Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Envıronmental Impact Analysis Based on the STIRPAT Model in Coal Exporting Countries

Year 2022, Issue: 73, 196 - 216, 29.07.2022
https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1113499

Abstract

The growing of evidence showing threats to the sustainability of ecosystems has led to the emergence of different measurement methods for interactions between humans and the environment. In this context, one of the widely used methods as a broad measure of environmental impacts is ecological footprint calculations. Considering that coal are the dominant factor in cumulative CO2 emissions according to fuel types, this study investigates the relationships between ecological footprint, population, affluence and technology parameters in coal exporting countries in the 1997 - 2018 period. In the empirical analysis established within the framework of the STIRPAT model, panel cointegration and causality methodologies are followed for possible relationships between variables. PMG-ARDL cointegration findings show that population density, life expectancy, unemployment rate, GDP and urban population variables in the long term; in the short term, it states that the unemployment rate variable is statistically significant with the ecological footprint. At the same time, population density and unemployment rate reduce the ecological footprint; life expectancy, GDP and urban population increase the ecological footprint. In addition, it is seen that the short-term effect of the unemployment rate on the ecological footprint is higher than the long-term effect. Dumitrescu & Hurlin causality findings explain the two-way transfer between ecological footprint and population density, life expectancy, unemployment rate, GDP and urban population, and one-way transfer from ecological footprint to population aging.

References

  • Adesina, K. S. ve Mwamba, J. W. M. (2019). Does economic freedom matter for CO2 emissions? Lessons from Africa. The Journal of Developing Areas, 53(3), 155-167.
  • Aguir Bargaoui, S., Liouane, N. ve Nouri, F. Z. (2014). Environmental impact determinants: An empirical analysis based on the STIRPAT model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 449-458.
  • Apaydın, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1): 23-42.
  • Başoğlu, A. (2018). STIRPAT modeli kapsamında Türkiye’de ekolojik ayak izinin belirleyicileri. H. F. Erdem ve A. Başoğlu (Ed.), İktisat Seçme Yazılar içinde (133-155). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
  • Bosah, C. P., Li, S., Ampofo, G. K. M. ve Liu, K. (2021). Dynamic nexus between energy consumption, economic growth, and urbanization with carbon emission: evidence from panel PMG-ARDL estimation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 61201-61212.
  • Branis, M. ve Linhartova, M. (2012). Association between unemployment, income, education level, population size and air pollution in Czech cities: Evidence for environmental inequality? A pilot national scale analysis. Health & Place, 18, 1110-1114.
  • Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-253.
  • Destek, M. A. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin Türkiye için incelenmesi: STIRPAT modelinden bulgular. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 268-283.
  • Erden Özsoy, C. ve Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve ekolojik ayak izi. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 53(619), 35-55.
  • Footprintnetwork, (2022). Erişim adresi: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=5001&type=earth
  • Gani, A. (2021). Fossil fuel energy and environmental performance in an extended STIRPAT model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 1-11.
  • Granados, J. A. T. ve Spash, C. L. (2019). Policies to reduce CO2 emissions: Fallacies and evidence from the United States and California. Environmental Science & Policy, 94, 262-266.
  • Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M. ve Ozturk, I. (2022). Dynamic association between ICT, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: Is there any difference between E-7 (developing) and G-7 (developed) countries?. Technology in Society, 68, 1-16.
  • Huo, T., Li, X., Cai, W., Zuo, J., Jian, F. ve Wei, H. (2020). Exploring the impact of urbanization on urban building carbon emissions in China: Evidence from a provincial panel data model. Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 1-11.
  • Ibrahim, S. S., Celebi, A., Ozdeser, H. ve Sancar, N. (2017). Modelling the impact of energy consumption and environmental sanity in Turkey: A STIRPAT framework. Procedia Computer Science, 120, 229-236.
  • Issaoui, F., Toumi, H. ve Touili, W. (2015). Effects of CO2 emissions on economic growth, urbanization and welfare: Application to MENA countries. MPRA Paper No. 65683, 1-25.
  • Jia, J., Deng, H., Duan, J. ve Zhao, J. (2009). Analysis of the major drivers of the ecological footprint using the STIRPAT model and the PLS method - A case study in Henan Province, China. Ecological Economics, 68, 2818-2824.
  • Li, X., Xiao, L., Tian, C., Zhu, B. ve Chevallier, J. (2022). Impacts of the ecological footprint on sustainable development: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352, 1-11.
  • Lin, S., Zhao, D. ve Marinova, D. (2009). Analysis of the environmental impact of China based on STIRPAT model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 341-347.
  • Liu, D. ve Xiao, B. (2018). Can China achieve its carbon emission peaking? A scenario analysis based on STIRPAT and system Dynamics model. Ecological Indicators, 93, 647-657.
  • Liu, X. ve Bae, J. (2018). Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 178-186.
  • Mahalik, M. K., Le, T.-H., Le, H.-C. ve Mallick, H. (2022). How do sources of carbon dioxide emissions affect life expectancy? Insights from 68 developing and emerging economies. World Development Sustainability, 1, 1-10.
  • Matthew, O. A., Owolabi, O. A., Osabohien, R., Urhie, E., Ogunbiyi, T., Olawande, T. I. ve Daramola, P. J. (2020). Carbon emissions, agricultural output and life expectancy in West Africa. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(3), 489-496.
  • Mızık, E. T. ve Yiğit Avdan, Z. (2020). Sürdürülebilirliğin temel taşı: Ekolojik ayak izi. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Doğal Afetler Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 6(2): 451-467.
  • Özman, K. O. (2022). Ekolojik ayak izi nedir? Erişim adresi: https://www.dogadergisi.com/ekolojik-ayak-izi-nedir/
  • Salman, M., Zha, D. ve Wang, G. (2022). Interplay between urbanization and ecological footprints: Differential roles of indigenous and foreign innovations in ASEAN-4. Environmental Science and Policy, 127, 161-180.
  • Sarafidis, V., Yamagata, T. ve Robertson, D. (2009). A test of cross section dependence for a linear dynamic panel model with regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 148, 149-161.
  • Şimşek, T. ve Bursal, M. (2019). Türkiye’de ekolojik ayak izi ve biyokapasite arasındaki ilişki: Bootstrap rolling window nedensellik testi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 452-465.
  • Topdağ, D., Acar, T. ve Çelik, İ. E. (2020). Estimation of the global-scale ecological footprint within the framework of STIRPAT models: The quantile regression approach. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 70(2), 339-358.
  • Tosunoğlu, B. T. (2014). Sürdürülebilir küresel re¬fah göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 154-171.
  • 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, 1-10.
  • Usman, A., Ozturk, I., Naqvi, S. M. M. A., Ullah, S. ve Javed, M. I. (2022). Revealing the nexus between nuclear energy and ecological footprint in STIRPAT model of advanced economies: Fresh evidence from novel CS-ARDL model. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 148, 1-10.
  • Wang, Q. ve Li, L. (2021). The effects of population aging, life expectancy, unemployment rate, population density, per capita GDP, urbanization on per capita carbon emissions. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 760-774.
  • Wang, Q., Zhang, F., Li, R. ve Li L. (2022). The impact of renewable energy on decoupling economic growth from ecological footprint - An empirical analysis of 166 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 354, 1-16.
  • Wu, R., Wang, J., Wang, S. ve Feng, K. (2021). The drivers of declining CO2 emissions trends in developed nations using an extended STIRPAT model: A historical and prospective analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 149, 1-11.
  • Xu, B. ve Lin, B. (2015). How industrialization and urbanization process impacts on CO2 emissions in China: Evidence from nonparametric additive regression models. Energy Economics, 48, 188-202.
  • Yang, T. ve Wang, Q. (2020). The nonlinear effect of population aging on carbon emission-Empirical analysis of ten selected provinces in China. Science of the Total Environment, 740, 1-12.
  • York, R., Rosa E. A. ve Dietz, T. (2003a). Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 279-300.
  • York, R., Rosa, E. A. ve Dietz, T. (2003b). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351-365.
  • Yurtkuran, S. (2020). N11 Ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi yakınsaması: Fourier durağanlık testinden yeni kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191-210.
  • Zagheni, E. (2011). The leverage of demographic dynamics on carbon dioxide emissions: Does age structure matter? Demography, 48(1), 371-399.
  • Zhang, C. ve Tan, Z. (2016). The relationships between population factors and China’s carbon emissions: Does population aging matter? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 1018-1025.
  • Zhou, Y. ve Liu, Y. (2016). Does population have a larger impact on carbon dioxide emissions than income? Evidence from a cross-regional panel analysis in China. Applied Energy, 180, 800-809.

Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi

Year 2022, Issue: 73, 196 - 216, 29.07.2022
https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1113499

Abstract

Ekosistemlerin sürdürülebilirliğine yönelik tehditleri gösteren artan sayıda kanıtlar, insan ve çevre arasındaki etkileşimlere ilişkin farklı ölçüm yöntemlerinin ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Bu bağlamda çevresel etkilerin geniş bir ölçümü olarak yaygın şekilde kullanılan yöntemlerden birisi de ekolojik ayak izi hesaplamalarıdır. Kümülatif CO2 emisyon salınımlarının yakıt türlerine göre başat faktörünün kömür olduğu dikkate alındığında bu çalışma, 1997 - 2018 dönem aralığında kömür ihraç eden ülkelerde ekolojik ayak izi, nüfus, refah ve teknoloji parametreleri arasındaki bağlantıları araştırmaktadır. STIRPAT modeli çerçevesinde kurulan ampirik analizde, değişkenler arasındaki olası ilişkiler için panel eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik metodolojileri takip edilmektedir. PMG-ARDL eşbütünleşme bulguları, uzun vadede nüfus yoğunluğu, yaşam beklentisi, işsizlik oranı, GSYH ve kentsel nüfus değişkenlerinin; kısa vadede ise işsizlik oranı değişkeninin ekolojik ayak izi ile istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğunu belirtmektedir. Bununla birlikte nüfus yoğunluğu ve işsizlik oranı, ekolojik ayak izini azaltırken; yaşam beklentisi, GSYH ve kentsel nüfus ise ekolojik ayak izini artırmaktadır. Ayrıca işsizlik oranının ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki kısa vadeli etkisinin, uzun vadeli etkisinden yüksek olduğu görülmektedir. Dumitrescu & Hurlin nedensellik bulguları ise ekolojik ayak izi ile nüfus yoğunluğu, yaşam beklentisi, işsizlik oranı, GSYH ve kentsel nüfus arasındaki iki yönlü aktarımı, ekolojik ayak izinden nüfus yaşlanmasına doğru ise tek yönlü aktarımı açıklamaktadır.

References

  • Adesina, K. S. ve Mwamba, J. W. M. (2019). Does economic freedom matter for CO2 emissions? Lessons from Africa. The Journal of Developing Areas, 53(3), 155-167.
  • Aguir Bargaoui, S., Liouane, N. ve Nouri, F. Z. (2014). Environmental impact determinants: An empirical analysis based on the STIRPAT model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 449-458.
  • Apaydın, Ş. (2020). Küreselleşmenin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkileri: Türkiye örneği. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1): 23-42.
  • Başoğlu, A. (2018). STIRPAT modeli kapsamında Türkiye’de ekolojik ayak izinin belirleyicileri. H. F. Erdem ve A. Başoğlu (Ed.), İktisat Seçme Yazılar içinde (133-155). Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
  • Bosah, C. P., Li, S., Ampofo, G. K. M. ve Liu, K. (2021). Dynamic nexus between energy consumption, economic growth, and urbanization with carbon emission: evidence from panel PMG-ARDL estimation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 61201-61212.
  • Branis, M. ve Linhartova, M. (2012). Association between unemployment, income, education level, population size and air pollution in Czech cities: Evidence for environmental inequality? A pilot national scale analysis. Health & Place, 18, 1110-1114.
  • Breusch, T. S. ve Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier test and its application to model specifications in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-253.
  • Destek, M. A. (2018). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin Türkiye için incelenmesi: STIRPAT modelinden bulgular. C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 19(2), 268-283.
  • Erden Özsoy, C. ve Dinç, A. (2016). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma ve ekolojik ayak izi. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 53(619), 35-55.
  • Footprintnetwork, (2022). Erişim adresi: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=5001&type=earth
  • Gani, A. (2021). Fossil fuel energy and environmental performance in an extended STIRPAT model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 1-11.
  • Granados, J. A. T. ve Spash, C. L. (2019). Policies to reduce CO2 emissions: Fallacies and evidence from the United States and California. Environmental Science & Policy, 94, 262-266.
  • Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M. ve Ozturk, I. (2022). Dynamic association between ICT, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: Is there any difference between E-7 (developing) and G-7 (developed) countries?. Technology in Society, 68, 1-16.
  • Huo, T., Li, X., Cai, W., Zuo, J., Jian, F. ve Wei, H. (2020). Exploring the impact of urbanization on urban building carbon emissions in China: Evidence from a provincial panel data model. Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 1-11.
  • Ibrahim, S. S., Celebi, A., Ozdeser, H. ve Sancar, N. (2017). Modelling the impact of energy consumption and environmental sanity in Turkey: A STIRPAT framework. Procedia Computer Science, 120, 229-236.
  • Issaoui, F., Toumi, H. ve Touili, W. (2015). Effects of CO2 emissions on economic growth, urbanization and welfare: Application to MENA countries. MPRA Paper No. 65683, 1-25.
  • Jia, J., Deng, H., Duan, J. ve Zhao, J. (2009). Analysis of the major drivers of the ecological footprint using the STIRPAT model and the PLS method - A case study in Henan Province, China. Ecological Economics, 68, 2818-2824.
  • Li, X., Xiao, L., Tian, C., Zhu, B. ve Chevallier, J. (2022). Impacts of the ecological footprint on sustainable development: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 352, 1-11.
  • Lin, S., Zhao, D. ve Marinova, D. (2009). Analysis of the environmental impact of China based on STIRPAT model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 341-347.
  • Liu, D. ve Xiao, B. (2018). Can China achieve its carbon emission peaking? A scenario analysis based on STIRPAT and system Dynamics model. Ecological Indicators, 93, 647-657.
  • Liu, X. ve Bae, J. (2018). Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 178-186.
  • Mahalik, M. K., Le, T.-H., Le, H.-C. ve Mallick, H. (2022). How do sources of carbon dioxide emissions affect life expectancy? Insights from 68 developing and emerging economies. World Development Sustainability, 1, 1-10.
  • Matthew, O. A., Owolabi, O. A., Osabohien, R., Urhie, E., Ogunbiyi, T., Olawande, T. I. ve Daramola, P. J. (2020). Carbon emissions, agricultural output and life expectancy in West Africa. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(3), 489-496.
  • Mızık, E. T. ve Yiğit Avdan, Z. (2020). Sürdürülebilirliğin temel taşı: Ekolojik ayak izi. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Doğal Afetler Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Doğal Afetler ve Çevre Dergisi, 6(2): 451-467.
  • Özman, K. O. (2022). Ekolojik ayak izi nedir? Erişim adresi: https://www.dogadergisi.com/ekolojik-ayak-izi-nedir/
  • Salman, M., Zha, D. ve Wang, G. (2022). Interplay between urbanization and ecological footprints: Differential roles of indigenous and foreign innovations in ASEAN-4. Environmental Science and Policy, 127, 161-180.
  • Sarafidis, V., Yamagata, T. ve Robertson, D. (2009). A test of cross section dependence for a linear dynamic panel model with regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 148, 149-161.
  • Şimşek, T. ve Bursal, M. (2019). Türkiye’de ekolojik ayak izi ve biyokapasite arasındaki ilişki: Bootstrap rolling window nedensellik testi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 452-465.
  • Topdağ, D., Acar, T. ve Çelik, İ. E. (2020). Estimation of the global-scale ecological footprint within the framework of STIRPAT models: The quantile regression approach. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 70(2), 339-358.
  • Tosunoğlu, B. T. (2014). Sürdürülebilir küresel re¬fah göstergesi olarak ekolojik ayak izi. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 3(5), 154-171.
  • 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, 1-10.
  • Usman, A., Ozturk, I., Naqvi, S. M. M. A., Ullah, S. ve Javed, M. I. (2022). Revealing the nexus between nuclear energy and ecological footprint in STIRPAT model of advanced economies: Fresh evidence from novel CS-ARDL model. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 148, 1-10.
  • Wang, Q. ve Li, L. (2021). The effects of population aging, life expectancy, unemployment rate, population density, per capita GDP, urbanization on per capita carbon emissions. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 760-774.
  • Wang, Q., Zhang, F., Li, R. ve Li L. (2022). The impact of renewable energy on decoupling economic growth from ecological footprint - An empirical analysis of 166 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 354, 1-16.
  • Wu, R., Wang, J., Wang, S. ve Feng, K. (2021). The drivers of declining CO2 emissions trends in developed nations using an extended STIRPAT model: A historical and prospective analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 149, 1-11.
  • Xu, B. ve Lin, B. (2015). How industrialization and urbanization process impacts on CO2 emissions in China: Evidence from nonparametric additive regression models. Energy Economics, 48, 188-202.
  • Yang, T. ve Wang, Q. (2020). The nonlinear effect of population aging on carbon emission-Empirical analysis of ten selected provinces in China. Science of the Total Environment, 740, 1-12.
  • York, R., Rosa E. A. ve Dietz, T. (2003a). Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 279-300.
  • York, R., Rosa, E. A. ve Dietz, T. (2003b). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3), 351-365.
  • Yurtkuran, S. (2020). N11 Ülkelerinde ekolojik ayak izi yakınsaması: Fourier durağanlık testinden yeni kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(2), 191-210.
  • Zagheni, E. (2011). The leverage of demographic dynamics on carbon dioxide emissions: Does age structure matter? Demography, 48(1), 371-399.
  • Zhang, C. ve Tan, Z. (2016). The relationships between population factors and China’s carbon emissions: Does population aging matter? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 1018-1025.
  • Zhou, Y. ve Liu, Y. (2016). Does population have a larger impact on carbon dioxide emissions than income? Evidence from a cross-regional panel analysis in China. Applied Energy, 180, 800-809.
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLES
Authors

Güller Şahin 0000-0002-5987-359X

Publication Date July 29, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Issue: 73

Cite

APA Şahin, G. (2022). Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(73), 196-216. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1113499
AMA Şahin G. Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. July 2022;(73):196-216. doi:10.51290/dpusbe.1113499
Chicago Şahin, Güller. “Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 73 (July 2022): 196-216. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1113499.
EndNote Şahin G (July 1, 2022) Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 73 196–216.
IEEE G. Şahin, “Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 73, pp. 196–216, July 2022, doi: 10.51290/dpusbe.1113499.
ISNAD Şahin, Güller. “Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 73 (July 2022), 196-216. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1113499.
JAMA Şahin G. Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2022;:196–216.
MLA Şahin, Güller. “Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 73, 2022, pp. 196-1, doi:10.51290/dpusbe.1113499.
Vancouver Şahin G. Kömür İhraç Eden Ülkelerde STIRPAT Modeline Dayalı Çevresel Etki Analizi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2022(73):196-21.

Dergimiz EBSCOhost, ULAKBİM/Sosyal Bilimler Veri Tabanında, SOBİAD ve Türk Eğitim İndeksi'nde yer alan uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir.