Türkiye'de tarımsal katma değerin karbondioksit emisyonları üzerindeki etkileri A-ARDL ve Nöral Granger Nedensellik Analizinden yeni kanıtlar

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’de ekonomik büyüme, enerji kullanımı, tarımsal katma değer ve CO2 emisyonları arasındaki ilişkileri güncel analiz teknikleri ile araştırmaktır.

Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Çalışmada Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi çerçevesinde kurulan model güncel ekonometrik yöntemlerden Augmented ARDL Bounds Test kullanılarak tahmin edilmiştir. Daha sonra DOLS, FMOLS ve CCR tahmincileri ile sağlamlık testi yapılmıştır. Modelde yer alan değişkenler arasındaki nedensellik ilişkileri ise makine öğrenmesi tekniklerinden Nöral Granger Nedensellik kullanılarak incelenmiştir.

Bulgular: İlk analizlerden elde edilen bulgular, değişkenler arasında uzun vadeli bir ilişki olduğunu göstermektedir. İkinci olarak, sonuçlar EKC Hipotezini desteklemektedir. Üçüncü olarak, tarımsal katma değer, Türkiye'de karbondioksit emisyonlarını artırarak çevresel bozulmaya neden olmaktadır. DOLS, FMOLS ve CCR tahmin edicileri ile Nöral Granger Nedensellik testinin sonuçları bu bulguları desteklemektedir.  

Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de tarımsal katma değer ile CO₂ emisyonları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek üzere Augmented ARDL yaklaşımı ile Neural Granger Nedensellik yöntemini bir arada kullanarak literatüre katkı sağlamaktadır. Çevre ekonomisi yazınında benzer hibrit çerçeveler görülmekle birlikte, bildiğimiz kadarıyla tarımsal katma değer odaklı ve Türkiye bağlamında bu ikili yaklaşımı kullanan ilk çalışmadır. Çalışma yalnızca EKC hipotezini doğrulamakla kalmamakta, aynı zamanda tarımsal modernizasyonun uzun vadede emisyonların temel belirleyicisi olduğunu ve tarımın büyüme-çevre dinamikleri üzerinde güçlü ve doğrusal olmayan bir nedensellik etkisi bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bulgular, Türkiye’nin iklim politikalarına tarım sektörü özelinde sürdürülebilir reformların entegre edilmesi gerektiğini desteklemektedir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• A-ARDL
• tarımsal katma değer
• Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• Neural Granger Nedensellik

Effects of agricultural value-added on carbon dioxide emissions in Türkiye: New evidence from A-ARDL and Neural Granger Causality Analysis

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study is to investigate the relationships between economic growth, energy use, agricultural value added and CO2 emissions in Türkiye using current analytical techniques.

Design/Methodology/Approach: In this study, the model established within the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis framework was estimated using the Augmented ARDL Bounds Test, one of the current econometric methods. Subsequently, a robustness check was performed using DOLS, FMOLS, and CCR estimators. The causal relationships between the variables in the model were investigated using Neural Granger Causality, one of the machine learning techniques.

Findings: The findings obtained from the first analyses indicate a long-term relationship between the variables. Second, the results support the EKC Hypothesis. Third, agricultural value-added causes environmental degradation by increasing carbon dioxide emissions in Türkiye. The results of the DOLS, FMOLS, and CCR estimators and the Neural Granger Causality test support these findings.

Originality: This study contributes to the literature by combining an Augmented ARDL approach with Neural Granger Causality to examine the agricultural value-added-CO₂ emissions nexus in Türkiye. While similar hybrid frameworks have been used in environmental economics, to the best of our knowledge this is the first study to apply such a dual approach specifically to Türkiye with a focus on agricultural value-added. Beyond confirming the EKC hypothesis, the study provides novel evidence that agricultural modernization is a long-term driver of emissions and that agriculture has a strong nonlinear causal influence on growth-environment dynamics. These insights strengthen the case for integrating sector-specific agricultural reforms into Türkiye’s climate policy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• A-ARDL
• agricultural value-added
• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• Neural Granger Causality

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, Z., Can, M., Sinha, A., Ahmad, M., Alvarado, R., and Rjoub, H. (2022), “Investigating the role of economic complexity in sustainable development and environmental sustainability”, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29(8), pp.771-783.
2. Ahmed, S., Abdi, A. H., Sodal, M., Yusuf, O. A., and Mohamud, M. H. (2025), “Assessing the energy-economy-environment nexus in Somalia: the impact of agricultural value added on CO₂ emissions”, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 15(1), pp.221-232.
3. Agboola, M. O. and Bekun, F. V. (2019), “Does agricultural value added induce environmental degradation? Empirical evidence from an agrarian country”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(27), pp.27660-27676.
4. Ali, S., Ying, L., Shah, T., Tariq, A., Ali Chandio, A. and Ali, I. (2019), “Analysis of the nexus of CO2 emissions, economic growth, land under cereal crops and agriculture value-added in Pakistan using an ARDL approach”, Energies, 12(23), 4590.
5. Anwar, A., Sarwar, S., Amin, W. and Arshed, N. (2019), “Agricultural practices and quality of environment: evidence for global perspective”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(15), pp.15617-15630.
6. Appiah, K., Du, J. and Poku, J. (2018), “Causal relationship between agricultural production and carbon dioxide emissions in selected emerging economies”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(25), pp.24764-24777.
7. Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. and Owusu, P. A. (2016), “The relationship between carbon dioxide and agriculture in Ghana: a comparison of VECM and ARDL model”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(11), pp.10968-10982.
8. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Driha, O. M., Bekun, F. V. and Osundina, O. A. (2019), “Do agricultural activities induce carbon emissions? The BRICS experience”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(24), pp.25218-25234.

9. Bas, T., Kara, F. and Alola, A. A. (2021), “The environmental aspects of agriculture, merchandize, share, and export value-added calibrations in Turkey”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(44), pp.62677-62689.
10. Boluk, G. and Karaman, S. (2024), “The impact of agriculture, energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: testing the agriculture-induced EKC for Türkiye”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(12), pp.31817-31837.
11. Burney, J. A., Davis, S. J., and Lobell, D. B. (2010), “Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification”. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 107(26), pp.12052-12057.
12. Climate Transparency. (2022). Turkey Country Profile – Climate Transparency Report 2022. available at: https://www.climate-transparency.org/countries/europe/turkey (accessed 17 August 2025).
13. Cole, M. A., Rayner, A. J., and Bates, J. M. (1997), “The environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical analysis”, Environ. Dev. Econ. 2(4), pp.401–416.
14. Dağ, K. ve Aktaş, E. (2024), “İklim değişikliğinin Türkiye tarımına etkileri”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 30(2), ss. 173-181.
15. Dogan, N. (2016), “Agriculture and Environmental Kuznets Curves in the case of Turkey: evidence from the ARDL and bounds test”, Agricultural Economics/Zemědělská Ekonomika, 62(12), pp.566-574.
16. Granger, C. W. (1969), “Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods”, Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 27(3), pp.424-438.
17. Grossman, G. M., and Krueger, A. B. (1991), “Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 3914.
18. International Energy Agency. (2023a). World Energy Outlook 2023. IEA. available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023
19. International Energy Agency. (2023b). Turkey: Energy Profile. available at: https://www.iea.org/countries/turkey (accessed 17 August 2025).
20. Jebli, M. B. and Youssef, S. B. (2017), “The role of renewable energy and agriculture in reducing CO2 emissions: Evidence for North Africa countries”, Ecological Indicators, 74, pp.295-301.
21. Khurshid, N., Khurshid, J., Shakoor, U. and Ali, K. (2022), “Asymmetric effect of agriculture value added on CO2 emission: Does globalization and energy consumption matter for Pakistan”, Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, 1053234.
22. Kuznets, S. (1955), “Economic growth and income inequality”, Am. Econ. Rev. 45 (1), pp.1–28.
23. Liu, X., Zhang, S. and Bae, J. (2017), “The impact of renewable energy and agriculture on carbon dioxide emissions: investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in four selected ASEAN countries”, Journal of cleaner production, 164, pp.1239-1247.
24. Mahmood, M. T., Shahab, S., and Hafeez, M. (2020), “Energy capacity, industrial production, and the environment: an empirical analysis from Pakistan”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(5), pp.4830-4839.
25. McNown R., Sam C. Y. and Goh S. K. (2018), “Bootstrapping the autoregressive distributed lag test for cointegration”, Appl Econ, 50(13), pp.1509–152
26. Muratoglu, Y., Sanli, D. and Songur, M. (2022), “Is there an asymmetric causality between renewable energy and energy consumption in BIC countries?”, Shahbaz, M., Tiwari, A. K. and Sinha, A. (Ed.), Energy-growth nexus in an era of globalization, Elsevier, pp. 405-430.
27. Muratoğlu, Y., Songur, M., Uğurlu, E., & Şanlı, D. (2024), “Testing the environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis at the sector level: Evidence from PNARDL for OECD countries”, Frontiers in Energy Research, 12, 1452906.
28. Nguyen, A. T., Lu, S. H. and Nguyen, P. T. T. (2021), “Validating and forecasting carbon emissions in the framework of the environmental Kuznets curve: the case of Vietnam”, Energies, 14(11), 3144.
29. OECD. (2021). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Turkey 2019. OECD Publishing. available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264310442-en (accessed 17 August 2025).
30. Okumuş, İ. (2020), “Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, tarım ve CO2 emisyonu ilişkisi”, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(1), pp.21-34.
31. Quan, Q., Gao, S., Shang, Y., and Wang, B. (2021), “Assessment of the sustainability of Gymnocypris eckloni habitat under river damming in the source region of the Yellow River,. Science of the Total Environment, 778, 146312.
32. Panayotou, T. (1993), “Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development”, ILO Work. Pap.
33. Pata, U. K. (2021), “Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective”, Renewable Energy, 173, pp.197-208.
34. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. and Smith, R. J. (2001), “Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), pp.289-326.
35. Prastiyo, S. E., Irham, Hardyastuti, S. and Jamhari, F. (2020), “How agriculture, manufacture, and urbanization induced carbon emission? The case of Indonesia”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(33), pp.42092-42103.
36. Rafiq, S., Salim, R. and Apergis, N. (2016), “Agriculture, trade openness and emissions: an empirical analysis and policy options”, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 60(3), pp.348-365.
37. Raihan, A. and Tuspekova, A. (2022), “Dynamic impacts of economic growth, energy use, urbanization, tourism, agricultural value-added, and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions in Brazil”, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 12(4), 794-814.
38. Raihan, A. (2023), “An econometric evaluation of the effects of economic growth, energy use, and agricultural value added on carbon dioxide emissions in Vietnam”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 7(3), pp.665-696.
39. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Rahman, M., Hasan, M. A. U., Paul, A., and Faruk, O. (2023), “Dynamic linkages between environmental factors and carbon emissions in Thailand”, Environmental Processes, 10(1), 5.
40. Sam, C.Y., McNown, R. and Goh, S.K. (2019), “An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration”, Economic Modelling, 80, pp.130-141.
41. Shahbaz, M., Haouas, I., and Van Hoang, T. H. (2019), “Economic growth and environmental degradation in Vietnam: is the environmental Kuznets curve a complete picture?”, Emerging Markets Review, 38, pp.197-218.
42. Shaheen A, Sheng J, Arshad S, Muhammad H, and Salam S (2020), “Forecasting the determinants of environmental degradation: a gray modeling approach”, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 47(1), pp.1084-1104.
43. Shan, S., Wang, Y., Xie, X., Fan, T., Xiao, Y., Zhang, K. and Wei, H. (2023), “Analysis of regional climate variables by using neural Granger causality”, Neural Computing and Applications, 35(22), pp.16381-16402.
44. Şanlı, D., Muratoğlu, Y., Songur, M., and Uğurlu, E. (2023), “The asymmetric effect of renewable and non-renewable energy on carbon emissions in OECD: new evidence from non-linear panel ARDL model”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 1228296.
45. Tank, A., Covert, I., Foti, N., Shojaie, A. and Fox, E. B. (2021), “Neural granger causality”, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(8), pp.4267-4279.
46. Wang, L., Vo, X. V., Shahbaz, M. and 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.
47. Wang, Y., Ali, A. and Chen, Z. (2025), “Dynamic relationships between environment-related technologies, agricultural value added, transport infrastructure and environmental emissions in the five most populous countries”, Scientific Reports, 15(1), 2308.
48. World Bank. (2023a). The World Bank in Turkey – Overview. available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/turkey/overview (accessed 17 August 2025).
49. World Bank. (2023b). GDP (current US$) – Turkey. available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=TR (accessed 17 August 2025).
50. World Bank. (2023c). CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) – Turkey. available at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=TR (accessed 17 August 2025).
51. Yağcı, A. C., Doğrul, Ü., Yaşa E. Ö. and Aktaş, E. (2025), “Factors affecting consumers’ attitudes towards low water footprint products”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 31(1), pp. 1-20.
52. Yurtkuran, S. (2021), “The effect of agriculture, renewable energy production, and globalization on CO2 emissions in Turkey: A bootstrap ARDL approach”, Renewable Energy, 171, pp.1236-1245.