Understanding the drivers of energy consumption is essential for addressing global energy challenges. This study examines energy usage in Türkiye using Index Decomposition Analysis (IDA) and the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) model. The IDA, applied to sectoral energy data for the industrial, service, and agricultural sectors from 1990 to 2023, reveals that production effect increased total energy consumption by nearly 87%, while structural changes reduced it by approximately 14%, and improvements in energy intensity reduced it by about 21%. The ARDL analysis, based on annual data from 1960 to 2023, confirms a long-run relationship among energy consumption per capita (EC pc), Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP pc), (CO₂ pc), and the share of renewable energy in total energy production. The results indicate an adjustment toward the long-run equilibrium, with approximately 46% of any deviation corrected each year, reflecting both short-run and long-run relationships. We also examine the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and Energy-Environmental Kuznets Curve (EEKC) hypotheses. Our results support an inverted U-shaped EEKC between EC pc and GDP pc, and an EKC between CO₂ pc and GDP pc. To ensure robustness, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimates are reported as a benchmark specification.
SternDI. The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years. J Bioeconomics2017; 19: 7–28.
2.
MahmoodTAhmadE. The relationship of energy intensity with economic growth: evidence for European economies. Energy Strategy Rev2018; 20: 90–98.
3.
AgovinoMBartolettoSGarofaloA. Modelling the relationship between energy intensity and GDP for European countries: an historical perspective (1800–2000). Energy Econ2019; 82: 114–134.
4.
CantoreNCalìMte VeldeDW. Does energy efficiency improve technological change and economic growth in developing countries?Energy Policy2016; 92: 279–285.
5.
OrsSTekinMKBeydilliK. İklim Değişikliği ve Göç: KKTC’den Türkiye’nin Bazı Şehirlerine Yönelik Göçün Çekim Modeli Yaklaşımıyla Analizi. Ekon Yaklaşim2024; 35: 444–478.
6.
PielkeRA. What is climate change?Energy Environ2004; 15: 515–520.
7.
ZamanKAbd-el MoemenM. Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and economic development: evaluating alternative and plausible environmental hypothesis for sustainable growth. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017; 74: 1119–1130.
8.
KuznetsS. Economic growth and income inequalityThe gap between rich and poor. vol 45. Nashville, TN: American Economic Review, 1955, pp.25–37.
9.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ1995; 110: 353–377.
10.
NordinSKBSSekSK. Testing the validity of the energy-environmental Kuznets curve (EEKC) hypothesis in oil-importing versus oil-exporting countries: a heterogeneous panel data modeling analysis. AIP Conf Proc2021; 2423: 070016. AIP Publishing LLC.
11.
MakutėnienėDStaugaitisAJVaznonisB, et al.The relationship between energy consumption and economic growth in the Baltic Countries’ agriculture: a non-linear framework. Energies2023; 16: 2114.
12.
AngBW. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy:: which is the preferred method?Energy Policy2004; 32: 1131–1139.
13.
AngBW. Monitoring changes in economy-wide energy efficiency: from energy–GDP ratio to composite efficiency index. Energy Policy2006; 34: 574–582.
14.
AngJB. CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy2007; 35: 4772–4778.
15.
AngBGohT. Bridging the gap between energy-to-GDP ratio and composite energy intensity index. Energy Policy2018; 119: 105–112.
16.
GohTAngB. Integrating combined heat and power in index decomposition analysis of the power sector. Energy Effic2021; 14: 76.
17.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRJ. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econom2001; 16: 289–326.
18.
PhilipsAQ. Have your cake and eat it too? Cointegration and dynamic inference from autoregressive distributed lag models. Am J Polit Sci2018; 62: 230–244.
19.
KripfganzSSchneiderDC. Ardl: estimating autoregressive distributed lag and equilibrium correction models. Stata J2023; 23: 983–1019.
20.
Tekin MehmetKDenizO. İklim Değişikliği Kaynaklı Göç Potansiyeli: Türkiye Üzerine Çok Boyutlu Bir Alan Araştırması. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi2025; 23: 236–263.
21.
FarrellMJ. The measurement of productive efficiency.J R Stat Soc Ser Gen1957; 120: 253–281.
22.
SternDI. A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macroeconomy. Energy Econ2000; 22: 267–283.
23.
SternDI. The role of energy in economic growth. Ann N Y Acad Sci2011; 1219: 26–51.
24.
HuangB-NHwangMJYangCW. Causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP growth revisited: a dynamic panel data approach. Ecol Econ2008; 67: 41–54.
25.
DeichmannUReuterAVollmerS, et al.Relationship between energy intensity and economic growth: new evidence from a multi-country multi-sector data set. World Development2019; 124: 1–11.
26.
DíazAMarreroGAPuchLA, et al.Economic growth, energy intensity and the energy mix. Energy Econ2019; 81: 1056–1077.
27.
ZilberfarbB-ZAdamsFG. The energy-GDP relationship in developing countries: empirical evidence and stability tests. Energy Econ1981; 3: 244–248.
28.
CsereklyeiZRubio-VarasMdMSternDI. Energy and economic growth: the stylized facts. Energy J2016; 37: 223–256.
29.
GalliR. The relationship between energy intensity and income levels: forecasting long term energy demand in Asian emerging countries. The Energy J1998; 19: 85–105.
30.
LeontiefW. Structure of the world economy: Outline of a simple input-output formulation. Proceedings of the IEEE1975; 63: 345–351.
31.
SuBAngB. Multi-region input–output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: the feedback effects. Ecol Econ2011; 71: 42–53.
32.
AtamanAY. Index decomposition analysis and energy consumption of Turkey: 2000-2014. J Res Econ2022; 6: 107–134.
33.
BaiJTuCBaiJ. Measuring and decomposing Beijing’s energy performance: an energy-and exergy-based perspective. Environ Dev Sustain2024; 26: 17617–17633.
34.
SunJ. Changes in energy consumption and energy intensity: a complete decomposition model. Energy Econ1998; 20: 85–100.
35.
ZhaoXMaCHongD. Why did China’s energy intensity increase during 1998–2006: decomposition and policy analysis. Energy Policy2010; 38: 1379–1388.
36.
WeiYZhaoTWangJ, et al.Exploring the impact of transition in energy mix on the CO 2 emissions from China’s power generation sector based on IDA and SDA. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 30858–30872.
37.
WangCChenJZouJ. Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emission in China: 1957–2000. Energy2005; 30: 73–83.
38.
WuQClulowVMaslyukS. Energy consumption inequality and human developmentIn: 2010 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering 17th Annual Conference Proceedings.
39.
WangH. Decoupling measure between economic growth and energy consumption of China. Energy Procedia2011; 5: 2363–2367.
40.
AndreoniJLevinsonA. The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve. J Public Econ2001; 80: 269–286.
41.
AkbostancıETürüt-AşıkSTunçGİ. The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: is there an environmental Kuznets curve?Energy Policy2009; 37: 861–867.
42.
OzturkIAcaravciA. The causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania: evidence from ARDL bound testing approach. Appl Energy2010; 87: 1938–1943.
43.
BilgiliFKoçakEBulutÜ. The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO₂ emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2016; 54: 838–845.
44.
LindJTMehlumH. With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxf Bull Econ Stat2010; 72: 109–118.
45.
RehmanAAhmedKOzturkI. Financial development, energy consumption and CO₂ emissions: evidence from panel data for Asian countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2016; 23: 19115–19126.
46.
PaoH-TYuH-CYangY-H. Modeling the CO2 emissions, energy use, and economic growth in Russia. Energy2011; 36: 5094–5100.
47.
EngleRFGrangerCW. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society1987; 55: 182–211.
48.
JohansenS. A statistical analysis of cointegration for I (2) variables. Econometric Theory1995; 11: 25–59.
49.
DickeyDAFullerWA. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc1979; 74: 427–431.
50.
MehtaDMallikarjunM. Impact of fiscal deficit and trade openness on current account deficit in India: new evidence on twin deficits hypothesis. EconomiA2023; 24: 172–188.
51.
ShokoohiZDehbidiNKTarazkarMH. Energy intensity, economic growth and environmental quality in populous Middle East countries. Energy2022; 239: 122164.
52.
WangL. Research on the dynamic relationship between China’s renewable energy consumption and carbon emissions based on ARDL model. Resour Policy2022; 77: 102764.
53.
NaseemSMohsinMZia-UR-RehmanM, et al.The influence of energy consumption and economic growth on environmental degradation in BRICS countries: an application of the ARDL model and decoupling index. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 13042–13055.
54.
PalAAliZKhanST, et al.Unveiling the drivers of climate change: the impact of economic indicators, renewable energy consumption and human development through a panel ARDL approach. Discov Sustain2025; 6: 691.
55.
FataiKOxleyLScrimgeourFG. Modelling the causal relationship between energy consumption and GDP in New Zealand, Australia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Math Comput Simul2004; 64: 431–445.
56.
HaliciogluF. Residential electricity demand dynamics in Turkey. Energy Econ2007; 29: 199–210.
57.
KirikkaleliDGüngörHAdebayoTS. Consumption-based carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in Chile. Bus Strategy Environ2022; 31: 1123–1137.
58.
AlamMBHossainMS. Investigating the connections between China’s economic growth, use of renewable energy, and research and development concerning CO2 emissions: an ARDL bound test approach. Technol Forecast Soc Change2024; 201: 123220.
59.
SafarovJIHasanovRISafarliA. Primary aluminium production and energy intensity: long-run dynamics explored through the ARDL approach. Int J Energy Econ Policy2025; 15: 17–22.
60.
HanifMH. Dynamic ARDL simulations of Pakistan’s energy intensity: the role of non-fossil energy, innovation, and financial development. Environment, Development and Sustainablity2025; 2: 1–27.
61.
HusinARahmanNHATazilahMDAK, et al.Malaysia’s renewable energy and CO₂ emissions: ARDL–ECM evidence with policy and managerial implications. Int J Res Innov Soc Sci2025; 9: 4948–4957.
62.
FrimpongJMOteng-AbayieEF. Bounds testing approach: an examination of foreign direct investment, trade, and growth relationships. MPRA Paper, University Library of Munich, Germany. 2006 ; 352: 1–19.
63.
FedderkeJWPerkinsPLuizJM. Infrastructural investment in long-run economic growth: South Africa 1875–2001. World Dev2006; 34: 1037–1059.
64.
KatirciogluST. Revisiting the tourism-led-growth hypothesis for Turkey using the bounds test and Johansen approach for cointegration. Tour Manag2009; 30: 17–20.
65.
MurthyRS. National Mental Health Survey of India 2015–2016. Indian J Psychiatry2017; 59: 21–26.
66.
MorleyB. Causality between economic growth and immigration: an ARDL bounds testing approach. Econ Lett2006; 90: 72–76.
67.
ObstfeldMShambaughJCTaylorAM. The trilemma in history: tradeoffs among exchange rates, monetary policies, and capital mobility. Rev Econ Stat2005; 87: 423–438.
68.
OzdemirAC. Decomposition and decoupling analysis of carbon dioxide emissions in electricity generation by primary fossil fuels in Turkey. Energy2023; 273: 127264.
69.
AdebayoTSOladipupoSDRjoubH, et al.Asymmetric effect of structural change and renewable energy consumption on carbon emissions: designing an SDG framework for Turkey. Environ Dev Sustain2023; 25: 528–556.
70.
TutulmazO. Environmental Kuznets curve time series application for Turkey: why controversial results exist for similar models?Renew Sustain Energy Rev2015; 50: 73–81.
71.
MaCSternDI. China’s changing energy intensity trend: a decomposition analysis. Energy Econ2008; 30: 1037–1053.
72.
AbidI. Determinants of environmental technological innovation in Morocco: evidence from ARDL and ECM models. J Asian Sci Res2025; 15: 431–444.
73.
BildiriciMECastanhoRAKayıkçıF, et al.ICT, energy intensity, and CO2 emission nexus. Energies2022; 15: 4567.
74.
GhoshBCEyasminFAdeleyeBN. Climate change and agriculture nexus in Bangladesh: evidence from ARDL and ECM techniques. PLOS Clim2023; 2: e0000244.
75.
TillmanJohn A. The Power of the Durbin-Watson. Econometrica1975; 43: 959–974.
76.
OliverEMoreno-CruzMGillinghamKT. Microeconomics of the solar rebound under net metering. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ2024; 12: 1317–1353.
77.
StockJames HWatsonMark W. Heteroskedasticity-Robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. Econometrica2008; 76: 155–174.
78.
DerconS. Is green growth good for the poor?World Bank Res. Obs2014; 29: 163–185.
