Türkiye’de tarım ve ekonomik büyümenin ekolojik denge üzerindeki etkileri: Fourier-Shin eşbütünleşme analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Türkiye’nin 1961-2024 dönemini kapsayan tarımsal faaliyetlerin ve ekonomik büyümenin çevre kalitesi üzerindeki etkisini analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma modelinde çevre kalitesinin ana göstergesi olarak ekolojik açık ve bunun bileşenleri olan ekolojik ayak izi ve biyolojik kapasite değişkenleri kullanılmıştır.

Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Araştırmada kullanılan değişkenlerin durağanlık düzeyleri KPSS ve Fourier KPSS testleri aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişki olup olmadığı ise Shin ve Fourier Shin eşbütünleşme testleri ile araştırılmıştır. Son olarak uzun dönem katsayıların tahmini için değişen varyans ve otokorelasyona karşı dirençli olan DOLS ile FMOLS yöntemleri kullanılmıştır.

Bulgular: Çalışmanın ampirik bulguları, tarımsal katma değer ve ekonomik büyüme ile ekolojik açık, ekolojik ayak izi ve biyolojik kapasite arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin varlığını ortaya koymaktadır. İlgilenilen dönemde analiz sonuçları, Türkiye’de tarımsal katma değerin ekolojik açığın kapanmasına katkıda bulunduğu, kişi başına gelirin ise ekolojik açığı daha da derinleştirdiğini göstermektedir.

Özgünlük/Değer: Bu çalışmanın, tarım ile çevre kalitesi arasındaki karmaşık etkileşimi inceleyerek literatüre üç temel katkı sunması beklenmektedir. Bu katkılardan birincisi, çevre kalitesi göstergesi olarak literatürde nadiren kullanılan ekolojik denge değişkeni ve bileşenlerinin analize dahil edilmesidir. İkincisi, yapısal kırılmaları göz ardı eden geleneksel ekonometrik yöntemler yerine, yumuşak yapısal kırılmaları dikkate alan Fourier tabanlı yöntemlerin tercih edilmesidir. Üçüncüsü ise, Türkiye özelinde tarım ve çevre ilişkisini Fourier yöntemleri çerçevesinde ele alan öncü çalışmalardan biri olmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çevre kalitesi
• ekolojik açık
• ekonomik büyüme
• fourier yöntemleri
• tarımsal katma değer

The effects of agriculture and economic growth on ecological balance in Türkiye: a Fourier-Shin cointegration analysis

Öz

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the impact of agricultural activities and economic growth on environmental quality in Türkiye during the period 1961-2024. In the research model, ecological deficit is employed as the main indicator of environmental quality, along with its components: ecological footprint and biocapacity.

Design/Methodology/Approach: The stationarity properties of the variables used in the study were analyzed using the KPSS and Fourier KPSS tests. The presence of a long-run relationship among the variables was examined through the Shin and Fourier Shin cointegration tests. Finally, to estimate the long-run coefficients, the study employed DOLS and FMOLS methods, which are robust to heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation.

Findings: The empirical findings of the study reveal the existence of a cointegration relationship between agricultural value added, economic growth, and the indicators of ecological deficit, ecological footprint, and biocapacity. During the period under investigation, agricultural value added in Türkiye contributed to reducing the ecological deficit, whereas per capita income was found to exacerbate it.

Originality/Value: This study is expected to make three main contributions to the literature by examining the complex interaction between agriculture and environmental quality. The first contribution is the inclusion of the ecological balance variable and its components -rarely used in the literatüre- as indicators of environmental quality in the analysis. The second is the use of Fourier-based methods, which account for smooth structural breaks, instead of traditional econometric approaches that overlook such breaks. The third contribution lies in being one of the pioneering studies to investigate the agriculture-environment relationship in the context of Türkiye using Fourier methods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental quality
• ecological deficit
• economic growth
• fourier methods
• agricultural value added

Kaynakça

1. Apergis, N. and Ozturk I (2015), “Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian countries”, Ecological Indicators, 52,16-22.
2. Arai, Y. and Kurozumi, E. (2007), “Testing for the Null Hypothesis of cointegration with a structural break”, Econometric Reviews, 26(6), 705-739.
3. Atıcı, C. ve Kurt, F. (2007), “Türkiye'nin diş ticareti ve çevre kirliliği: Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşimi”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 13(1 ve 2), 61-69.
4. Baykut, E. (2025), “Türkiye’de çevre kalitesi: Finans-tarım-enerji üçgeninden içgörüler”, Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), 735-752.
5. Baz, K., Xu, D., Ali, H., Ali, I., Khan, I., Khan, M.M. and Cheng, J. (2020), “Asymmetric impact of energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: Using asymmetric and nonlinear approach”, Science of the Total Environment, 718,137364.
6. Becker, R., Enders, W. and Lee, J. (2006), “A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks”, Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
7. Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., ... and Galli, A. (2013), “Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework”, Ecological Indicators, 24, 518-533.
8. Bölük, G. ve 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), 31817-31837.

9. Bulut, S. and Gökalp, Z. (2022), “Agriculture and environment interaction”, Current Trends in Natural Sciences, 11(21), 372-380.
10. Carrion-i-Silvestre, J. L. and Sanso, A. (2007), “The KPSS test with two structural breaks”, Spanish Economic Review, 9(2), 105-127.
11. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., ... and Van Den Belt, M. (1997), “The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital”, Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.
12. Çetin, M., Saygın, S. ve Demir, H. (2020), “Tarım sektörünün çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye ekonomisi için bir eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi”, Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 329-345.
13. Dağ, K. ve Aktaş, E. (2024), “İklim değişikliğinin Türkiye tarımına etkileri”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 30(2), 173-181.
14. Daily, G. C. (1997), “Introduction: what are ecosystem services”, Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 1(1).
15. Daly, H. E. and Farley, J. (2011), Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications (Second Edition), Island Press, Suite 300, 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20009.
16. Dinçer, S. ve Akın, F. (2025), “Tarımsal toplam faktör verimliliği ve ekonomik büyümenin çevre kalitesi üzerindeki etkisi: Tarımda başarılı olan ülkeler örneği”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 28(6), 1531-1544.
17. Dogan, E., Taspinar, N. and Gokmenoglu, K.K. (2019), “Determinants of ecological footprint in MINT countries”, Energy & Environment, 30(6), 1065-1086.
18. Dogan, N. (2016), “Agriculture and Environmental Kuznets Curves in the ase of Turkey: evidence from the ARDL and bounds test”, Agricultural Economics/Zemědělská Ekonomika, 62(12), 566-574.
19. Ersöz, M. ve Bingöl, E. (2022), “İktisatın unutulmuş çocuğu: Tarım sektörü ve tarımın Orta Doğu’daki geleceği”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 28(1), 123-139.
20. FAO, (2023), World Food and Agriculture Organization - Statistical Yearbook 2024 https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2211en (Accessed on January 21, 2025).
21. Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C., Fischer, M., Ammer, C., Boch, S., ... and Allan, E. (2020), “Land-use intensity alters networks between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(45), 28140-28149.
22. Figge, L., Oebels, K. ve Offermans, A. (2017), “The Effects of globalization on ecological footprints: an empirical analysis”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(3), 863-876.
23. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., ...and Zaks, D. P. (2011), “Solutions for a cultivated planet”, Nature, 478(7369), 337-342.
24. Fusco, G., Campobasso, F., Laureti, L., Frittelli, M., Valente, D., and Petrosillo, I. (2023), “The environmental impact of agriculture: An instrument to support public policy”, Ecological Indicators, 147, 109961.
25. Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., and Giljum, S. (2012), “Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet”, Ecological Indicators, 16, 100-112.
26. Global Footprint Network (2025), National Footprint Accounts, Ecological Footprint, Retrieved, http://data.footprintnetwork.org, (Accessed on January 11, 2024).
27. Goudie, A. S. (2018), Human Impact on the Natural Environment: Past, Present and Future, John Wiley & Sons.
28. Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A. B. (1995), “Economic growth and the environment”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
29. Jager, A., Verhagen, J. and Wösten, H. (2007), “Agriculture and environment”, In: Roetter, R.P., Van Keulen, H., Kuiper, M., Verhagen, J., Van Laar, H.H. (eds.) Science for Agriculture and Rural Development in Low-income Countries. Springer, Dordrecht.
30. Jebli, M. B. and Youssef, S. B. (2016), “Renewable energy consumption and agriculture: evidence for cointegration and Granger causality for Tunisian economy”, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 24(2), 149-158.
31. 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, 295-301.
32. Kapçak, S. (2026), “Tarım ve çevre kirliliği ilişkisi: Sürdürülebilir kalkınma çerçevesinde uygulamalı bir analiz”, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, (Advanced Online Publication), 824-836.
33. Kaya, T. (2025), “The impact of agricultural activities on climate change in BRICS countries and Türkiye”, International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 9(1), 144-156.
34. Kurozumi, E. (2002), “Testing for Stationarity with a break”, Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 63-99.
35. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C., Schmidt, P. ve Shin, Y. (1992), “Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?”, Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
36. Li, L., Ali, A., Li, S. and Zhang, T. (2023), “A dynamic relationship between renewable energy, agriculture, globalization, and ecological footprint of the five most populous countries in Asia”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
37. Liu, W., Wang, J., Li, C., Chen, B. and Sun, Y. (2019), “Using bibliometric analysis to understand the recent progress in agroecosystem services research”, Ecological Economics, 156, 293-305.
38. 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, 1239-1247.
39. Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M. and Deumling, D. (2004), “Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity accounts”, Land Use Policy, 21, 231-246.
40. Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A. And Galli, A. (2012), “Projecting future human demand on the earth's regenerative capacity”, Ecological Indicators, 16, 3-10.
41. Nathaniel, S.P. (2020), “Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in Indonesia”, GeoJournal 86, 2057-2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10175-7
42. NFA, (2021), Working Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts, Edition 2021, Global National Footprint.
43. Oğul, B. (2022), “İklim değişikliği tarım sektörünü nasıl etkiliyor? Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine ekonometrik bir uygulama”, Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 28(2), 151-162.
44. Okumuş, İ. (2020), “Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, tarım ve CO2 emisyonu ilişkisi”, Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(1), 21-34.
45. Olanipekun, I. O., Olasehinde-Williams, G. O. and Alao, R. O. (2019), “Agriculture and environmental degradation in Africa: The role of income”, Science of the Total Environment, 692, 60-67.
46. Özbek, S. ve Oğul, B. (2023), “Türkiye’de tarım, orman alanları ve çevre ilişkisi”, Tarsus Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 26-35.
47. 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.
48. Phillips, P.C. and Hansen, B.E. (1990), “Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes”, The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99-125.
49. Power, A. G. (2010), “Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies”, Philosophical transactions of the royal society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2959-2971.
50. Pretty, J. (2008), “Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 447-465.
51. Qiao, H., Zheng, F., Jiang, H. and Dong, K. (2019), “The greenhouse effect of the agriculture-economic growth-renewable energy nexus: evidence from G20 countries”, Science of the Total Environment, 671, 722-731.
52. 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), 348-365.
53. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E. F., ... and Foley, J. A. (2009), “A safe operating space for humanity”, Nature, 461(7263), 472-475.
54. Schlesinger, W. H. (2009), “Planetary boundaries: Thresholds risk prolonged degradation, Nature Climate Change, 1(910), 112-113.
55. Shin, Y. (1994), “A residual-based test of the null of cointegration against the alternative of no cointegration”, Econometric Theory, 10(1), 91-115.
56. Smith, P., Ashmore, M. R., Black, H. I., Burgess, P. J., Evans, C. D., Quine, T. A., ... and Orr, H. G. (2013), “The role of ecosystems and their management in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality”, Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), 812-829.
57. Smith, P., Calvin, K., Nkem, J., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., ... and Arneth, A. (2020), “Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?”, Global Change Biology, 26(3), 1532-1575.
58. Stock, J. H. and Watson, M. W. (1993), “A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 61(4), 783-820.
59. Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P., and Hamilton, S. K. (2007), “Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits”, Ecological economics, 64(2), 245-252.
60. Syrovátka, M. (2020), “On sustainability interpretations of the ecological footprint”, Ecological Economics, 169, 106543.
61. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. and Befort, B. L. (2011), “Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20260-20264.
62. Tsong, C. C., Lee, C. F., Tsai, L. J. and Hu, T. C. (2016), “The Fourier approximation and testing for the null of cointegration”, Empirical Economics, 51(3), 1085-1113.
63. Udemba, E. N. (2022), “Implication of energy expansion via the interaction of coal, industrialization, and agriculture towards climate goal: dual sustainability analysis”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 25605-25622.
64. Ulucak. R. and 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.
65. Ünal, H. and Aktuğ, M. (2022a), “The impact of human capital and bio-capacity on the environmental quality: evidence from G20 countries, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(30), 45635-45645.
66. Ünal, H. ve Aktuğ, M. (2022b). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi kapsamında Türkiye’de çevre kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi, İnsan ve Toplum, 12(1), 113-136.
67. Ünal, H. ve Atasel, O. Y. (2022), “Koordineli piyasa ekonomilerinde tarım, orman alanları ve enerji tüketiminin çevresel kalite üzerindeki etkisi: ampirik bir analiz”, Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 9(1), 319-337.
68. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996), Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Philadelphia, New Society Publishers.
69. Wackernagel, M., Monfreda, C., Moran, D., Wermer, P., Goldfinger, S., Deumling, D. And Murray, M. (2005), National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005: the Underlying Calculation Method.
70. Waheed, R., Chang, D., Sarwar, S. and Chen, W. (2018), “Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, and CO2 emission”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4231-4238.
71. Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X. and Xiao, Y. (2013), “Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: A spatial econometric approach”, Ecological Indicators, 34, 15-21.
72. Wit, C.T., Huisman, H. and Rabbinge, R., (1987), “Agriculture and its environment: Are there other ways?”, Agricultural Systems, 23, 211-236.
73. World Development Indicator (WDI) (2025), World Bank Development Indicators Database (online), https://data.worldbank.org/ (Accessed on February 15, 2025).
74. Yasin, I., Ahmad, N., Amin, S., Sattar, N. and Hashmat, A. (2024), “Does agriculture, forests, and energy consumption foster the carbon emissions and ecological footprint? fresh evidence from BRICS economies”, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27, 13235-13255.
75. Yurtkuran, S. (2021), “The effect of agriculture, renewable energy production, and globalization on CO2 emissions in Turkey: A bootstrap ARDL approach”, Renewable Energy, 171, 1236-1245.
76. Yurtkuran, S., Ahlat, A. and Yıkıcı, A. (2025), “The role of clean energy, energy security risk and financial development on LCF and EF: Testing the EKC and LCC hypothesis for USA”, Energy and Buildings, 347, 116279.
77. Yurtkuran, S., Yıkıcı, A. and Çolak, Ç. (2025), “Do anti‐corruption and renewable energy drive environmental sustainability? Testing the EKC hypothesis for G20 countries”, Sustainable Development, 0, 1-16.