Dynamic relationships among environmental quality, economic growth, and trade: A panel VAR analysis of Asia-Pacific economies
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.17(3).2026.07
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2026, Issue #3, pp. 104–124
- 5 Views
-
2 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
Abstract
This study examines the dynamic relationships among environmental quality, economic growth, and trade across a sample of Asia-Pacific economies during the period 2000–2024. While previous studies have extensively investigated the links between economic growth, trade, and environmental degradation, relatively limited attention has been devoted to examining these variables simultaneously within a dynamic multivariate framework. To address this gap, the study employs a Vector Autoregression (VAR) approach to analyze the interdependencies among economic and environmental indicators. Environmental quality is represented by CO2 emissions, land-use change, biocapacity, and ecological footprint, while economic activity and trade are measured using GDP and trade indicators. The empirical results reveal significant dynamic relationships among economic growth, trade, and environmental variables. The estimated coefficients indicate substantial persistence across several economic and environmental indicators, suggesting important temporal dependencies within the system. The impulse response analysis further shows that shocks originating from environmental variables generate measurable responses in economic indicators, while economic disturbances are also associated with subsequent changes in environmental conditions. In addition, the stability analysis indicates that the estimated VAR system satisfies the stability condition over the sample period. The findings suggest that economic growth, trade activity, and environmental quality evolve within an interconnected dynamic framework. These results contribute to the literature on environmental–economic interactions and highlight the importance of incorporating environmental considerations into broader economic and trade policy discussions aimed at supporting long-term sustainable development.
Acknowledgment
The funding for this research was provided by Universitas Hasanuddin. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the university for their generous support, which made this study possible.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)Q56, C33, Q53, F18
-
References51
-
Tables9
-
Figures6
-
- Figure 1. Response of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
- Figure 2. Response of trade (TR)
- Figure 3. Response of CO2 emissions (CO2)
- Figure 4. Response of land use change (LUCE)
- Figure 5. Response of biocapacity (BIO)
- Figure 6. Response of ecological footprint (ECF)
-
- Table 1. Variables used
- Table 2. Descriptive statistics
- Table 3. Correlation matrix
- Table 4. CIPS panel unit-root tests
- Table 5. VAR stability test
- Table 6. Vector autoregression estimates
- Table 7. VAR granger causality test results
- Table 8. Selected IRF values
- Table A1. List of sample countries
-
- Acheampong, A. O., & Opoku, E. E. O. (2023). Environmental degradation and economic growth: Investigating linkages and potential pathways. Energy Economics, 123, Article 106734.
- Aftab, S., Ahmed, A., Chandio, A. A., Korankye, B. A., Ali, A., & Fang, W. (2021). Modeling the nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption, and economic progress in Pakistan: Evidence from cointegration and causality analysis. Energy Reports, 7(1), 4642-4658.
- An, Q. (2024). Empirical analysis of trade costs and their impact on carbon emissions in RCEP countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 365, Article 121666.
- Balcilar, M., Roubaud, D., Usman, O., & Wohar, M. E. (2022). Testing the asymmetric effects of exchange rate pass-through in BRICS countries: Does the state of the economy matter? The World Economy, 44(1), 188-233.
- Barati, A. A., Zhoolideh, M., Azadi, H., Lee, J.-H., & Scheffran, J. (2023). Interactions of land-use cover and climate change at global level: How to mitigate the environmental risks and warming effects. Ecological Indicators, 146, Article 109829.
- Barbier, E. B. (2022). The policy challenges of green rural transformation for Asia-Pacific emerging and developing economies in a post-COVID world. Economics Analysis and Policy, 75(1), 689-704.
- Cao, Z., Lai, Z., Khaskheli, M. B., & Wang, L. (2025). The risk of global environmental change to economic sustainability and law: Help from digital technology and governance regulation. Sustainability, 17(15), Article 7094.
- Cheng, H., Chaudhry, H. R., & Umar, M. (2024). Unlocking greener supply chains: A global innovative perspective on the role of logistics performance in reducing ecological footprints. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4).
- Dechezlepretre, A., & Sato, M. (2025). The impacts of environmental regulations on competitiveness. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(2).
- Erdoğdu, A., Dayi, F., Ozbek, A., Ganji, F., & Benek, A. (2025). The role of green finance in investing in environmentally friendly technologies: Risks and returns. Sustainability, 17(21), Article 9652.
- Gabriel, F., Sonja, P., & Joschka, W. (2024). Trade and the environment, trade policies and environmental policies – How do they interact? Journal of Economic Surveys, 39(3), 1148-1184.
- Gabriel, L. F., & Ribeiro, L. C. de S. (2019). Economic growth and manufacturing: An analysis using Panel VAR and intersectoral linkages. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 49, 43-61.
- Gkouliaveras, V., Kalogiannidis, S., Kalfas, D., & Kontsas, S. (2025). Effects of climate change on health and health systems: A systematic review of preparedness, resilience, and challenges. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(2), Article 232.
- Hartwig, J. (2010). Is health capital formation good for long-term economic growth? – Panel Granger-causality evidence for OECD countries. Journal of Macroeconomics, 32(1), 314-325.
- Idris, A., & Rahman Razak, A. (2025). Energy transition, green growth and emission on economic growth using spline approach: Evidence from Asia-Pasific countries. Economics – Innovative and Economics Research Journal, 13(2), 139-159.
- Imran, M., Chen, M., Khalilullah, M., Min, G., & Zezheng, M. (2025). Asia’s carbon footprint: Unraveling the role of natural resource rent, standard of living and energy consumption. Energy Strategy Reviews, 61, Article 101837.
- Jain, H. (2024). From pollution to progress: Groundbreaking advances in clean technology unveiled. Innovation and Green Development, 3(2), Article 100143.
- Kaiwen, C., Liu, L., Luo, D., & Xing, K. (2023). The impact of green technology innovation on carbon dioxide emissions: The role of local environmental regulations. Journal of Environmental Management, 340, Article 117990.
- Kakar, S. K., Ali, J., Wang, J., Wu, X., Arshed, N., Le Hien, T. T., & Yadav, R. S. (2024). Exploring the impact of industrialization and electricity use on carbon emissions: The role of green FinTech in Asian countries using an asymmetric panel quantile ARDL approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 370, Article 122970.
- Kong, Q., Yamada, M., Wang, J., Li, M., & Nie, H. (2025). Roles of economic integration and climate distance in agri-food trade: Evidence from the Asia-Pacific region. Agriculture, 15(1), Article 12.
- Lawrance, E. L., Thompson, R., Le Vay, J. N., Page, L., & Jennings, N. (2022). The impact of climate change on mental health and emotional wellbeing: A narrative review of current evidence, and its implications. International Review of Psychiatry, 34(5), 443-498.
- Leddin, D. (2024). The impact of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss on digestive health and disease. Gastro Hep Advances, 3(4), 519-534.
- Liu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Institutional openness and green low-carbon transition – Empirical evidence from China. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 19, Article 100333.
- Liu, Y., Xie, J., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Urban green development: Can institutional openness enhance green total factor productivity? Sustainable Futures, 10, Article 101416.
- Mihut, I. S. A., Sterie, L.-G., & Mican, D. (2025). The green dilemma: What drives consumers to green purchase intention in an emerging EU economy? Journal of Applied Economics, 28(1).
- Nasreen, S., & Anwar, S. (2015). The impact of economic and financial development on environmental degradation: An empirical assessment of EKC hypothesis. Studies in Economic and Finance, 32(2), 485-502.
- Prieur, F. (2006). The implication of irreversible pollution on the relation between growth and the environment: The degenerate Kuznets curve. Environmental Economics and Management Memorandum, 45.
- Rahman Razak, A., Saudi, N. D. S., Fernandes, A. A. R., Idris, A., & Arnan Rahman, A. M. (2025). The impact of trade on environmental quality and sustainable development in ASEAN region. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 15(6), 638-647.
- Raihan, A. (2023). Economy-energy-environment nexus: The role of information and communication technology towards green development in Malaysia. Innovation and Green Development, 2(4), Article 100085.
- Reviane, I. T. A., Paddu, A. H., Saudi, N. D. S., Handra, H., & Idris, A. (2025). Green trade, economic complexity and green indicators: Evidence in Asia countries with PPML fixed effects model. Economies, 13(11), Article 314.
- Sabir, S., Rahman Razak, A., Fernandes, A. A. R., & Idris, A. (2025). Energy transition and economic growth in Asia region: Evidence with panel quantile regression. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 15(6), 37-49.
- Saidi, H. (2025). The endogenous linkages among electricity consumption, Government spending and economic growth in the GCC countries: New insights from GMM panel VAR framework. Energy Nexus, 19, 100478.
- Schumacher, R. (2013). Deconstructing the theory of comparative advantage. World Economic Review, 2.
- Sen, S. (2010). International trade theory and policy: A review of the literature. SSRN Electronic Journal.
- Shahbaz, M. (2019). Globalization–emissions nexus: Testing the EKC hypothesis in Next-11 countries. Global Business Review, 23(1).
- Shapiro, J. S. (2025). Institutions, comparative advantage, and the environment. The Review of Economic Studies, 92(6), 4152-4193.
- Sims, C. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica, 48(1), 1-48.
- Stephen, P. (2025). Rewriting the carbon story: Asia and Africa’s journey through green investment and structural transformation. Environment and Sustainability Indicators, 28, Article 100980.
- Sun, F., Qu, Z., Wu, B., & Bold, S. (2025). Comparative analysis of international environmental policies and supply chain sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 390, Article 126324.
- Tal, A. (2025). The environmental impacts of overpopulation. Encyclopedia, 5(2), Article 45.
- Ullah, S., Akhtar, P., & Zaffarian, G. (2018). Dealing with Endogeneity Bias: The Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) for Panel Data. Industrial Marketing Management, 71, 69-78.
- Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144-157.
- Usman, O., Alola, A. A., & Akadiri, S. S. (2022). Effects of domestic material consumption, renewable energy, and f inancial development on environmental sustainability in the EU-28: Evidence from a GMM panel-VAR. Renewable Energy, 182, 239-251.
- Wang, Q., Wang, X., Li, R., & Jiang, X. (2024). Reinvestigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) of carbon emissions and ecological footprint in 147 countries: A matter of trade protectionism. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 11, Article 160.
- Wang, Q., Zhang, F., & Li, R. (2023). Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in 208 countries: The roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environmental Research, 216(3), Article 114637.
- Wu, J., Yu, H., Cao, N., Zhang, J., Khan, J., & Lee, D. (2025). Ecological footprint analysis as a tool for advancing sustainable development goals (SDGs): Evidence from China. Ecological Indicators, 176. 113653.
- Xuan, V. N. (2025). Nexus of FDI, GDP, renewable energy, trade openness, and environmental pollution in Japan: New evidence from ARDL method. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 26, Article 100677.
- Yingjun, Z., Jahan, S., & Qamruzzaman, M. (2024). Technological innovation, trade openness, natural resources, and environmental sustainability in Egypt and Turkey: Evidence from load capacity factor and inverted load capacity factor with fourier functions. Sustainability, 16(19), Article 8643.
- Yirong, Q. (2022). Does environmental policy stringency reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from high-polluted economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 341(16), Article 130648.
- Yuan, C., & Chen, R. (2015). Policy transmissions, external imbalances, and their impacts: Cross-country evidence from BRICS. China Economic Review, 33, 1-24.
- Zhang, S., Xu, G., Shu, Y., Zhu, J., & Cheng, W. (2024). Comparing developed and emerging nations’ economic development with environmental footprint for low-carbon competitiveness. Heliyon, 10(14), Article e34039.


