Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi

Mümine Korkmaz Nalbant

doi:10.37460/sid.1704620

TR EN

Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi

Öz

Gelişmekte olan E-7 ekonomileri yıllar içinde önemli düzeyde ekonomik büyüme sağlamalarına rağmen artan karbondioksit salınımları çevreyi aynı şekilde koruyamadıklarının göstergesidir. İklim değişikliğinin ve çevresel bozulmanın endişe verici boyutlara ulaştığı göz önüne alındığında, dünya çapında sürdürülebilir ekonomik büyümeye yönelik karbondioksit emisyonlarının potansiyel tehditleri tartışılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1990’dan 2020’e kadar E-7 ekonomilerinde kayıt dışı ekonominin, jeopolitik riskin, doğal kaynak kullanımının, katı çevre politikalarının, yenilenebilir enerjinin, gayri safi yurtiçi hasılanın çevre kirliliği üzerindeki çeşitli etkileri değerlendirmektir. Momentler Kantil Regresyona dayalı ampirik sonuçlara göre: kayıt dışı ekonomi, yenilenebilir enerji ve çevre politikası katılığı, çevre kirliliğini azaltırken jeopolitik risk, doğal kaynak kullanımı ve GSYİH ise çevre kirliliğini artırmaktadır. Sonuçları doğrulamak için Bootstrap Kantil Regresyonu kullanılmıştır. E-7 ekonomilerinde, resmi ekonomik kalkınma teşvik edilmeli ve kayıt dışı ekonominin büyümesi kontrol altına alınmalı, doğal kaynak kullanımı kısıtlanmalı, katı çevre politikaları daha etkin kullanılmalı, yenilenebilir enerji kapasitesi artırılmalıdır. Son on yıllarda artan jeopolitik riskler dünyada bir olgu haline gelmiştir ve çevre kirliliğini artırmaktadır. Diplomatik yollarla uluslararası iş birliği teşvik edilerek jeopolitik risk azaltılabilmekte ve bu yolla çevre kalitesi korunabilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre Kirliliği, Çevre Politikaları, Doğal kaynak kullanımı, Jeopolitik Risk, Kayıt dışılık, Yenilenebilir Enerji

What is the Impact of the Informal Economy, Geopolitical Risk, and Natural Resource Use on Environmental Pollution? The Importance of Strict Environmental Policies and Renewable Energy

Öz

Although the developing E-7 economies have achieved significant economic growth over the years, increasing carbon dioxide emissions indicate that they have not been able to protect the environment in the same way. Considering that climate change and environmental degradation have reached alarming levels, the potential threats of carbon dioxide emissions to sustainable economic growth worldwide are discussed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the various effects of informal economy, geopolitical risk, natural resource use, strict environmental policies, renewable energy, and gross domestic product on environmental pollution in E-7 economies from 1990 to 2020. According to the empirical results based on Moment Quantile Regression: informal economy, renewable energy, and environmental policy strictness reduce environmental pollution, while geopolitical risk, natural resource use, and GDP increase environmental pollution. Bootstrap Quantile Regression is used to verify the results. In E-7 economies, official economic development should be encouraged and the growth of the informal economy should be controlled, natural resource use should be restricted, strict environmental policies should be used more effectively, and renewable energy capacity should be increased. In recent decades, increasing geopolitical risks have become a global phenomenon and are increasing environmental pollution. Geopolitical risks can be reduced by encouraging international cooperation through diplomatic means and environmental quality can be protected in this way.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environmental Pollution, Environmental Policies, Natural Resources, Geopolitical Risk, Informal Economy, Renewable Energy

Kaynakça

Abid, M. (2015). The close relationship between informal economic growth and carbon emissions in Tunisia since 1980: The (ir) relevance of structural breaks. Sustainable Cities and Society, 15, 11–21.
Acordi, J., Simão, L., Faraco, M., Borgert, C., Olivo, E., Montedo, O., & Raupp-Pereira, F. (2023). Waste valorization of coal mining waste from a circular economy perspective: A Brazilian case study based on environmental and physicochemical features. Resources Policy, 80, 103243.
Adams, S., Adedoyin, F., Olaniran, E., & Bekun, F. V. (2020). Energy consumption, economic policy uncertainty and carbon emissions; causality evidence from resource rich economies. Economic Analysis and Policy, 68, 179–190.
Ahmad, W., & Hussain, B. (2024). Shadow economy and environmental pollution nexus in developing countries: What is the role of corruption? International Economic Journal, 1–19.
Ajide, F. M., & Dada, J. T. (2022). The impact of ICT on shadow economy in West Africa. International SocialScience Journal, 72(245), 749–767.
Albulescu, C. T., Artene, A. E., Luminosu, C. T., & Tămășilă, M. (2020). CO 2 emissions, renewable energy, and environmental regulations in the EU countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 33615–33635.
Ali, S., Jiang, J., Hassan, S. T., & Shah, A. A. (2022). Revolution of nuclear energy efficiency, economic complexity, air transportation and industrial improvement on environmental footprint cost: A novel dynamic simulation approach. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 54(10), 3682–3694.
Anser, M. K., Syed, Q. R., & Apergis, N. (2021). Does geopolitical risk escalate CO2 emissions? Evidence from the BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 48011–48021.
Anwar, A., & Sharif, A. (2025). Can effective environmental policies reduce the burden of natural resources exploitation in emerging economies? Evidence from quantile regression. Gondwana Research. 140, 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2025.01.005
Amin, N., Shabbir, M.S., Song, H., & Abbass, K. (2024). Renewable energy consumption and its impact on environmental quality: A pathway for achieving sustainable development goals in ASEAN countries. Energy & Environment, 35(2), 644-662.

Bailey, N., Kapetanios, G., & Pesaran, M. H. (2016). Exponent of cross‐sectional dependence: Estimationand inference. Journal of applied econometrics, 31(6), 929–960.
Baksi, S., & Bose, P. (2010). Environmental regulation in the presence of an informal sector. University of Winnipeg Department of Economics Working Paper, 3, 1–28.
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.
Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D., & Farhani, S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions? Energy Policy, 113, 356–367.
Blackman, A., Shih, J.-S., Evans, D., Batz, M., Newbold, S., & Cook, J. (2006). The benefits and costs of informal sector pollution control: Mexican brick kilns. Environment and Development Economics, 11(5), 603–627.
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.
Butt, S., Faisal, F., Chohan, M. A., Ali, A., & Ramakrishnan, S. (2023). Do shadow economy and institutions lessen the environmental pollution? Evidence from Panel of ASEAN-9 Economies. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–29.
Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194 1225.
Canay, I. A. (2011). A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data. The Econometrics Journal, 14(3), 368–386.
Canh, N. P., Schinckus, C., & Thanh, S. D. (2019). Do economic openness and institutional quality influence patents? Evidence from GMM systems estimates. International Economics, 157, 134–169.
Canh, N. P., Thanh, S. D., Schinckus, C., Bensemann, J., & Thanh, L. T. (2019). Global emissions: A new contribution from the shadow economy. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(3), 320–337.
Cengiz, O., & Manga, M. (2022). Is there any relationship between geopolitical risk and climate change? Ekonomski vjesnik/Econviews-Review of Contemporary Business, Entrepreneurship and Economic Issues, 35(1), 99–112.
Chen, H., Hao, Y., Li, J., & Song, X. (2018). The impact of environmental regulation, shadow economy, and corruption on environmental quality: Theory and empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 200–214.
Chen, L., Gozgor, G., Mahalik, M. K., Pal, S., & Rather, K. N. (2023). How does geopolitical risk affect CO2 emissions? The role of natural resource rents. Resources Policy, 87, 104321.
Chu, L. K., Doğan, B., Abakah, E. J. A., Ghosh, S., & Albeni, M. (2023). Impact of economic policy uncertainty, geopolitical risk, and economic complexity on carbon emissions and ecological footprint: An investigation of the E7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(12), 34406–34427.
Chu, L. K., Doğan, B., Ghosh, S., & Shahbaz, M. (2023). The influence of shadow economy, environmental policies and geopolitical risk on renewable energy: A comparison of high-and middle-income countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 342, 118122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118122
Chu, L. K., Hoang, D. P., & Le, H. T. (2024). The interaction of public–private partnership investment in energy and geopolitical risk in influencing carbon dioxide emissions in E7 countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(7), 16417-16449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04590-w
Çetinkaya, O. A., Çatik, A. N., Balli, E., Manga, M., & Destek, M. A. (2024). Assessing the influence of green innovation and environmental policy stringency on CO2 emissions in BRICS. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(11), 26739-26759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04802-3
Dabboussi, S. (2024). Mitigating emissions in major oil-exporting countries: Accounting for the role of natural resources rents, institutional quality, and business environment. Applied Economics, 56(58), 8422–8436.
Du, Y., & Wang, W. (2023). The role of green financing, agriculture development, geopolitical risk, and natural resource on environmental pollution in China. Resources Policy, 82, 103440.
Efron, B. (1992). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. In Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution (pp. 569–593). Springer.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Elgin, C., Kose, M. A., Ohnsorge, F., & Yu, S. (2021). Understanding informality.
Elgin, C., & Oztunali, O. (2014). Pollution and informal economy. Economic Systems, 38(3), 333–349.
Elgin, C., & Öztunalı, O. (2014). Environmental Kuznets curve for the informal sector of Turkey (1950-2009). Panoeconomicus, 61(4), 471–485.
Feng, Y., Sabir, S. A., Quddus, A., Wang, J., & Abbas, S. (2024). Do the grey clouds of geopolitical risk and political globalization exacerbate environmental degradation? Evidence from resource-rich countries. Resources Policy, 89, 104533.
Gyamfi, B. A., Q. Agozie, D., Bekun, F. V., & Onifade, S. T. (2024). Gravitating towards emission reduction targets in the G7 and E7 economies: The financial development and sustainable energy perspectives. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 19(1), 2323191.
Husnain, M. I. u., Syed, Q. R., Bashir, A., & Khan, M. A. (2022). Do geopolitical risk and energy consumption contribute to environmental degradation? Evidence from E7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(27), 41640–41652.
Imamoglu, H. (2018). Is the informal economic activity a determinant of environmental quality? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 29078–29088.
Irfan, M., Quddus, A., Shahzad, F., & Wang, Y. (2025). Do ICT trade balances and natural resources foster carbon emissions? The role of government effectiveness and green technology innovation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 72, 320–329.
Jarque, C. M., & Bera, A. K. (1987). A test for normality of observations and regression residuals. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique, 163–172.
Jia, Z., Alharthi, M., Haijun, T., Mehmood, S., & Hanif, I. (2024). Relationship between natural resources, economic growth, and carbon emissions: The role of fintech, information technology and corruption to achieve the targets of COP-27. Resources Policy, 90, 104751.
Juodis, A., & Reese, S. (2022). The incidental parameters problem in testing for remaining cross-section correlation. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40(3), 1191–1203.
Kadir, M. O., Deka, A., Ozdeser, H., & Seraj, M. (2025). The role of natural resources rent, energy efficiency and governance in reducing pollution–New evidence with MMQR method. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 44(1), e14510.
Karavias, Y., & Tzavalis, E. (2014). Testing for unit roots in short panels allowing for a structural break. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 76, 391–407.
Khan, I., Tan, D., Azam, W., & Hassan, S. T. (2022). Alternate energy sources and environmental quality: The impact of inflation dynamics. Gondwana Research, 106, 51–63.
Koenker, R., & Bassett Jr, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 33–50.
Kongbuamai, N., Bui, Q., & 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.
Kongbuamai, N., Bui, Q., Yousaf, H. M. A. U., & Liu, Y. (2020). The impact of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint: A case study of ASEAN countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 19251–19264.
Kongkuah, M. (2024). Impact of Belt and Road countries’ renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint. Environment, development and sustainability, 26(4), 8709–8734.
Lawal, G. O., Aladenika, B., Akadiri, A., Fatigun, A. S., & Olanrewaju, V. O. (2023). Geopolitical risk, globalization and environmental degradation in South Africa: Evidence from advanced quantiles approach. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 18(1).
Lei, X., Yang, Y., Alharthi, M., Rasul, F., & Raza, S. M. F. (2022). Immense reliance on natural resources and environmental challenges in G-20 economies through the lens of COP-26 targets. Resources Policy, 79, 103101.
Li, H., Ali, M. S. e., Ayub, B., & Ullah, I. (2023). Analysing the impact of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty on the environmental sustainability: Evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–15.
Li, R., Wang, Q., & Guo, J. (2024). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis of carbon emissions: Exploring the impact of geopolitical risks, natural resource rents, corrupt governance, and energy intensity. Journal of Environmental Management, 351, 119663.
Lin, H.-H., Hsu, C.-C., Wu, P.-H., Shen, C.-C., & Chen, G.-H. (2024). Demystifying the interconnections among natural resources, fintech, green technologies, and sustainable environment in E-7 nations. Resources Policy, 90, 104698.
Machado, J. A., & Silva, J. S. (2019). Quantiles via moments. Journal of econometrics, 213(1), 145–173.
Mahalik, M. K., Pal, S., Le, T.-H., & Mishra, S. (2024). Does environmental policy stringency improve nature’s health in BRICS economies? Implications for sustainable development. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(1), 509–528.
Nathaniel, S., & Khan, S. A. R. (2020). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, 122709.
Nawaz, M. Z., Guo, J., Nawaz, S., & Hussain, S. (2023). Sustainable development goals perspective: nexus between Christians’ religious tourism, geopolitical risk, and CO2 pollution in Italy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(22), 62341–62354.
Nkemgha, G. Z., Engone Mve, S., Oumbé Honoré, T., & Belek, A. (2024). Linking industrialization and environmental quality in sub-saharan africa: does the environmental policy stringency matter? International Economic Journal, 38(1), 166–184.
Nkengfack, H., Kaffo Fotio, H., & Totouom, A. (2021). How does the shadow economy affect environmental quality in Sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from heterogeneous panel estimations. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12, 1635–1651.
Özgür, G., Elgin, C., & Elveren, A. Y. (2021). Is informality a barrier to sustainable development? Sustainable Development, 29(1), 45–65.
Pang, L. (2015). Openness to Trade, Urbanization and carbon emission based on model ARDL in Jiangsu. China Population, Resources and Environment, 25, 430–434.
Perone, G. (2024). The relationship between renewable energy production and CO2 emissions in 27 OECD countries: A panel cointegration and Granger non-causality approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 139655.
Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Reviews, 34(6-10), 1089–1117.
Pesaran, M. H., & Xie, Y. (2021). A bias-corrected CD test for error cross-sectional dependence in panel data models with latent factors. CESifo Working Paper, No. 9234, Center for Economic Studies and ifo Institute (CESifo), Munich. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/245415
Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93.
Porter, M. E., & Linde, C. v.d. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.
Rios-Avila, F. (2022). MMQREG: Stata module to estimate quantile regressions via method of moments.
Riti, J. S., Shu, Y., & Riti, M.-K. J. (2022). Geopolitical risk and environmental degradation in BRICS: Aggregation bias and policy inference. Energy Policy, 166, 113010.
Schneider, F., & Enste, D. H. (2000). Shadow economies: Size, causes, and consequences. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(1), 77–114.
Shahnazi, R., Jamshidi, N., & Shafiei, M. (2024). Informal economy and CO2 emissions: threshold effects of information and communication technology. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 1–19.
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.
Simeon, E., Hongxing, Y., & Sampene, A. (2024). The role of green finance and renewable energy in shaping zero-carbon transition: evidence from the E7 economies. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 1–22.
Sohail, M. T., Ullah, S., Majeed, M. T., Usman, A., & Andlib, Z. (2021). The shadow economy in South Asia: dynamic effects on clean energy consumption and environmental pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 29265–29275.
Soni, S., & Manogna, R. (2025). Does natural resource rent and financial inclusion curb carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from E7 and G7 economies. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–10.
Sweidan, O. D. (2023). The effect of geopolitical risk on environmental stress: evidence from a panel analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(10), 25712–25727.
Tiwari, S., Mohammed, K. S., Mentel, G., Majewski, S., & Shahzadi, I. (2024). Role of circular economy, energy transition, environmental policy stringency, and supply chain pressure on CO2 emissions in emerging economies. Geoscience Frontiers, 15(3), 101682.
Tufail, M., Song, L., Adebayo, T. S., Kirikkaleli, D., & Khan, S. (2021). Do fiscal decentralization and natural resources rent curb carbon emissions? Evidence from developed countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 49179–49190.
Uddin, I., Usman, M., Saqib, N., & Makhdum, M. S. A. (2023). The impact of geopolitical risk, governance, technological innovations, energy use, and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in the BRICS region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(29), 73714–73729.
Udemba, E. N., Dagar, V., Peng, X., & Dagher, L. (2024). Attaining environmental sustainability amidst the interacting forces of natural resource rent and foreign direct investment: Is Norway any different? OPEC Energy Review, 48(1), 19–35.
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.
Wang, L., Vo, X. V., Shahbaz, M., & Ak, A. (2020). Globalization and carbon emissions: Is there any role of agriculture value-added, financial development, and natural resource rent in the aftermath of COP21? Journal of Environmental Management, 268, 110712.
Wolde-Rufael, Y., & Weldemeskel, E. M. (2020). Environmental policy stringency, renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions: Panel cointegration analysis for BRIICTS countries. International Journal of Green Energy, 17(10), 568–582.
Yazdanie, M., Frimpong, P., Dramani, J. B., & Orehounig, K. (2024). The impacts of the informal economy, climate migration, and rising temperatures on energy system planning. Energy Reports, 11, 165– 178.
Yergin, D. (2006). Ensuring energy security. Foreign Affairs, 69–82.
Zhang, Y., Zheng, K., Xia, F., & Cheng, Z. (2024). Fintech, natural resource rents, renewable energy consumption and environmental quality: A perspective of green economic recovery from BRICS economies. Resources Policy, 89, 104604.
Zhao, W., Zhong, R., Sohail, S., Majeed, M. T., & Ullah, S. (2021). Geopolitical risks, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions in BRICS: An asymmetric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 39668–39679.
Zhao, X., Adebayo, T. S., Kong, X., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2022). Relating energy innovations and natural resources as determinants of environmental sustainability: The role of globalization in G7 countries. Resources Policy, 79, 103073.
Zhao, Y., Wang, W., Liang, Z., & Luo, P. (2024). Racing towards zero carbon: Unraveling the interplay between natural resource rents, green innovation, geopolitical risk and environmental pollution in BRICS countries. Resources Policy, 88, 104379.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

Ekonometri (Diğer), Kayıt Dışı Ekonomi, Doğal Kaynaklar Ekonomisi, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma, Çevre Politikası

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Mümine Korkmaz Nalbant ^*
0009-0007-4796-9934
Türkiye

Erken Görünüm Tarihi

29 Aralık 2025

Yayımlanma Tarihi

29 Aralık 2025

Gönderilme Tarihi

25 Mayıs 2025

Kabul Tarihi

3 Ekim 2025

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2025 Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.37460/sid.1704620

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA88EB67UU

APA

Korkmaz Nalbant, M. (2025). Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi, 14(3), 194-214. https://doi.org/10.37460/sid.1704620

AMA

1.Korkmaz Nalbant M. Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi. 2025;14(3):194-214. doi:10.37460/sid.1704620

Chicago

Korkmaz Nalbant, Mümine. 2025. “Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi”. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi 14 (3): 194-214. https://doi.org/10.37460/sid.1704620.

EndNote

Korkmaz Nalbant M (01 Aralık 2025) Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi 14 3 194–214.

IEEE

[1]M. Korkmaz Nalbant, “Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi”, Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi, c. 14, sy 3, ss. 194–214, Ara. 2025, doi: 10.37460/sid.1704620.

ISNAD

Korkmaz Nalbant, Mümine. “Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi”. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi 14/3 (01 Aralık 2025): 194-214. https://doi.org/10.37460/sid.1704620.

JAMA

1.Korkmaz Nalbant M. Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi. 2025;14:194–214.

MLA

Korkmaz Nalbant, Mümine. “Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi”. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi, c. 14, sy 3, Aralık 2025, ss. 194-1, doi:10.37460/sid.1704620.

Vancouver

1.Mümine Korkmaz Nalbant. Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İktisat Dergisi. 01 Aralık 2025;14(3):194-21. doi:10.37460/sid.1704620

33083
Bu çalışma Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı altında lisanslanmıştır.

Kayıt Dışı Ekonominin, Jeopolitik Riskin, Doğal Kaynak Kullanımının Çevre Kirliliği Üzerindeki Etkisi Nedir? Katı Çevre Politikalarının ve Yenilenebilir Enerjinin Önemi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

What is the Impact of the Informal Economy, Geopolitical Risk, and Natural Resource Use on Environmental Pollution? The Importance of Strict Environmental Policies and Renewable Energy

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Erken Görünüm Tarihi

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster