Analyzing the nexus between tourism and CO₂ emissions: the role of renewable energy and R&D

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the relationship between tourism development, renewable energy consumption (REN), research and development (R&D) expenditure, and CO₂ emissions in 12 emerging markets and middle-income Europe spanning 1999–2020. We applied the panel autoregressive distributed lag and the Driscoll–Kraay estimator to determine the relationship between variables. According to both estimators’ results, a U-shaped relationship exists between economic growth and CO₂ emissions. This result indicates that the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis is invalid in these countries. Furthermore, REN and R&D contribute to decreasing CO₂ emissions and stimulating sustainable development. However, the impact of tourism development on CO₂ emissions is found to be negative in panel autoregressive distributed lag but positive in the Driscoll and Kraay estimator for fixed and random effects. Moreover, the Dumitrescu and Hurlin panel causality test reveals a two-way causal relationship between R&D and CO₂ emissions and a one-way causal linkage running from economic growth, the square of economic growth, and tourist arrival to CO₂ emissions. Overall, our results prove the existence of a relationship between international tourism and CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, our results suggest some policy recommendations for policymakers to reduce CO₂ emissions through REN, R&D, green economic development, and establishing an ecologically friendly tourism policy.

1 Introduction

There is great attention to environmental degradation and climate change as global problems, and combating climate change has become a crucial target for global society (Olejnik and Sobiecka, 2017; Fernandez et al., 2018; Bilgili et al., 2021). Due to economic activities, different types of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including CO₂ emissions, are released into the atmosphere (Iqbal et al., 2022). Therefore, a consensus exists that CO₂ emissions are one of the driving forces of climate change (Adebayo, 2020; Mlaskawa, 2022). In line with this issue, recent data show that global energy-related CO₂ emissions were 31.5 Gt, approximately 50% higher than the industrial revolution in 2021. In addition, CO₂ emissions caused by oil exceeded 650 Mt CO₂ in 2021 (IEA, 2021). As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2018) points out, global warming will reach 1.5°C during 2030–2052 if current global activities continue. Since the devastating impact of CO₂ emissions on climate change and environmental degradation has reached a dramatic level, many countries have strived to improve policies regarding reducing CO₂ emissions. As a result, global society has paid attention to overcoming this problem. For example, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement initiatives have been adopted to achieve environmental quality and sustainable development by reducing dependency on non-renewable energy sources that cause environmental problems (Guo et al., 2023).

In the relevant literature, environmental degradation is investigated in the context of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis, which represents that economic growth initially causes an increase in pollution and lately decreases environmental degradation. The EKC hypothesis originated in the work of Kuznets (1955). In his study, Kuznets focused on the relationship between income inequality and economic growth and provided that along with economic growth, as per capita income increases, income inequality increases in the early stages of development, but it declines after a certain threshold income level. This relationship is called the Kuznets (1955) hypothesis and indicates an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic development and income inequality. Furthermore, following the pioneer study of Grossman and Krueger (1991), the Kuznets (1955) hypothesis is adapted to the EKC hypothesis, and it is expected that as income level increases, environmental degradation increases in the early stages, but after the threshold level, environmental degradation decreases. As depicted in Figure 1, the EKC hypothesis displays an inverted U-shaped relationship between income level and environmental degradation (Shafik and Bandyopadhyay, 1992; Panayotou, 1993; Dinda, 2004; Yilanci and Pata, 2020; Onifade, 2022).

FIGURE 1

As depicted in Figure 1, the inverted U-shaped portrayal of the EKC hypothesis consists of scale, composition, and technical effects (Beyene, 2023; Uche et al., 2023). The scale effect means that in the early stage of income growth, the economy’s production capacity increases, and primary energy consumption, including fossil fuels, increases. Hence, the environment is negatively affected by the increase in the scale of production (Pata, Kartal, Erdogan, and Sarkodie, 2023). The composition effect refers to the fact that during economic growth, the economy’s structure shifts from agricultural to industrial, increasing environmental degradation. Furthermore, the pollution level decreases since the economic structure moves from industry to the service sector (Adeel-Farooq et al., 2020). Finally, the technical effect characterizes replacing traditional production methods with technology-intensive ones. So, green technologies are used in production, and economic productivity increases with technological improvement. Hence, environmental pollution decreases (Sarkodie, 2018; Adeel-Farooq et al., 2020; Pata et al., 2023a).

Therefore, after the seminal work of Grossman and Krueger (1991), a vast body of literature has emerged investigating the validity of the EKC hypothesis. Researchers have studied the nexus between income and environmental pollution in different sectors. For instance, agriculture (Mahmood et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2021; Selcuk et al., 2021; Atasel et al., 2022; Ntim-Amo et al., 2022; Selvanathan et al., 2023), industry (Mahmood et al., 2020; Jadoon et al., 2021; Luan et al., 2022; Ullah et al., 2022), and the service sector (Hashmi et al., 2020; Murshed et al., 2020; Yassin and Aralas, 2020; Karthikeyan and Murugesan, 2022; Ali et al., 2023) are considered crucial factors influencing environmental pollution. In this context, economic activities are closely linked to an environmental issue. As one of the vital sectors for economic growth, the role of the tourism sector is crucial for many countries. Tourism contributes remarkably to economies and is one of the driving forces of economic development (De Vita et al., 2015; Danish, 2018). According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (2022), travel and tourism activities’ contribution to world economic growth was US$ 5.8 trillion in 2021, accounting for 6.1% of global GDP. Furthermore, the travel and tourism sector created 333 million jobs in 2019 worldwide. However, the employment effect of the travel and tourism sector declined to 271 million, resulting in a loss of 62 million jobs in 2020 due to the COVID-19 crisis. Nevertheless, the contribution to global employment increased to 289 million, representing 9% of global employment in 2021. As experienced in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period, the tourism sector should be handled within a new model prioritizing sustainability. Therefore, sustainability policies for tourism should be developed to reflect the objectives of all stakeholders, such as public authorities, the tourism sector, non-governmental organizations, regional and local unions, and international organizations.

The tourism sector profoundly influences economic growth by creating employment, increasing foreign exchange savings, accelerating the mobility of people, stimulating financial inflow, and expanding government revenue (Bekun et al., 2022; Hussain et al., 2022). Based on this background, there is a large body of empirical studies on the relationship between tourism and economic development (Ivanov and Webster, 2007; Manzoor et al., 2019; Brida et al., 2020; Fuinhas et al., 2020; Adedoyin et al., 2021; Rasool et al., 2021). While most countries realized economic growth due to development in the tourism sector (Khan et al., 2023), it is responsible for increasing environmental degradation by causing CO₂ emissions. The tourism industry is forecasted to cause 11% of worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and it is expected to increase two-fold by the year 2050 (Peeters and Papp, 2023). There are several ways the tourism industry affects environmental quality. For example, the tourism sector requires places to use and construct hotels that can deploy natural resources. In addition, the increasing population with tourist arrivals exaggerates environmental problems (Destek and Aydın, 2022). Apart from the negative impact of tourism on environmental quality, there is also a positive effect on the environment. Development in tourism may encourage people to protect destination countries’ national heritages and legacies, increase social networks, and be aware of preserving the environment (Rahman et al., 2022a), and it also promotes infrastructure quality (Guan et al., 2022). Tourism allows for social and cultural exchange between different societies, which can lead to changes in the social network (Singgalen et al., 2023). This interaction enables local people to learn to become more environmentally conscious from tourists.

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are core factors in enhancing sustainable development and promoting responsible and sustainable tourism. In the scope of the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations for SDGs, the World Tourism Organization emphasizes the importance of tourism as “tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” (World Tourism Organization, 2023). Thus, it is evident that tourism has a substantial effect on 17 SDGs, directly or indirectly (Tian et al., 2021). Tourism and sustainable development have a complementary relationship.

Investigating the relationship between environmental degradation and the tourism sector has been crucial in studies over the last decade. This relationship is analyzed in the EKC hypothesis framework. Based on the seminal work of Grossman and Krueger (1991), the EKC hypothesis states an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation, indicating that as economic development increases, environmental degradation rises to a point. After the threshold level, it starts to decline (Alola and Ozturk, 2021; He et al., 2022a). Hence, a plethora of literature is available to check the validity of the EKC hypothesis for different countries (Dogan and Inglesi-Lotz, 2020; Pata and Caglar, 2021; Murshed and Dao, 2022; Onifade, 2022; Pata and Samour, 2022; Massagony and Budiono, 2023). Furthermore, R&D as one of the crucial determinants of environmental quality is less explored in the literature. However, R&D is closely linked with environmental quality (Han et al., 2023). Expanding R&D activities triggers technological innovation in the energy sector and improves energy efficiency. Moreover, along with R&D, improvement in technological innovation promotes REN instead of non-renewable energy (Erdogan, 2021). Hence, it is expected that R&D will positively affect environmental quality. Moreover, REN plays a crucial role in decreasing CO₂ emissions (Awan et al., 2022). It offers an alternative to non-renewable energy sources, such as fossil fuels and coal, that cause environmental degradation (Akar, 2016; Yu et al., 2022). Therefore, the transition to renewable energy can improve environmental quality by reducing CO₂ emissions (Jena et al., 2022; Shah et al., 2022). In addition to the direct links between tourism development and environmental degradation, this association still needs investigation by controlling other factors affecting CO₂ emissions. In the research line, this work aims to analyze the impact of tourism development on CO₂ emissions by controlling the influence of REN and R&D, focusing on 12 emerging markets and middle-income European countries, including Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine, using annual data covering 1999–2020. The countries were chosen for two significant reasons. First, they have shown considerable economic growth over the past few decades. In 1995, they produced over $1.6 trillion in GDP, and their GDP level has since increased by approximately $4 trillion in 2021 (World Bank, 2023). Furthermore, these countries had adopted policies to liberalize their economies and integrate with the world economy, resulting in vulnerable geopolitics and external shocks. Hence, to preserve the adverse effects of integration, they require sufficient international reserves. Therefore, tourism becomes a vital way to obtain international reserves. Second, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) classifies emerging markets and middle-income countries by region. We chose emerging markets and middle-income countries in Europe as a sample because these countries have significant international tourist arrivals from other regions. For example, these countries hosted approximately 350 million tourists in 2019, representing approximately 15% of world international tourist arrivals (World Bank, 2023). In addition, these countries have remarkable potential for tourism revenue. According to the World Bank (2023), they received over $115 billion in 2019. Furthermore, these countries have tried to implement structural reform, but tourism is still a key sector in the development process. Thus, economic growth keeps its priority, and the environment is ignored on behalf of economic growth.

Figure 2 indicates the CO₂ emissions per capita in the panel sample of our analyses. It shows us that trends in CO₂ emissions per capita follow an identical and stable pattern in most countries. However, the trends in Kazakhstan, Russia, and Poland are different, and they released more CO₂ emissions compared to other countries. Moreover, from Figure 3, it can be seen that Poland, Croatia, Hungary, Turkey, and Russia had an upward trend in tourist arrivals in the last decade, except in 2020. The rest of the countries have a stable trend. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tourism sector has been negatively affected worldwide, but it has recovered progressively to catch up to a pre-pandemic level (World Tourism Organization, 2023).

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

One of the most crucial tools to achieve sustainable development is innovation. Based on endogenous growth models, R&D activities contribute to economic growth by enhancing technological improvement and innovation (Fernandez et al., 2018). Figure 4 shows that R&D is remarkable in the panel sample countries. Remarkably, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Russia, and Bulgaria have continuously increased their paths in R&D during 2000–2020. On the contrary, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have a relatively decreasing trend. Due to the global financial crisis, R&D has fluctuated in most countries. In addition to promoting economic growth, R&D also positively affects environmental quality by fostering technological advancement in the environmentally friendly energy sector (Kihombo et al., 2021). The increase in REN is essential to reducing CO₂ emissions. The energy transition from traditional sources to renewables is important in combating environmental degradation. As shown in Figure 5, per capita energy consumption from renewables in panel sample countries has an increasing trend, except in Azerbaijan and Belarus. The highest REN belongs to Croatia, followed by Russia, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland. Furthermore, Belarus has the lowest value among these countries.

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

Relying on these aforementioned features, the key issue is whether there is a connection between tourism growth, R&D, REN, and CO₂ emissions in emerging markets and middle-income Europe. One of the characteristic features of these countries is that they are shifting from low- to middle-income status by focusing on industrial activities. However, industrialization puts pressure on the environment in these nations (Hove and Tursoy, 2019). Hence, our study adds to the empirical literature in the following ways: 1) to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that examines the relationship between tourism development and CO₂ emissions for a panel sample of 12 emerging markets and middle-income European countries; 2) we observe the role of REN and R&D on CO₂ emissions. The prior empirical studies that research the association between tourism development and environmental degradation ignore the potential role of R&D on CO₂ emissions; and 3) in addition to panel ARDL methodology, we performed the Driscoll–Kraay estimator, which is robust to autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity, and cross-sectional dependence.

The remainder of this study is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly reviews the empirical literature on the relationship between CO₂ emissions and independent variables. Section 3 offers data, model, and empirical methodology. Section 4 presents the empirical results and discussion, and Section 5 deals with the conclusion and policy recommendations.

2 Literature review

The relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation is complex. Thus, following the seminal work of Grossman and Kreuger (1991), environmental degradation has become a crucial topic, and a large body of literature has emerged that focuses on the determinants of environmental degradation by considering different indicators, samples, and methodology. Zeraibi et al. (2022) tested the EKC hypothesis using government expenditure and money supply in China from 1980 to 2018. The empirical results indicate that the EKC hypothesis does not hold and that an N-shaped relationship exists between economic growth and environmental degradation. Bandyopadhyay and Rej (2021) researched the validity of the EKC hypothesis in India with annual data for 1978–2019 by controlling the effect of FDI, nuclear energy consumption, and trade openness. The empirical results revealed an inverted N shape exists instead of an inverted U-shaped portrayal. Saqib et al. (2022) examined the validity of the EKC hypothesis for the panel sample of E−7 countries by considering the effect of human development, REN, and patents. They found that the EKC hypothesis exists in these countries. Al-Mulali et al. (2022) examined the EKC hypothesis for the panel group of 170 countries during 2010–2018 and concluded that the EKC hypothesis is valid. Pata and Kartal (2023) tested both the EKC and load capacity curve (LCC) hypotheses in South Korea by using data from 1977 to 2018 and investigating the role of renewable and nuclear energy consumption. They confirmed the validity of the EKC and LCC hypotheses. Another investigation conducted by Genç et al. (2022) studied the EKC hypothesis in Turkey over the period 1980–2015 and considered the effect of the volatility of economic growth and energy consumption. They demonstrated that the EKC hypothesis is valid, indicating an inverted U-shaped relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation. Aydin et al. (2023) analyzed the EKC hypothesis for the panel sample of G7 countries spanning 1990–2018 by considering the effects of nanotechnology and REN. The empirical outcomes pointed out that the EKC hypothesis holds only in the United States. In most studies, the validation of the EKC is confirmed for different countries/country groups (Ntim-Amo et al. (2022) for Ghana; Mahmood (2023) for Latin America; Voumik et al. (2023) for BRICS countries; Kostakis et al. (2023) for MENA countries; and Murshed et al. (2022) for South Asian countries).

In contrast, it must be noted that there is no consensus about the validity of the EKC hypothesis. For instance, Pata and Yurtkuran (2023) showed that the EKC hypothesis is valid only for Switzerland and Denmark but not for the Netherlands, Sweden, and Austria. In the case of the top 10 innovative economies, Gormus and Aydin (2020) documented that the EKC hypothesis exists only in Israel. Hossain et al. (2023) verified the N-shaped relationship for the case of CO₂ emissions but did not confirm it for the case of ecological footprint in India. Pata and Tanriover (2023) tested the EKC and LCC hypotheses for the top ten tourism destinations and concluded that both are invalid in these countries. It is seen that the EKC hypothesis is researched with different indicators. The previously summarized studies show that the validity of the EKC hypothesis differs by sample, method, and variable. Thus, first, we propose Hypothesis 1 in terms of the validity of the EKC.

3 Data, model, and empirical methodology

This study focuses on the impact of tourism development on CO₂ emissions in 12 emerging markets and middle-income European countries, including Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine, using annual data covering 1999–2020. In order to find out the relationship between tourism arrival development and CO₂ emissions, gross domestic per capita, REN, and R&D are control variables influencing CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, we included the gross domestic per capita square to check the validity of the EKC hypothesis in these countries. Table 2 identifies the data, variables, unit of measurement, and their sources.

Following the study of Rahaman et al. (2022a) to examine the relationship between tourism development and CO₂ emissions, we construct an econometric model as follows:

In Eq. 1, , denote carbon dioxide emissions per capita, gross domestic products per capita, the square of gross domestic products per capita, international tourist arrivals, per capita energy consumption from renewables, and RD, respectively.

The logarithmic function of Eq. 1 can be rewritten as follows:where ’s are slope coefficients, is a constant term, and is the error term.

3.1 Econometric methodology

This study employed different estimators and causality tests to obtain more reliable and consistent findings.

3.1.1 Cross-sectional dependence test

There are four crucial econometric steps in our study. In the first step, we check the possible cross-sectional dependency among variables. In doing so, Breusch and Pagan’s (1980) LM test, Pesaran’s (2004) scaled LM and CD tests, and Baltagi et al.’s (2012) bias-corrected scaled LM are performed as the cross-sectional dependence (CSD) tests. The results of the CSD tests determine which unit root tests should be used.

3.1.2 CIPS unit root test

After validating the CSD test, it requires a second-generation unit root. Therefore, we perform a cross-sectional augmented Im, Pesaran, and Shin (CIPS) panel unit root test proposed by Pesaran (2007). The CIPS statistics can be computed through the cross-sectional augmented Dickey–Fuller (CADF) test statistic. The CADF test statistics can be written as follows (Murshed and Dao, 2022):

The T-statistics obtained from the CADF statistics can be used in the CIPS statistics as follows:

3.1.3 Panel ARDL estimation technique

In order to estimate the long-run relationship between CO₂ emissions, GDP, GDP², TA, REN, and RD, we utilize the panel ARDL estimation technique proposed by Pesaran et al. (2001). The panel ARDL approach has some advantages. First, the panel ARDL method offers an advantage in econometric analyses in that series are not required to be integrated in the same order. However, the series in the model should be I(0), I(1), or a combination of both (Darsono et al., 2022); second order cannot be used in the model (Massagony and Budiono, 2023). Hence, it can be performed in cases of no co-integration (Simionescu et al., 2021). Second, it provides reliable and robust results in small samples and simultaneously allows short- and long-run estimation (Wang and Huang, 2022). Third, it considers the cross-sectional heterogeneity in the model (Tenaw and Beyene, 2021; Pata et al., 2023b). The ARDL format of Eq. 1 can be expressed as follows:where is the first difference operator, , , , , , and are short-run coefficients, , , , , and are long-run coefficients, and is the coefficient of the speed of adjustment (Demir, 2022).

3.1.4 Fixed- and random-effects model

In order to obtain a clear association between variables, we also employ fixed- and random-effects estimators. In order to choose between fixed- and random-effects results, the Hausman test is considered. Hence, the Hausman test is used to decide the appropriate estimator, and the hypothesis is as follows (Sheytanova, 2014):

3.1.5 Dumitrescu–Hurlin causality test

Following the long-run estimation, the Dumitrescu–Hurlin (D–H) causality test is employed to reveal the causality relationship between CO₂ emissions, GDP, GDP², TA, REN, and RD for selected panel groups. Dumitrescu and Hurlin’s (2012) test depends on Wald test statistics and can be formulated as follows (Razzaq et al., 2023):where K is the lag orders and and are slope parameters that vary between groups. One of the most important advantages of this method is that it considers CSD (Dumitrescu and Hurlin, 2012). Considering CSD provides robust and reliable results.

4 Empirical results and discussion

Before providing empirical analyses, descriptive statistics can show the general properties of the variables. All variables’ descriptive statistics are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics of variables for the period 1999–2020. The variable set comprises CO₂, GDP, GDP², TA, REN, and RD for selected panel groups. GDP² has the highest standard deviation; it is followed by tourist arrivals (TAs), REN, R&D expenditure, gross domestic product (GDP), and CO₂ emissions.

In panel data econometrics, CSD is crucial. In the era of globalization, interdependency is high across countries, and any development in one country can quickly spread to others. According to the findings from Table 4, the null hypothesis of no CSD among countries for all variables is rejected. Thus, we obtained CSD, indicating that a shock in a country affects the rest of the world. Moreover, we performed Pesaran and Yamagata’s (2008) delta (Δ) and delta (Δ)adj to test the slope homogeneity. The results show that the slope coefficients are heterogeneous. Therefore, after obtaining CSD, it is required to apply the second-generation panel unit root test, which concerns CSD. For this, we employ the CIPS unit root test, and the findings are documented in Table 5.

The CIPS unit root test results indicate that lnGDP and lnGDP² are stationary at the first level, while lnCO2, lnTA, lnREN, and lnRD are stationary at the first difference. In other words, lnGDP and lnGDP² are integrated at I(0), whereas lnCO2, lnREN, lnRD, and TO are integrated at I(1). The mixed order of integration allows employing the panel ARDL estimation technique to investigate the long-run relationship between variables. The panel ARDL technique includes two estimators: a mean group (MG) and a pooled mean group (PMG). The Hausman test results determine the choice of MG or PMG as an efficient estimator. The Hausman test results are documented in Table 6.

The Hausman test results indicate that PMG is more efficient than MG. Thus, we concentrate on the results of the PMG estimator. Therefore, the panel ARDL/PMG long-run results are offered in Table 7.

In addition to panel ARDL, the Driscoll and Kraay (1998) estimator (both for fixed and random effects) is employed to obtain further evidence in terms of the relationship between variables. The main advantage of the Driscoll–Kraay estimator is that it considers autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity, and CSD (Beylik et al., 2022; Haseeb et al., 2023). The fixed- and random-effects results based on the Driscoll–Kraay estimators are documented in Table 8.

The Hausman test results from Table 8 indicate that the null hypothesis of random effects is adequate and cannot be rejected at a 1% significance level. Hence, it represents that the random-effects results must be considered.

The panel ARDL results indicate that economic growth has a long-term negative and substantial impact on CO₂ emissions per capita. An increase of 1% in economic growth causes a 0.691% decrease in CO₂ emissions. To check the validity of the EKC hypothesis, we included GDP² in the model. The result shows a positive and significant coefficient of GDP² on CO₂ emissions per capita. It implies that the EKC hypothesis is invalid in our panel sample and that there is a U-shaped relationship between economic growth and CO₂ emissions per capita. Our result for checking the validity of the EKC hypothesis is consistent with studies of Begum et al. (2015), Balsalobre-Lorente et al. (2023), Voumik et al. (2022), Abbasi et al. (2021), Pata and Caglar (2021), and Massagony and Budiono (2023). The U-shaped relationship between economic growth and CO₂ emissions can be caused by increasing green technologies at the beginning of the production process; however, in the later stage of economic growth, non-renewable energy sources are used, and environmental degradation increases (Voumik et al., 2022). In addition, tourist arrivals negatively affect CO₂ emissions per capita in the long run. For example, an increase of 1% in tourist arrivals causes a 0.037% decrease in CO₂ emissions per capita. The negative parameter of tourist arrivals on CO₂ emissions is in line with Leitão and Lorente (2020), Pata and Balsalobre-Lorente (2022), Sharif et al. (2020), and Kongbuamai et al. (2020).

REN also negatively affects CO₂ emissions per capita in the long run, as expected. An increase of 1% in REN reduces CO₂ emissions per capita by 0.031%. The negative result of REN on CO₂ emissions per capita is in line with Mirziyoyeva and Salahodjaev (2022), Aziz et al. (2020), Salahodjaev et al. (2022), Jamil et al. (2022), and Kuldasheva and Salahodjaev (2022). REN plays an important role in sustainable development, which is crucial for combating environmental degradation. Using REN such as hydro, wind, and solar sources instead of non-renewable energy preserves environmental quality. Hence, REN becomes a key factor in a cleaner environment (Aziz et al., 2020). Likewise, R&D has a decreasing effect on CO₂ emissions per capita. An increase of 1% in R&D corresponds to a decrease of 0.143% in CO₂ emissions. Our finding supports the results of Alam et al. (2020), Wang and Zhang (2020), Mentel et al. (2022), Xu and Khan (2023), and Mamkhezri and Khezri (2023). The negative impact of R&D on CO₂ emissions is related to improving energy efficiency and energy-saving technologies, which require less energy consumption (Wang and Wang, 2019). Thus, R&D not only facilitates the installation and utilization of REN (Alam et al., 2020) but also provides technological innovation incentives to use environmentally friendly technology. Furthermore, the finding indicates that the coefficient of the error correction term (ECT) is negative and statistically significant. It proves a speed of adjustment from the short-run to the long-run equilibrium path among variables.

Furthermore, the Driscoll–Kraay estimators’ results (for fixed and random effects) regarding parameters’ signs are consistent with panel ARDL except TA. Since we have determined that random effects are appropriate for our model, the coefficients of the random effects should be interpreted. For this purpose, the random-effects model shows that an increase of 1% in GDP causes a 2.52% decrease in CO₂ emissions. However, the impact of the GDP² positively affects CO₂ emissions. An increase of 1% in the GDP² increases CO₂ emissions by 0.15%. When considered together with the signs of the lnGDP and lnGDP², it is approved that the EKC hypothesis is invalid in these countries, and a U-shaped association exists between economic growth and CO₂ emissions. Therefore, the U-shaped association between economic growth and CO₂ emissions rejects our first hypothesis that the EKC hypothesis is valid in our panel sample countries. Moreover, an increase of 1% in REN and RD reduces CO₂ emissions by 0.04% and 0.12%, respectively. Most importantly, the impact of TA is positive on CO₂ emissions. A 1% increase in international tourism arrivals causes a 0.086% increase in CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, the fixed-effects results support the random-effects results. Our result is consistent with the studies of Pata et al. (2023c), Salahodjaev et al. (2022), Sun et al. (2021), Musa et al. (2021), Fethi and Senyucel (2021), Kumail et al. (2020), Isik et al. (2020), Villanthenkodath et al. (2022), Usman et al. (2022), and Destek and Aydın (2022). Different results can cause the positive impact of international tourism on CO₂ emissions. For example, it indicates that these countries are not able to invest in eco-friendly tourism. Although the tourism receipts of these countries are remarkable, they cannot improve the tourism sector with well-developed technologies. In addition, as international tourism arrivals increase, energy consumption in hotels, restaurants, and cities also increases, thereby damaging the environment (Musa et al., 2021). Moreover, tourism infrastructure is closely linked to the environment. Modernizing transportation and roads is crucial to energy efficiency (Salahodjaev et al., 2022). Additionally, by estimating parameters, we research the causality paths between variables. The results from the Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) causality test are provided in Table 9.

It is evident that the causal linkages from Table 9 support the panel ARDL and the Driscoll and Kraay estimator’s results. It is observed that there is a one-way causality running from lnGDP, lnGDP², and lnTA to CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, a bidirectional causality relationship exists between RD and CO₂ (see Figure 6).

FIGURE 6

5 Conclusion and policy recommendations

Our study works on the impact of tourism development on CO₂ emissions by investigating the roles of REN and R&D in 12 emerging markets and middle-income European countries, including Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine, using annual data covering 1999–2020. We employ the panel ARDL and the Driscoll–Kraay estimator to determine the associations between variables. Moreover, we performed the D–H causality test to reveal potential causality linkages between variables. The findings from panel ARDL indicate that the EKC hypothesis is invalid in these countries and that there is a U-shaped relationship between economic growth and CO₂ emissions. In addition, international tourist arrivals, REN, and R&D negatively affect CO₂ emissions. Consequently, a 1% growth in TA, REN, and R&D led to a 0.037%, 0.031%, and 0.143% decrease in CO₂ emissions, respectively. Moreover, the Driscoll–Kraay estimator results confirm the panel ARDL results, except for the impact of tourism development. According to the Driscoll and Kraay estimator results, an increase of 1% in international tourist arrivals causes CO₂ emissions to reduce by 0.086%. These results indicate that international tourism has an inverse effect on environmental degradation. There can be several results in this regard. For instance, international tourist arrivals cause an increase in energy consumption. Furthermore, increasing transportation usage with international tourist arrivals contributes to CO₂ emissions. In addition, in the case of tourism, infrastructure is far from modern technological tools, causing more energy consumption and reducing energy efficiency. Finally, even if developing countries receive significant tourism revenue, they cannot use it to establish environmentally friendly technologies for the tourism sector.

In addition, REN decreases CO₂ emissions. An increase in REN mitigates the adverse effect of fossil fuels on CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, R&D expenditure increases environmental quality by decreasing CO₂ emissions. R&D is associated with renewable energy policies. R&D contributes to the installation of energy saving technologies, increasing energy efficiency, and the availability of REN sources. Moreover, the D–H panel causality test reveals a two-way causal relationship between R&D and CO₂ emissions and a one-way causal linkage running from economic growth, the square of economic growth, and tourist arrival to CO₂ emissions. Overall, our results prove the existence of a relationship between international tourism and CO₂ emissions.

The findings of our study have several significant policy implications: First, economic growth decreases CO₂ emissions. It indicates that as economic growth increases, the usage of pollutant energy sources also decreases. In other words, economic growth stimulates green energy sources. Hence, policymakers of these countries should consider improving green energy sources along with economic growth. However, economic growth has a negative impact on CO₂ emissions. The square of economic growth caused an increase in CO₂ emissions. This can be caused by increasing non-renewable energy consumption, which causes severe environmental deterioration in the later stages of economic development. These findings indicate that the scale + composition effect is bigger than the technological effect in the long term. Economic concerns are given priority over environmental quality by the people. Policymakers must urge firms to avoid using environmentally harmful energy sources like petrol, coal, and natural gas. Second, tourist arrivals cause CO₂ emissions. For this purpose, policymakers should promote the use of environmentally friendly vehicles for transportation in the tourism sector. In addition, they can offer adaptable incentives for foreign visitors regarding keeping their interest alive in a clean environment. Furthermore, tourist destinations incorporating smart city technologies can play a vital role in promoting sustainable development and protecting the environment because smart cities provide incentives and facilitate sustainable development goals. Using new and developed technologies can reduce waste and increase energy efficiency. Third, as REN negatively impacts CO₂ emissions, policymakers of these countries can adopt policies regarding the spread of REN. This can decrease the dependency on non-renewable energy consumption and increase environmental quality and sustainable development. To promote the use of REN, policymakers should incentivize companies to include it in employee benefits and subsidize the expenses of installing REN systems. Finally, R&D stimulates environmental quality. Policymakers should provide incentives for firms to develop R&D activities. For example, cheap and selective credit can be a viable option to disseminate innovation and technology facilities. Improvements in innovation and technology also facilitate the installation of REN sources. Fourth, firms play a crucial role in reducing CO₂ emissions and protecting the environment. They can accomplish some policies in terms of a sustainable environment. For example, using REN sources, adopting eco-friendly production processes, and investing in new technologies and R&D are crucial measures. It is essential to prioritize environmentally conscious business and management models. Additionally, increasing employee awareness is an important way to challenge environmental destruction. Green human resource practices may encourage employees to protect the environment.

This study has some limitations that can be investigated in future research. First, we used R&D as a proxy for technological innovation. Other technological innovation indicators, such as patent applications, can be considered together with R&D. Second, we focused on only 12 countries. Future studies can investigate the relationship between tourism and environmental degradation for a larger group of emerging and developing countries. Third, we were able to use the overall CO₂ emissions as a proxy for environmental degradation. Future studies can use tourism-induced CO₂ emissions as an indicator of environmental degradation.

References

• 1

  AbbasiK. R.KangjuanLv.RadulescuM.ShaikhP. A. (2021). Economic complexity, tourism, energy prices, and environmental degradation in the top economic complexity countries: fresh panel evidence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 68717–68731. 10.1007/s11356-021-15312-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AdebayoT. S. (2020). Revisiting the EKC hypothesis in an emerging market: an application of ARDL-based bounds and Wavelet Coherence Approaches. SN Appl. Sci.2 (12), 1945. 10.1007/s42452-020-03705-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AdedoyinF. F.NathanielS.AdeleyeN. (2021). An investigation into the anthropogenic nexus among consumption of energy, tourism, and economic growth: do economic policy uncertainties matter?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 2835–2847. 10.1007/s11356-020-10638-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  Adeel-FarooqR. M.RajiJ. O.AdeleyeB. N. (2021). Economic growth and methane emission: testing the EKC hypothesis in ASEAN economies. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J.32 (2), 277–289. 10.1108/MEQ-07-2020-0149

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AkarB. G. (2016). The determinants of renewable energy consumption: an empirical analysis for the Balkans. Eur. Sci. J.12 (11), 594–607. 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n11p594

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  Al-MulaliU.GholipourH. F.SolarinS. A. (2022). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis: does government effectiveness matter? Evidence from 170 countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain.24, 12740–12755. 10.1007/s10668-021-01962-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AlamM. S.ApergisN.ParamatiS. R.FangJ. (2021). The impacts of R&D investment and stock markets on clean‐energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD economies. Int. J. Finance Econ.26 (4), 4979–4992. 10.1002/ijfe.2049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  AlamM. S.AtifM.Chien-ChiC.SoytaşU. (2019). Does corporate R&D investment affect firm environmental performance? Evidence from G-6 countries. Energy Econ.78, 401–411. 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.11.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  AliS.HamidA. B. B. A.Ya’akubN. I. B.IqbalS. (2023). Environmental impacts of international tourism: examining the role of policy uncertainty, renewable energy, and service sector output. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 1–14. 10.1007/s11356-023-28377-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  AlolaA. A.EluwoleK. K.AlolaU. V.LasisiT. T.AvciT. (2020). Environmental quality and energy import dynamics: the tourism perspective of the coastline Mediterranean countries (CMCs). Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J.31 (3), 665–682. 10.1108/MEQ-05-2019-0101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  AlolaA. A.OzturkI. (2021). Mirroring risk to investment within the EKC hypothesis in the United States. J. Environ. Manag.293, 112890. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112890

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  AtaselO. Y.GuneysuY.PataU. K. (2022). Testing the agricultural induced EKC hypothesis: fresh empirical evidence from the top ten agricultural countries. AGRIS on-line Pap. Econ. Inf.14 (1), 19–31. 10.22004/ag.econ.320336

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  AwanA.AbbasiK. R.RejS.BandyopadhyayA.LvK. (2022). The impact of renewable energy, internet use and foreign direct investment on carbon dioxide emissions: a method of moments quantile analysis. Renew. Energy189, 454–466. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  AwosusiA. A.MataM. N.AhmedZ.CoelhoM. F.AltuntaşM.MartinsJ. M.et al (2022). How do renewable energy, economic growth and natural resources rent affect environmental sustainability in a globalized economy? Evidence from Colombia based on the gradual shift causality approach. Front. Energy Res.9, 905. 10.3389/fenrg.2021.739721

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  AydinM.KocP.SahpazK. I. (2023). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with nanotechnology, renewable energy consumption, economic growth and ecological footprint in G7 countries: panel data analyses with structural breaks. Energy Sources, Part B Econ. Plan. Policy18 (1), 2163724. 10.1080/15567249.2022.2163724

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  AzizN.MihardjoL. W.SharifA.JermsittiparsertK. (2020). The role of tourism and renewable energy in testing the environmental Kuznets curve in the BRICS countries: fresh evidence from methods of moments quantile regression. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27, 39427–39441. 10.1007/s11356-020-10011-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  Balsalobre-LorenteD.AbbasJ.HeC.PilařL.ShahS. A. R. (2023). Tourism, urbanization and natural resources rents matter for environmental sustainability: the leading role of AI and ICT on sustainable development goals in the digital era. Resour. Policy82, 103445. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103445

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  BaltagiB. H.FengQ.KaoC. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. J. Econ.170 (1), 164–177. 10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  BandyopadhyayA.RejS. (2021). Can nuclear energy fuel an environmentally sustainable economic growth? Revisiting the EKC hypothesis for India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 63065–63086. 10.1007/s11356-021-15220-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  BegumR. A.SohagK.AbdullahS. M. S.JaafarM. (2015). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.41, 594–601. 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  BekunF. V.AdedoyinF. F.EtokakpanM. U.GyamfiB. A. (2022). Exploring the tourism-CO2 emissions-real income nexus in E7 countries: accounting for the role of institutional quality. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events14 (1), 1–19. 10.1080/19407963.2021.2017725

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  Ben JebliM.Ben YoussefS.ApergisN. (2019). The dynamic linkage between renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade. Lat. Am. Econ. Rev.28 (1), 1–19. 10.1186/s40503-019-0063-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  BeyeneD. S. (2023). Going beyond the traditional EKC hypothesis: a panel quantile approach. Int. J. Environ. Stud.80 (1), 93–112. 10.1080/00207233.2022.2037327

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BeylikU.CirakliU.CetinM.EcevitE.SenolO. (2022). The relationship between health expenditure indicators and economic growth in OECD countries: a Driscoll-Kraay approach. Front. Public Health10, 1050550. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1050550

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  BilgiliF.KuşkayaS.KhanM.AwanA.TürkerO. (2021). The roles of economic growth and health expenditure on CO2 emissions in selected Asian countries: a quantile regression model approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 44949–44972. 10.1007/s11356-021-13639-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  BreuschT. S.PaganA. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev. Econ. Stud.47 (1), 239–253. 10.2307/2297111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  BridaJ. G.GómezD. M.SegarraV. (2020). On the empirical relationship between tourism and economic growth. Tour. Manag.81, 104131. 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104131

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  CengizO.MangaM. (2022). Is there any relationship between geopolitical risk and climate change?. Ekonomski vjesnik/Econviews-Review Contemp. Bus. Entrepreneursh. Econ. Issues35 (1), 99–112. 10.51680/ev.35.1.8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  CengizO.MangaM. (2021). The causal linkages between renewable energy consumption, economic growth, oil prices and CO2 emissions in selected OECD countries. J. Prod.3, 165–183. 10.51551/verimlilik.707804

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  CengizO.MangaM. (2023). Towards a political economy of renewable energy: does democracy and globalization matter for central and eastern European countries (CEECs). Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems Sustain. Dev.18 (2), 86–101. 10.35784/preko.3947

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  CevikS. (2023). Dirty dance: tourism and environment. Int. Rev. Appl. Econ.37 (1), 168–185. 10.1080/02692171.2022.2117282

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  ChenC.PinarM.StengosT. (2022). Renewable energy and CO2 emissions: new evidence with the panel threshold model. Renew. Energy194, 117–128. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.095

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  ChengC.RenX.DongK.DongX.WangZ. (2021). How does technological innovation mitigate CO2 emissions in OECD countries? Heterogeneous analysis using panel quantile regression. J. Environ. Manag.280, 111818. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111818

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  ChienF. (2022). How renewable energy and non-renewable energy affect environmental excellence in N-11 economies?. Renew. Energy196, 526–534. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.07.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  DagarV.KhanM. K.AlvaradoR.RehmanA.IrfanM.AdekoyaO. B.et al (2022). Impact of renewable energy consumption, financial development and natural resources on environmental degradation in OECD countries with dynamic panel data. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29 (12), 18202–18212. 10.1007/s11356-021-16861-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  DanishW. Z. (2018). Dynamic relationship between tourism, economic growth, and environmental quality. J. Sustain. Tour.26 (11), 1928–1943. 10.1080/09669582.2018.1526293

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  DarsonoS. N. A. C.WongW. K.NguyenT. T. H.WardaniD. T. K. (2022). The economic policy uncertainty and its effect on sustainable investment: a panel ARDL approach. J. Risk Financial Manag.15 (6), 254. 10.3390/jrfm15060254

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  De VitaG.KatirciogluS.AltinayL.FethiS.MercanM. (2015). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in a tourism development context. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.22, 16652–16663. 10.1007/s11356-015-4861-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  DemirÖ. (2022). The contribution of ICT capital investment to economic growth in digital economies: theory and evidence from OECD countries. Düzce Econ. J.3 (2), 119–134.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  DestekM. A.AydinS. (2022). An empirical note on tourism and sustainable development nexus. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29, 34515–34527. 10.1007/s11356-021-18371-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  DindaS. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol. Econ.49 (4), 431–455. 10.1016/j.ecole.con.2004.02.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  DoganE.Inglesi-LotzR. (2020). The impact of economic structure to the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis: evidence from European countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27, 12717–12724. 10.1007/s11356-020-07878-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  DriscollJ. C.KraayA. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Rev. Econ. Stat.80, 549–560. 10.1162/003465398557825

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  DumitrescuE. I.HurlinC. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ. Model.29 (4), 1450–1460. 10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  ErdoganS. (2021). Dynamic nexus between technological innovation and building sector carbon emissions in the BRICS countries. J. Environ. Manag.293, 112780. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112780

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  FernándezY. F.LópezM. F.BlancoB. O. (2018). Innovation for sustainability: the impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. J. Clean. Prod.172, 3459–3467. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  FethiS.SenyucelE. (2021). The role of tourism development on CO 2 emission reduction in an extended version of the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from top 50 tourist destination countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain.23, 1499–1524. 10.1007/s10668-020-00633-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  FuinhasJ. A.BelucioM.CastilhoD.MateusJ.CaetanoR. (2020). Tourism and economic growth nexus in Latin America and Caribbean countries: evidence from an autoregressive distributed lag panel. Acad. Turistica-Tourism Innovation J.13 (1), 21–34.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  GandaF. (2019). The impact of innovation and technology investments on carbon emissions in selected organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. J. Clean. Prod.217, 469–483. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.235

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  GaoJ.ZhangL. (2021). Exploring the dynamic linkages between tourism growth and environmental pollution: new evidence from the Mediterranean countries. Curr. Issues Tour.24 (1), 49–65. 10.1080/13683500.2019.1688767

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  GençM. C.EkinciA.SakaryaB. (2022). The impact of output volatility on CO2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with Fourier stationarity test. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29 (2), 3008–3021. 10.1007/s11356-021-15448-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  GhoshS.Balsalobre-LorenteD.DoğanB.PaianoA.TalbiB. (2022). Modelling an empirical framework of the implications of tourism and economic complexity on environmental sustainability in G7 economies. J. Clean. Prod.376, 134281. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134281

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  GodilD. I.SharifA.AliM. I.OzturkI.UsmanR. (2021). The role of financial development, R&D expenditure, globalization and institutional quality in energy consumption in India: new evidence from the QARDL approach. J. Environ. Manag.285, 112208. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112208

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  GormusS.AydinM. (2020). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using innovation: new evidence from the top 10 innovative economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27, 27904–27913. 10.1007/s11356-020-09110-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  GrossmanG. M.KruegerA. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. W3914). National Bureau of Economic Research. 10.3386/w3914

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  GuanC.RaniT.YueqiangZ.AjazT.HasekiM. I. (2022). Impact of tourism industry, globalization, and technology innovation on ecological footprints in G-10 countries. Econ. Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja35 (1), 6688–6704. 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2052337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  GuoY.ZhaoL.ZhangC. (2023). Energy resources, tourism development and growth-emission nexus in developing countries. Resour. Policy81, 103407. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103407

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  HanL. M.YouJ. Q.MengJ. N.FuY. L.WuS. L. (2023). Empirical analysis of R&D spending, transport infrastructure development and CO2 emissions in China. Front. Environ. Sci.11, 1138876. 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1138876

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  HaseebA.XiaE.SaudS.UsmanM.QuddoosM. U. (2023). Unveiling the liaison between human capital, trade openness, and environmental sustainability for BRICS economies: robust panel‐data estimation. Nat. Resour. Forum47 (2), 229–256. 10.1111/1477-8947.12277

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  HaseebM.AzamM. (2021). Dynamic nexus among tourism, corruption, democracy and environmental degradation: a panel data investigation. Environ. Dev. Sustain.23 (4), 5557–5575. 10.1007/s10668-020-00832-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  HashmiS. H.HongzhongF.FareedZ.BannyaR. (2020). Testing non-linear nexus between service sector and CO2 emissions in Pakistan. Energies13 (3), 526. 10.3390/en13030526

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  HeB.LiL.WangJ.LiJ.ZhuL. (2022a). Investigating the influence of tourism on economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from Hainan Island, China. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour.24 (3), 237–252. 10.1080/1528008X.2022.2029666

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  HeY.LiX.HuangP.WangJ. (2022b). Exploring the road toward environmental sustainability: natural resources, renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability14, 1579. 10.3390/su14031579

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  HossainM. R.RejS.AwanA.BandyopadhyayA.IslamM. S.DasN.et al (2023). Natural resource dependency and environmental sustainability under N-shaped EKC: the curious case of India. Resour. Policy80, 103150. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  HoveS.TursoyT. (2019). An investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve in emerging economies. J. Clean. Prod.236, 117628. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117628

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  HussainM. N.LiZ.SattarA.IlyasM. (2022). Dynamic linkage between tourism, corruption and CO₂ emission on economic growth in BRI Countries. Leis. Sci., 1–19. 10.1080/01490400.2022.2126909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  IsikC.AhmadM.PataU. K.OnganS.RadulescuM.AdedoyinF. F.et al (2020). An evaluation of the tourism-induced environmental Kuznets curve (T-EKC) hypothesis: evidence from G7 Countries. Sustainability12, 9150. 10.3390/su12219150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change [IPCC] (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  International Energy Agency [IEA] (2021). Global Energy Review 2021: assessing the effects of economic recoveries on global energy demand and CO2 emissions in 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  IqbalK.HassanS. T.WangY.ShahM. H.SyedM.KhurshaidK. (2022). To achieve carbon neutrality targets in Pakistan: new insights of information and communication technology and economic globalization. Front. Environ. Sci.9, 805360. 10.3389/fenvs.2021.805360

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  IsaevaA.SalahodjaevR.KhachaturovA.ToshevaS. (2022). The impact of tourism and financial development on energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission: evidence from post-communist countries. J. Knowl. Econ.13 (1), 773–786. 10.1007/s13132-021-00732-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  IvanovS.WebsterC. (2007). Measuring the impact of tourism on economic growth. Tour. Econ.13 (3), 379–388. 10.5367/000000007781497773

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  JadoonA. K.AkhtarS.SarwarA.BatoolS. A.ChatrathS. K.LiaqatS. (2021). Is economic growth and industrial growth the reason for environmental degradation in SAARC countries. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy11 (6), 418–426. 10.32479/ijeep.11769

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  JahangerA.YuY.HossainM. R.MurshedM.Balsalobre-LorenteD.KhanU. (2022). Going away or going green in NAFTA nations? Linking natural resources, energy utilization, and environmental sustainability through the lens of the EKC hypothesis. Resour. Policy79, 103091. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103091

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  JamilK.LiuD.GulR. F.HussainZ.MohsinM.QinG.et al (2022). Do remittance and renewable energy affect CO₂ emissions? An empirical evidence from selected G-20 countries. Energy & Environ.33 (5), 916–932. 10.1177/0958305X211029636

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  JayasingheM.SelvanathanE. A. (2021). Energy consumption, tourism, economic growth and CO2 emissions nexus in India. J. Asia Pac. Econ.26 (2), 361–380. 10.1080/13547860.2021.1923240

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  JenaP. K.MujtabaA.JoshiD. P. P.SatrovicE.AdeleyeB. N. (2022). Exploring the nature of EKC hypothesis in Asia’s top emitters: role of human capital, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29, 88557–88576. 10.1007/s11356-022-21551-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  KarthikeyanC.MurugesanR. (2022). A cross-country analysis of the role of service sector in the relationship between CO2 emissions and economic growth using machine learning techniques. Int. J. Sustain. Econ.14 (4), 399–410. 10.1504/IJSE.2022.125979

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  KhanA.BibiS.LiH.FubingX.JiangS.HussainS. (2023). Does the tourism and travel industry really matter to economic growth and environmental degradation in the US: a sustainable policy development approach. Front. Environ. Sci.11, 1147504. 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1147504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  KhanY. A.AhmadM. (2021). Investigating the impact of renewable energy, international trade, tourism, and foreign direct investment on carbon emission in developing as well as developed countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 31246–31255. 10.1007/s11356-021-12937-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  KhezriM.HeshmatiA.KhodaeiM. (2022). Environmental implications of economic complexity and its role in determining how renewable energies affect CO₂ emissions. Appl. Energy306, 117948. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117948

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  KihomboS.SaudS.AhmedZ.ChenS. (2021). The effects of research and development and financial development on CO2 emissions: evidence from selected WAME economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 51149–51159. 10.1007/s11356-021-14288-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  KoçakE.UlucakZ. Ş. (2019). The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO 2 emission reduction: estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.26, 14328–14338. 10.1007/s11356-019-04712-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  KongbuamaiN.BuiQ.YousafH. M. A. U.LiuY. (2020). The impact of tourism and natural resources on the ecological footprint: a case study of ASEAN countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27, 19251–19264. 10.1007/s11356-020-08582-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  KostakisI.ArmaosS.AbeliotisK.TheodoropoulouE. (2023). The investigation of EKC within CO2 emissions framework: empirical evidence from selected cross-correlated countries. Sustain. Anal. Model.3, 100015. 10.1016/j.samod.2023.100015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  KuldashevaZ.SalahodjaevR. (2022). Renewable energy and CO₂ emissions: evidence from rapidly urbanizing countries. J. Knowl. Econ., 1–6. 10.1007/s13132-022-00971-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  KumailT.AliW.SadiqF.WuD.AburummanA. (2020). Dynamic linkages between tourism, technology and CO2 emissions in Pakistan. Anatolia31 (3), 436–448. 10.1080/13032917.2020.1742169

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  KuznetsS. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. Am. Econ. Rev.45 (1), l–28.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  LeitãoN. C.LorenteD. B. (2020). The linkage between economic growth, renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, and international trade: the evidence for the European Union. Energies13 (18), 4838. 10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  LiuY.MabeeW.ZhangH. (2021). Conserving fertilizer in China's rural-agricultural development: the reversal shifts and the county-specific EKC evidence from Hubei. Clean. Environ. Syst.3, 100050. 10.1016/J.CESYS.2021.100050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  LiuZ.LanJ.ChienF.SadiqM.NawazM. A. (2022). Role of tourism development in environmental degradation: a step towards emission reduction. J. Environ. Manag.303, 114078. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  LuanS.HussainM.AliS.RahimS. (2022). China’s investment in energy industry to neutralize carbon emissions: evidence from provincial data. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29 (26), 39375–39383. 10.1007/s11356-021-18141-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  MagazzinoC.TomaP.FuscoG.ValenteD.PetrosilloI. (2022). Renewable energy consumption, environmental degradation and economic growth: the greener the richer?. Ecol. Indic.139, 108912. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108912

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  MahmoodH.AlkhateebT. T. Y.Al-QahtaniM. M. Z.AllamZ.AhmadN.FurqanM. (2019). Agriculture development and CO2 emissions nexus in Saudi Arabia. PloS one14 (12), e0225865. 10.1371/journal.pone.0225865

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  MahmoodH. (2023). Trade, FDI, and CO2 emissions nexus in Latin America: the spatial analysis in testing the pollution haven and the EKC hypotheses. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30, 14439–14454. 10.1007/s11356-022-23154-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  MahmoodM. T.ShahabS.HafeezM. (2020). Energy capacity, industrial production, and the environment: an empirical analysis from Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27 (5), 4830–4839. 10.1007/s11356-019-07161-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  MamkhezriJ.KhezriM. (2023). Assessing the spillover effects of research and development and renewable energy on CO₂ emissions: international evidence. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 1–30. 10.1007/s10668-023-03026-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  MangaM.CengizO.DestekM. A. (2023). Is export quality a viable option for sustainable development paths of Asian countries?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30, 50022–50045. 10.1007/s11356-023-25784-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  MangaM.CengizO. (2020). Globalization based approach to environmental Kuznets hypothesis: the case of Turkic republics. Süleyman Demirel Univ. Vision. J.11 (28), 738–752. 10.21076/vizyoner.674546

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  ManzoorF.WeiL.AsifM.HaqM. Z. U.RehmanH. U. (2019). The contribution of sustainable tourism to economic growth and employment in Pakistan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health16 (19), 3785. 10.3390/ijerph16193785

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  MassagonyA.BudionoB. (2022). Is the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis valid on CO₂ emissions in Indonesia?. Int. J. Environ. Stud., 1–12. 10.1080/00207233.2022.2029097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  MehmoodU.AskariM. U.SaleemM. (2022). The assessment of environmental sustainability: the role of research and development in ASEAN countries. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.18 (5), 1313–1320. 10.1002/ieam.4569

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  MentelG.TarczyńskiW.AzadiH.AbdurakmanovK.ZakirovaE.SalahodjaevR. (2022). R&D human capital, renewable energy and CO2 emissions: evidence from 26 Countries. Energies15 (23), 9205. 10.3390/en15239205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  MiaoY.RazzaqA.AdebayoT. S.AwosusiA. A. (2022). Do renewable energy consumption and financial globalisation contribute to ecological sustainability in newly industrialized countries?. Renew. Energy187, 688–697. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.073

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  MirziyoyevaZ.SalahodjaeV. R. (2022). Renewable energy and CO₂ emissions intensity in the top carbon intense countries. Renew. Energy192, 507–512. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.137

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  MlaskawaJ. (2022). Renewable energy and poverty in sustainable development of the European union. Problemy Ekorozwoju-Problems Sustain. Dev.17 (2), 110–123. 10.35784/pe.2022.2.12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  MurshedM.AliS. R.BanerjeeS. (2021). Consumption of liquefied petroleum gas and the EKC hypothesis in South Asia: evidence from cross-sectionally dependent heterogeneous panel data with structural breaks. Energy, Ecol. Environ.6 (4), 353–377. 10.1007/s40974-020-00185-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  MurshedM.DaoN. T. T. (2022). Revisiting the CO₂ emission-induced EKC hypothesis in South Asia: the role of export quality improvement. GeoJournal87 (2), 535–563. 10.1007/s10708-020-10270-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  MurshedM.HaseebM.AlamM. S. (2022). The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for carbon and ecological footprints in South Asia: the role of renewable energy. GeoJournal87, 2345–2372. 10.1007/s10708-020-10370-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  MurshedM.NurmakhanovaM.ElheddadM.AhmedR. (2020). Value addition in the services sector and its heterogeneous impacts on CO 2 emissions: revisiting the EKC hypothesis for the OPEC using panel spatial estimation techniques. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27, 38951–38973. 10.1007/s11356-020-09593-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  MusaK. S.Maijama’aR.YakubuM. (2021). The causality between urbanization, industrialization and CO2 emissions in Nigeria: evidence from Toda and Yamamoto Approach. Energy Econ. Lett.8 (1), 1–14. 10.18488/journal.82.2021.81.1.14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  NazneenS.HongX.Ud DinN.JamilB.HussainK. (2023). The moderating role of technological innovation between tourism and carbon emission: short and long-run panel analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 1–12. 10.1007/s11356-023-25892-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  NiX.WangZ.AkbarA.AliS. (2022). Natural resources volatility, renewable energy, R&D resources and environment: evidence from selected developed countries. Resour. Policy77, 102655. 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102655

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  NosheenM.IqbalJ.KhanH. U. (2021). Analyzing the linkage among CO₂ emissions, economic growth, tourism, and energy consumption in the Asian economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 16707–16719. 10.1007/s11356-020-11759-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  Ntim-AmoG.QiY.Ankrah-KwarkoE.Ankrah TwumasiM.AnsahS.Boateng KissiwaL.et al (2022). Investigating the validity of the agricultural-induced environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis for Ghana: evidence from an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach with a structural break. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J.33 (2), 494–526. 10.1108/MEQ-05-2021-0109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  OhajionuU. C.GyamfiB. A.HasekiM. I.BekunF. V. (2022). Assessing the linkage between energy consumption, financial development, tourism and environment: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 1–15. 10.1007/s11356-021-17920-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  OlejnikT. P.SobieckaE. (2017). Utilitarian technological solutions to reduce CO2 emission in the aspect of sustainable development. Problemy Ekorozwoju-Problems Sustain. Dev.12 (2), 173–179. 10.35784/pe

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  OnifadeS. T. (2022). Retrospecting on resource abundance in leading oil-producing African countries: how valid is the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in a sectoral composition framework?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29 (35), 52761–52774. 10.1007/s11356-022-19575-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  Our World in Data (2023). Our world in data. https://ourworldindata.org/.

  • Google Scholar

• 120

  PanayotouT. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

  • Google Scholar

• 121

  PataU. K.Balsalobre-LorenteD. (2022). Exploring the impact of tourism and energy consumption on the load capacity factor in Turkey: a novel dynamic ARDL approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29 (9), 13491–13503. 10.1007/s11356-021-16675-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  PataU. K.CaglarA. E. (2021). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy216, 119220. 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119220

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  PataU. K.DamM. M.KayaF. (2023a). How effective are renewable energy, tourism, trade openness, and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions? An EKC analysis for ASEAN countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30, 14821–14837. 10.1007/s11356-022-23160-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  PataU. K.DestekM. A.MangaM.CengizO. (2023b). Militarization of NATO countries sparks climate change? Investigating the moderating role of technological progress and financial development. J. Clean. Prod.409, 137241. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137241

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  PataU. K.KartalM. T.ErdoganS.SarkodieS. A. (2023c). The role of renewable and nuclear energy R&D expenditures and income on environmental quality in Germany: scrutinizing the EKC and LCC hypotheses with smooth structural changes. Appl. Energy342, 121138. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121138

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  PataU. K.KartalM. T. (2023). Impact of nuclear and renewable energy sources on environment quality: testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses for South Korea. Nucl. Eng. Technol.55 (2), 587–594. 10.1016/j.net.2022.10.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  PataU. K.SamourA. (2022). Do renewable and nuclear energy enhance environmental quality in France? A new EKC approach with the load capacity factor. Prog. Nucl. Energy149, 104249. 10.1016/j.pnucene.2022.104249

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  PataU. K.TanrioverB. (2023). Is the load capacity curve hypothesis valid for the top ten tourism destinations?. Sustainability15, 960. 10.3390/su15020960

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  PataU. K.YurtkuranS. (2023). Is the EKC hypothesis valid in the five highly globalized countries of the European Union? An empirical investigation with smooth structural shifts. Environ. Monit. Assess.195 (1), 17–33. 10.1007/s10661-022-10660-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  PeetersP.PappB. (2023) Envisioning Tourism in 2030 and Beyond. The changing shape of tourism in a decarbonising worldBristol, England: The Travel Foundation.

  • Google Scholar

• 131

  PesaranM. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. J. Appl. Econ.22, 265–312. 10.1002/jae.951

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  PesaranM. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). 10.2139/ssrn.572504

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  PesaranM. H.ShinY.SmithR. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J. Appl. Econom.16 (3), 289–326. 10.1002/jae.616

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  PesaranM. H.YamagaT. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J. Econ.142, 50–93. 10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  PetrovićP.LobanovM. M. (2020). The impact of R&D expenditures on CO2 emissions: evidence from sixteen OECD countries. J. Clean. Prod.248, 119187. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  RadmehrR.HenneberryS. R.ShayanmehrS. (2021). Renewable energy consumption, CO₂ emissions, and economic growth nexus: a simultaneity spatial modeling analysis of EU countries. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn.57, 13–27. 10.1016/J.STRUECO.2021.01.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  RahmanA. R. A.ShaariM. S.MasnanF.EsquiviasM. A. (2022a). The impacts of energy use, tourism and foreign workers on CO2 emissions in Malaysia. Sustainability14 (4), 2461. 10.3390/su14042461

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  RahmanM. H.VoumikL. C.IslamM. J.HalimM. A.EsquiviasM. A. (2022b). Economic growth, energy mix, and tourism-induced EKC hypothesis: evidence from top ten tourist destinations. Sustainability14 (24), 16328. 10.3390/su142416328

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  RaihanA.MuhtasimD. A.PavelM. I.FarukO.RahmanM. (2022). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, and tourism on carbon dioxide emissions in Argentina. Environ. Process.9 (2), 38. 10.1007/s40710-022-00590-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  RaihanA.PavelM. I.MuhtasimD. A.FarhanaS.FarukO.PaulA. (2023). The role of renewable energy use, technological innovation, and forest cover toward green development: evidence from Indonesia. Innovation Green Dev.2 (1), 100035. 10.1016/j.igd.2023.100035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  RasoolH.MaqboolS.TariqueM. (2021). The relationship between tourism and economic growth among BRICS countries: a panel cointegration analysis. Future Bus. J.7 (1), 1–11. 10.1186/s43093-020-00048-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  RazzaqA.FatimaT.MurshedM. (2023). Asymmetric effects of tourism development and green innovation on economic growth and carbon emissions in Top 10 GDP Countries. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.66 (3), 471–500. 10.1080/09640568.2021.1990029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  SalahodjaevR.SharipovK.RakhmanovN.KhabirovD. (2022). Tourism, renewable energy and CO2 emissions: evidence from Europe and Central Asia. Environ. Dev. Sustain.24 (11), 13282–13293. 10.1007/s10668-021-01993-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  SaqibN.UsmanM.RadulescuM.SinisiC. I.SecaraC. G.ToleaC. (2022). Revisiting EKC hypothesis in context of renewable energy, human development and moderating role of technological innovations in E-7 countries?. Front. Environ. Sci.10, 1077658. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077658

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  SarkodieS. A. (2018). The invisible hand and EKC hypothesis: what are the drivers of environmental degradation and pollution in Africa?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.25 (22), 21993–22022. 10.1007/s11356-018-2347-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  SatrovicE.AdedoyinF. F. (2023). The role of energy transition and international tourism in mitigating environmental degradation: evidence from SEE countries. Energies16 (2), 1002. 10.3390/en16021002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  SelcukM.GormusS.GuvenM. (2021). Do agriculture activities matter for environmental Kuznets curve in the Next Eleven countries?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28 (39), 55623–55633. 10.1007/s11356-021-14825-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  SelvanathanE. A.JayasingheM.SelvanathanS. (2021). Dynamic modelling of inter‐relationship between tourism, energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in South Asia. Int. J. Tour. Res.23 (4), 597–610. 10.1002/jtr.2429

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  SelvanathanS.JayasingheM. S.SelvanathanE. A.AbbasS. A.IftekharM. S. (2023). Energy consumption, agriculture, forestation and CO2 emission nexus: an application to OECD countries. Appl. Econ.55 (37), 4359–4376. 10.1080/00036846.2022.2128296

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  ShafikN.BandyopadhyayS. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence. Washington, D C, USA: World Bank Publications.

  • Google Scholar

• 151

  ShahM. H.De ChunH.WangY.UllahI.HassanS. T.FareedZ. (2023). Analyzing nexus between economic complexity, renewable energy, and environmental quality in Japan: a new evidence from QARDL approach. Int. J. Energy Res., 1683231. 10.1155/2023/1683231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  ShahS. A. R.Balsalobre-LorenteD.RadulescuM.ZhangQ.HussainB. (2022). Revising the tourism-induced environment Kuznets curve hypothesis in top 8 Asian economies: the role of ICT and renewable energy consumption. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol.14 (3), 1–14. 10.1108/JHTT-02-2022-0064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  ShahzadiI.YaseenM. R.KhanM. T. I.MakhdumM. S. A.AliQ. (2022). The nexus between research and development, renewable energy and environmental quality: evidence from developed and developing countries. Renew. Energy190, 1089–1099. 10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  ShangY.RazzaqA.ChupraditS.AnN. B.Abdul-SamadZ. (2022). The role of renewable energy consumption and health expenditures in improving load capacity factor in ASEAN countries: exploring new paradigm using advance panel models. Renew. Energy191, 715–722. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  SharifA.GodilD. I.XuB.SinhaA.KhanS. A. R.JermsittiparsertK. (2020). Revisiting the role of tourism and globalization in environmental degradation in China: fresh insights from the quantile ARDL approach. J. Clean. Prod.272, 122906. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122906

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  SheytanovaT. (2014). The accuracy of the Hausman test in panel data: a Monte Carlo studyMaster Thesis. Sweden: Örebro University School of Business.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  SimionescuM.PăunaC. B.NiculescuM. D. V. (2021). The relationship between economic growth and pollution in some new European Union member states: a dynamic panel ARDL approach. Energies14 (9), 2363. 10.3390/en14092363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  SinggalenY. A.LaturiuwA. K.PuspitariniT.InsaniZ. A. P. (2023). Community participation in tourism development in the village: examining from subang district, Indonesia. J. Studi Sosial. Dan. Polit.7 (1), 105–118. 10.19109/jssp.v7i1.14737

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  SinhaA.SenguptaT.AlvaradoR. (2020). Interplay between technological innovation and environmental quality: formulating the SDG policies for next 11 economies. J. Clean. Prod.242, 118549. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118549

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SukiN. M.SukiN. M.SharifA.AfshanS.JermsittiparsertK. (2022). The role of technology innovation and renewable energy in reducing environmental degradation in Malaysia: a step towards sustainable environment. Renew. Energy182, 245–253. 10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SunX.ChenggangY.KhanA.HussainJ.BanoS. (2021). The role of tourism, and natural resources in the energy-pollution-growth nexus: an analysis of belt and road initiative countries. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.64 (6), 999–1020. 10.1080/09640568.2020.1796607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  TenawD.BeyeneA. D. (2021). Environmental sustainability and economic development in sub-Saharan Africa: a modified EKC hypothesis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.143, 110897. 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110897

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  TianX. L.BélaïdF.AhmadN. (2021). Exploring the nexus between tourism development and environmental quality: role of Renewable energy consumption and Income. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn.56, 53–63. 10.1016/j.strueco.2020.10.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  UcheE.DasN.BeraP. (2023). Re-examining the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) for India via the multiple threshold NARDL procedure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30 (5), 11913–11925. 10.1007/s11356-022-22912-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  UllahS.NadeemM.AliK.AbbasQ. (2022). Fossil fuel, industrial growth and inward FDI impact on CO2 emissions in Vietnam: testing the EKC hypothesis. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J.33 (2), 222–240. 10.1108/MEQ-03-2021-0051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  UllahS.OzturkI.MajeedM. T.AhmadW. (2021). Do technological innovations have symmetric or asymmetric effects on environmental quality? Evidence from Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod.316, 128239. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128239

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  UsmanM.AnwarS.YaseenM. R.MakhdumM. S. A.KousarR.JahangerA. (2022). Unveiling the dynamic relationship between agriculture value addition, energy utilization, tourism and environmental degradation in South Asia. J. Public Aff.22 (4), e2712. 10.1002/pa.2712

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  VillanthenkodathM. A.MahalikM. K.ArafathK. M. I. Y. (2022). The role of tourism development in India's environmental degradation: evidence from ARDL and wavelet coherence approaches. Manag. Environ. Qual. An Int. J.33 (6), 1421–1438. 10.1108/MEQ-10-2021-0248

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  VoumikL. C.RahmanM.AkterS. (2022). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy, nuclear energy, and R&D for EU: fresh panel evidence. Heliyon8, 12447. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12447

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  VoumikL. C.SultanaR.DeyR. (2023). Going away or getting green in BRICS: investigating the EKC hypothesis with human capital index, nuclear energy, urbanization, and service sectors on the environment. World Dev. Sustain.2, 100060. 10.1016/j.wds.2023.100060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  WangQ.WangS. (2019). Decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions growth in the United States: the role of research and development. J. Clean. Prod.234, 702–713. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  WangQ.ZhangF. (2020). Does increasing investment in research and development promote economic growth decoupling from carbon emission growth? An empirical analysis of BRICS countries. J. Clean. Prod.252, 119853. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119853

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  WangW.RehmanM. A.FahadS. (2022). The dynamic influence of renewable energy, trade openness, and industrialization on the sustainable environment in G-7 economies. Renew. Energy198, 484–491. 10.1016/j.renene.2022.08.067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  WangY.HuangY. (2022). Impact of foreign direct investment on the carbon dioxide emissions of East Asian Countries based on a panel ARDL method. Front. Environ. Sci.10, 937837. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.937837

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  WeiL.UllahS. (2022). International tourism, digital infrastructure, and CO2 emissions: fresh evidence from panel quantile regression approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.29 (24), 36273–36280. 10.1007/s11356-021-18138-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  WeiZ.LihuaH. (2023). Effects of tourism and eco-innovation on environmental quality in selected ASEAN countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.30, 42889–42903. 10.1007/s11356-021-17541-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  World Bank (2023). World development indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/.

  • Google Scholar

• 178

  World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2023). EU Guidebook on sustainable tourism for development. https://www.unwto.org.

  • Google Scholar

• 179

  World Travel & Tourism Council (2022). Travel & tourism economic impact global trends 2022. https://wttc.org/Portals/0/Documents/Reports/2022/EIR2022-Global%20Trends.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 180

  XiangyuS.JammaziR.AlouiC.AhmadP.SharifA. (2021). On the nonlinear effects of energy consumption, economic growth, and tourism on carbon footprints in the USA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.28, 20128–20139. 10.1007/s11356-020-12242-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  XuQ.KhanS. (2023). How do R&D and renewable energy consumption lead to carbon neutrality? Evidence from G-7 Economies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health20 (5), 4604. 10.3390/ijerph20054604

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  YassinJ.AralasS. (2020). The service sector and carbon emission nexus: revisiting environmental Kuznets curve. J. Ekon. Malays.54 (2), 113–124. 10.17576/JEM-2020-5402-10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  YilanciV.PataU. K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: the role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.27 (26), 32683–32694. 10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  YuJ.TangY. M.ChauK. Y.NazarR.AliS.IqbalW. (2022). Role of solar-based renewable energy in mitigating CO2 emissions: evidence from quantile-on-quantile estimation. Renew. Energy182, 216–226. 10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  ZeraibiA.AhmedZ.ShehzadK.MurshedM.NathanielS. P.MahmoodH. (2022). Revisiting the EKC hypothesis by assessing the complementarities between fiscal, monetary, and environmental development policies in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 1–16. 10.1007/s11356-021-17288-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  ZhaJ.TanT.YuanW.YangX.ZhuY. (2020). Decomposition analysis of tourism CO₂ emissions for sustainable development: a case study of China. Sustain. Dev.28 (1), 169–186. 10.1002/sd.1980

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  ZhanZ.AliL.SarwatS.GodilD. I.DincaG.AnserM. K. (2021). A step towards environmental mitigation: do tourism, renewable energy and institutions really matter? A QARDL approach. Sci. Total Environ.778, 146209. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146209

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  ZhangS.LiuX. (2019). The roles of international tourism and renewable energy in environment: new evidence from Asian countries. Renew. Energy139, 385–394. 10.1016/J.RENENE.2019.02.046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  ZhangT.YinJ.LiZ.JinY.AliA.JiangB. (2023). A dynamic relationship between renewable energy consumption, nonrenewable energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions: evidence from Asian emerging economies. Front. Environ. Sci.10, 1092196. 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1092196

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  ZhuangY.YangS.RazzaqA.KhanZ. (2022). Environmental impact of infrastructure-led Chinese outward FDI, tourism development and technology innovation: a regional country analysis. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.66 (2), 367–399. 10.1080/09640568.2021.1989672

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar