 countries. Renewables and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 154, 111792.
26. Koç, S. & Savaş, Y. (2024). Ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Türkiye’den kanıtlar, Politik Ekonomik, Kuram, 8(4), 1063-1073.
27. Koçak, E. (2024). Yenilenebilir enerjinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerine etkisi: Türkiye örneği, Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(1), 256-265.
28. Li, R. & Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production. 346, 131207.
29. Liddle, B., & Lung, S. (2010). Age-structure, urbanization, and climate change in developed countries: Revisiting STIRPAT for disaggregated population and consumption-related environmental impacts. Population and Environment, 31(5), 317-343.
30. Majeed, M. T., & Mazhar, M. (2021). Digital economy and environmental sustainability: The role of innovation and growth. Sustainable Development, 29(3), 473-485.
31. Musah, M., Owusu-Akomeah, M., Boateng, F., Iddris, F., Mensah, I. A., Antwi, S. K., & Agyemang, J. K. (2022). Long-run equilibrium relationship between energy consumption and CO2 emissions: a dynamic heterogeneous analysis on North Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(7), 10416–10433.
32. OECD (2022). Environmental Policies in G7 Countries: Toward Sustainability.
33. Onwe, J.C., Bandyopadhyay, A., Hamid, I., Rej, S., & Hossain, E. (2023). Environment sustainability through energy transition and globalization in G7 countries: What role does environmental tax play?, Renewable Energy, 218, 119302.
34. Panayotou T., (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. World Employment Programme Research. Working Paper WP238.
35. Pata, U. K., & Hizarci, A. (2022). Urbanization, energy consumption, and ecological footprint nexus: evidence from panel data analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 20(4), 123-145.
36. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panels. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229.
37. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and Inference in Large Heterogeneous Panels with a Multifactor Error Structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
38. 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.
39. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
40. Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A., and Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
41. Rafique, M.Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M. & Huang, S. (2022). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: An empirical assessment from developed economies, Energy, 238(A), 121753.
42. Sadorsky, P. (2009). Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 37(10), 4021–4028.
43. Sahoo, M., & Sethi, N. (2021). The intermittent effects of renewable energy on ecological footprint: evidence from developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(40), 56401–56417.
44. Seto, K. C., Guneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(40), 16083–16088.
45. 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.
46. Shi, X. & Matsui, T., & Machimura, T., & Gan, X., & Hu, A. (2020). Toward Sustainable Development: Decoupling the High Ecological Footprint from Human Society Development: A Case Study of Hong Kong. Sustainability, 12, 4177.
47. Stern, D. I. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439.
48. Stiglitz, J. E. (2019). Addressing climate change through price and non-price interventions. European Economic Review.
49. Sun, Y., Li, Q., & Zhou, H. (2021). Urbanization and environmental degradation: Lessons from developing countries. Urban Studies, 58(5), 910-929.
50. Tang, Z. & Xu, W. (2021). Urban density and ecological footprint: An assessment of eco-friendly practices. Environmental Research, 200, 111369.
51. Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by considering trade openness, financial development, and renewable energy: A global panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(2), 20204-20219.
52. Ülger M., Uçar M., Atamer M. A., & Apaydın Ş. (2024). Kentleşme, yenilenebilir enerji ve inovasyon ile ekonomik büyüme ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri: çok yüksek insani gelişme düzeyindeki ülkeler örneği. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 8(2), 449-462.
53. Valderrama, C., Diaz, L., & Ceron, A. (2024). Trends of the ecological footprint and urban development: A systematic and bibliometric review. Ecological Frontiers, 44, 865-873.
54. Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New Society Publishers.
55. Wang, S., Li, Q., Fang, C., & Zhou, C. (2018). The relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment, 639, 293-302.
56. Wang, Y., Chen, X., & Liu, Q. (2021). Economic growth, digitalization, and ecological sustainability in Asia: A panel data analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 285, 112084.
57. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
58. Wiedmann, T., & Barrett, J. 2010. A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator, Perceptions and Methods. Sustainability, 2(6), 1645-1693.
59. WDI. (2024). World Development Indicators. Databank.
60. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351-365.
61. Zhang, Z., & Cheng, Z. (2015). Does urbanization reduce ecological footprints? Evidence from Chinese cities. Sustainability, 7(5), 5324-5338.
62. Zhou, R., Abbasi, K. R., Salem, S., Almulhim, A. I., & Alvarado, R. (2022). Do natural resources, economic growth, human capital and urbanization impinge upon the ecological footprint? A modified dynamic ARDL and KRLS approach. Resources Policy, 78, 102782.