The Role of Energy Security and Geopolitical Risk on Türkiye's Environmental Quality: Evidence from the New Generation Augmented ARDL Model with Fourier Terms

Abstract

The modern era has witnessed many environmental catastrophes, including heavy rains, storms, and extreme droughts due to global warming, as well as unexpected geopolitical developments such as the Russian-Ukrainian War and Israel's occupation of Palestine. All these developments have a significant potential to affect nations' economic activities, energy strategies, and, ultimately, their environmental quality. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the interactions between energy security, geopolitical risk, and environmental quality in Türkiye from 1973 to 2018. To this end, the study employs the load capacity factor as an indicator of environmental quality, considers the environmental impacts of economic growth, human capital, and natural resource rent in addition to energy security and geopolitical risk, and applies the augmented autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model with Fourier terms. Empirical findings demonstrate that geopolitical risk and energy security negatively affect environmental well-being. The results also reveal that economic growth and natural resource rent reduce environmental quality, while human capital is an environmentally friendly factor.

Keywords

• Energy security
• Geopolitical risk
• Load capacity factor
• Augmented ARDL Model with Fourier Terms

Enerji Güvenliği ve Jeopolitik Riskin Türkiye'nin Çevre Kalitesi Üzerindeki Rolü: Yeni Nesil Fourier Terimli Genişletilmiş ARDL Modelinden Kanıtlar

Öz

Küresel ısınmaya bağlı olarak; yoğun yağışlar, fırtınalar ve aşırı kuraklıklar da dahil olmak üzere birçok çevresel felaketin yaşandığı günümüz dünyası, Rusya-Ukrayna Savaşı ve İsrail’in Filistin’i işgali gibi beklenmedik jeopolitik gelişmelere tanıklık etmektedir. Tüm bu gelişmeler, ülkelerin ekonomik aktivitelerini, enerji stratejilerini ve nihayetinde çevresel kalitelerini etkilemede önemli bir potansiyele sahiptir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, jeopolitik risk, enerji güvenliği ve çevre kalitesi arasındaki ilişkileri Türkiye özelinde 1973-2018 dönemi için analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla çalışmada, çevresel kalitenin bir göstergesi olarak yük kapasite faktörü kullanılmakta, enerji güvenliği ve jeopolitik riskin yanı sıra ekonomik büyüme, beşeri sermaye ve doğal kaynak rantının çevresel etkileri de dikkate alınmakta ve Fourier terimli genişletilmiş ARDL yaklaşımı uygulanmaktadır. Ampirik bulgular, jeopolitik risk ile enerji güvenliğinin çevre kalitesini olumsuz yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Sonuçlar ayrıca ekonomik büyüme ve doğal kaynak rantının çevre kalitesini düşürdüğünü, beşeri sermayenin ise çevre dostu bir faktör olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Enerji güvenliği
• Jeopolitik risk
• Yük kapasite faktörü
• Fourier Terimli Genişletilmiş ARDL Modeli

Kaynakça

1. Abbas, J., Wang, L., Belgacem, S. B., Pawar, P. S., Najam, H. ve Abbas, J. (2023). Investment in Renewable Energy and Electricity Output: Role of Green Finance, Environmental Tax, And Geopolitical Risk: Empirical Evidence from China. Energy, 269, 126683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126683
2. Acaroğlu, H., Kartal, H. M. ve García Márquez, F. P. (2023). Testing The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Terms of Ecological Footprint and CO2 Emissions Through Energy Diversification for Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(22), 63289-63304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26278-w
3. Adebayo, T. S., Pata, U. K. ve Akadiri, S. S. (2024). A Comparison of CO2 Emissions, Load Capacity Factor, And Ecological Footprint for Thailand’s Environmental Sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(1), 2203-2223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02810-9
4. Akbostancı, E., Türüt-Aşık, S. ve Tunç, G. İ. (2009). The Relationship Between Income And Environment In Turkiye: Is There An Environmental Kuznets Curve?. Energy Policy, 37(3), 861-867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.088
5. Akhayere, E., Kartal, M. T., Adebayo, T. S. ve Kavaz, D. (2023). Role of Energy Consumption and Trade Openness Towards Environmental Sustainability in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(8), 21156-21168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23639-9
6. Aktürk, E., Daştan, M. ve Yalçinkaya, Ö. (2023). Terörizmin Zamanla Değişen Ekonomik Sonuçları: Türkiye Örneği. Sosyoekonomi, 31(55), 459-485. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2023.01.23
7. Anser, M. K., Syed, Q. R. ve Apergis, N. (2021b). Does Geopolitical Risk Escalate CO2 Emissions? Evidence from the BRICS Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 48011-48021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14032-z
8. Anser, M. K., Syed, Q. R., Lean, H. H., Alola, A. A. ve Ahmad, M. (2021a). Do Economic Policy Uncertainty and Geopolitical Risk Lead to Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Emerging Economies. Sustainability, 13(11), 5866. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115866

9. Armaroli, N. ve Balzani, V. (2007). The Future of Energy Supply: Challenges and Opportunities. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 46(1‐2), 52-66. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200602373
10. Austvik, O. G. ve Rzayeva, G. (2017). Turkey in The Geopolitics of Energy. Energy Policy, 107, 539-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.008
11. Awosusi, A. A., Kutlay, K., Altuntaş, M., Khodjiev, B., Agyekum, E. B., Shouran, M., Elgbaily, M. ve Kamel, S. (2022). A Roadmap Toward Achieving Sustainable Environment: Evaluating The Impact of Technological Innovation and Globalization On Load Capacity Factor. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3288. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063288
12. Bashir, M. F., Shahbaz, M., Malik, M. N., Ma, B. ve Wang, J. (2023). Energy Transition, Natural Resource Consumption and Environmental Degradation: The Role of Geopolitical Risk in Sustainable Development. Resources Policy, 85, 103985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103985
13. Borozan, D. (2024). Do Geopolitical and Energy Security Risks Influence Carbon Dioxide Emissions? Empirical Evidence from European Union Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 439, 140834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140834
14. Bozoklu, S., Yilanci, V. ve Gorus, M. S. (2020). Persistence in Per Capita Energy Consumption: A Fractional Integration Approach with A Fourier Function. Energy Economics, 91, 104926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104926
15. Cabalu, H. (2010). Indicators of Security of Natural Gas Supply in Asia. Energy Policy, 38(1), 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.008
16. Caglar, A. E., Avci, S. B., Daştan, M. ve Destek, M. A. (2023). Investigation of The Effect of Natural Resource Dependence On Environmental Sustainability Under the Novel Load Capacity Curve Hypothesis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2296495
17. Caglar, A. E., Daştan, M. ve Avci, S. B. (2024c). Persistence of Disaggregate Energy RD&D Expenditures in Top-Five Economies: Evidence from Artificial Neural Network Approach. Applied Energy, 365, 123216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123216
18. Caglar, A. E., Daştan, M. ve Rej, S. (2024a). A New Look At China’s Environmental Quality: How Does Environmental Sustainability Respond To The Asymmetrical Behavior Of The Competitive Industrial Sector?. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 31(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2248584
19. Caglar, A. E., Daştan, M., Avci, S. B., Ahmed, Z. ve Gönenç, S. (2024b). Modelling The Influence of Mineral Rents and Low‐Carbon Energy On Environmental Quality: New Insights from A Sustainability Perspective. Natural Resources Forum, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12472
20. Caglar, A. E., Yavuz, E., Mert, M. ve Kilic, E. (2022). The Ecological Footprint Facing Asymmetric Natural Resources Challenges: Evidence from The USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 10521–10534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16406-9
21. Caldara, D. ve Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring Geopolitical Risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194-1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823
22. Caldara, D., Conlisk, S., Iacoviello, M. ve Penn, M. (2022). Do Geopolitical Risks Raise or Lower Inflation. Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
23. Calikoglu, U. ve Koksal, M. A. (2023). A Pathway to Achieve the Net Zero Emissions Target for The Public Electricity and Heat Production Sector: A Case Study for Türkiye. Energy Policy, 179, 113653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113653
24. Chankrajang, T. ve Muttarak, R. (2017). Green Returns to Education: Does Schooling Contribute to Pro-Environmental Behaviours? Evidence from Thailand. Ecological Economics, 131, 434-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.015
25. Chester, L. (2010). Conceptualising Energy Security and Making Explicit Its Polysemic Nature. Energy Policy, 38(2), 887-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.039
26. Çağlar, A. E. (2022a). Türkiye’de Kömür Tüketimi ve Ekonomik Büyüme İlişkisi: Tekrarlamalı Gelişen Pencereli Nedensellik Yaklaşımı. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi (İKTİSAD), 7(17), 351-365. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1088192
27. Çağlar, A. E. (2022b). Türkiye'de çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Araştırılmasında Çevresel Patentlerin Rolü: Genişletilmiş ARDL ile Kanıtlar. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(4), 913-929. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1100797
28. Çamkaya, S. ve Karaaslan, A. (2024). Do Renewable Energy and Human Capital Facilitate the Improvement of Environmental Quality in The United States? A New Perspective On Environmental Issues with The Load Capacity Factor. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31, 17140–17155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32331-z
29. Çamkaya, S., Karaaslan, A. ve Uçan, F. (2023). Investigation of The Effect of Human Capital On Environmental Pollution: Empirical Evidence from Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(9), 23925-23937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23923-8
30. Dai, J., Ahmed, Z., Alvarado, R. ve Ahmad, M. (2024). Assessing The Nexus Between Human Capital, Green Energy, And Load Capacity Factor: Policymaking for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Gondwana Research, 129, 452-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.04.009
31. Daştan, M. ve Eygü, H. (2023). An Empirical Investigation of the Link Between Economic Growth, Unemployment, And Ecological Footprint in Turkey: Bridging the EKC and EPC Hypotheses. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04106-y
32. Destek, M. A. (2021). Deindustrialization, Reindustrialization and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from Ecological Footprint of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126612
33. Ding, T., Li, H., Tan, R. ve Zhao, X. (2023). How Does Geopolitical Risk Affect Carbon Emissions?: An Empirical Study From The Perspective Of Mineral Resources Extraction in OECD countries. Resources Policy, 85, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103983
34. Dogan, E., Majeed, M. T. ve Luni, T. (2021). Analyzing The Impacts of Geopolitical Risk and Economic Uncertainty On Natural Resources Rents. Resources Policy, 72, 102056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102056
35. Dong, K., Han, Y., Dou, Y. ve Shahbaz, M. (2022). Moving Toward Carbon Neutrality: Assessing Natural Gas Import Security and Its Impact On CO2 Emissions. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 751-770. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2270
36. Du, Y. ve Wang, W. (2023). The Role of Green Financing, Agriculture Development, Geopolitical Risk, And Natural Resource On Environmental Pollution in China. Resources Policy, 82, 103440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103440
37. Economic Policy Uncertainty (2023). Geopolitical Risk Index. Access Address: https://www.policyuncertainty.com/gpr.html
38. Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2012a). The Flexible Fourier Form And Dickey–Fuller Type Unit Root Tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.081
39. Enders, W. ve Lee, J. (2012b). A Unit Root Test Using a Fourier Series to Approximate Smooth Breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574-599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00662.x
40. Environmental Protection Agency (2023). Impacts of Climate Change. Access Address: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/impacts-climate-change
41. European Commission (2023). 2030 Climate Target Plan. Access Address: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/european-green-deal/2030-climate-target-plan_en
42. European Training Foundation (2021). EU Neighbourhood: The Green Deal And Skills Development. Access Address: https://www.etf.europa.eu/en/news-and-events/news/eu-neighbourhood-green-deal-and-skills-development
43. Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R. ve Timmer, M. P. (2015). The Next Generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105(10), 3150-3182.
44. Gani, A. (2021). Fossil Fuel Energy and Environmental Performance in an Extended STIRPAT model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 126526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126526
45. Global Footprint Network (2023). Country Trends. Access Address: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.161211581.1023055940.1690489142-1415950902.1663743544#/countryTrends?type=BCtot,EFCtot&cn=223
46. Grossman, G. M. ve Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 3914. NBER, Cambridge, MA.
47. Guloglu, B., Caglar, A. E. ve Pata, U. K. (2023). Analyzing The Determinants of the Load Capacity Factor in OECD Countries: Evidence from Advanced Quantile Panel Data Methods. Gondwana Research, 118, 92-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.02.013
48. Hassan, S. T., Baloch, M. A., Bui, Q. ve Khan, N. H. (2024). The Heterogeneous Impact of Geopolitical Risk and Environment-Related Innovations On Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Role of Nuclear and Renewable Energy in The Circular Economy. Gondwana Research, 127, 144-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.08.016
49. Husnain, M. I. U., Syed, Q. R., Bashir, A. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17606-z
50. International Energy Agency (2021). Turkey 2021, IEA, Paris. Access Address: https://www.iea.org/reports/Turkey-2021
51. Ivanovski, K. ve Marinucci, N. (2021). Policy Uncertainty and Renewable Energy: Exploring The Implications for Global Energy Transitions, Energy Security, And Environmental Risk Management. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126683
52. Jin, X., Ahmed, Z., Pata, U. K., Kartal, M. T. ve Erdogan, S. (2023). Do Investments in Green Energy, Energy Efficiency, And Nuclear Energy R&D Improve the Load Capacity Factor? An Augmented ARDL Approach. Geoscience Frontiers, 101646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101646
53. Katircioğlu, S. ve Katircioğlu, S. (2018). Testing The Role of Urban Development in The Conventional Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics Letters, 25(11), 741-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2017.1361004
54. Khan, A., Sun, C., Xu, Z. ve Liu, Y. (2023). Geopolitical Risk, Economic Uncertainty, And Militarization: Significant Agents of Energy Consumption and Environmental Quality. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 102, 107166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107166
55. Langnel, Z., Amegavi, G. B., Donkor, P. ve Mensah, J. K. (2021). Income Inequality, Human Capital, Natural Resource Abundance, And Ecological Footprint in ECOWAS Member Countries. Resources Policy, 74, 102255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102255
56. Li, Z. (2023). Do Geopolitical Risk, Green Finance, And The Rule of Law Affect the Sustainable Environment in China? Findings from the BARDL Approach. Resources Policy, 81, 103403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103403
57. Luo, H. ve Sun, Y. (2024). Effects of Geopolitical Risk On Environmental Sustainability and The Moderating Role of Environmental Policy Stringency. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 10747. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60773-5
58. McNown, R., Sam, C. Y. ve Goh, S. K. (2018). Bootstrapping The Autoregressive Distributed Lag Test for Cointegration. Applied Economics, 50(13), 1509-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1366643
59. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The Saving and Investment Nexus for China: Evidence from Cointegration Tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
60. Nawaz, S. M. N. ve Alvi, S. (2018). Energy Security for Socio-Economic and Environmental Sustainability in Pakistan. Heliyon, 4(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00854
61. OECD (2023). Primary Energy Supply. Access Address: https://doi.org/10.1787/1b33c15a-en
62. Ojaghlou, M., Ugurlu, E., Kadłubek, M. ve Thalassinos, E. (2023). Economic Activities and Management Issues for The Environment: An Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and STIRPAT analysis in Turkey. Resources, 12(5), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050057
63. Pata, U. K. ve Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Exploring The Impact of Tourism and Energy Consumption On the Load Capacity Factor in Turkey: A Novel Dynamic ARDL Approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(9), 13491-13503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16675-4
64. Pata, U. K. ve Ertugrul, H. M. (2023). Do The Kyoto Protocol, Geopolitical Risks, Human Capital and Natural Resources Affect the Sustainability Limit? A New Environmental Approach Based on the LCC hypothesis. Resources Policy, 81, 103352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103352
65. Pata, U. K. ve Isik, C. (2021). Determinants of The Load Capacity Factor in China: A Novel Dynamic ARDL Approach for Ecological Footprint Accounting. Resources Policy, 74, 102313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102313
66. Pata, U. K., Caglar, A. E., Kartal, M. T. ve Depren, S. K. (2023). Evaluation of The Role of Clean Energy Technologies, Human Capital, Urbanization, And Income On the Environmental Quality in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 402, 136802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136802
67. Perron, P. (1989). The Great Crash, The Oil Price Shock, And The Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1361-1401. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913712
68. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. ve Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to The Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
69. Ramirez, J., Velázquez, D. A. ve Vélez-Zapata, C. (2022). The Potential Role of Peace, Justice, And Strong Institutions in Colombia's Areas of Limited Statehood for Energy Diversification Towards Governance In Energy Democracy. Energy Policy, 168, 113135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113135
70. Sam, C. Y., McNown, R. ve Goh, S. K. (2019). An Augmented Autoregressive Distributed Lag Bounds Test for Cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.001
71. Samour, A., Adebayo, T. S., Agyekum, E. B., Khan, B. ve Kamel, S. (2023). Insights from BRICS-T Economies On the Impact of Human Capital and Renewable Electricity Consumption On Environmental Quality. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5245. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32134-1
72. Shah, S. A. A., Zhou, P., Walasai, G. D. ve Mohsin, M. (2019). Energy Security and Environmental Sustainability Index of South Asian Countries: A Composite Index Approach. Ecological Indicators, 106, 105507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105507
73. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I. ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
74. Shittu, W., Adedoyin, F. F., Shah, M. I. ve Musibau, H. O. (2021). An Investigation of the Nexus Between Natural Resources, Environmental Performance, Energy Security and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from Asia. Resources Policy, 73, 102227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102227
75. Siche, R., Pereira, L., Agostinho, F. ve Ortega, E. (2010). Convergence of Ecological Footprint and Emergy Analysis as A Sustainability Indicator of Countries: Peru as Case Study. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 15(10), 3182-3192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027
76. Solarin, S. A. (2019). Modelling The Relationship Between Financing by Islamic Banking System and Environmental Quality: Evidence from Bootstrap Autoregressive Distributive Lag with Fourier Terms. Quality & Quantity, 53(6), 2867-2884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00904-7
77. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23909-6
78. Udemba, E. N., Emir, F. ve Philip, L. D. (2022). Mitigating Poor Environmental Quality with Technology, Renewable and Entrepreneur Policies: A Symmetric and Asymmetric Approaches. Renewable Energy, 189, 997-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.060
79. Ulussever, T., Kartal, M. T. ve Kılıç Depren, S. (2023). Effect of Income, Energy Consumption, Energy Prices, Political Stability, And Geopolitical Risk On the Environment: Evidence from GCC Countries by Novel Quantile-Based Methods. Energy & Environment, 0958305X231190351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231190351
80. Villanthenkodath, M. A. ve Pal, S. (2024). Environmental degradation in geopolitical risk and uncertainty contexts for India: A comparison of ecological footprint, CO2 emissions, and load capacity factor. Energy and Climate Change, 5, 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2023.100122
81. Wang, K. H., Zhao, Y. X., Su, Y. H. ve Lobonţ, O. R. (2023a). Energy Security and CO2 Emissions: New Evidence from Time-Varying and Quantile-Varying Aspects. Energy, 273, 127164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127164
82. Wang, Q. ve Zhou, K. (2017). A Framework For Evaluating Global National Energy Security. Applied Energy, 188, 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.116
83. Wang, S., Wang, J. ve Wang, W. (2023b). Do Geopolitical Risks Facilitate the Global Energy Transition? Evidence from 39 Countries in The World. Resources Policy, 85, 103952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103952
84. Wang, W., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Anwar, A., Adebayo, T. S., Cong, P. T., Quynh, N. N. ve Nguyen, M. Q. (2024). Shaping A Greener Future: The Role of Geopolitical Risk, Renewable Energy and Financial Development On Environmental Sustainability Using The LCC Hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Management, 357, 120708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120708
85. Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., & Wendling, Z. A. (2022). Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Access Address: https://epi.yale.edu/
86. World Bank (2023). World Development Indicators. Access Address: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
87. Yao, X., Yasmeen, R., Hussain, J. ve Shah, W. U. H. (2021). The Repercussions of Financial Development And Corruption On Energy Efficiency And Ecological Footprint: Evidence From BRICS and Next 11 Countries. Energy, 223, 120063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120063
88. Yilanci, V., Bozoklu, S. ve Gorus, M. S. (2020). Are BRICS Countries Pollution Havens? Evidence From A Bootstrap ARDL Bounds Testing Approach With A Fourier Function. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55, 102035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102035
89. Zafar, M. W., Zaidi, S. A. H., Khan, N. R., Mirza, F. M., Hou, F. ve Kirmani, S. A. A. (2019). The Impact of Natural Resources, Human Capital, And Foreign Direct Investment On the Ecological Footprint: The Case of the United States. Resources Policy, 63, 101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101428
90. Zhao, W., Zhong, R., Sohail, S., Majeed, M. T. ve Ullah, S. (2021). Geopolitical Risks, Energy Consumption, and CO 2 Emissions in BRICS: An Asymmetric Analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 39668-39679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13505-5
91. Zhao, Z., Gozgor, G., Lau, M. C. K., Mahalik, M. K., Patel, G. ve Khalfaoui, R. (2023). The Impact of Geopolitical Risks On Renewable Energy Demand in OECD Countries. Energy Economics, 122, 106700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106700