Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

YENİLENEBİLİR ENERJİ VE FOSİL YAKIT TÜKETİMİNİN EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 731 - 749, 09.10.2023
https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.1307807

Öz

Sanayi devriminden günümüze hayatın her alanında enerjinin kullanım oranlarının yükselmesine bağlı olarak insanlığın yerküre üzerindeki talep baskısı hızla artmıştır. Bu baskı nedeniyle dünyanın çehresi değişime uğramaya başlamış; başta iklim değişikliği olmak üzere canlı türlerinin azalması, hava kirliliği nedeniyle sağlık sorunlarının artması ve su kaynaklarının kuruması gibi sorunlar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu sorunların minimize edilmesinde atılan en önemli adımlardan birisi de yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarından daha fazla yararlanmak olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji ile fosil yakıt tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri 1984-2018 dönemine ait yıllık veriler için zaman serileri yöntemleri kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Eşbütünleşme testleri hem yenilenebilir enerji-ekolojik ayak izi hem de fosil yakıt-ekolojik ayak izi arasında uzun dönemli ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Uzun dönem katsayılarını elde etmek için kullanılan FMOLS tahmincisi ise ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve nüfus değişkenlerinin negatif, fosil yakıt tüketimi, finansal gelişme endeksi ile kişi başına düşen gelir değişkenlerinin ise pozitif etki yaptığını ortaya koymuştur.

Kaynakça

  • Abid, M., Gheraia, Z., and Abdelli, H. (2022). Does renewable energy consumption affect ecological footprints in Saudi Arabia? A Bootstrap Causality Test. Renewable Energy, 189, 813-821.
  • Akadiri, S. S., Adebayo, T. S., Asuzu, O. C., Onuogu, I. C., and Oji-Okoro, I. (2022). Testing the role of economic complexity on the ecological footprint in China: a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles approach. Energy & Environment.
  • Alwafai, A. Y. N. (2019). The impact of financial development on income inequality. Unpublished master's thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), Gazimagusa.
  • Alola, A., A., Adebayo, T., S. and Onifad, S. T. (2022). Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral Granger causality and quantile-on-quantile approaches, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29 (3), 263-276.
  • Ansari, M. A., Haider, S. and Masood, T. (2021). Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries?. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 28, 6719–6732.
  • Altay, H. ve Yılmaz, A. (2016). Türkiye’de ihracat artışlarının istihdam üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, (616), 75-86.
  • Banerjee A., Dolado J. and Mestre R. (1998). Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-
  • Bayer, C. and Hanck, C. (2013). Combining non‐cointegration tests. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 34(1), 83-95.
  • Boswijk H. P. (1994). Testing for an unstable root in conditional and structural error correction models. Journal of Econometrics, 63(1), 37–60.
  • Bucak, Ç. and Saygılı, F. (2022). Türkiye’de ve G7 ülkelerinde dışa açıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: yatay kesit bağımlılığı altında panel veri analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 346-365.
  • Bulut, U. (2021). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: an environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227-237.
  • BP (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics.html Caglar, A. E., Yavuz, E., Mert, M. and Kilic, E. (2022). The ecological footprint facing asymmetric natural resources challenges: evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
  • Çalışkan, Ş., Karabacak, M., & Meçik, O. (2017). Türkiye ekonomisinde eğitim harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi yaklaşımı. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (33), 45-56.
  • Carrion-i-Silvestre, J.L., Kim, D and Perron, P. (2009). GLS-based unit root tests with multiple structural breaks under both the null and the alternative hypotheses. Econometric Theory, 25, 1754-1792.
  • Dışişleri Bakanlığı (2023). Girişimci ve insani dış politika. Erişim, 7 Mayıs 2023, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/paris-anlasmasi.tr.mfa
  • Dickey, D. A. and Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072.
  • Dogan, E. and Shah, S., F. (2022). Analyzing the role of renewable energy and energy ıntensity in the ecological footprint of the United Arab Emirates. Sustainability, 14, 227.
  • Dogan, E., Majeed, M. T. and Luni, T. (2022). Revisiting the nexus of ecological footprint, unemployment, and renewable and non-renewable energy for South Asian economies: Evidence from novel research methods. Renewable Energy, 194, 1060-1070.
  • Hacker, R., & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: Theory and application. Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489–1500.
  • Hadj, B. (2021). Nonlinear impact of biomass energy consumption on ecological footprint in a fossil fuel–dependent economy. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 28, 69329–69342.
  • Global Footprint Network (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
  • Gülmez, A., Özdilek, E. ve Karakaş, D. N. (2021). Ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık ve enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izine etkileri: G7 ülkeleri için panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Econder International Academic Journal, 5 (2), 329-342.
  • IEA (2021), Turkey 2021 Energy Policy Review, 5 Mayıs 2023, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/cc499a7b-b72a-466c-88de-d792a9daff44/Turkey_2021_Energy_Policy_Review.pdf
  • IMF (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://data.imf.org/?sk=388dfa60-1d26-4ade-b505-a05a558d9a42 Johansen S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control, 12(2), 231–254.
  • Kalmaz, B., D. and Awosusi, A., A., (2022). Investigation of the driving factors of ecological footprint in Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(37), 56814-56827.
  • Karasoy, A. (2021). Küreselleşme, sanayileşme ve şehirleşmenin Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izine etkisinin genişletilmiş ARDL yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 208-231.
  • Maki, D. (2012). Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks. Economic Modelling, 02392, 1-5.
  • Mehmood, B. and Shahid, A. (2014). Aviation demand and economic growth in the Czech Republic: Cointegration estimation and causality analysis. Statistika, 94(1), 54-63.
  • Murshed, M., Rahman, M. A., Alam, M. S., Ahmad, P. and Dagar, V. (2021). The nexus between environmental regulations, economic growth, and environmental sustainability: linking environmental patents to ecological footprint reduction in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 49967-49988.
  • Nan, Y., Sun, R., Mei, H., Yue, S. and Yuliang, L. (2022). Does renewable energy consumption reduce energy ecological footprint: evidence from China. Environmental Research: Ecology, 2(1), 015003.
  • Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Adediran, A., Sharma, G., Shah, M., ve Adeleye, N. (2019). Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: including the excluded. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 27168-27179.
  • Nathaniel S., Nwodo O., Sharma G., Shah M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27: 19616–19629.
  • Oğul, B. (2022). Türkiye’de çevresel teknolojik inovasyonlar ekolojik ayak izini azaltıyor mu? ARDL sınır testi analizi. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (INIJOSS), 11(2), 409-427.
  • Ourworldindata (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart
  • Özbek, S. (2023). Ekonomik büyüme, küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(37), 123-138.
  • Pata, U. K. (2021a). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 846-861.
  • Pata, U. K. (2021b). Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy, 173, 197-208.
  • 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.
  • Prasetyanto, P. K., Sugiharti, R. R., & Panjawa, J. L. (2023). Urbanization-Growth-Environment: How Are They Related? An Evidence from the Global Asia-Pacific Region. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(2), 100.
  • Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F., & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123806.
  • Soyu, E. Demirtaş, C., ve Özgür, M. I. (2022). Ekonomik, finansal ve politik risk ile büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 9(1), 165-186.
  • Raghutla, C., Padmagirisan, P., Sakthivel, P., Chittedi, K. R., and Mishra, S. (2022). The effect of renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in N-11 countries: Evidence from Panel Quantile Regression Approach. Renewable Energy, 197, 125-137.
  • Sanatcı, Aktaş, G. ve Bilgili, A. (2022). Çevre teknolojisi patentleri ve yenilenebilir enerjinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkilerine ilişkin ampirik bir çalışma. Kent Akademisi Dergisi, 15(3), 1052-1068.
  • Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., and 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.
  • Sjösten, L. (2022), A Comparative Study of the KPSS and ADF Tests in terms of Size and Power, Uppsala Universitat, Bachelor’s thesis in Statistics.
  • Topdağ, D., Tuğçe, A., and Çelik, İ. E. (2020). Estimation of the global-scale ecological footprint within the framework of STIRPAT models: The quantile regression approach. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 70(2), 339-358.
  • Usman, M., Jahanger, A. , Radulescu, M. , Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Do nuclear energy, renewable energy, and environmental-related technologies asymmetrically reduce ecological footprint? evidence from Pakistan. Energies, 15, 3448.
  • Usman, O., Akadiri, S. S., and Adeshola, I. (2020). Role of renewable energy and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: implications for environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(24), 30681-30693.
  • Xue, L., Haseeb, M., Mahmood, H., Alkhateeb, T. T. Y., and Murshed, M. (2021). Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation: evidence from selected South Asian economies. Sustainability, 13(4), 1613.
  • WWF (2012), Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu Erişim, 1 Mayıs 2023, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_
  • Yağlıkara, A. (2022). Ekonomik, politik ve sosyal küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri örneği. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 656-676.
  • Yavuz, N. (2004). Durağanlığın Belirlenmesinde KPSS ve ADF Testleri: İMKB Ulusal-100 Endeksi ile Bir Uygulama . İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası , 54 (1) , 239-247.
  • Yavuz, E. (2021). Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine kanıtlar, Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 7(45), 1937-1945.
  • Yurtkuran, S. (2021). Türkiye’de Feldstein-Horioka hipotezinin geçerliliği: DOLS uzun dönem tahmincisi ve Fourier Granger nedensellik testi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(1), 151-169. World Bank (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#
  • Zhang, O., Shah, S. A. R. and Yang, L. (2022). Modeling the effect of disaggregated renewable energies on ecological footprint in E5 economies: Do economic growth and R&D matter?, Applied Energy, 310, 118522.

THE EFFECT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION ON ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: THE CASE OF TÜRKİYE

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 731 - 749, 09.10.2023
https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.1307807

Öz

Since the industrial revolution, the demand pressure of humanity on the world has increased rapidly due to the increase in the use of energy in all areas of life. Because of this pressure, the face of the world began to change; problems such as the decrease in living species, especially climate change, the increase in health problems due to air pollution and the drying up of water resources have emerged. One of the most important steps taken in minimizing these problems has been to make more use of renewable energy sources. In this study, the effects of renewable energy and fossil fuel consumption on the ecological footprint in Turkey were analyzed using time series methods for the annual data for the period 1984-2018. Cointegration tests have shown that there is a long-term relationship between both renewable energy-ecological footprint and fossil fuel-ecological footprint. The FMOLS estimator, which was used to obtain the long-term coefficients, indicated that renewable energy consumption and population variables had a negative effect on the ecological footprint, while the fossil fuel consumption, financial development index and GDP per capita variables had a positive effect.

Kaynakça

  • Abid, M., Gheraia, Z., and Abdelli, H. (2022). Does renewable energy consumption affect ecological footprints in Saudi Arabia? A Bootstrap Causality Test. Renewable Energy, 189, 813-821.
  • Akadiri, S. S., Adebayo, T. S., Asuzu, O. C., Onuogu, I. C., and Oji-Okoro, I. (2022). Testing the role of economic complexity on the ecological footprint in China: a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles approach. Energy & Environment.
  • Alwafai, A. Y. N. (2019). The impact of financial development on income inequality. Unpublished master's thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), Gazimagusa.
  • Alola, A., A., Adebayo, T., S. and Onifad, S. T. (2022). Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral Granger causality and quantile-on-quantile approaches, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 29 (3), 263-276.
  • Ansari, M. A., Haider, S. and Masood, T. (2021). Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries?. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 28, 6719–6732.
  • Altay, H. ve Yılmaz, A. (2016). Türkiye’de ihracat artışlarının istihdam üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, (616), 75-86.
  • Banerjee A., Dolado J. and Mestre R. (1998). Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-
  • Bayer, C. and Hanck, C. (2013). Combining non‐cointegration tests. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 34(1), 83-95.
  • Boswijk H. P. (1994). Testing for an unstable root in conditional and structural error correction models. Journal of Econometrics, 63(1), 37–60.
  • Bucak, Ç. and Saygılı, F. (2022). Türkiye’de ve G7 ülkelerinde dışa açıklık ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: yatay kesit bağımlılığı altında panel veri analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(3), 346-365.
  • Bulut, U. (2021). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: an environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227-237.
  • BP (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics.html Caglar, A. E., Yavuz, E., Mert, M. and Kilic, E. (2022). The ecological footprint facing asymmetric natural resources challenges: evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
  • Çalışkan, Ş., Karabacak, M., & Meçik, O. (2017). Türkiye ekonomisinde eğitim harcamaları ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Bootstrap Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi yaklaşımı. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (33), 45-56.
  • Carrion-i-Silvestre, J.L., Kim, D and Perron, P. (2009). GLS-based unit root tests with multiple structural breaks under both the null and the alternative hypotheses. Econometric Theory, 25, 1754-1792.
  • Dışişleri Bakanlığı (2023). Girişimci ve insani dış politika. Erişim, 7 Mayıs 2023, https://www.mfa.gov.tr/paris-anlasmasi.tr.mfa
  • Dickey, D. A. and Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057–1072.
  • Dogan, E. and Shah, S., F. (2022). Analyzing the role of renewable energy and energy ıntensity in the ecological footprint of the United Arab Emirates. Sustainability, 14, 227.
  • Dogan, E., Majeed, M. T. and Luni, T. (2022). Revisiting the nexus of ecological footprint, unemployment, and renewable and non-renewable energy for South Asian economies: Evidence from novel research methods. Renewable Energy, 194, 1060-1070.
  • Hacker, R., & Hatemi-J, A. (2006). Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: Theory and application. Applied Economics, 38(13), 1489–1500.
  • Hadj, B. (2021). Nonlinear impact of biomass energy consumption on ecological footprint in a fossil fuel–dependent economy. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 28, 69329–69342.
  • Global Footprint Network (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
  • Gülmez, A., Özdilek, E. ve Karakaş, D. N. (2021). Ekonomik büyüme, ticari açıklık ve enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izine etkileri: G7 ülkeleri için panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Econder International Academic Journal, 5 (2), 329-342.
  • IEA (2021), Turkey 2021 Energy Policy Review, 5 Mayıs 2023, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/cc499a7b-b72a-466c-88de-d792a9daff44/Turkey_2021_Energy_Policy_Review.pdf
  • IMF (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://data.imf.org/?sk=388dfa60-1d26-4ade-b505-a05a558d9a42 Johansen S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control, 12(2), 231–254.
  • Kalmaz, B., D. and Awosusi, A., A., (2022). Investigation of the driving factors of ecological footprint in Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(37), 56814-56827.
  • Karasoy, A. (2021). Küreselleşme, sanayileşme ve şehirleşmenin Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izine etkisinin genişletilmiş ARDL yöntemiyle incelenmesi. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(1), 208-231.
  • Maki, D. (2012). Tests for cointegration allowing for an unknown number of breaks. Economic Modelling, 02392, 1-5.
  • Mehmood, B. and Shahid, A. (2014). Aviation demand and economic growth in the Czech Republic: Cointegration estimation and causality analysis. Statistika, 94(1), 54-63.
  • Murshed, M., Rahman, M. A., Alam, M. S., Ahmad, P. and Dagar, V. (2021). The nexus between environmental regulations, economic growth, and environmental sustainability: linking environmental patents to ecological footprint reduction in South Asia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(36), 49967-49988.
  • Nan, Y., Sun, R., Mei, H., Yue, S. and Yuliang, L. (2022). Does renewable energy consumption reduce energy ecological footprint: evidence from China. Environmental Research: Ecology, 2(1), 015003.
  • Nathaniel, S., Nwodo, O., Adediran, A., Sharma, G., Shah, M., ve Adeleye, N. (2019). Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: including the excluded. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 27168-27179.
  • Nathaniel S., Nwodo O., Sharma G., Shah M. (2020). Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27: 19616–19629.
  • Oğul, B. (2022). Türkiye’de çevresel teknolojik inovasyonlar ekolojik ayak izini azaltıyor mu? ARDL sınır testi analizi. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (INIJOSS), 11(2), 409-427.
  • Ourworldindata (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart
  • Özbek, S. (2023). Ekonomik büyüme, küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi ilişkisi: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri üzerine ekonometrik bir analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 14(37), 123-138.
  • Pata, U. K. (2021a). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 846-861.
  • Pata, U. K. (2021b). Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy, 173, 197-208.
  • 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.
  • Prasetyanto, P. K., Sugiharti, R. R., & Panjawa, J. L. (2023). Urbanization-Growth-Environment: How Are They Related? An Evidence from the Global Asia-Pacific Region. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 13(2), 100.
  • Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F., & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123806.
  • Soyu, E. Demirtaş, C., ve Özgür, M. I. (2022). Ekonomik, finansal ve politik risk ile büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 9(1), 165-186.
  • Raghutla, C., Padmagirisan, P., Sakthivel, P., Chittedi, K. R., and Mishra, S. (2022). The effect of renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in N-11 countries: Evidence from Panel Quantile Regression Approach. Renewable Energy, 197, 125-137.
  • Sanatcı, Aktaş, G. ve Bilgili, A. (2022). Çevre teknolojisi patentleri ve yenilenebilir enerjinin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkilerine ilişkin ampirik bir çalışma. Kent Akademisi Dergisi, 15(3), 1052-1068.
  • Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., and 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.
  • Sjösten, L. (2022), A Comparative Study of the KPSS and ADF Tests in terms of Size and Power, Uppsala Universitat, Bachelor’s thesis in Statistics.
  • Topdağ, D., Tuğçe, A., and Çelik, İ. E. (2020). Estimation of the global-scale ecological footprint within the framework of STIRPAT models: The quantile regression approach. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 70(2), 339-358.
  • Usman, M., Jahanger, A. , Radulescu, M. , Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Do nuclear energy, renewable energy, and environmental-related technologies asymmetrically reduce ecological footprint? evidence from Pakistan. Energies, 15, 3448.
  • Usman, O., Akadiri, S. S., and Adeshola, I. (2020). Role of renewable energy and globalization on ecological footprint in the USA: implications for environmental sustainability. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(24), 30681-30693.
  • Xue, L., Haseeb, M., Mahmood, H., Alkhateeb, T. T. Y., and Murshed, M. (2021). Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation: evidence from selected South Asian economies. Sustainability, 13(4), 1613.
  • WWF (2012), Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu Erişim, 1 Mayıs 2023, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/images/article_uploads/Turkey_Ecological_Footprint_Report_
  • Yağlıkara, A. (2022). Ekonomik, politik ve sosyal küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: ASEAN-5 ülkeleri örneği. Fiscaoeconomia, 6(2), 656-676.
  • Yavuz, N. (2004). Durağanlığın Belirlenmesinde KPSS ve ADF Testleri: İMKB Ulusal-100 Endeksi ile Bir Uygulama . İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası , 54 (1) , 239-247.
  • Yavuz, E. (2021). Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine kanıtlar, Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 7(45), 1937-1945.
  • Yurtkuran, S. (2021). Türkiye’de Feldstein-Horioka hipotezinin geçerliliği: DOLS uzun dönem tahmincisi ve Fourier Granger nedensellik testi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 35(1), 151-169. World Bank (2023, 20 Şubat). Erişim adresi: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators#
  • Zhang, O., Shah, S. A. R. and Yang, L. (2022). Modeling the effect of disaggregated renewable energies on ecological footprint in E5 economies: Do economic growth and R&D matter?, Applied Energy, 310, 118522.
Toplam 55 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Ekonomi
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Efe Can Kılınç 0000-0002-3139-0684

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 30 Eylül 2023
Yayımlanma Tarihi 9 Ekim 2023
Gönderilme Tarihi 31 Mayıs 2023
Kabul Tarihi 7 Eylül 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Kılınç, E. C. (2023). YENİLENEBİLİR ENERJİ VE FOSİL YAKIT TÜKETİMİNİN EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ. Finans Ekonomi Ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(3), 731-749. https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.1307807