Next Article in Journal
Contribution of Landscape Transformation in the Development of Heat Islands and Sinks in Urban and Peri-Urban Regions in the Chota–Nagpur Plateau, India
Next Article in Special Issue
Editorial Note: Decision Making in Resource Management: Exploring Problems, Methods, and Tools
Previous Article in Journal
Strengthening Reclamation Obligation through Mining Law Reform: Indonesian Experience
Previous Article in Special Issue
Human Capital and Environmental Sustainability Nexus in Selected SADC Countries
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Economic Activities and Management Issues for the Environment: An Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and STIRPAT Analysis in Turkey

1
Department of Economics and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science, Istanbul Aydin University, 34295 Istanbul, Turkey
2
Department of Logistics, Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland
3
Faculty of Maritime and Industrial Studies, University of Piraeus, 185-33 Piraeus, Greece
4
Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy, University of Malta, 2080 Msida, Malta
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2023, 12(5), 57; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050057
Submission received: 25 March 2023 / Revised: 19 April 2023 / Accepted: 25 April 2023 / Published: 30 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Decision Making in Resources Management: Problems, Methods and Tools)

Abstract

:
The emission of air pollutants from energy production and consumption is a major cause of environmental problems. In addition, urbanisation and CO2 emissions have become major environmental concerns that are closely related to climate change and sustainable economic growth. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the long-run relationship among CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic activities, and management issues for Turkey for the period between 1980 and 2021. The STIRPAT hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis were employed by using dynamic conditional correlation (DCC) and ARDL bound methodologies for these goals. The findings indicate that there is a long-run relationship between variables of the STIRPAT model. The coefficient of economic expansion and energy consumption affected CO2 emissions positively, which means that energy consumption and the expansion of economic activity have significant effects on environmental degradation. Those results are also confirmed by the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) model. In addition, the N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) is developed for Turkey. The DCC model also shows that economic growth increases CO2 emissions significantly, and energy productivity can be considered for decreasing CO2 emissions.

1. Introduction

Environmental degradation and climate change have been a vital concern for the world since the 1990s after the Rio 1992 and Kyoto 1997 UN conferences. The conference is the starting point for policies about the environmental effects of sustainable development. The Kyoto Protocol’s goal was to bring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions down to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Environmental deterioration, global warming, and climate change are interconnected [1,2,3].
According to [4], two direct reasons for environmental degradation are energy consumption and energy production. These two factors are closely related to economic activities and urbanisation, as well as their management sphere. One of the consequences of urbanisation is increasing energy consumption and, further, environmental degradation. Turkey is one of the countries which has a long urbanisation history. Population in urban areas was 15% in 1937, then reached 45% in 1975 [5], and in 2021, it was 93.2% [6]. These data are the main evidence of urbanisation in Turkey. It is well-known that urbanisation increases industrial output and energy consumption. It has occurred the same in Turkey, and the increasing energy consumption caused environmental degradation in big cities.
In this paper, we investigate two models using two different theories on the relationship between climate change and urbanisation. The two theories are STIRPAT (stochastic impacts by regression on population, affluence, and technology) and the EKC (environmental Kuznets curve). STIRPAT was developed by [7], and the EKC was developed by [8]. In the literature, various models are developed on the variables affecting CO2 emissions, such as the Laspeyres method [9] and the LMDI method [10].
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review. The theoretical model is introduced in Section 3. Section 4 reveals the empirical analysis, data, and unit test. Section 5 presents the results and the discussion of the results, while Section 6 provides the conclusions, limitations, and policy recommendations.

2. Literature Review

There is much literature on these connections between environmental degradation, economic growth, and management, such as [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18], and urbanisation and environment/climate change, such as [11,19,20,21,22,23].
The STIRPAT model is the extended model of the proposed IPAT model [9]; Ref. [10] extended it and reached the IPBAT model after the IPBAT model and [11] extended it and reached the STIRPAT model. The IPAT, IPBAT, and STIRPAT models aim to explain factors that affect the environment, capture behavioural choices’ effects, and estimate causal effects between the driving forces, respectively. The IPAT model is a straightforward conceptual representation that links various drivers to environmental impact and is inappropriate for direct use to determine the individual factors [12]. Ref. [11] aims to solve the lack of individual determining features of the IPAT model and developed STRIPAT, which is a stochastic version of IPAT. Different techniques have been used to estimate the STIRPAT model, e.g., the common correlated effects mean group estimator (CCEMG) of [24], the augmented mean group (AMG) estimator of [25], and the kernel-based regularised lease squares estimator [24,25].
The EKC hypothesis [13] assumes that the dependent variable CO2 in its model is affected by the independent variable GDP and other control variables, which explains an inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental quality and economic development. The researchers investigate this relationship, whether it is U-shaped, N-shaped, or V-shaped.
The EKC has enormously wide literature, and the STIRPAT model has less fame compared to the EKC. That is why there are many articles on the EKC for Turkey but few on the STIRPAT model. At first, considering the EKC literature of Turkey, we split the papers into two categories: papers showing that the EKC is valid in Turkey and papers showing that the EKC is not valid in Turkey. The papers which find that the EKC is valid in Turkey are [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,26]. The papers which find EKC is not valid in Turkey are [24,25,27,28,29,30,31,32].
Similar to our paper, there are two papers [33,34] that investigate both STIRPAT analysis and the EKC for Turkey. Additionally, ref. [34] states that this paper is the first paper on these topics for Turkey, but based on our literature survey, the first is [33]. However, these two pieces of research are similar to our paper based on the theories they used. They combine two theories and estimate one model, but in our paper, we estimate the model for each theory. Ref. [33] uses ecologic footprint (EF) as the dependent variable in the EKC model and finds that GDP has a positive and its square has a negative impact on EF; therefore, the relation is in an inverted U-shape in the long-run and short-run relationship. (Çağlar, 2022) uses CO2 emissions per capita and finds an inverted-U shape for Turkey, which is consistent with [33].
Ref. [35] estimated the VEC model and used the Johansen cointegration method for STIRPAT analysis of Turkey for the 1970–2013 period. They find a long-run relationship between CO2 emissions and affluence, population, technology, urbanization, financial development, and globalization. Except for financial development, all the variables have an increasing effect on CO2 emissions in the long run, and short-run dynamics are valid in the model. Another paper that investigates the validity of the STIRPAT model for Turkey is [36], which uses panel data methodology for ten newly industrialized countries (NICs), one of which is Turkey. The empirical analysis consists of a dynamic common correlated effects estimator (DCCE), fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS), and dynamic ordinary least square (DOLS). DCCE shows that all the independent variables (population, affluence, technology, energy intensity, urban employment, and energy mix) have a significant impact on CO2 emissions. The general results show that for the NIC’s population, GDP per capita is the main reason for CO2 emissions. Ref. [37] conducted the quantile regression methodology implemented within the STIRPAT model structure for 154 countries’ data, one of the countries being Turkey. They used ecological footprint per capita as a dependent variable and found that GDP per capita and the financial development index have a positive impact on population, and services negatively impact ecological footprint. Ref. [36] presents a literature review on the extended STIRPAT model, with CO2 as the dependent variable, and summarizes the direction of the variables, which are P (population), A (affluence), and T (technology). Refs. [38,39,40,41] find positive P (population) and A (affluence), and positive T (technology); Refs. [42,43,44,45] find positive P (population) and A (affluence), and negative T (technology), and [46] finds negative P (population) and A (affluence), and positive T (technology) in their STIRPAT model.
In this paper, we aim to use the ARDL and DCC models to investigate the validity of the STIRPAT model and the EKC hypothesis in Turkey. The EKC model is a widely investigated topic in economics and management, especially in the energy economics area. Ref. [47] is the first paper to examine the EKC theory for Turkey and discover an inverted U-shaped curve. Additionally, there are broad literature sources on Turkey on the EKC [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,42,43]. The literature has contradictory results; while [48,49] find an N-shaped relationship, Ref. [50] finds an invalid EKC relationship for Turkey. Ref. [30] uses instead of carbon emissions, the ecological footprint as a proxy for environmental degradation, and confirmed the EKC hypothesis for Turkey from 1961 to 2013. STIRPAT does not have as many literature achievements compared to the EKC results. Ref. [51] finds that emissions have achieved a reduced level of prosperity in Turkey during 1990–2015 using the STIRPAT model. Ref. [35] finds that there is a cointegration among the variables in the STIRPAT model in Turkey.
This paper has some contributions to the literature. First, we use both the EKC and STIRPAT model, which are the theories of environmental degradation, by including the urbanization variable. Second, to estimate the relationship, we use two different kinds of models: The ARDL bound approach and the DCC-GARCH approach.

3. Theoretical Model

We mentioned the development steps of the STIRPAT model in the previous section. The model starts with the following Equation (1), which is developed by [52]:
I = P × A × T
where I presents the environmental impact, P presents population, A presents affluence or consumption per capita, and T presents technology or impact per unit of consumption. Ref. [7] extends the IPAT model to the STIRPAT model and indicates the model in exponential form as follows:
I = α P i β × A İ γ × T i δ e i
where β , γ , and δ are exponent terms of P, A, and T, respectively, and e i is the error term. If we take the logarithm of both sides of Equation (2), we will reach Equation (3):
l o g I i t = α 0 + β l o g P i t + γ l o g A i t + δ l o g T i t + e i t
At last, if we change the variables I to COE (carbon dioxide emission), P to URB, A to Y, and T to E, we will have Equation (4):
l o g C O E i t = α 0 + α 1 l o g U R B i t + α 2 l o g Y i t + α 3 log E i t + e i t
where COE is a proxy for CO2 emissions, URB is urbanisation, E is energy components, Y is per capita GDP, and finally, e is the residual error term. Following [16,53,54], we add international trade (TR) as a proxy for the degree of openness, foreign direct investment (FDI), and for energy components, total energy supply (ES), total final consumption (FEC), and environmental and resource productivity (energy productivity)(EP). Therefore, (4) will take (5), as follows, by showing the logarithm by L:
L C O E i t = α 0 + α 1 L Y i t + α 2 L F D I i t + α 3 L F E C i t + α 4 L E P i t + α 5 L T R i t + α 6 L U R B i t + e i t
Another hypothesis is the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). The EKC is a hypothesis that explains an inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental quality and economic development. It means that per capita income increases, and the degree of environmental degradation also increases until the turning point. After the turning point, environmental degradation begins to decline. The EKC investigates the relation between the relative levels of environmental damage and the GDP per capita [53]. By using the variables we select, the EKC can be written as follows (L shows the logarithm of the variables):
L C O 2 i t = α 0 + α 1 L Y i t + α 2 L Y i t 2 + α 3 L Y i t 3 + α 4 L F E C i t + α 5 L T R i t + α 6 g i t + α 7 L E S i t + e i t
We aim to test the three forms (level, quadratic, and cubic) of per capita GDP in the model. The coefficients of the three forms of GDP per capita determine the relationship between environmental quality and economic growth. If α 1 0 , α 2 < 0 , and α 3 = 0 , it is described as an inverted U-shaped curve.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Data

The main variables of the STIRPAT model are P (population), A (affluence), and T (technology), but in previous empirical studies, such as [36,42,43,44] and many more, it was extended. Therefore, we aim to use more variables that have an effect on environmental degradation. When we are selecting independent variables to extend the model, we take into consideration the World Bank [55], International Energy Agency [56,57] and EU [58] reports, which focus on the factors of energy consumption. Therefore, we extended the STIRPAT model, including new environmental degradation factors such as energy productivity (EP), total energy supply (ES), and total final consumption (FEC).
To investigate the theories on Turkey, we collected annual data for 1980–2021. The data sources were the OECD, World Energy Statistics, World Bank databases, and GitHub. The variables are annual total production-based emissions of carbon dioxide ( C O 2 ) , environmental and resource productivity as energy productivity (EP), GDP (growth)(g), GDP per capita in Turkish Lira (Y), the sum of imports and exports (TR), total energy supply (ES), total final consumption (FEC), and urban population (% of the total population) (URB). The description and source of the data are summarised in Table 1.
All these data are up-to-date, and the latest available data have been used. Data related to 2022 was not available in most of the databases. Therefore, our data are set from 1980 to 2021. Descriptive statistics of our series are summarized in Table 2.

4.2. Unit Root Test

In order to apply for the cointegration test, the integration of each variable must be examined. If a variable becomes stationary after differing d times, that variable is I(d) degree integrated. In our study, we use the two most popular unit root tests of the augmented Dickey–Fuller test (ADF), developed by [59,60] and Phillips and Perron (PP), developed by [61]. The results of the unit root test are presented in Table 3.
According to Table 3, all selected variables are integrated in a different order (CO2 emission, foreign direct investment, and urbanization can be considered as at I(0)), and none of the variables are stationary at I(2). Therefore, the ARDL bound test developed by [62] is considered for testing the long-run relationship of the series.
One of the most widely used dynamic unrestricted models in the literature on econometrics is the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model. Since ARDL methodology employs a general to a specific approach, it may be possible to address numerous econometric issues, including misspecification and autocorrelation, and produce an interpretable model that is most suitable.
In a long-term relationship, variances do not change over time and are constant. However, the majority of empirical studies have demonstrated that time series analysis does not satisfy the constancy of means and variances. The autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bound cointegration technique is one of the powerful techniques that help us analyze the long-run relationship of variables. Additionally, ARDL was used to estimate the cointegrated relationship based on selected variables and their respective I(0) and I(1) integration levels. Hence, most of the articles that have been written about STIRPAT and the EKC have been analyzed using ARDL’s method, for instance [63,64,65,66,67,68]. In the case of Turkey [17,33,69] used the ARDL bound model for the EKC and STIRPAT models. Looking at these articles, it can be seen that a limited range of variables has been selected to estimate STIRPAT and the EKC, especially the articles based in Turkey. Therefore, we used all the variables that were used in the relevant literature in our modelling.
In addition, there is an important issue with using traditional regressions and cointegration models. They cannot investigate different responses of variables to each other when a covariate changes over time during the follow-up period. Recently, to solve this problem, some researchers, such as [36,70,71], used dynamic conditional correlation (DCC-GARCH). Dynamic correlation models are tools for examining the relationships between a set of variables and determining if those relationships are stable over time. In this perspective, we employed two main methodologies (ARDL and DCC-GARCH) to capture the abovementioned points.

5. Results and Discussion

The ARDL bound test is a test for cointegration between variables that integrates different orders less than I(2), and the bounds test can be employed for all the cases, provided none of the series is beyond I(1). We tried many different lags for the ARDL model, and the results show that the ARDL (1,0,0,0,2,0,1) is the best-fit model.
Table 4 shows the long-run coefficient of (4) or the STIRPAT model. The ARDL (1,0,0,0,2,0,1) is the best-fit model for our model. Using CO2 emissions as a dependent variable, the coefficient of GDP per capita, EP, FEC, and URB are statistically significant, but FDI and TR are not significant. The ECt-1 term is in the acceptable range, which is −2 to 0, and F-bound is 39.60, which is the upper bound of 1% of 3.99, indicating that the variables are cointegrated and there is a long-run relationship among the variables. The coefficient of Y is positive, which indicates that economic activities are caused by C O 2 emissions and environmental degradation in Turkey. The total final energy consumption coefficient is 1.17 and positive, the largest coefficient among the factors which have caused environmental degradation. Urbanisation has a negative impact.
Residual diagnostics of the ARCH test show that the null hypothesis of homoscedasticity cannot be rejected; therefore, we do not have heteroscedasticity in the two models. The serial correlation (LM) test shows there is no problem regarding the autocorrelation problem. The CUSUM and CUSUMSQ tests are stable in the full period for both models (see Appendix A). Therefore, the estimated model is stable and has a long-run relationship between variables. In the next step, the EKC model helps us to understand the functional form of this GDP on emissions. Therefore, we rewrite our EKC model (7):
L C O 2 i t = α 0 + α 1 L Y i t + α 2 L Y i t 2 + α 3 L Y i t 3 + α 4 L F E C i t + α 5 L T R i t + α 6 g i t + α 7 L E S i t + e i t
In the model, Y i t 2 and Y i t 3 are the squared and cubic terms for real GDP per capita. For recognising the shape of the EKC, the signs of the Y i t , Y i t 2 , and Y i t 3 should be examined. Based on the revised EKC scenario [72,73], the coefficients are significant, and the result will be α 1 > 0, α 2 < 0, and α 3 > 0 . Thus, the turning point of α 1 2 α 2 means there is a linkage between the later development of the economy with lower pollution. In the N-shaped hypothesis, the significant coefficients α 1 > 0, α 2 < 0, and α 3 > 0 need to be justified. α 1 > 0, α 2 < 0, and α 3 are insignificant and the N-shaped hypothesis fails to be supported, but the conventional EKC is confirmed. In case both α 1 and α 2 are insignificant, then the validity of the EKC cannot be confirmed. The coefficient of energy consumption ( α 4 ) is expected to be α 4 > 0. The signs of α 5 and α 6 are unclear due to their mixed effects on the environment. Each of them can be either positive or negative [73].
We find a significant relationship between GDP, URB, and FDI, which is consistent with [35,36,37]. Although the direction of the coefficients of urbanization is generally positive in previous articles, we found that urbanization has a negative effect in our research, which is similar to [35]. Consistent with [33,34,35,36,37], GDP increases the values of the variable and it is different in each paper, which shows environmental degradation in the models. In our STIRPAT model, P (urban population) is negative and A (affluence) is positive, which is consistent with [46], and T (technology) (EP is used as a proxy of technology in this paper) is negative, which is consistent with [42,45].
The results of the ARDL bound test of (6) are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5 shows the long-run coefficient of the (6) EKC hypothesis. The error terms are −1.27 and they are statistically significant. According to the CUSUM and CUSUMQ tests (Appendix B), the model is stable, and the important variables, such as Y components, are statistically significant, and in the model α 1 > 0, α 2 < 0, and α 3 > 0. Therefore, the N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis is confirmed. Similarly, in the STIRPAT model, the coefficients of energy consumption and economic activities are positive and statistically significant, which means both have a significant effect on environmental degradation. Our results are consistent with previous studies, such as [28,74,75,76,77], which fund an N-shaped Kuznets curve as well.
In this section, we analyse the relationship between economic activities and the environment of Turkey’s indicators. Based on [30,35,51], resources, and availability of data, we select emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), economic growth, and environmental and resource productivity (energy productivity) in Turkey using dynamic conditional correlation multivariate GARCH (DCC-EGARCH(1,1)) [52] for the period between 1990 and 2021, which reflects investing levels of renewable energy and the impact of economic activities on emissions of carbon dioxide in Turkey. According to the theoretical framework, the testable model is taken as follows:
C O 2 t = f ( g t , E P t )
The dynamic conditional correlation multivariate GARCH (DCC_GARCH) model is defined by [78]. Conditional correlation between two random variables is shown with ρ 12 , t as follows:
ρ 12 , t = E t 1 ( r 1 , t r 2 , t ) E t 1 ( r 1 , t 2 ) E t 1 ( r 2 , t 2 )
where r 1 and r 2 show two random variables. Conditional correlation lies between −1 and +1, the same condition of a correlation coefficient. Following [55,79], we set a multivariate GARCH model allowing for time-varying correlation as follows:
A L y t = ϵ t t = 1 , , T
where y t = y 1 t , y 2 t and A(L) is a matrix in the lag operator L, ϵ t = ϵ 1 t , ϵ 2 t is the vector of innovation, which follows the conditional variance–covariance matrix, and ϵ t N 0 , H t . At last, H is defined as follows:
H t = D t × R t × D t
where R t = ρ i j t for I, and j = 1, 2 is a symmetric positive definite matrix with ρ i j = 1 , i , i is the correlation matrix containing conditional correlation coefficients, and D t = d i a g ( h 11 t . . . . h N N t ) , which contains the time-varying standard deviational from univariate GARCH models. The univariate GARCH (p, q) process is as follows:
h t 2 = ω + i = 1 q α i t i 2 + j = 1 p β i h t j 2
Table 6 presents the dynamic conditional correlation model estimation results.
Based on the results of the estimation of the DCC model in Table 3, α and β of the DCC model are non-negative, and their sum ( 0.25 + 0.67 = 0.92 ) is less than one ( α + β   < 1 ) . β in the DCC model shows the effect of the conditional correlation of the previous period on the conditional correlation of the current period, which in our case is 0.67 . A larger β indicates that conditional correlations of the current period will be close to the conditional correlations of the previous period.
Since the probability value related to the Hosking, Li, and McLeod test on the standardised residuals is greater than 0.05, there are no autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity problems in the estimated models, and the models are relevant.
Figure 1 shows the dynamic condition correlation between CO2 emissions, economic growth, and environmental and resource productivity in Turkey.
Figure 1 illustrates that by the improvement of investments in environmental and resource productivity to energy productivity, the CO2 emissions have shown a negative response. These results are consistent with the findings of [16,33,53,55,70].
As seen in Figure 1, there is a distinct dynamic conditional correlation to alter in response to a time change and a positive DCC between economic growth and CO2 emissions in the whole selected period, except for the short term in late 1997, and only one dot is negative in 2010. In the case of CO2 emissions and environmental and resource productivity, there is a full and strong negative DCC between CO2 and environmental resource productivity. There is a positive DCC between environmental and resource productivity and growth in 1997–1999, 2002–2004, and 2009–2011. In contrast, the relationship is mainly negative, showing that increased growth was affected negatively when inverting environmental and resource productivity. Nevertheless, at the end of 1997 and from 2009 to 2011, when carbon dioxide had a negative relationship with economic growth, economic growth and environmental and resource productivity had a positive relationship. We find that final energy consumption is the most important factor that has caused environmental degradation in Turkey. This result is consistent with related theories that the European Environmental Agency emphasizes. Additionally, we find that economic activities have an important role in environmental deregulation in Turkey, which is consistent with the EKC hypothesis.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the contribution of the driving forces to economic activities and CO2 emissions was tested for Turkey by employing the STIRPAT and EKC models.
In this context, we investigated the long-run relationship between CO2 emissions, economic activities and management, energy consumption components, urbanization, and sustainable development. We estimated three hypotheses and methodology using the ARDL bound test and the DCC model over the period between 1980 and 2021.
In the STIRPAT case of the analysis, there is a long-run relationship among variables of the STIRPAT model that confirmed the results of the EKC. The coefficient of income and energy consumption affected CO2 emissions positively, which means that energy consumption and the expansion of economic activity have a significant effect on environmental degradation, which is consistent with [42]. According to the EKC estimation, there is a long-run relationship between variables and energy consumption. Economic activities and management have the main effect on CO2 emissions, which leads to environmental degradation in Turkey. Additionally, in the EKC analysis, we find the N-shaped curve.
After obtaining these results, we aimed to understand clearly the impact of energy production and economic activities and the management of CO2 emissions. Therefore, we applied the DCC model. The results of the DCC model indicate that there is a distinct dynamic conditional correlation to alter in response to a time change. Additionally, we find a positive DCC between economic growth and CO2 emissions in the whole selected period, except for the short term in late 1997; it became negative in 1997 and then reached positive values again in 2010. In the case of CO2 emissions and environmental and resource productivity, there is a full and strong negative DCC between CO2 and environmental resource productivity. Hence, if the government invests in energy productivity, it can prevent environmental degradation by reducing economic activities that cause carbon dioxide emissions and manage the economy based on environmental concerns.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.O., E.U., M.K. and E.T.; methodology, M.O., E.U., M.K. and E.T.; validation, M.O., E.U., M.K. and E.T.; formal analysis, M.O., E.U., M.K. and E.T.; resources, M.O., E.U., M.K. and E.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.O., E.U., M.K. and E.T.; supervision, M.O., E.U., M.K. and E.T.; writing—final preparation, M.K. and E.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Stability Diagnostics of the STIRPAT Model

Figure A1. Graphs shows the stability results of stability test from the cumulative sum (CUSUM test) and cumulative summed squared (CUSUMSQ). The test curves perfectly between and along the lower and upper bounds at 5% significance level and stable around the mean. Source: own study.
Figure A1. Graphs shows the stability results of stability test from the cumulative sum (CUSUM test) and cumulative summed squared (CUSUMSQ). The test curves perfectly between and along the lower and upper bounds at 5% significance level and stable around the mean. Source: own study.
Resources 12 00057 g0a1

Appendix B. Stability Diagnostics of the EKC Model

Figure A2. Graphs shows the stability results of stability test from the cumulative sum (CUSUM test) and cumulative summed squared (CUSUMSQ). The test curves perfectly between and along the lower and upper bounds at 5% significance level and stable around the mean. Source: own study.
Figure A2. Graphs shows the stability results of stability test from the cumulative sum (CUSUM test) and cumulative summed squared (CUSUMSQ). The test curves perfectly between and along the lower and upper bounds at 5% significance level and stable around the mean. Source: own study.
Resources 12 00057 g0a2

References

  1. Uğurlu, E. Greenhouse Gases Emissions and Alternative Energy in the Middle East. In Climate Change and Energy Dynamics in the Middle East: Modeling and Simulation-Based Solutions; Qudrat-Ullah, H., Kayal, A.A., Eds.; Understanding Complex Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 259–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Uğurlu, E. Renewable Energy Strategies for Sustainable Development in the European Union. In Renewable Energy: International Perspectives on Sustainability; Kurochkin, D., Shabliy, E.V., Shittu, E., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Uğurlu, E. Renewale Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. In Energy Policy Advancement: Climate Change Mitigation and International Environmental Justice; Kurochkin, D., Crawford, M.J., Shabliy, E.V., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 69–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers—Global Warming of 1.5 °C. 2022. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ (accessed on 14 January 2023).
  5. Levine, N. Antiurbanization: An Implicit Development Policy in Turkey. J. Dev. Areas 1980, 14, 513–538. [Google Scholar]
  6. TURKSTAT. Adrese Dayalı Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları. 2022. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Adrese-Dayali-Nufus-Kayit-Sistemi-Sonuclari-2021-45500 (accessed on 22 November 2022).
  7. Dietz, T.; Rosa, E.A. Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Panayotou, T. Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: Turning a black box into a policy tool. Environ. Dev. Econ. 1997, 2, 465–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Apergis, N.; Payne, J.E. CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central America. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 3282–3286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schulze, P.C. I=PBAT. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 40, 149–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dietz, T.; Rosa, E.A. Rethinking the Environmental Impacts of Population, Affluence and Technology. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1994, 1, 277–300. [Google Scholar]
  12. Haseeb, M.; Hassan, S.; Azam, M. Rural–urban transformation, energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions using STRIPAT model for BRICS countries. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2017, 36, 523–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Stern, D.I. Environmental Kuznets Curve. In Encyclopedia of Energy; Cleveland, C.J., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 517–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bulut, M. Analysis of The COVID-19 Impact on Electricity Consumption and Production. Sak. Univ. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2020, 3, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pata, U.K. Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pata, U.K. The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy 2018, 160, 1115–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bölük, G.; Mert, M. The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: An ARDL approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gozgor, G.; Can, M. Export product diversification and the environmental Kuznets curve: Evidence from Turkey. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 21594–21603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Elgin, C.; Öztunalı, O. Environmental Kuznets Curve for the Informal Sector of Turkey (1950–2009). Panoeconomicus 2014, 61, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yavuz, N.Ç. CO2 Emission, Energy Consumption, and Economic Growth for Turkey: Evidence from a Cointegration Test with a Structural Break. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2014, 9, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bilgili, F.; Koçak, E.; Bulut, Ü. The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: A revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 838–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koçak, E.; Şarkgüneşi, A. The impact of foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Turkey: New evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 790–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Genç, M.C.; Ekinci, A.; Sakarya, B. The impact of output volatility on CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with Fourier stationarity test. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 3008–3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Akbostancı, E.; Türüt-Aşık, S.; Tunç, G.İ. The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy 2009, 37, 861–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Katircioğlu, S.; Katircioğlu, S. Testing the role of urban development in the conventional Environmental Kuznets Curve: Evidence from Turkey. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2018, 25, 741–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eren, B.M.; Katircioglu, S.; Gokmenoglu, K.K. The moderating role of informal economy on financial development induced ekc hypothesis in turkey. Energy Environ. 2022, 33, 1203–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Alola, A.A.; Donve, U.T. Environmental implication of coal and oil energy utilization in Turkey: Is the EKC hypothesis related to energy? Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2021, 32, 543–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Awan, A.M.; Azam, M. Evaluating the impact of GDP per capita on environmental degradation for G-20 economies: Does N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve exist? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 11103–11126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Katircioğlu, S.T.; Taşpinar, N. Testing the moderating role of financial development in an environmental Kuznets curve: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 572–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ozcan, B.; Apergis, N.; Shahbaz, M. A revisit of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey: New evidence from bootstrap rolling window causality. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 32381–32394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Özokcu, S.; Özdemir, Ö. Economic growth, energy, and environmental Kuznets curve. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ozturk, I.; Acaravci, A. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 3220–3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Destek, M.A. Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Türkiye İçin İncelenmesi: Stirpat Modelinden Bulgular. Cumhur. Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Derg. 2018, 19, 268–283. [Google Scholar]
  34. Çağlar, A.E. Türkiye’de çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin araştırılmasında çevresel patentlerin rolü: Genişletilmiş ARDL ile kanıtlar. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Fakültesi Derg. 2022, 15, 913–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Saraç, Ş.; Yağlikara, A. The Impact of Globalization and Financial Development on Environment within the Context of STIRPAT Model: The Case of Turkey. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sos. Bilim. Derg. 2019, 19, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ghazali, A.; Ali, G. Investigation of key contributors of CO2 emissions in extended STIRPAT model for newly industrialized countries: A dynamic common correlated estimator (DCCE) approach. Energy Rep. 2019, 5, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Topdağ, D.; Acar, T.; Çeli, İ.E. Estimation of the Global-Scale Ecological Footprint within the Framework of STIRPAT Models: The Quantile Regression Approach. İstanbul İktisat Derg. 2020, 70, 339–358. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lin, S.; Wang, S.; Marinova, D.; Zhao, D.; Hong, J. Impacts of urbanization and real economic development on CO2 emissions in non-high income countries: Empirical research based on the extended STIRPAT model. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 952–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ma, M.; Yan, R.; Cai, W. An extended STIRPAT model-based methodology for evaluating the driving forces affecting carbon emissions in existing public building sector: Evidence from China in 2000–2015. Nat Hazards. 2017, 89, 741–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sadorsky, P. Trade and energy consumption in the Middle East. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 739–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liddle, B. What are the carbon emissions elasticities for income and population? Bridging STIRPAT and EKC via robust heterogeneous panel estimates. Glob. Environ. Change 2015, 31, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yang, L.; Xia, H.; Zhang, X.; Yuan, S. What matters for carbon emissions in regional sectors? A China study of extended STIRPAT model. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 595–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Roy, M.; Basu, S.; Pal, P. Examining the driving forces in moving toward a low carbon society: An extended STIRPAT analysis for a fast growing vast economy. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017, 19, 2265–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, F.; Shackman, J.; Liu, X. Carbon emission flow in the power industry and provincial CO2 emissions: Evidence from cross-provincial secondary energy trading in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 159, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Martínez-Zarzoso, I.; Maruotti, A. The impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions: Evidence from developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1344–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rafiq, S.; Salim, R.; Apergis, N. Agriculture, trade openness and emissions: An empirical analysis and policy options. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2016, 60, 348–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gürlük, S.; Karaer, F. Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme ile Çevre Kirliliği İlişkisinin İncelenmesi. Tarım Ekon. Derg. 2004, 10, 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  48. Başar, S.; Temurlenk, M.S. Çevreye Uyarlanmiş Kuznets Eğrisi: Türkiye Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Derg. 2010, 21. [Google Scholar]
  49. Omay, R.E. The Relationship between Environment and Income: Regression Spline Approach. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2013, 3, 52–61. [Google Scholar]
  50. Acaravci, A.; Ozturk, I. On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 2010, 35, 5412–5420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Koyuncu, T.; Beşer, M.K.; Alola, A.A. Environmental sustainability statement of economic regimes with energy intensity and urbanization in Turkey: A threshold regression approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 42533–42546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ehrlich, P.R.; Holdren, J.P. Impact of population growth. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 1971, 26, 769–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zmami, M.; Ben-Salha, O. An empirical analysis of the determinants of CO2 emissions in GCC countries. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2020, 27, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Destek, M.A.; Ulucak, R.; Dogan, E. Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: The role of ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 29387–29396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. World Bank Group. Türkiye Country Climate and Development Report; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/37521 (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  56. IEA. Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021—Analysis. 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2 (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  57. IEA. Global Energy Review 2021 Assessing the Effects of Economic Recoveries on Global Energy Demand and CO2 Emissions in 2021; IEA: Paris, France, 2021; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  58. Eurostat. CO2 Emissions from Energy Use Up by More Than 6% in 2021. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220624-1 (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  59. Dickey, D.A.; Fuller, W.A. Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1979, 74, 427–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dickey, D.A.; Fuller, W.A. Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. Econometrica 1981, 49, 1057–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Phillips, P.C.B.; Perron, P. Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika 1988, 75, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y.; Smith, R.J. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J. Appl. Econom. 2001, 16, 289–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Voumik, L.C.; Ridwan, M. Impact of FDI, industrialization, and education on the environment in Argentina: ARDL approach. Heliyon 2023, 9, e12872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Voumik, L.C.; Rahman, M.H.; Hossain, M.S. Investigating the subsistence of Environmental Kuznets Curve in the midst of economic development, population, and energy consumption in Bangladesh: Imminent of ARDL model. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ali, W.; Abdullah, A.; Azam, M. Re-visiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Malaysia: Fresh evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 990–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sesma-Martín, D.; Puente-Ajovín, M. The Environmental Kuznets Curve at the thermoelectricity-water nexus: Empirical evidence from Spain. Water Resour. Econ. 2022, 39, 100202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Frodyma, K.; Papież, M.; Śmiech, S. Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve in the European Union countries. Energy 2022, 241, 122899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Vo, D.H.; Nhan, T.N.; Ho, C.M.; Nguyen, T.C. Does the Kuznets curve apply for financial development and environmental degradation in the Asia-Pacific region? Heliyon 2021, 7, e06708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ibrahim, S.S.; Celebi, A.; Ozdeser, H.; Sancar, N. Modelling the impact of energy consumption and environmental sanity in Turkey: A STIRPAT framework. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 120, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hao, Y.; Cho, H.C. Research on the relationship between urban public infrastructure, CO2 emission and economic growth in China. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 7361–7376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gargallo, P.; Lample, L.; Miguel, J.A.; Salvador, M. Co-Movements between Eu Ets and the Energy Markets: A Var-Dcc-Garch Approach. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Taguchi, H. The environmental Kuznets curve in Asia: The case of Sulphur and carbon emissions. Asia Pac. Dev. J. 2013, 19, 77–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhang, J. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis on CO2 Emissions: Evidence for China. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Allard, A.; Takman, J.; Uddin, G.S.; Ahmed, A. The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: An empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 5848–5861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Aljadani, A.; Toumi, H.; Toumi, S.; Hsini, M.; Jallali, B. Investigation of the N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve for COVID-19 mitigation in the KSA. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 28, 29681–29700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Shehzad, K.; Zeraibi, A.; Zaman, U. Testing the N-shaped environmental Kuznets Curve in Algeria: An imperious role of natural resources and economic globalization. Resour. Policy 2022, 77, 102700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mahmood, H.; Tanveer, M.; Furqan, M. Investigating the N-Shaped Energy-Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy. 2021, 11, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Engle, R. Dynamic Conditional Correlation: A Simple Class of Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity Models. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 2002, 20, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hamilton, J.D. Macroeconomics and ARCH; Working Paper Series; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Dynamic condition correlation between CO2 emissions, economic growth, and environmental and resource productivity. Source: own study.
Figure 1. Dynamic condition correlation between CO2 emissions, economic growth, and environmental and resource productivity. Source: own study.
Resources 12 00057 g001
Table 1. Description of the data.
Table 1. Description of the data.
VariableDefinitionUnitData Source
C O 2 Annual total production-based emissions of carbon dioxide ( C O 2 )Million tonnes(GitHub) 1
E P Environmental and resource productivity (energy productivity)%OECD
g GDP (growth)%World Bank
YGDP per capitaConstant (TRL)World Bank
TRThe sum of imports and exports% of GDPWorld Bank
FDIForeign direct investment, net inflows % of GDPWorld Bank
ESTotal energy supplyPetajoule (PJ.)World Energy Statistics
FECTotal final consumptionPetajoule (PJ.)World Energy Statistics
URBUrban population (% of the total population)(% of the total population)World Bank
Notes: 1: Our World in Data based on the Global Carbon Project (2022), https://github.com/owid/co2-data (accessed on 12 November 2022). Source: own study.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of level data.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of level data.
LCO2LEPLESLFDILFECLTRLURBLY
Mean5.573.408.20−0.067.933.254.219.52
Median5.573.408.160.157.913.294.219.51
Maximum6.063.838.721.288.433.664.339.97
Minimum5.022.857.65−1.187.432.814.089.14
Std. Dev.0.330.270.340.730.300.220.070.27
Skewness−0.09−0.240.010.070.001−0.32−0.090.26
Kurtosis1.692.001.791.691.772.421.751.69
Notes: Logarithmic values are shown using L. Source: own study.
Table 3. Unit root test results.
Table 3. Unit root test results.
ADFPP
VariablesInterceptIntercept and TrendInterceptIntercept and Trend
LCO2−2.62 (0) *−2.13 (0)−5.68 (20) ***−1.87 (8)
L CO2−6.20 (0) ***−5.47 (1) ***−6.20 (0) ***−8.48 (15) ***
CO20.56 (0)−2.61 (0)3.19 (40)−2.46 (7)
CO2−5.64 (1) ***−5.68 (1) ***−7.12 (39) ***−11.97 (39) ***
LFEC−1.04 (1)−3.89 (0) **−1.50 (35)−3.85 (2) **
L F E C −8.39 (0) ***−8.38 (0) ***−2.01 (16) ***−18.12 (23) ***
LFDI−1.97 (0)−2.71 (0)−1.84 (5)−2.66 (3)
F D I −6.14 (0) ***−6.02 (0) ***−10.5 (27) ***−10.66 (27) ***
ULRB−4.30 (9) ***−2.69 (9)−6.78 (5) ***−6.85 (4) ***
L Y P e r _ c a p 0.07 (9)−4.58 (7) ***−0.56 (7)−2.63 (0)
L Y P e r _ c a p −3.50 (8) ***−3.44 (8) **−6.98 (4) ***−6.87 (4) ***
LEP−1.82 (0)−1.46 (0)−1.78 (1)−1.35 (2)
L E P −6.25 (0) ***−4.37 (7) ***−6.29 (3) ***−7.57 (7) ***
LES−1.04 (0)−3.08 (0)−1.90 (9)−2.88 (4)
ES−6.77 (0) ***−6.85 (0) ***−7.30 (6) ***−8.56 (8) ***
LFDI−2.97 (0) **−4.02 (0) ***−3.03 (5) **−4.04 (1) ***
LY0.41 (0)−2.26 (0)1.20 (6)−2.26 (0)
L Y −6.61 (0) ***−4.09 (5) ***−6.96 (5) ***−7.61 (6) ***
L Y 2 0.59 (0)−2.02 (0)1.67 (7)−2.02 (0)
L Y 2 −6.48 (0) ***−4.10 (5) ***−6.72 (5) ***−7.77 (7) ***
L Y 3 0.78 (0)−1.79 (0)2.05 (7)−1.78 (1)
L Y 3 −6.34 (0) ***−4.09 (5) ***−6.47 (5) ***−7.61 (7) ***
Notes: ADF test lags are determined based on Schwartz Information Criterion, PP test lags are determined based on Bartlett Kernel. *, **, and *** represent 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively. The parentheses show the optimum number of lags. L shows the logarithm of the series. Source: own study.
Table 4. Long-run coefficient of the STIRPAT model.
Table 4. Long-run coefficient of the STIRPAT model.
MODEL 1 ARDL (1,0,0,0,2,0,1)
CoefficientLong-Run Coefficient Dependent Variable: Log CO2
α 0 0.26 (1.73)
LY0.23 (1.85) **
LFDI−0.009 (−0.89)
LFEC1.17 (5.57) ***
LEP−0.14 (−4.72) ***
LTR−0.017 (−0.39)
LURB−1.34 (−1.82) *
E C t 1 a−0.73 (−9.11) ***
F-bounds39.60 upper bound of 1%: 3.99
χ R E S I D , L M , S E R 2 1.44 prob: 0.25
χ R E S I D , A R C H 2 0.40 prob: 0.52
CUSUMStable in full period
CUSUMQStable in full period
Notes: a: E C t 1 = L C O 2 0.01 . L T R + 0.23 . L Y 0.009 . L F D I 1.34 . L U R B + 1.17 . L F E C 0.14 . L E P + 0.2635 . *, **, and *** represent 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively. Source: own study. Source: own study.
Table 5. Long-run coefficient of the Kuznets curve (EKC).
Table 5. Long-run coefficient of the Kuznets curve (EKC).
MODEL 1 ARDL (4,2,2,2,1,1,2,2)
CoefficientLong-Run Coefficient Dependent Variable: Log CO2
α 0 −33.95 (−2.53) **
LY117.75 (2.36) **
L Y i t 2 −11.49 (−2.18) **
L Y i t 3 0.35 (2.02) **
LTR0.01 (0.30)
LFEC0.76 (2.13) **
g−0.04 (−1.99) *
LES−0.30 (−1.1)
E C 1 a−1.27 (−4.67) ***
F-bounds3.33 upper bound of 5%: 3.21
χ R E S I D , L M _ S E R 2 F = 3.09 (prob = 0.09)
χ R E S E T , A R C H 2 F = 0.02 (prob: 0.86)
CUSUMStable
CUSUMSQStable
Notes: a: E C t 1 = L C O 2 117.75 L Y 11.49 L Y i t 2 , + 0.37 L Y i t 3 + 0.76 L F E C + 0.01 L T R 0.04 g 0.30 L E S 399.95 . *, **, and *** represent 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively. Source: own study. Source: own study.
Table 6. DCC model estimation results.
Table 6. DCC model estimation results.
ParametersCoefficient (t-Value)
DCC (1,1)alfa0.259 *** (2.81)
beta0.67 *** (5.48)
ρ 21 0.51 ** (2.40)
ρ 31 −0.55 * (−1.77)
ρ 32 0.09 (0.34)
Autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity test
ParametersQp-values Q 2 p-values
Hosing (5)53.400.1357.230.79
Hosking (10)107.10.0882.030.51
Li-McLeod (5)54.070.12659.610.097
Li-McLeod (10)108.320.08188.210.61
Notes: *, **, and *** represent 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels, respectively. Source: own study. Source: own study.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ojaghlou, M.; Ugurlu, E.; Kadłubek, M.; Thalassinos, E. Economic Activities and Management Issues for the Environment: An Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and STIRPAT Analysis in Turkey. Resources 2023, 12, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050057

AMA Style

Ojaghlou M, Ugurlu E, Kadłubek M, Thalassinos E. Economic Activities and Management Issues for the Environment: An Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and STIRPAT Analysis in Turkey. Resources. 2023; 12(5):57. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ojaghlou, Mortaza, Erginbay Ugurlu, Marta Kadłubek, and Eleftherios Thalassinos. 2023. "Economic Activities and Management Issues for the Environment: An Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and STIRPAT Analysis in Turkey" Resources 12, no. 5: 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12050057

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop