BRICS-T ÜLKELERİNDE MALZEME AYAK İZİNİN BELİRLEYİCİLERİ ÜZERİNE PANEL VERİ ANALİZİNDEN KANITLAR

Yıl 2026, Sayı: 50, 43 - 60, 31.01.2026

Refika Görkem Yılmaztürk , Rüya Ataklı Yavuz

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1670547

https://izlik.org/JA25SJ25CR

Öz

Küresel ölçekte artan kaynak kullanımı ve çevresel baskılar, ülkelerin malzeme ayak izini sürdürülebilir kalkınma için önemli bir gösterge haline getirmiştir. Bu bağlamda araştırma, BRICS-T ülkelerinde 1991-2020 dönemi boyunca malzeme ayak izini etkileyen temel belirleyicileri incelemektedir. Analizde kişi başına düşen gayrisafi yurtiçi hasıla (GSYİH), doğal kaynak rantı, istihdam, ticaret, kentsel nüfus ve yenilenebilir enerji değişkenleriyle malzeme ayak izi arasındaki ilişkiler incelenmiştir. Ampirik bulgular, kişi başına düşen GSYİH’daki %1’lik artışın malzeme ayak izini %1,67 oranında arttırdığını göstermektedir. Doğal kaynak rantındaki %1’lik artış %0,19 artışa yol açarken, istihdam oranındaki %1’lik artış malzeme ayak izini %1,34, kentsel nüfustaki %1’lik artış ise %5,94 oranında azaltmaktadır. Kısa dönemde, GSYİH’nin malzeme ayak izi üzerindeki etkisi Rusya ve Türkiye’de pozitif ve anlamlıdır. Doğal kaynak rantının etkisi Rusya’da pozitif, Türkiye’de negatif ve anlamlıdır. Türkiye’de ticaretin etkisi negatif, istihdamın etkisi pozitif, kentleşmenin etkisi negatif ve anlamlıdır. Yenilenebilir enerjinin hiçbir ülkede anlamlı bir etkisi bulunmamıştır. Sonuç olarak malzeme ayak izini belirleyen ekonomik ve çevresel dinamikler ülkeler arasında farklılaşmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

malzeme ayak izi , BRİCS-T , panel veri analizi

EVIDENCE FROM PANEL DATA ANALYSIS ON THE DETERMINANTS OF MATERIAL FOOTPRINT IN BRICS-T COUNTRIES

https://izlik.org/JA25SJ25CR

Öz

The increasing use of resources and growing environmental pressures on a global scale have made the material footprint an important indicator of sustainable development. In this context, the study examines the main determinants of the material footprint in BRICS-T countries over the period 1991–2020. The analysis investigates the relationships between material footprint and variables such as gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, natural resource rents, employment, trade, urban population, and renewable energy. Findings based on empirical analysis indicate that a 1% increase in GDP per capita raises the material footprint by 1.67%. Natural resource rent has a positive impact with a 0.19% increase, while an increase in the employment rate decreases the material footprint by 1.34%. The urban population shows a significant positive effect with a 5.94% increase. Russia and Turkey have a positive and significant short-term relationship between GDP and material footprint. The effect of natural resource rent is positive in Russia and negative but significant in Turkey. Trade has a negative impact in Turkey, while employment has a positive effect. Urbanization has a negative and significant effect in Turkey. However, renewable energy does not show a significant impact. It can be concluded that the determinants of material footprint differ across countries, both economically and environmentally.

Anahtar Kelimeler

material footprint , BRICS-T , panel data analysis

Kaynakça

• Agnolucci, P., Flachenecker, F., ve Söderberg, M. (2017). The Causal Impact of Economic Growth on Material Use in Europe. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2017.1325780.
• Albrizio, S., Kozluk, T., ve Zipperer, V. (2017). Environmental Policies and Productivity Growth: Evidence Across Industries and Firms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 209-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.06.002.
• Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., ve Khan, N. A. (2020). Environmental Kuznets Curve Revisited: An Analysis Using Ecological and Material Footprint. Ecological Indicators, 115, 106416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106416.
• Bai, X., Shi, P., ve Liu, Y. (2014). Society: Realizing China's Urban Dream. Nature, 509(7499), 158-160. https://www.nature.com/articles/509158a (15.02.2025).
• Borghesi, S., ve Vercelli, A. (2003). Sustainable Globalisation. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00222-7.
• Dada, J. T., ve Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2024). Linking per capita income, renewable energy, natural resources, trade, and Urbanisation to material footprint: Insights from Saudi Arabia. Energy Nexus, 13, 100269.
• Dereli, D. (2020). Finansal Gelişmenin Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi: BRICS-T Ülkeleri için Panel Veri Analizi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Çanakkale: Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi.
• Dietz, T., ve Rosa, E. A. (1997). Effects of Population and Affluence on CO2 Emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(1), 175-179. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 94.1.175.
• Ehrlich, P. R., ve Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of Population Growth: Complacency Concerning This Component of Man's Predicament is Unjustified and Counterproductive. Science, 171(3977), 1212-1217. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3977.1212.
• European Environment Agency. (2024). Europe’s Material Footprint. https://www.eea.europa .eu/en/analysis/indicators/europes-material-footprint (Erişim Tarihi: 13.12.2024).
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2013). The Food Wastage Footprint Summary Report. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams /1694038d-98f7-40f6-be4b-98782544b9f9/content (Erişim Tarihi: 10.12.2025).
• Ganda, Fortune (2024). Analysing the impacts of FDI, material footprint and ICT on the load capacity factor in sub-saharan African countries. Environmental Economics and Management, 12, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1419307
• Giljum, S., Wieland, H., Lutter, S., Bruckner, M., Wood, R., Tukker, A., ve Stadler, K. (2016). Identifying Priority Areas for European Resource Policies: A MRIO-Based Material Footprint Assessment. Journal of Economic Structures, 5, 1-24. https://doi.org /10.1186/s40008-016-0048-5.
• Görg, H., ve Hanley, A. (2005). Labour Demand Effects of International Outsourcing: Evidence From Plant-Level Data. International Review of Economics & Finance, 14(3), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2004.12.007.
• Grossman, G. M., ve Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic Growth and the Environment. The quarterly journal of economics, 110(2), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443.
• Haberl, H., Erb, K. H., Krausmann, F., Running, S., Searchinger, T. D., ve Kolby Smith, W. (2013). Bioenergy: How Much Can We Expect for 2050?. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), s.1-5. https:// doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031004
• Herwartz, H. (2006). Testing for Random Effects in Panel Data under Cross Sectional Error Correlation—A Bootstrap Approach to the Breusch Pagan Test. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50 (12), 3567-3591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2005.08.003.
• Jorgenson, A. K., ve Clark, B. (2013). The Relationship between National-Level Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Population Size: An Assessment of Regional and Temporal Variation, 1960-2005. PloS one, 8(2), e57107, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057107.
• Kassouri, Y., Alola, A.A., ve Savaş, S.Ö. (2020). The Dynamics of Material Consumption in Phases of the Economic Cycle for Selected Emerging Countries. Resources Policy, 70, 101918, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101918.
• Koçak, E., ve Sarıöz Gökten, Y. (2022). Kapitalizmde İktisadi Küçülme Mümkün mü? Malzeme Ayak Izi ve CO2 için Panel Veri Analizi. Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 20-36. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/oskauiibfd/issue/74482/ 1190326 (Erişim Tarihi: 11.02.2025).
• Montalbano, P., Nenci, S., ve Pietrobelli, C. (2018). Opening and Linking Up: Firms, GVCs, and Productivity in Latin America. Small Business Economics, 50(4), 917-935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9902-6.
• Murray, J., ve King, D. (2012). Oil's Tipping Point Has Passed. Nature, 481(7382), 433-435. https://www.nature.com/articles/481433a (Erişim Tarihi: 10.01.2025).
• Mushafiq, M., Prusak, B. (2023). Resource productivity and environmental degradation in EU-27 countries: context of material footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 58536–58552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26631-z
• O'neill, B. C., Dalton, M., Fuchs, R., Jiang, L., Pachauri, S., ve Zigova, K. (2010). Global Demographic Trends and Future Carbon Emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(41), 17521-17526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1004581107.
• Pata, U. K., & Karlilar, S. (2024). The integrated influence of energy security risk and green innovation on the material footprint: An EKC analysis based on fossil material flows. Journal of Cleaner Production, 435, 140469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2023.140469.
• Pesaran, H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. CESifo Working Papers, 69.
• Pesaran, H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., ve Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474156 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.01.2025).
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111 /j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x.
• Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., ve Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002 /jae.616.
• Pothen, F., ve Welsch, H. (2019). Economic Development and Material Use Evidence from International Panel Data. World Development, 115, 107-119. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.008.
• Rahman, M. M., Kilic, C., Akcan, A. T., & Kazak, H. (2025). Factors Affecting the Material Footprint in G7 Countries: Panel Cointegration Approach With Fourier Function. Environmental Quality Management, 34(3), e70067. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.70067.
• Razzaq, A., Ajaz, T., Li, J.C., Irfan, M., ve Suksatan, W. (2021). Investigating the Asymmetric Linkages Between Infrastructure Development, Green Innovation, and Consumption-Based Material Footprint: Novel Empirical Estimations from Highly Resource-Consuming Economies. Resources Policy, 74, 102302, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resourpol.2021.102302.
• Sachs, J. D., ve Warner, A. M. (2001). The Curse of Natural Resources. European economic review, 45(4-6), 827-838. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00125-8.
• Sadorsky, P. (2009). Renewable Energy Consumption and Income in Emerging Economies. Energy policy, 37(10), 4021-4028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.003.
• Sahoo, M., Saini, S., ve Villanthenkodath, M. A. (2021). Determinants of Material Footprint in BRICS Countries: An Empirical Analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(28), 37689-37704. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-13309-7 (Erişim Tarihi: 10.01.2025).
• Şimşek, T., ve Bursal, M. (2019). Türkiye’de Ekolojik Ayak İzi ve Biyokapasite Arasındaki İlişki: Bootstrap Rolling Window Nedensellik Testi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 452-465. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.613865.
• The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2021). Food Waste Index Report 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021 (Erişim Tarihi: 08.12.2024).
• Toman, M. A., ve Jemelkova, B. (2003). Energy and Economic Development: An Assessment of the State of Knowledge. The Energy Journal, 24(4), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195 -6574-EJ-Vol24-No4-5.
• Turgut, E., ve Gökten, Y. S. (2022). Malzeme Kuznets Eğrisi Malzeme Ayak İzi için Geçerli mi? G-7 Ülkeleri Örneği. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 823-841. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon. 1081602.
• Turgut, E., ve Gökten, Y. S. (2023). Çevre Kirliliğinin Bir Göstergesi Olarak Malzeme Ayak İzi için Panel Veri Analizi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 32(1), 20-29. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1102966.
• UNDP (2023). Datacenter. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/specific-country-data#/countries (Erişim Tarihi: 10.11. 2023).
• UNSTATS. (2019). SDGS Report. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-12/ (Erişim Tarihi: 31.01.2024).
• Wang, H., Wei, Y., Wu, Y. vd. (2022). Spatiotemporal dynamics and influencing factors of the global material footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 18213–18224. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11356-021-16923-7
• Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., ve Kanemoto, K. (2015). The Material Footprint of Nations. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 112(20), 6271-6276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220362110.
• World Bank. (2023). Database. https://data.worldbank.org/ (Erişim Tarihi: 10.11. 2023).
• York, R. (2012). Do Alternative Energy Sources Displace Fossil Fuels?. Nature Climate Change, 2(6), s. 441-443. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1451 (Erişim Tarihi: 05.02.2025).