SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS

Okan Güleç; Selen Utlu Koçdemir; Tuğba Özyıldız

doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233

TR EN

E7 EKONOMİLERİNDE SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİK: EKONOMİK BÜYÜME VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ DİNAMİKLERİ KAPSAMINDA EKC HİPOTEZİNİN TESTİ

Abstract

Hızla değişen ekonomik ve çevresel koşullar, sürdürülebilirlik kavramının daha fazla ön plana çıkmasına sebebiyet vermektedir. Hızlı sanayileşme, kentleşme ve teknolojik gelişmeler, ekonomik kalkınmanın sınırlarını genişletirken aynı zamanda doğal kaynaklar üzerinde ciddi baskılar oluşturmaktadır. E7 ülkelerinin (Brezilya, Çin, Hindistan, Endonezya, Meksika, Rusya ve Türkiye), hızlı büyüme ve sanayileşme süreçleriyle küresel üretim ve enerji tüketiminde ağırlıkları giderek artmaktadır. Küresel ekonomik büyümenin ve enerji tüketiminin büyük bir kısmını kullanan E7 ülkeleri, hızlı sanayileşme ve kentleşme süreçleri nedeniyle çevresel sürdürülebilirlik açısından kırılgan bir konuma gelmiştir. Bu durum, iktisadi büyüme ile çevresel bozulma arasındaki ilişkinin bu ülkeler nezdinde incelenmesini gerektirmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, E7 ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izinin (EFP) belirleyicilerini panel veri yöntemleriyle incelemektedir. Analizde kişi başına reel GSYH artışı, yenilenebilir ve yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi, ticari açıklık, sabit sermaye oluşumu ve işgücüne katılım oranı değişkenleri kullanılmıştır. Çalışmamız, panel veri ekonometrisi yöntemlerini kullanarak, değişkenler arasındaki dinamik ilişkileri ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Elde edilen bulgular, iktisadi büyüme ile EFP arasında Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) hipotezini doğrulamaktadır. Yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi çevresel baskıyı artırırken, yenilenebilir enerji azaltıcı bir etki göstermektedir. Ayrıca sabit sermaye oluşumu ve işgücüne katılım oranı EFP’yi artırmış, ticari açıklık oranı ise istatistiki olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Çalışmada ekonomik büyüme ve enerji tüketimi ile birlikte işgücü piyasası dinamikleri ve sermaye oluşumu gibi değişkenlerin modele dahil edilmesi, E7 ekonomileri için sadece üretim odaklı değil, aynı zamanda yapısal dönüşüm odaklı güncel literatüre özgü bir katkı sağlanmıştır

Keywords

SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS

Abstract

Rapidly changing economic and environmental conditions have brought the concept of sustainability to the forefront. Rapid industrialization, urbanization and technological developments have expanded the boundaries of economic growth while simultaneously placing significant pressure on natural resources. The E7 countries (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Türkiye) have been gaining an increasingly significant role in global production and energy consumption through their rapid growth and industrialization processes. As these countries account for a substantial share of global economic growth and energy use, their rapid industrialization and urbanization have made them vulnerable in terms of environmental sustainability. This situation necessitates an examination of the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation in the sample of these countries. In this context, this study examines the determinants of the ecological footprint (EFP) in E7 countries using panel data methods. The analysis employs variables such as real GDP per capita, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, trade openness rate, gross fixed capital formation and labor force participation rate. Our study aims to reveal the dynamic relationships between variables using panel data econometric methods. The findings confirm the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis between economic growth and EFP. Non-renewable energy consumption increases environmental pressure, whereas renewable energy has a mitigating effect. In addition, gross fixed capital formation and labor force participation rate have increased the EFP, while trade openness rate was found to be statistically insignificant. The inclusion of labor market dynamics and capital formation, in addition to economic growth and energy consumption, ensures a novel contribution to the current literature on E7 countries by shifting the focus from a purely production-oriented approach to one centered on structural transformation.

Keywords

References

Abdullahi, N. M., Ibrahim, A. A., Zhang, Q., & Huo, X. (2024). Dynamic linkages between financial development, economic growth, urbanization, trade openness, and ecological footprint: an empirical account of ECOWAS countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(10) 25103–25130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04713-3
Addai, K., Serener, B., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Empirical analysis of the relationship among urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprint: evidence from Eastern Europe. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(19), 27749-27760.
Ahmad, M., & Satrovic, E. (2024). Modeling natural resources for ecological sustainability. Gondwana Research, 126, 243-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.09.015
Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M., Rjoub, H., Kalugina, O. A., & Hussain, N. (2022). Economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and ecological footprint: Exploring the role of environmental regulations and democracy in sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 30(4), 595-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2251
Ahmed, Z., Asghar, M. M., Malik, M. N., & Nawaz, K. (2022). Moving towards a sustainable environment: The dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resources Policy, 67, 101677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101677
Akpanke, T. A., Deka, A., Ozdeser, H., & Seraj, M. (2024). Ecological footprint in the OECD countries: do energy efficiency and renewable energy matter? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(10), 15289-15301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32151-1
Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., & Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological Indicators, 48, 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.029
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

Ashraf, M.Z., Wei W., Usman M., & Mushtaq S (2024) How can natural resource dependence, environmental-related technologies and digital trade protect the environment: redesigning SDGs policies for sustainable environment? Resources Policy, 88, 104456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol. 2023.104456
Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecological Indicators, 61, 707-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.022
Azimi, M. N., & Rahman, M. M. (2024). Renewable energy and ecological footprint nexus: Evidence from dynamic panel threshold technique. Heliyon, 10(13), e33442 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33442
Bagliani, M., Bravo, G., & Dalmazzone, S. (2008). A consumption-based approach to environmental Kuznets curves using the ecological footprint indicator. Ecological Economics, 65(3), 650-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.010
Bekun, F. V., Alola, A. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 657, 1023-1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.104
Bo, S. (2011). A Literature survey on Environmental Kuznets Curve. Energy Procedia, 5, 1322-1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.229
Bölük, G., & Karaman, S. (2024). The impact of agriculture, energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: testing the agriculture-induced EKC for Türkiye. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(12), 31817-31837.
Caviglia-Harris, J. L., Chambers, D., & Kahn, J. R. (2009). Taking the “U” out of Kuznets: A comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 1149-1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.006
Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 76, 138-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.031
Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K., Pesaran, M. H., & Raissi, M. (2016). Long-run effects in large heterogenous panel data models with cross-sectionally correlated errors. In R. C. Hill, G. Gonzalez-Rivera, & T.-H. Lee (Eds.), Advances in Econometrics (Vol. 36, pp. 85-135). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-905320160000036013
Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7-71. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205104773558047
Cordova-Lepe, F. (2019). Income growth with high inequality implies loss of well-being: A mathematical model. Economics. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1911.11205
Çakmak, E. E., & Acar, S. (2022). The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy and ecological footprint: An empirical evidence from most oil-producing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352, 131548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131548
Dada, J. T., Adeiza, A., Ismail, N. A., & Marina, A. (2022). Investigating the link between economic growth, financial development, urbanization, natural resources, human capital, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Bioeconomics, 24(2), 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-021-09323-x
Damak, O. I., & Eweade, B. S. (2024). Do economic growth, the legal system and energy consumption lessen the ecological footprint? Evidence from South Korea. Energy & Environment, 0958305X241270280.https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X241270280
Danish, H. S., Baloch, M. A., Mahmood, N., & Zhang, J. W. (2019). Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustain Cities Soc, 47, 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101516
Damrah, S., Satrovic, E., Atyeh, M. & Shawtari, F. A. (2022). Employing the panel quantile regression approach to examine the role of natural resources in achieving environmental sustainability: does globalization create some difference? Mathematics, 10(24), 4795. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10244795
Damrah, S., Satrovic, E., & Shawtari, F. A. M. (2022). How does financial inclusion affect environmental degradation in the six oil exporting countries? The moderating role of information and communication technology. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1013326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1013326
Daştan, M., & Eygü, H. (2024). 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, 26(7), 18957-18988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04106-y
Eweade, B.S., Akadiri A.C., Olusoga K.O. & Bamidele RO (2024) The symbiotic efects of energy consumption, globalization, and combustible renewables and waste on ecological footprint in the United Kingdom. In Natural resources forum, vol. 48(1). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp 274-291. DOI: 10.1111/1477-8947.12392
Eweade, B. S., Güngör, H., & Karlilar, S. (2023). The determinants of ecological footprint in the UK: the role of transportation activities, renewable energy, trade openness, and globalization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(58), 122153-122164.
Fan, J., Han, X., Liu, H., & Gu, J. (2015). Power Enhancement in Cross-sectional Dependence Tests for Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics, 186(1), 127–141.
Gao Y., Chen H., Tauni M.Z., Alnafrah I. & Yu J (2024) Unpacking the impact of fnancialization and globalization on environmental degradation in BRICS economies. Resource Policy, 88,104497. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104497
Graham, K. & Knittel, C. R. (2023). Assessing the distribution of employment vulnerability to theenergy transition using employment carbon footprints. Economic Sciences, 121(7). 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2314773121
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Working Paper, NBER. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
Güler, İ., Naimoğlu, M., Şimşek, O., Adalı, Z., & Özbek, S. (2025). Analyzing the impact of economic growth and FDI on sustainable development goals in China: insights from ecological footprints and load capacity factors. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, 1513158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1513158.
Hacıimamoğlu, T., & Sungur, O. (2024). How do economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and political stability affect environmental sustainability in the United States? Insights from a modified ecological footprint model. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(4), 20649-20676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01953-6
Hassan, S. T., Xia, E., Khan, N. H., & Shah, S. M. A. (2019). Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Pakistan. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 2929-2938. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3803-3
Hussain, H. I., Haseeb, M., Kamarudin, F., Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z., & Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2021). The role of globalization, economic growth and natural resources on the ecological footprint in Thailand: Evidence from nonlinear causal estimations. Processes, 9(7), 1103. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9071103
IEA (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021
IEA (2022). World Energy Outlook 2022. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022
Jie, H., Khan, I., Alharthi, M., Zafar, M. W., & Saeed, A. (2023). Sustainable energy policy, socio-economic development, and ecological footprint: The economic significance of natural resources, population growth, and industrial development. Utilities Policy, 81, 101490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2023.101490
Joof, F., Samour, A., Ali, M., Rehman, M. A., & Tursoy, T. (2024). Economic complexity, renewable energy and ecological footprint: The role of the housing market in the USA. Energy and Buildings, 311, 114131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114131
Joof, F., Samour, A., Tursoy, T., & Ali, M. (2022). Climate change, insurance market, renewable energy, and biodiversity: Double-materiality concept from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(57), 85746-85757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21675-0
Juodis, A., & Reese, S. (2021). A Simple Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence with Large Panels. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 39(1), 221-236.
Kaika, D. & Zervas, E. (2013). The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory—Part A: Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy, 62, 1392-1402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.131.
Kang, Y. (2025). Sustainable Development Through Energy Transition: The Role of Natural Resources and Gross Fixed Capital in China. Sustainability, 17(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010083
Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 90(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2
Kartal, M. T., Gokceli, E., Yildirim, H. H. & Calis, N. (2025). A new approach to analyze determinants of environmental quality: evidence from E7 countries by panel approaches. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 32(4), 428-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2025.2480605.
Kijima, M., Nishide, K. & Ohyama, A. (2010). Economic models for the environmental Kuznets curve: A survey. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34(7), 1187-1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2010.03.010
Kongkuah, M. (2024). Impact of Belt and Road countries’ renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(4), 8709-8734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03068-5
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, 131207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131207
Li, Y., Wang, X., Imran, A., Aslam, M. U., & Mehmood, U. (2023). Analyzing the contribution of renewable energy and natural resources for sustainability in G-20 countries: how gross capital formation impacts ecological footprints. Heliyon, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18882
Li, R., Wang, Q., Liu, Y., & Jiang, R. (2022). Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: The effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1149-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.031
Liu, J., Wang, H. & Zhao, Z. (2024). Improvement and application of the ecological footprint calculation method: A case study of a Chinese university. Journal of Cleaner Production, 450, 141893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141893
Liu, Y., Sadiq, F., Ali, W., & Kumail, T. (2022). Does tourism development, energy consumption, trade openness and economic growth matters for ecological footprint: Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve and pollution haven hypothesis for Pakistan. Energy, 245, 123208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.12320
Magazzino, C. (2024). Ecological footprint, electricity consumption, and economic growth in China: geopolitical risk and natural resources governance. Empirical Economics, 66(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-023-02460-4
Makhdum, M. S. A., Usman, M., Kousar, R., Cifuentes-Faura, J., Radulescu, M., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). How do institutional quality, natural resources, renewable energy, and financial development reduce ecological footprint without hindering economic growth trajectory? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 14(21), 13910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113910
Mrabet, Z., & Alsamara, M. (2017). Testing the Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Qatar: A comparison between carbon dioxide and ecological footprint. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 1366-1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.039
Murshed, M., Rahman, M. A., Alam, M. S., Ahmad, P., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13381-z
Musa, K., Tufail, S., Erum, N., Said, J., & Mustaffa, A. H. (2024). Impact of the circular economy on ecological footprint: evidence from Germany. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(44), 56067-56078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34857-8
Musila, J. W. & Yiheyis, Z. (2015). The impact of trade openness on growth: The case of Kenya. Journal of Policy Modeling, 37(2), 342-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2014.12.001
Nathaniel, S. P., Barua, S., & Ahmed, Z. (2021). What drives ecological footprint in top ten tourist destinations? Evidence from advanced panel techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(28), 38322-38331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13389-5
Nathaniel, S. P., Nwodo, O., Adediran, A., Sharma, G., Shah, M., & Adeleye, N. (2021). Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: Including the excluded. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(26), 27168-27179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05924-2
Neifar, M., Ghorbel, A., & Bouaziz, K. (2024). Caring for environment sustainability: how human capital, natural resources and economic growth interact with ecological footprint in Morocco? Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(3), 525-546.
Okelele, D. O., Lokina, R., & Ruhinduka, R. D. (2022). Effect of trade openness on ecological footprint in sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Economic Review, 10(1), 209-233.
Özbek, S., & Naimoğlu, M. (2025). The effectiveness of renewable energy technology under the EKC hypothesis and the impact of fossil and nuclear energy investments on the UK's Ecological Footprint. Energy, 322, 135351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.135351
Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development.
Panwar, N. L., Kaushik, S. C. & Kothari, S. (2011), Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(3), 1513-1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.037
Pata, U. K. (2018). Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO₂ emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 119–129.
Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597-625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466604203073
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
Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with common factors. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing Weak Cross-Sectional Dependence in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 184(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623
Pesaran, M. H. (2021). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross-Section Dependence in Panels. Empirical Economics, 60, 13–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
Pesaran, M. H., & Xie, Y. (2021). A New Test for Cross-Sectional Dependence. Journal of Econometrics, 223(2), 241-267.
Qamruzzaman, M. (2023). Nexus between renewable energy, foreign direct investment, and agro-economic performance: The mediating role of environmental degradation and financial risk. Renewable Energy, 204, 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.12.092
Qamruzzaman, M. D. (2024). Nexus between foreign direct investment, gross capital formation, financial development and renewable energy consumption: evidence from panel data estimation. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(01), 182-200. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2024.18.1.0011
Qing, L., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., & Haseeb, M. (2024). Towards the vision of going green in South Asian region: The role of technological innovations, renewable energy and natural resources in ecological footprint during globalization mode. Resources Policy, 88, 104506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104506
Quan, Z., Xu, X., Jiang, J., Wang, W., & Gao, S. (2024). Uncovering the drivers of ecological footprints: A STIRPAT analysis of urbanization, economic growth, and energy sustainability in OECD countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 475, 143686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143686
Rahman, Z. U., & Ahmad, M. (2019). Modeling the relationship between gross capital formation and CO2 (a) symmetrically in the case of Pakistan: an empirical analysis through NARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(8), 8111-8124.
Riaz, M. H., Alam, M., Ali, A., Raihan, A., & Ahmed, Z. (2024). Unveiling ecological footprints in BRICS+ nations: analyzing natural resource exploration, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202408.2165.v2
Ritu, & Kaur, P. (2023). Examining the linkages between economic complexity, energy consumption, and ecological footprint in E7 economies: A panel quantile regression analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 429, 139513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139513
Ritu, R. K., & Kaur, A. (2024). Towards environmental sustainability: nexus of ecological footprint, human capital, economic growth and energy consumption in India. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(1), 179-200. https://www.emerald.com/insight/1477-7835.htm
Ruggerio, C. A. (2021). Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Science of The Total Environment, 786, 147481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147481
Saboori, B., & Tarazkar, M. H. (2024). Three-dimensional ecological footprint and economic complexity nexus in GCC countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-22.
Sahoo, M., Mohanty, P. P., Kaushik, S., Islam, M. K., & Rourt, L. (2024). Ecotourism or ecological concerns? Tracing the impact of economic policy uncertainty and natural resources on tourism-driven ecological footprints. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(21), 31314-31330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33244-7
Saqib, N., Usman, M., Ozturk, I., & Sharif, A. (2024). Harnessing the synergistic impacts of environmental innovations, financial development, green growth, and ecological footprint through the lens of SDGs policies for countries exhibiting high ecological footprints. Energy Policy, 184, 113863.
Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence (Vol. 904). World Bank Publications.
Shahbaz, M., Mahalik, M. K., Shah, S. H., & Sato, J. R. (2016). Time-varying analysis of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth nexus: Statistical experience in next 11 countries. Energy policy, 98, 33-48.
Shahbaz, M., Nasreen, S., Ahmed, K. & Hammoudeh, S. (2017). Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Economics, 61, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.008
Sharif, A., Baris-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. Sustain Cities Society, 57, 102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138
Shayanmehr, S., Radmehr, R., Ali, E. B., Ofori, E. K., Adebayo, T. S., & Gyamfi, B. A. (2023). How do environmental tax and renewable energy contribute to ecological sustainability? New evidence from top renewable energy countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 30(6), 650-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2186961
Saraji, M. K. & Streimikiene, D. (2023). Challenges to the low carbon energy transition: A systematic literatüre review and research agenda. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 10163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101163
Sinha, J. K. (2024). Nexus between capital formation, economic growth, and unemployment during post economic reform period in India. Journal of Applied Financial Econometrics, 5(1), 1-14.
Stern, D. I. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. Journal of Bioeconomics, 19, 7-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-017-9243-1
Şimşek, O., Güler, İ., Özbek, S., Adalı, Z., & Naimoğlu, M. (2025). Exploring the impact of globalization, economic complexity, urbanization, and real income on environmental degradation in E-7 countries. Ege Academic Review, 25(1), 201-220. Doi: 10.21121/eab.20250113
Tennakoon, W. D. N. M. S., Janadari, M. P. N. & Wattuhewa, I. D. (2024). Environmental sustainability practices: A systematic literatüre review. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 8(3), em0259. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/14604
Udemba, E. N. (2020). A sustainable study of economic growth and development amidst ecological footprint: New insight from Nigerian Perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 732, 139270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139270
Usman, M., Makhdum, M. S. A., & Kousar, R. (2021a). 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
Usman, O., Iorember, P. T., Jelilov, G., Isik, A., Ike, G. N., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2021b). Towards mitigating ecological degradation in G-7 countries: accounting for economic effect dynamics, renewable energy consumption, and innovation. Heliyon, 7(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08592
Uzar, U. (2024). The dynamic effect of income distribution, natural resources, and freedom of press on ecological footprint: Theory and empirical evidence for emerging economies. Resources Policy, 89, 104682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104682
Villanthenkodath, M. A., Ansari, M. A., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., & Satrovic, E. (2024, August). The comprehensive impact of economic growth on environmental quality: insight established on material, carbon, and ecological footprint. In Operations Research Forum (Vol. 5, No. 3, p. 70). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-024-00355-3
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1997a). Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecological Economics, 20(1). 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00077-8
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1997b). Ecological footprints of nations: How much nature do they use? Global Footprint Network. Retrieved from https://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2021/03/ecological-footprints-nations-1997.pdf (Access Date: 11/09/2025)
Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. (1998). Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Vol. 9). New society publishers.
Wang, H., Gong, L., Cravotta, C. a, Yang, X., Tuovinen, O. H., Dong, H., & Fu, X. (2013) Inhibition of bacterial oxidation of ferrous iron by lead nitrate in sulfate-rich systems. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 244-245, 718–25.
Wang, J., & Dong, K. (2019). What drives environmental degradation? Evidence from 14 Sub-Saharan African countries. Science of the Total Environment, 656, 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.354
Wang Q, Li Y, Li R (2024) Rethinking the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across 214 countries: The impacts of 12 economic, institutional, technological, resource, and social factors. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11, 292. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02736-9
Wees, W. E. (2023). The Human ecology of overshoot: Why a major ‘Population Correction’ is inevitable. World, 4(3), 509-527. https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030032
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
Wiedmann, T. & Barrett, J. (2010). A Review of the ecological footprint indicator-perceptions and methods. Sustainability, 2, 1645-1693. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061645
Zhu, K., Ali, A., Zhang, T., & Zada, M. (2024). An empirical investigation of the impact of energy consumption, globalization and natural resources on ecological footprint and economic growth, evidence from China, Japan, South Korea and China Taiwan. Energy & Environment, 0958305X241251421

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Econometric and Statistical Methods, Economic Models and Forecasting, Panel Data Analysis

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Okan Güleç ^*
0009-0000-5936-4720
Türkiye

Selen Utlu Koçdemir
0000-0001-8660-1568
Türkiye

Tuğba Özyıldız
0000-0002-2101-2954
Türkiye

Publication Date

April 26, 2026

Submission Date

November 9, 2025

Acceptance Date

February 14, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 27 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA55RW67AR

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Güleç, O., Utlu Koçdemir, S., & Özyıldız, T. (2026). SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 27(2), 699-726. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233

AMA

1.Güleç O, Utlu Koçdemir S, Özyıldız T. SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2026;27(2):699-726. doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233

Chicago

Güleç, Okan, Selen Utlu Koçdemir, and Tuğba Özyıldız. 2026. “SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS”. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 27 (2): 699-726. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233.

EndNote

Güleç O, Utlu Koçdemir S, Özyıldız T (April 1, 2026) SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 27 2 699–726.

IEEE

[1]O. Güleç, S. Utlu Koçdemir, and T. Özyıldız, “SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS”, Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 699–726, Apr. 2026, doi: 10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233.

ISNAD

Güleç, Okan - Utlu Koçdemir, Selen - Özyıldız, Tuğba. “SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS”. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 27/2 (April 1, 2026): 699-726. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233.

JAMA

1.Güleç O, Utlu Koçdemir S, Özyıldız T. SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2026;27:699–726.

MLA

Güleç, Okan, et al. “SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS”. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 27, no. 2, Apr. 2026, pp. 699-26, doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233.

Vancouver

1.Okan Güleç, Selen Utlu Koçdemir, Tuğba Özyıldız. SUSTAINABILITY IN E7 ECONOMIES: TESTING THE EKC HYPOTHESIS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT DYNAMICS. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2026 Apr. 1;27(2):699-726. doi:10.37880/cumuiibf.1820233