Tourism is now one of the world’s fastest-growing industries, with measurable consequences for energy demand and natural resource use, and SAARC economies are no exception. Despite this exposure, no prior study has applied a cross-sectionally robust panel framework to jointly assess tourism, energy, natural resources, and growth as determinants of environmental quality in the region, leaving policymakers without reliable evidence on the region’s key drivers of ecological pressure. This study examines how economic growth, energy consumption, tourism, and natural resource exploitation jointly affect the ecological footprint across six SAARC countries from 1995 to 2024. We apply the Driscoll-Kraay regression model, which is robust to cross-sectional dependence, and the Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality test, which accommodates heterogeneous panels, with robustness checks via Augmented Mean Group and Feasible Generalized Least Squares estimators. Four findings emerge. First, economic growth is currently worsening the ecological footprint. A quadratic extension confirms the inverted U-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve and improves model fit, with no support for the N-shaped dynamics reported elsewhere in the region; however, the estimated income turning point, and whether any SAARC economy has crossed it, is sensitive to estimator choice. Second, energy consumption is the primary driver of ecological degradation, reflecting the region’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels. Third, tourism is associated with a reduction in the ecological footprint, a result that diverges from the CO2-based literature and points to a measurement-driven discrepancy. Fourth, natural resource rents are positively associated with the ecological footprint, and rising ecological degradation itself Granger-causes greater resource extraction, rather than the reverse. SAARC governments should prioritize renewable energy transitions and cap natural resource rents to decouple growth from ecological harm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Musa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: