Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Ticaret ve Yenilenebilir Enerji İlişkisi: E7 Ülkeleri İçin Panel Kantil Regresyon Analizi
Özet
Bu ampirik çalışma, 1992-2017 dönemini kapsayan veriler ışığında E7 ülkeleri (Brezilya, Çin, Endonezya, Hindistan, Meksika, Rusya ve Türkiye) özelinde kişi başına düşen gelir, dış ticaret ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki dinamik etkilerini incelemektedir. Yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve eğim heterojenliği sorunlarının hesaba katıldığı analiz sürecinde, ikinci nesil CIPS birim kök testi, Westerlund panel eşbütünleşme testi, En Küçük Kareler (EKK) ve panel kantil regresyon yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen ampirik bulgular, incelenen değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ve istikrarlı bir eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin varlığını doğrulamaktadır. Panel kantil regresyon tahmin sonuçları, kişi başına düşen gelirin tüm kantil düzeylerinde ekolojik ayak izini istatistiksel olarak anlamlı biçimde artırarak çevresel bozulmaya neden olduğunu, ancak bu olumsuz etkinin yüksek kantillerde ivme kaybettiğini göstermektedir. Buna karşılık, dış ticaret hacmi ve yenilenebilir enerji kullanımının ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde azaltıcı bir etki yarattığı, söz konusu olumlu çevresel katkının özellikle yüksek kantil değerlerinde belirginleştiği tespit edilmiştir. Bu bulgular ışığında, E7 ülkelerinin politika yapıcılarına ekonomik büyümeyi çevresel tahribattan arındıracak sürdürülebilir kalkınma politikaları geliştirmeleri, çevre dostu üretim teknolojilerini teşvik etmeleri, ticareti engelleyici kısıtlamaları kaldırarak serbestleşmeyi desteklemeleri ve yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarına doğrudan devlet desteği ile sübvansiyon sağlamaları tavsiye edilmektedir.
This empirical study investigates the dynamic effects of per capita income, foreign trade, and renewable energy consumption on the ecological footprint specifically for the E7 countries (Brazil, China, Indonesia, India, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey) in light of data covering the 1992–2017 period. In the analysis process, taking into account cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity issues, second-generation CIPS unit root tests, Westerlund panel cointegration tests, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), and panel quantile regression methods were applied. The empirical findings obtained from the analysis confirm the existence of a long-run and stable cointegrating relationship among the examined variables. Panel quantile regression estimation results demonstrate that per capita income statistically significantly increases the ecological footprint across all quantile levels, causing environmental degradation, though this negative impact loses momentum at higher quantiles. In contrast, foreign trade volume and renewable energy utilization generate a reducing effect on the ecological footprint, with this positive environmental contribution becoming particularly prominent at higher quantile values. In light of these findings, policymakers in E7 countries are advised to formulate sustainable development policies that decouple economic growth from environmental damage, incentivize eco-friendly production technologies, support trade liberalization by removing restrictive trade barriers, and provide direct state support and subsidies for renewable energy investments.
Referanslar
Ahmed, Z., Zafar, M.W. & Danish, S.A. (2020). Linking urbanization, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: An empirical analysis, Sustainable Cities and Society, 55(102064), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102064.
Alvarado, R., Ortiz, C., Jiménez, N., Ochoa-Jiménez, D. & Tillaguango, B. (2021). Ecological footprint, air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international trade, Journal of Cleaner Production, 288(125589), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125589.
Alvarado, R., Tillaguango, B., Dagar, V., Ahmad, M., Işık, C., Méndez, P. & Toledo, E. (2021). Ecological footprint, economic complexity and natural resources rents in Latin America: Empirical evidence using quantile regressions, Journal of Cleaner Production, 318(128585), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128585.
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.
Caglar, A.E., Mert, M. & Boluk, G. (2021). Testing the role of information and communication technologies and renewable energy consumption in ecological footprint quality: Evidence from world top 10 pollutant footprint countries, Journal of Cleaner Production, 298(126784), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126784.
Doytch, N. (2020). The impact of foreign direct investment on the ecological footprints of nations, Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 8(100085), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100085.
Ewing B, Moore D, Goldfinger S, Oursler A, Reed A, Wackernagel M (2010). Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, Oakland.
GFN (2017). Global Footprint Network: National Footprint Accounts. Https://www.footprintnetwork.org/. (Erişim Tarihi:15.01.2022)
Ikram, M., Xia, W., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, U. & Rafique, M.Z. (2021). Exploring the nexus between economic complexity, economic growth and ecological footprint: Contextual evidences from Japan, Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47(101460), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101460.
Khan, S., Yahong, W. & Zeeshan, A. (2022). Impact of poverty and income inequality on the ecological footprint in Asian developing economies: Assessment of Sustainable Development Goals, Energy Reports, 8, 670-679, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.001.
Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33-50.
Langnel, Z., Amegavi, G.B., Donkor, P., & 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.
Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A. & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence, The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 22(2), 265-312.
Peseran, M. (2004). General diagnostic tests for corss section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper, 1240.
Salman, M., Zha, D. & Wang, G. (2022). Interplay between urbanization and ecological footprints: Differential roles of indigenous and foreign innovations in ASEAN-4, Environmental Science & Policy, 127, 161-180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.016.
Saud, S., Chen, S., & Sumayya, A.H. (2020). The role of financial development and globalization in the environment: Accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries, Journal of Cleaner Production, 250(119518), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119518.
Sharif, A., 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), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138.
Sharma, R., Sinha, A. & Kautish, P. (2021). Does renewable energy consumption reduce ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia, Journal of Cleaner Production, 285(124867), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124867.
Tao, R., Umar, M., Naseer, A. & Razi, U. (2021). The dynamic effect of eco-innovation and environmental taxes on carbon neutrality target in emerging seven (E7) economies, Journal of Environmental Management, 299(113525), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113525.
Usman, M., & Makhdum, M.S.A. (2021). What abates ecological footprint in BRICS-T region? Exploring the influence of renewable energy, non-renewable energy, agriculture, forest area and financial development, Renewable Energy, 179, 12-28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.014.
Usman, M., Makhdum, M.S.A. & Kousar, R. (2021). Does financial inclusion, renewable and non-renewable energy utilization accelerate ecological footprints and economic growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest emitting countries, Sustainable Cities and Society, 65(102590), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102590.
Westerlund, J. (2007), Testing for error correction in panel data, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69, 709-748.
Yang, B., Usman, M., & Jahanger, A. (2021). Do industrialization, economic growth and globalization processes influence the ecological footprint and healthcare expenditures? Fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for countries with the highest healthcare expenditures, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 893-910, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.07.020.
Zafar,M.W. Zaidi, S.A., N.R. Khan, Mirza, F.M., Hou, F. & Kirmani, S.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.
Zaidi, S.A.H., Zafar, M.W., Shahbaz, M. & Hou, F. (2019). Dynamic linkages between globalization, financial development and carbon emissions: Evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries, Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 533-543, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.210.
