Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=1yrYVZZ-5ZXT3KV6nCq2NxzchTMoVqmpwJXbizvfaww&_path=id%3D1673259%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

The Relationship between Environmental Taxes, Economic Growth, Sustainable Development and Ecological Footprint in Turkey: ARDL Approach

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 584 - 600, 25.07.2025

Kutay Şenel , Cem Kalaycı

https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1673259

Öz

The world is facing serious environmental issues that threaten human life, such as pollution and climate change caused by rapidly increasing population, industrialization, urbanization, and growing energy demands. These environmental problems create significant risks that threaten sustainability. In this context, it is important for governments to develop policies that balance economic growth with environmental sustainability in order to achieve sustainable development goals. In particular, environmental taxes, which aim to reduce the effects of environmental degradation, stand out as an effective policy tool that helps establish a balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The aim of this study is to reveal the relationship between Turkey's ecological footprint, the Sustainable Development Index, GDP per capita, and environmental taxes. The uniqueness of the study is that the relationship between variables for Turkey is analyzed using the ARDL method. Firstly, Augmented Dickey-Fuller and Philips-Perron unit root tests are applied to the time series for the period 1995-2021. Unit root tests, performed after taking the first differences of the series, revealed that none of the series contained a unit root at the 5% significance level and were stationary. In this context, the ARDL Bound test results revealed the cointegration relationship between the variables. According to the findings, positive and statistically significant long-term relationships have been identified between the ecological footprint, the sustainable development index, and GDP per capita. However, a positive but statistically insignificant relationship has been observed between environmental taxes and the ecological footprint. Accordingly, it can be asserted that economic growth and efforts toward sustainable development are directly associated with environmental impacts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Environmental Taxes Economic Growth Sustainable Development Ecological Footprint ARDL Approach

Kaynakça

  • Acar, S., Altıntaş, N., & Haziyev, V. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint in Azerbaijan: an ARDL bound test approach with structural breaks. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 30(1), 41-59.
  • Ahmed, Z. ve Wang, Z. (2019). Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 26(26):26782–26796.
  • Ahmed, Z., Zhang, B., & Cary, M. (2021). Linking economic globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: Evidence from symmetric and asymmetric ARDL. Ecological indicators, 121, 107060.
  • Alam, I. ve R. Quazi (2003). Determinants of capital flight: An econometric case study of Bangladesh. International Review of Applied Economics, 17(1), 85-103.
  • Al-Mulali, U ve Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389.
  • Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Ozayturk, G., & Mike, F. (2022). Testing the long-run impact of economic growth, energy consumption, and globalization on ecological footprint: new evidence from Fourier bootstrap ARDL and Fourier bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto test results. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-16.
  • Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint?. Ecological Indicators, 61, 707-714.
  • Baumol, W. ve Oates W. (1971). The use of standards and prices for the protection of the environment. Swedish Journal of Economics, March, 73 , 42-54.
  • Bergougui, B. (2024). Investigating the relationships among green technologies, financial development and ecological footprint levels in Algeria: Evidence from a novel Fourier ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 112, 105621.
  • Bozatli, O. ve Akca, H. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes, renewable energy consumption and environmental technology on the ecological footprint: evidence from advanced panel data analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118857.
  • Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., & Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. Royal Statistical Society, 37(2), 149-192.
  • 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.
  • Chen, M., Jiandong, W., & Saleem, H. (2022). The role of environmental taxes and stringent environmental policies in attaining the environmental quality: Evidence from OECD and non-OECD countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 972354.
  • Destek, M. A. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Science of the total environment, 650, 2483-2489.
  • Destek, M. A. ve Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of cleaner production, 242, 118537.
  • Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental science and pollution research, 25(29), 29387-29396.
  • Elkins, P. ve Baker, T. (2001). Carbon taxes and carbon emissions trading. Journal of economic surveys, 15(3), 325-376.
  • 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.
  • Eweade, B. S., Karlilar, S., Pata, U. K., Adeshola, I., & Olaifa, J. O. (2024). Examining the asymmetric effects of fossil fuel consumption, foreign direct investment, and globalization on ecological footprint in M exico. Sustainable Development, 32(4), 2899-2909.
  • Fullerton, D., Leicester, A., & Smith, S. (2008). Environmental taxes. National bureau of economic research.
  • Georgescu, I. ve Kinnunen, J. (2024). Effects of FDI, GDP and energy use on ecological footprint in Finland: An ARDL approach. World Development Sustainability, 4, 100157.
  • Global Footprint Network (2024). Data and Methodology. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/, (Erişim tarihi: 01.11.2024).
  • Heine, D., ve Schoder, C. (2021). The role of environmental tax reform in responding to the Covıd-19 crisis.
  • Hussen, A. M. (2005). Principles of environmental economics. New York: Routledge Inc.
  • Islam, M. S., Hossain, M. E., Khan, M. A., Rana, M. J., Ema, N. S., & Bekun, F. V. (2022). Heading towards sustainable environment: exploring the dynamic linkage among selected macroeconomic variables and ecological footprint using a novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-20.
  • Javed, A., Rapposelli, A., Khan, F., & Javed, A. (2023). The impact of green technology innovation, environmental taxes, and renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Italy: Fresh evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, 122534.
  • Khan, M. K., Abbas, F., Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Ahmed, Z., & Anser, M. K. (2021). Moving towards sustainability: how do natural resources, financial development, and economic growth interact with the ecological footprint in Malaysia? A dynamic ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(39), 55579-55591.
  • Khoi, N. H., Le, N. H.,& Ngoc, B. H. (2022). The effect of tourism development on the ecological footprint in Singapore: evidence from asymmetric ARDL method. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(15), 2500-2517.
  • Kirikkaleli, D., Addai, K., & Karmoh Jr, J. S. (2023). Environmental innovation and environmental sustainability in a Nordic country: evidence from nonlinear approaches. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(31), 76675-76686.
  • Kuznets, S. (1955).Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, 45, 1-28.
  • OECD (2024). Environmental tax,https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/environmental-tax.html,(Erişim tarihi: 02.11.2024).
  • Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
  • Rafique, M. Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M.,& Huang, S. (2022). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: an empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy, 238, 121753.
  • Rees, W.E. (1992). Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4, 121-130.
  • Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., & Fuller, G. (2024). Sustainable development report 2024: The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards, Ireland.
  • Sampene, A. K., Li, C., Khan, A., Agyeman, F. O., Brenya, R., & Wiredu, J. (2023). The dynamic nexus between biocapacity, renewable energy, green finance, and ecological footprint: evidence from South Asian economies. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(8), 8941-8962.
  • Scrimgeour, F., Oxley, L., & Fatai, K. (2005). Reducing carbon emissions? The relative effectiveness of different types of environmental tax: the case of New Zealand. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(11), 1439-1448.
  • Shahbaz, M. ve Lean, H. H. (2012). Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy policy, 40, 473-479.
  • 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. Sustainable cities and society, 57, 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.
  • Telatar, O. M. ve Birinci, N. (2022). The effects of environmental tax on ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions: A nonlinear cointegration analysis on Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(29), 44335-44347.
  • Ulucak, R. and Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
  • UNFCCC (2015). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. In Addendum. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session.
  • United Nations (2023). Global sustainable development report 2023: Times of crisis, times of change: Science for accelerating transformations to sustainable development.
  • United Nations (2024). Progress towards the sustainable development goals.
  • Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human İmpact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia.
  • Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X., & Xiao, Y. (2013). Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: A spatial econometric approach. Ecological indicators, 34, 15-21.
  • WWF (2022). Living Planet Report 2022 – Building a naturepositive society. Almond, R.E.A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D. & Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
  • World Trade Organization (2024). Working together for better climate action: Carbon pricing, policy spillovers, and global climate goals.
  • Yandle, B., Bhattarai, M., Vijayaraghavan, M. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curves: A Review of Findings, Methods and Policy Implications. Research Study,2, 1-16.
  • Zhou, R., Abbasi, K. R., Salem, S., Almulhim, A. I., & Alvarado, R. (2022). Do natural resources, economic growth, human capital, and urbanization affect the ecological footprint? A modified dynamic ARDL and KRLS approach. Resources Policy, 78, 102782.
  • Zhou, Y., Adebayo, T. S., Yin, W.,& Abbas, S. (2023). The co-movements among renewable energy, total environmental tax, and ecological footprint in the United Kingdom: Evidence from wavelet local multiple correlation analysis. Energy Economics, 126, 106900.
  • Zhou, Z., Zhang, W., Pan, X., Hu, J., & Pu, G. (2020). Environmental tax reform and the “double dividend” hypothesis in a small open economy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 217.

Türkiye’de Çevre Vergileri, Ekonomik Büyüme, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İle Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: ARDL Yaklaşımı

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 584 - 600, 25.07.2025

Kutay Şenel , Cem Kalaycı

https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1673259

Öz

Dünya hızla artan nüfus, sanayileşme, şehirleşme ve artan enerji ihtiyacının yol açtığı kirlilik ve iklim değişikliği gibi, insan yaşamını tehdit eden ciddi çevresel sorunlarla karşı karşıyadır. Bu çevresel sorunlar, sürdürülebilirliği tehdit eden büyük riskler oluşturmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda devletlerin sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedeflerine ulaşmak için ekonomik büyüme ile çevresel sürdürülebilirliği dengeleyen politikalar geliştirilmesi önemlidir. Özellikle çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkileri azaltmayı hedefleyen çevre vergileri, ekonomik büyüme ile çevresel koruma arasında bir denge kurulmasına katkı sağlayan etkili bir politika aracı olarak ön plana çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’nin ekolojik ayak izi ile sürdürülebilir kalkınma endeksi, kişi başına düşen GSYİH ve çevresel vergiler arasındaki ilişkinin ortaya koyulmasıdır. Çalışmanın özgünlüğünü, Türkiye için değişkenler arasındaki ilişkinin ARDL yöntemiyle ortaya koyulması oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle, 1995- 2021 dönemi için zaman serilerine Augmented Dickey-Fuller ve Philips-Perron birim kök testleri yapılmıştır. Serilerin birinci dereceden farkları alınarak yapılan birim kök testlerinde tüm serilerin % 5 anlamlılık düzeyinde birim kök içermediği ve durağan olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda ARDL Sınır testi sonuçları, değişkenler arasındaki eşbütünleşme ilişkisini ortaya koymuştur. Bulgulara göre, ekolojik ayak izi ile sürdürülebilir kalkınma endeksi ve kişi başına düşen GSYİH arasında uzun dönemde pozitif ve istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişkiler tespit edilmiştir. Çevre vergileri ile ekolojik ayak izi arasında ise pozitif yönlü ancak istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmayan bir ilişki gözlemlenmiştir. Dolayısıyla, ekonomik büyüme ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma çabalarının çevresel etkilerle doğrudan ilişkili olduğu ifade edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevre Vergileri Ekonomik Büyüme Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Ekolojik Ayak İzi ARDL Yaklaşımı

Kaynakça

  • Acar, S., Altıntaş, N., & Haziyev, V. (2023). The effect of financial development and economic growth on ecological footprint in Azerbaijan: an ARDL bound test approach with structural breaks. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 30(1), 41-59.
  • Ahmed, Z. ve Wang, Z. (2019). Investigating the impact of human capital on the ecological footprint in India: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 26(26):26782–26796.
  • Ahmed, Z., Zhang, B., & Cary, M. (2021). Linking economic globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: Evidence from symmetric and asymmetric ARDL. Ecological indicators, 121, 107060.
  • Alam, I. ve R. Quazi (2003). Determinants of capital flight: An econometric case study of Bangladesh. International Review of Applied Economics, 17(1), 85-103.
  • Al-Mulali, U ve Ozturk, I. (2015). The effect of energy consumption, urbanization, trade openness, industrial output, and the political stability on the environmental degradation in the MENA (Middle East and North African) region. Energy, 84, 382-389.
  • Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Ozayturk, G., & Mike, F. (2022). Testing the long-run impact of economic growth, energy consumption, and globalization on ecological footprint: new evidence from Fourier bootstrap ARDL and Fourier bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto test results. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-16.
  • Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint?. Ecological Indicators, 61, 707-714.
  • Baumol, W. ve Oates W. (1971). The use of standards and prices for the protection of the environment. Swedish Journal of Economics, March, 73 , 42-54.
  • Bergougui, B. (2024). Investigating the relationships among green technologies, financial development and ecological footprint levels in Algeria: Evidence from a novel Fourier ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 112, 105621.
  • Bozatli, O. ve Akca, H. (2023). The effects of environmental taxes, renewable energy consumption and environmental technology on the ecological footprint: evidence from advanced panel data analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118857.
  • Brown, R. L., Durbin, J., & Evans, J. M. (1975). Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. Royal Statistical Society, 37(2), 149-192.
  • 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.
  • Chen, M., Jiandong, W., & Saleem, H. (2022). The role of environmental taxes and stringent environmental policies in attaining the environmental quality: Evidence from OECD and non-OECD countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 972354.
  • Destek, M. A. ve Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Science of the total environment, 650, 2483-2489.
  • Destek, M. A. ve Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of cleaner production, 242, 118537.
  • Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environmental science and pollution research, 25(29), 29387-29396.
  • Elkins, P. ve Baker, T. (2001). Carbon taxes and carbon emissions trading. Journal of economic surveys, 15(3), 325-376.
  • 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.
  • Eweade, B. S., Karlilar, S., Pata, U. K., Adeshola, I., & Olaifa, J. O. (2024). Examining the asymmetric effects of fossil fuel consumption, foreign direct investment, and globalization on ecological footprint in M exico. Sustainable Development, 32(4), 2899-2909.
  • Fullerton, D., Leicester, A., & Smith, S. (2008). Environmental taxes. National bureau of economic research.
  • Georgescu, I. ve Kinnunen, J. (2024). Effects of FDI, GDP and energy use on ecological footprint in Finland: An ARDL approach. World Development Sustainability, 4, 100157.
  • Global Footprint Network (2024). Data and Methodology. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/, (Erişim tarihi: 01.11.2024).
  • Heine, D., ve Schoder, C. (2021). The role of environmental tax reform in responding to the Covıd-19 crisis.
  • Hussen, A. M. (2005). Principles of environmental economics. New York: Routledge Inc.
  • Islam, M. S., Hossain, M. E., Khan, M. A., Rana, M. J., Ema, N. S., & Bekun, F. V. (2022). Heading towards sustainable environment: exploring the dynamic linkage among selected macroeconomic variables and ecological footprint using a novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-20.
  • Javed, A., Rapposelli, A., Khan, F., & Javed, A. (2023). The impact of green technology innovation, environmental taxes, and renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Italy: Fresh evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191, 122534.
  • Khan, M. K., Abbas, F., Godil, D. I., Sharif, A., Ahmed, Z., & Anser, M. K. (2021). Moving towards sustainability: how do natural resources, financial development, and economic growth interact with the ecological footprint in Malaysia? A dynamic ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(39), 55579-55591.
  • Khoi, N. H., Le, N. H.,& Ngoc, B. H. (2022). The effect of tourism development on the ecological footprint in Singapore: evidence from asymmetric ARDL method. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(15), 2500-2517.
  • Kirikkaleli, D., Addai, K., & Karmoh Jr, J. S. (2023). Environmental innovation and environmental sustainability in a Nordic country: evidence from nonlinear approaches. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(31), 76675-76686.
  • Kuznets, S. (1955).Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, 45, 1-28.
  • OECD (2024). Environmental tax,https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/environmental-tax.html,(Erişim tarihi: 02.11.2024).
  • Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
  • Rafique, M. Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M.,& Huang, S. (2022). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: an empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy, 238, 121753.
  • Rees, W.E. (1992). Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4, 121-130.
  • Sachs, J. D., Lafortune, G., & Fuller, G. (2024). Sustainable development report 2024: The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards, Ireland.
  • Sampene, A. K., Li, C., Khan, A., Agyeman, F. O., Brenya, R., & Wiredu, J. (2023). The dynamic nexus between biocapacity, renewable energy, green finance, and ecological footprint: evidence from South Asian economies. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 20(8), 8941-8962.
  • Scrimgeour, F., Oxley, L., & Fatai, K. (2005). Reducing carbon emissions? The relative effectiveness of different types of environmental tax: the case of New Zealand. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(11), 1439-1448.
  • Shahbaz, M. ve Lean, H. H. (2012). Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy policy, 40, 473-479.
  • 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. Sustainable cities and society, 57, 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.
  • Telatar, O. M. ve Birinci, N. (2022). The effects of environmental tax on ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions: A nonlinear cointegration analysis on Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(29), 44335-44347.
  • Ulucak, R. and Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
  • UNFCCC (2015). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. In Addendum. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session.
  • United Nations (2023). Global sustainable development report 2023: Times of crisis, times of change: Science for accelerating transformations to sustainable development.
  • United Nations (2024). Progress towards the sustainable development goals.
  • Wackernagel, M. ve Rees, W. (1996). Our ecological footprint: Reducing human İmpact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia.
  • Wang, Y., Kang, L., Wu, X., & Xiao, Y. (2013). Estimating the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint at the global level: A spatial econometric approach. Ecological indicators, 34, 15-21.
  • WWF (2022). Living Planet Report 2022 – Building a naturepositive society. Almond, R.E.A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D. & Petersen, T. (Eds). WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
  • World Trade Organization (2024). Working together for better climate action: Carbon pricing, policy spillovers, and global climate goals.
  • Yandle, B., Bhattarai, M., Vijayaraghavan, M. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curves: A Review of Findings, Methods and Policy Implications. Research Study,2, 1-16.
  • Zhou, R., Abbasi, K. R., Salem, S., Almulhim, A. I., & Alvarado, R. (2022). Do natural resources, economic growth, human capital, and urbanization affect the ecological footprint? A modified dynamic ARDL and KRLS approach. Resources Policy, 78, 102782.
  • Zhou, Y., Adebayo, T. S., Yin, W.,& Abbas, S. (2023). The co-movements among renewable energy, total environmental tax, and ecological footprint in the United Kingdom: Evidence from wavelet local multiple correlation analysis. Energy Economics, 126, 106900.
  • Zhou, Z., Zhang, W., Pan, X., Hu, J., & Pu, G. (2020). Environmental tax reform and the “double dividend” hypothesis in a small open economy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 217.
Toplam 53 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Kamu Yönetimi, İstatistik (Diğer), Finans
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Kutay Şenel 0000-0002-6635-6275

Cem Kalaycı 0000-0002-5547-9229

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 19 Temmuz 2025
Yayımlanma Tarihi 25 Temmuz 2025
Gönderilme Tarihi 10 Nisan 2025
Kabul Tarihi 15 Temmuz 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3

Kaynak Göster

APA Şenel, K., & Kalaycı, C. (2025). Türkiye’de Çevre Vergileri, Ekonomik Büyüme, Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma İle Ekolojik Ayak İzi İlişkisi: ARDL Yaklaşımı. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 26(3), 584-600. https://doi.org/10.37880/cumuiibf.1673259
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı (CC BY NC) ile lisanslanmıştır.