Cilt 14 Sayı 3 (2026): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Makaleler

Yenilenebilir enerji ve tarımsal finansal destekler çevresel bozulmayı azaltır mı? Seçilmiş ülkelerden kanıtlar

PDF
  • Mehmet Ali Demir
Mehmet Ali Demir
Dr. Öğr. Üyesi, Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi, Çankırı, Türkiye

Yayınlanmış 25.09.2026

Anahtar Kelimeler

  • Yenilenebilir Enerji, Tarımsal Finansal Destek, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Ekonomik Büyüme, Panel ARDL
  • Renewable Energy, Agricultural Financial Support, Ecological Footprint, Economic Growth, Panel ARDL

Nasıl Atıf Yapılır

Yenilenebilir enerji ve tarımsal finansal destekler çevresel bozulmayı azaltır mı? Seçilmiş ülkelerden kanıtlar. (2026). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 14(3), 1607-1624. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v14i3.2789

Telif Hakkı (c) 2026 Mehmet Ali Demir

Creative Commons License

Bu çalışma Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License ile lisanslanmıştır.

Nasıl Atıf Yapılır

Yenilenebilir enerji ve tarımsal finansal destekler çevresel bozulmayı azaltır mı? Seçilmiş ülkelerden kanıtlar. (2026). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 14(3), 1607-1624. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v14i3.2789

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, 2000–2024 döneminde Brezilya, Rusya, Çin, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ile tarımsal finansal desteklerin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki kısa ve uzun dönemli etkilerini ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) hipotezinin geçerliliğini incelemektedir. Yöntem: Beş ülkeye ait 125 yıllık gözlem kullanılmış; yatay kesit bağımlılığı, eğim heterojenliği, CIPS birim kök ve Westerlund eşbütünleşme testlerinin ardından PMG-ARDL modeli tahmin edilmiştir. Bulgular: Tarımsal finansal destekler ekolojik ayak izini kısa dönemde artırmakta, uzun dönemde azaltmaktadır. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin kısa dönem katsayısı anlamlı değilken uzun dönem katsayısı negatif ve anlamlıdır. Uzun dönemde ekonomik büyümenin katsayısı pozitif, karesinin katsayısı negatiftir; bu bulgu EKC hipotezini desteklemektedir. Doğrudan yabancı yatırımların etkisi her iki dönemde de anlamlı değildir. Sonuç: Bulgular, tarımsal desteklerin çevresel koşullara bağlanmasını ve yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarının artırılmasını desteklemektedir.

PDF

Referanslar

  1. Akçay, V. H., & Bilgin, S. (2017). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma politikası açısından yenilenebilir enerji kooperatifçiliğine yönelik mali teşviklerin önemi. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 52(Özel Sayı), 867–896. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.17.12.845
  2. Alola, A. A., Bekun, F. V., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 685, 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.139
  3. Ameiliyah, A. (2025). The impact of financial policies on renewable energy development and sustainable food systems. Proceedings of Economics Business Innovation & Creativity, 2(1), 177–180. https://doi.org/10.32493/ebic.v2i1.50936
  4. Andrews, D. W. (2005). Cross‐section regression with common shocks. Econometrica, 73(5), 1551–1585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00629.x
  5. Attiaoui, I., Toumi, H., Ammouri, B., & Gargouri, I. (2017). Causality links among renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in Africa: Evidence from a panel ARDL-PMG approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 13036–13048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8850-7
  6. Ayad, H., Shuaib, M., Hossain, M. E., Haseeb, M., Kamal, M., & Ur Rehman, M. (2024). Re-examining the environmental Kuznets curve in MENA countries: Is there any difference using ecological footprint and CO2 emissions? Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 29(6), 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-024-09977-7
  7. Aydin, M., & Turan, Y. E. (2020). The influence of financial openness, trade openness, and energy intensity on ecological footprint: Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 43233–43245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10238-9
  8. Aydoğdu, A. (2024). Hatemi-J yaklaşımı ile Bitcoin, emtia, dolar ve borsa endeksleri arasındaki nedensellik analizi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 63, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.1494042
  9. Barbosa, M. (2024). Government support mechanisms for sustainable agriculture: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Sustainability, 16(5), Article 2185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052185
  10. Baykut, E. (2025). Türkiye’de çevre kalitesi: Finans-tarım-enerji üçgeninden içgörüler. Nişantaşı Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), 735–752. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1753309
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
  12. Çelik, R. A. (2025). The nexus among CO2, renewable energy, agricultural production and financial development: Empirical evidence from China and India. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 15(4), 661–672. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.19617
  13. Chavda, P., & Mehta, D. (2026). Impact of green trade and renewable energy on ecological footprint in India. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 24(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40953-025-00477-3
  14. Das, P. (2019). Analysis of collinear data: Multicollinearity. In Econometrics in theory and practice: Analysis of cross section, time series and panel data with Stata 15.1 (pp. 137–151). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9019-8_5
  15. Doğan, E., Ulucak, R., Koçak, E., & Işık, C. (2020). The use of ecological footprint in estimating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Science of the Total Environment, 723, Article 138063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138063
  16. Doğan, M., Georgescu, I., Çeştepe, H., Sarıgül, S. S., & Tatar, H. E. (2025). Renewable energy consumption and the ecological footprint in Denmark: Assessing the influence of financial development and agricultural contribution. Agriculture, 15(8), Article 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15080835
  17. Doran, N. M., Badareu, G., Doran, M. D., Firu, M. A., & Staicu, A. L. (2025). Evaluating the impact of EU expenditures under agricultural priorities on energy sustainability in CEE countries. Agriculture, 15(4), Article 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15040417
  18. Dünya Bankası. (2025). World Development Indicators. Erişim tarihi: 12 Kasım 2025, https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
  19. Ekonomik İşbirliği ve Kalkınma Teşkilatı. (2025). Agricultural financial support. Erişim tarihi: 11 Aralık 2025, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/agricultural-financial-support.html
  20. Eröksüz, M., & Ayyıldız, S. (2025). Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji finansman kredilerinde kamu kontrgaranti önerisinin tartışılması. Bankacılık ve Finansal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.55026/jobaf.1627669
  21. Fan, L., Usman, M., Haseeb, M., & Kamal, M. (2025). The impact of financial development and energy consumption on ecological footprint in economic complexity-based EKC framework: New evidence from BRICS-T region. Natural Resources Forum, 49(2), 1536–1559. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12448
  22. Feng, L., Zhao, P., Ding, Y., & Liu, B. (2021). Rank-based tests of cross-sectional dependence in panel data models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 153, Article 107070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2020.107070
  23. Gövdeli, T. (2018). Ekonomik özgürlük, turizm ve ekonomik büyüme: BRICST ülkelerinde Kónya bootstrap nedensellik analizi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.451262
  24. Han, T. T. T., & Lin, C. Y. (2025). Exploring long-run CO2 emission patterns and the environmental Kuznets curve with machine learning methods. Innovation and Green Development, 4(1), Article 100195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2024.100195
  25. Heyl, K., Ekardt, F., Sund, L., & Roos, P. (2022). Potentials and limitations of subsidies in sustainability governance: The example of agriculture. Sustainability, 14(23), Article 15859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315859
  26. Idroes, G. M., Hardi, I., Rahman, M. H., Afjal, M., Noviandy, T. R., & Idroes, R. (2024). The dynamic impact of non-renewable and renewable energy on carbon dioxide emissions and ecological footprint in Indonesia. Carbon Research, 3(1), Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-024-00117-0
  27. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4076(03)00092-7
  28. Jahanger, A. (2022). Impact of globalization on CO₂ emissions based on EKC hypothesis in developing world: The moderating role of human capital. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(14), 20731–20751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17062-9
  29. Ke, C., & Huang, S. (2024). The effect of environmental regulation and green subsidies on agricultural low-carbon production behavior: A survey of new agricultural management entities in Guangdong Province. Environmental Research, 242, 117768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117768
  30. Kırıkkaleli, D., & Adebayo, T. S. (2021). Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence. Sustainable Development, 29(4), 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2159
  31. Kişi, M. (2026). Makroekonomik ve çevresel faktörlerin halk sağlığı üzerindeki etkileri: OECD ülkeleri üzerine panel veri analizi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 14(1), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v14i1.2704
  32. Kułyk, P., & Sługocki, W. (2025). The impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on energy efficiency in agriculture: Between farmer support and sustainable development in the Visegrad Group. Energies, 18(21), Article 5578. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18215578
  33. Küresel Ayak İzi Ağı. (2025). Global Footprint Network. Erişim tarihi: 12 Kasım 2025, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/
  34. Laborde, D., Mamun, A., Martin, W., Piñeiro, V., & Vos, R. (2021). Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Communications, 12, Article 2601. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22703-1
  35. Li, R., Guo, J., & Wang, Q. (2024). Evaluating the impact of official development assistance on ecological environments in agricultural and renewable energy sectors. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 1607. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03979-2
  36. Li, R., Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, Article 131207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131207
  37. Liang, H., & Meng, Y. (2024). Impact of direct payments and non-financial support on smallholder income from environmentally friendly agriculture in Tohoku region, Japan. Journal of Environmental Management, 351, Article 119698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119698
  38. Liu, L., Li, X., & Wang, Z. (2025). The impact of government subsidies on the environmental performance of agricultural enterprises. Sustainability, 17(16), Article 7275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167275
  39. Liu, Z. (2024). Assessing the role of green finance in enhancing rural economic resilience and environmental sustainability. Frontiers in Management Science, 3(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.56397/fms.2024.02.09
  40. Mahmood, H., Furqan, M., Hassan, M. S., & Rej, S. (2023). The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in China: A review. Sustainability, 15(7), Article 6110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076110
  41. Mohammed, S., Gill, A. R., Ghosal, K., Al-Dalahmeh, M., Alsafadi, K., Szabó, S., Oláh, J., Alkerdi, A., Ocwa, A., & Harsanyi, E. (2024). Assessment of the environmental Kuznets curve within EU-27: Steps toward environmental sustainability (1990–2019). Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 18, Article 100312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2023.100312
  42. Naqvi, R. A., Almohsen, B., & Sohail, A. (2025). Modeling the environmental Kuznets curve: A stochastic approach using economic and climate data. Journal of Environmental Management, 373, Article 123108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123108
  43. Nas, Ş., Miçooğulları, S. A., & Moalla, M. (2024). The significance of participation in the global production network to economic development: An econometric analysis of BRICS+ T countries. Ege Academic Review, 24(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1194774
  44. Our World in Data. (2025). Search. Erişim tarihi: 12 Kasım 2025, https://ourworldindata.org/search
  45. Özdemir, Ö. (2026). Gelişmekte olan ülkelerde çevresel sürdürülebilirliğin ekonomik, çevresel ve teknolojik belirleyicileri: Panel ARDL analizi. Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 26(1), 818–831. https://doi.org/10.11616/asbi.1824450
  46. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  47. Piñeiro, V., Arias, J., Dürr, J., Elverdin, P., Ibáñez, A., Kinengyere, A., Opazo, C., Owoo, N., Page, J., Prager, S., & Torero, M. (2020). A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nature Sustainability, 3, 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y
  48. Roy, A. (2024). The impact of foreign direct investment, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and natural resources on ecological footprint: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 18(1), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-09-2022-0004
  49. Sahoo, M., & Sethi, N. (2021). The intermittent effects of renewable energy on ecological footprint: Evidence from developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(40), 56401–56417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14600-3
  50. Sethi, L., Behera, B., & Sethi, N. (2024). Do green finance, green technology innovation, and institutional quality help achieve environmental sustainability? Evidence from the developing economies. Sustainable Development, 32(3), 2709–2723. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2811
  51. Sharma, G. D., Shah, M. I., Chopra, R., Rao, A., & Shahzad, U. (2025). Impact of technological advancement and greener energy on sustainable agriculture in Asia: Evidence from selected Asian countries. Sustainable Development, 33(1), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3106
  52. Sobirov, Y., Artikov, B., Khodjaniyozov, E., Marty, P., & Saidmamatov, O. (2025). Economic growth, FDI, tourism, and agricultural productivity as drivers of environmental degradation: Testing the EKC hypothesis in ASEAN countries. Sustainability, 17(18), Article 8394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188394
  53. Swamy, P. A. V. B. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
  54. Türk, M. M. (2026). The impact of renewable energy and technological innovations on ecological footprint: Evidence from G-7 countries. Environmental Research and Technology, 9(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.1619297
  55. 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
  56. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
  57. Yaman, H., & Sungur, O. (2020). İleri teknoloji ihracati ve büyüme ilişkisi: OECD ülkelerine yönelik ekonometrik bir analiz. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.11616/basbed.v20i53206.645139
  58. Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2026). Panel zaman serisi analizi: Stata uygulamalı (5. baskı). Beta Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
  59. Zafar, S. (2026). Evaluating the emission impacts of agricultural subsidies policy in India. Indian Growth and Development Review, 19(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/IGDR-10-2024-0181