The transportation sector plays a crucial role in driving economic development, reducing poverty, and contributing significantly to environmental impacts. While there have been numerous studies exploring the interconnections among transportation, economic development, and environmental degradation, there hasn’t been extensive research on how poverty affects transport-related CO2 emissions in the Tunisian context. This study aims to address this gap by analyzing the complex relationship between poverty, economic growth, energy consumption in road transport, urbanization, trade openness, road infrastructure, and environmental degradation in the Tunisia's transportation sector from 1980 to 2020. To estimate the long-term relationship between these variables, we use the ARDL bounds test approach. The result of VECM Granger causality test indicates a feedback between road infrastructure, road energy consumption, and transport emissions in both the short and long term. Moreover, our study identifies a bidirectional causality between poverty and transport emissions, emphasizing the importance of poverty alleviation strategies that consider environmental consequences. Our research also reveals a feedback between poverty and road transport infrastructure, as well as between transport emissions and economic growth. These results provide a comprehensive overview of the factors influencing CO2 emissions in the transport sector and their relationship with poverty. They offer a valuable insight to the field of energy and environmental studies, serving as guidance to policymakers, researchers, and practitioners engaged in promoting sustainable transportation practices in Tunisia.
DoğanBChuLKGhoshS, et al.How environmental taxes and carbon emissions are related in the G7 economies?Renew Energy2022; 187: 645–656.
2.
LeiJLinSKhanMR, et al.Research trends of board characteristics and Firms’ environmental performance: research directions and agenda. Sustainability2022; 14: 14296.
3.
NaderipourAAbdul-MalekZArshadRN, et al.Assessment of carbon footprint from transportation, electricity, water, and waste generation: towards utilisation of renewable energy sources. Clean Technol Environ Policy2021; 23: 183–201.
4.
MohantySSethiN. The energy consumption-environmental quality nexus in BRICS countries: the role of outward foreign direct investment. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 19714–19730.
5.
MohsinMKamranHWNawazMA, et al.Assessing the impact of transition from nonrenewable to renewable energy consumption on economic growth-environmental nexus from developing Asian economies. J Environ Manage2021; 284: 111999.
AchourHBelloumiM. Investigating the causal relationship between transport infrastructure, transport energy consumption and economic growth in Tunisia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2016; 56: 988–998.
9.
NasreenSMbarekMBAtiq-ur-RehmanM. Long-run causal relationship between economic growth, transport energy consumption and environmental quality in Asian countries: evidence from heterogeneous panel methods. Energy2020; 192: 116628.
10.
AlshehryASBelloumiM. Study of the environmental Kuznets curve for transport carbon dioxide emissions in Saudi Arabia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017; 75: 1339–1347.
11.
AndrésLPadillaE. Driving factors of GHG emissions in the EU transport activity. Transp Policy2018; 61: 60–74.
12.
MaparuTSMazumderTN. Transport infrastructure, economic development and urbanization in India (1990–2011): is there any causal relationship?Transp Res A: Policy Pract2017; 100: 319–336.
13.
TripathyPKhatuaMBeheraP, et al.Dynamic link between bilateral FDI, the quality of environment and institutions: evidence from G20 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 27150–27171.
14.
BeyzatlarMAKaracalMYetkinerH. Granger-causality between transportation and GDP: a panel data approach. Transp Res A: Policy Pract2014; 63: 43–55.
15.
ZhangLZhuangYDingY, et al.Infrastructure and poverty reduction: assessing the dynamic impact of Chinese infrastructure investment in sub-Saharan Africa. J Asian Econ2023; 84: 101573.
16.
ZhouYTongCWangY. Road construction, economic growth, and poverty alleviation in China. Growth Change2022; 53: 1306–1332.
17.
FagbemiFOsinubiTTAdeosunOA. Enhancing sustainable infrastructure development: a boon to poverty reduction in Nigeria. World Dev Sustain2022; 1: 100006.
18.
GachassinMNajmanBRaballandG. The impact of roads on poverty reduction: a case study of Cameroon. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper; (5209). 2010.
19.
SewellSJDesaiSAMutsaaE, et al.A comparative study of community perceptions regarding the role of roads as a poverty alleviation strategy in rural areas. J Rural Stud2019; 71: 73–84.
20.
NIC. National Institute of Statistics. 2023.
21.
World Bank. World development indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023.
22.
AbdallahKBBelloumiMDe WolfD. Indicators for sustainable energy development: a multivariate cointegration and causality analysis from the Tunisian road transport sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2013; 25: 34–43.
23.
WangQWangLLiR. Trade openness helps move towards carbon neutrality—Insight from 114 countries. Sustain Dev2023: 1–15.
24.
LiRLiLWangQ. The impact of energy efficiency on carbon emissions: evidence from the transportation sector in Chinese 30 provinces. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 82: 103880.
25.
LiRHanXWangQ. Do technical differences lead to a widening gap in China’s regional carbon emissions efficiency? Evidence from a combination of LMDI and PDA approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2023; 182: 113361.
26.
WangQSunJPataUK, et al.Digital economy and carbon dioxide emissions: examining the role of threshold variables. Geosci Front2023: 101644.
27.
WangQSunJLiR, et al. Linking trade openness to load capacity factor: the threshold effects of natural resource rent and corruption control. Gondwana Res2023.
28.
WangQZhangFLiR. Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: the asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness. Sustain Dev2023: 1–26.
29.
WangQWangXLiR. Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets curve? An empirical analysis of 134 countries. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 76: 103382.
30.
PradhanRP. Investigating the causal relationship between transportation infrastructure, financial penetration and economic growth in G-20 countries. Res Transp Econ2019; 78: 100766.
31.
RodrigueJPNotteboomT. Transportation and economic development. J Geogr Transp2013: 1–29.
32.
LakshmananTR. The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure investments. J Transp Geogr2011; 191: 1–12.
33.
PradhanRPBagchiTP. Effect of transportation infrastructure on economic growth in India: the VECM approach. Res Transp Econ2013; 381: 139–148.
34.
XieRFangJLiuC. The effects of transportation infrastructure on urban carbon emissions. Appl Energy2017; 196: 199–207.
35.
LiddleBLungS. The long-run causal relationship between transport energy consumption and GDP: evidence from heterogeneous panel methods robust to cross-sectional dependence. Econ Lett2013; 121: 524–527.
36.
YaoVW. The casual linkages between freight and economic fluctuations. Int J Transp Econ2005; 32: 143–159.
37.
SharifAShahbazMHilleE. The transportation-growth nexus in USA: fresh insights from pre-post global crisis period. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2019; 121: 108–121.
38.
MeersmanHNazemzadehM. The contribution of transport infrastructure to economic activity: the case of Belgium. Case Stud Transp Policy2017; 5: 316–324.
39.
GherghinaŞCOnofreiMVintilăG, et al.Empirical evidence from EU-28 countries on resilient transport infrastructure systems and sustainable economic growth. Sustainability2018; 10: 2900.
40.
ZhangLJiangCCaiX, et al.Dynamic linkages between China’s OFDI, transport, and green economic growth: empirical evidence from the B&R countries. Energy Environ2022: 0958305X221115094.
41.
AcheampongAO. Modelling for insight: does financial development improve environmental quality?Energy Econ2019; 83: 156–179.
42.
ChenZWangWLiF, et al.Congestion assessment for the belt and road countries considering carbon emission reduction. J Clean Prod2020; 242: 118405.
43.
SaidiSShahbazMAkhtarP. The long-run relationships between transport energy consumption, transport infrastructure, and economic growth in MENA countries. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2018; 111: 78–95.
44.
KharbachMChfadiT. CO2 Emissions in Moroccan road transport sector: divisia, cointegration, and EKC analyses. Sustain Cities Soc2017; 35: 396–401.
45.
TimilsinaGRShresthaA. Transport sector CO2 emissions growth in Asia: underlying factors and policy options. Energy Policy2009; 37: 4523–4539.
46.
HuJWoodRTukkerA, et al.Global transport emissions in the Swedish carbon footprint. J Clean Prod2019; 226: 210–220.
47.
NevesSAMarquesACFuinhasJA. Is energy consumption in the transport sector hampering both economic growth and the reduction of CO2 emissions? A disaggregated energy consumption analysis. Transp Policy2017; 59: 64–70.
48.
MustapaSIBekhetHA. Analysis of CO2 emissions reduction in the Malaysian transportation sector: an optimisation approach. Energy Policy2016; 89: 171–183.
49.
MujtabaAJenaPKBekunFV, et al.Symmetric and asymmetric impact of economic growth, capital formation, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on environment in OECD countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2022; 160: 112300.
50.
JinFDingJWangJ, et al.Transportation development transition in China. Chin Geogr Sci2012; 22: 319–333.
51.
HoweJ. The impact of rural roads on poverty alleviation: a review of the literature. Rural Roads Poverty Alleviation2019: 48–81.
52.
ZhouYGuoLLiuY. Land consolidation boosting poverty alleviation in China: theory and practice. Land Use Policy2019; 82: 339–348.
53.
ZhaoPYuZ. Rural poverty and mobility in China: a national-level survey. J Transp Geogr2021; 93: 103083.
54.
SeetanahBRamessurSRojidS. Does infrastructure alleviate poverty in developing countries. Int J Appl Econom Quant Stud2009; 6: 31–36.
55.
WangZSunS. Transportation infrastructure and rural development in China. China Agric Econ Rev2016; 8: 516–525.
56.
ZhangJZhangY. The relationship between China’s income inequality and transport infrastructure, economic growth, and carbon emissions. Growth Change2021; 52: 243–264.
57.
ChakrabartiS. Can highway development promote employment growth in India?Transp Policy2018; 69: 1–9.
58.
SongMWangSFisherR. Transportation, iceberg costs and the adjustment of industrial structure in China. Transp Res D: Transp Environ2014; 32: 278–286.
59.
BenevenutoRCaulfieldB. Poverty and transport in the global south: an overview. Transp Policy2019; 79: 115–124.
60.
GranadosSNoyolitzinN. Does Transportation Infrastructure Reduce Poverty? Evidence from the Free Federal Trunk Highway System in Mexico. 2015.
61.
OladipoSOOlomolaPA. A multivariate causal relationship among road transport infrastructure development, economic growth and poverty level in Nigeria. Int J Econ Financial Res2015; 1: 57–64.
62.
SabooriBSapriMbin BabaM. Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD (organization for economic co-operation and development)’s transport sector: a fully modified bi-directional relationship approach. Energy2014; 66: 150–161.
63.
ArvinMBPradhanRPNormanNR. Transportation intensity, urbanization, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in the G-20 countries. Util Policy2015; 35: 50–66.
64.
SaidiSHammamiS. Modeling the causal linkages between transport, economic growth and environmental degradation for 75 countries. Transp Res D: Transp Environ2017; 53: 415–427.
65.
SaleemHJiandongWZamanK, et al.The impact of airrailways transportation, energy demand, bilateral aid flows, and population density on environmental degradation: evidence from a panel of next-11 countries. Transp Res D: Transp Environ2018; 62: 152–168.
66.
MohmandYTMehmoodFMughalKS, et al.Investigating the causal relationship between transport infrastructure, economic growth and transport emissions in Pakistan. Res Transp Econ2021; 88: 100972.
67.
ShafiqueMAzamARafiqM, et al.Investigating the nexus among transport, economic growth and environmental degradation: evidence from panel ARDL approach. Transp Policy2021; 109: 61–71.
68.
HuangSZSadiqMChienF. Dynamic nexus between transportation, urbanization, economic growth and environmental pollution in ASEAN countries: does environmental regulations matter?Environ Sci Pollut Res2021: 1–16.
69.
DaiJAlvaradoRAliS, et al.Transport infrastructure, economic growth, and transport CO2 emissions nexus: does green energy consumption in the transport sector matter?Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 40094–40106.
70.
HabibYXiaEHashmiSH, et al.Testing the heterogeneous effect of air transport intensity on CO2 emissions in G20 countries: an advanced empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 29: 44020–44041.
71.
SohailMTUllahSMajeedMT. Transportation taxes and CO2 emissions nexus in BCIST economies: implication for environmental sustainability. Energy Environ2023: 0958305X231159445.
72.
AvotraAARNNawazA. Asymmetric impact of transportation on carbon emissions influencing SDGs of climate change. Chemosphere2023; 324: 138301.
73.
OuniMAbdallahKBOuniF. The nexus between indicators for sustainable transportation: a systematic literature review. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023: 1–24.
74.
AderogbaBAAdegboyeAA. Assessing the impact of road infrastructure on poverty reduction in developing economies: the case of Nigeria. Mod Econ2019; 10: 2430–2449.
75.
YangDSongW. Does the accessibility of regional internal and external traffic play the same role in achieving anti-poverty goals?Land (Basel)2022; 11: 90.
76.
LuHZhaoPHuH, et al.Transport infrastructure and urban-rural income disparity: a municipal-level analysis in China. J Transp Geogr2022; 99: 103292.
77.
QinXWuHShanT. Rural infrastructure and poverty in China. Plos one2022; 17: e0266528.
78.
AtapattuPJ. Poverty reduction effect of infrastructure: a cross-country study of developing countries in Asia. J Bus Tech2020; 4.
79.
EnfloKAlvarez-PalauEMarti-HennebergJ. Transportation and regional inequality: the impact of railways in the nordic countries, 1860–1960. J Hist Geogr2018; 62: 51–70.
80.
MarinhoECampeloGFrançaJ, et al.Impact of infrastructure expenses in strategic sectors for Brazilian poverty. EconomiA2017; 18: 244–259.
81.
AkbarMAbdullah NaveedASyedSH. Does an improvement in rural infrastructure contribute to alleviate poverty in Pakistan? A spatial econometric analysis. Soc Indic Res2022; 162: 475–499.
82.
MraïhiRHariziR. Road freight transport and carbon dioxide emissions: policy options for Tunisia. Energy Environ2014; 25: 79–92.
83.
ShahbazMKhraiefNJemaaMMB. On the causal nexus of road transport CO2 emissions and macroeconomic variables in Tunisia: evidence from combined cointegration tests. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2015; 51: 89–100.
84.
LiXZhanJLvT, et al.Comprehensive evaluation model of the urban low-carbon passenger transportation structure based on DPSIR. Ecol Indicators2023; 146: 109849.
85.
HouXLvTXuJ, et al.Evaluation of urban public transport sustainability in China based on the driving force-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework——A case study of 36 major cities. Environ Impact Assess Rev2023; 103: 107263.
86.
LadiTMahmoudpourASharifiA. Assessing environmental impacts of transportation sector by integrating DPSIR framework and X-matrix. Case Stud Transp Policy2022; 10: 434–443.
87.
FangXLuLLiY, et al.A driver-pressure-state-impact-response study for urban transport resilience under extreme rainfall-flood conditions. Transp Res D: Transp Environ2023; 121: 103819.
88.
World Bank. World development indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications, 2023.
89.
HashimHZubirMAKamyabH, et al.Decarbonisation of the industrial sector through greenhouse gas mitigation, offset, and emission trading schemes. Chem Eng Trans2022; 97: 511–516.
90.
DickeyDAFullerWA. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc1979; 74: 427–431.
91.
PhillipsPCPerronP. Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika1988; 75: 335–346.
92.
ElliottGRothenbergTJStockJH. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. 1992.
93.
ZivotEAndrewsDWK. Further evidence on the great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat1992; 10: 251–270.
94.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRJ. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econometrics2001; 16: 289–326.
95.
PhillipsPCHansenBE. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. Rev Econ Stud1990; 57: 99–125.
96.
StockJHWatsonMW. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: J Econometric Soc1993: 783–820.
EngleRFGrangerCW. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica: J Econometric Soc1987; 55: 251–276.
99.
BeckTDemirgüç-KuntALevineR. Finance, inequality and the poor. J Econ Growth2007; 12: 27–49.
100.
AhlinCJiangN. Can micro-credit bring development?J Dev Econ2008; 86: 1–21.
101.
BoukhatemJ. Assessing the direct effect of financial development on poverty reduction in a panel of low- and middle-income countries. Res Int Bus Finance2016; 37: 214–230.
102.
MurjaniA. Short-run and long-run impact of inflation, unemployment, and economic growth towards poverty in Indonesia: ARDL approach. Jurnal Dinamika Ekonomi Pembangunan2019; 2: 15–29.
103.
AyadiMBoulilaGLahouelM, et al.Pro-poor growth in Tunisia. Int Dev Strat2004; 84: 1–4.
104.
LahouelMH. The success of pro-poor growth in rural and urban Tunisia. In: Delivering on the promise of pro-poor growth. 2007, pp.199–218.
105.
BibiSCastelVMejiaP. Poverty and inequality in Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania. Economic Brief, African Development Bank2011.
106.
DemirAPesqué-CelaVAltunbasY, et al.Fintech, financial inclusion and income inequality: a quantile regression approach. Eur J Finance2022; 28: 86–107.
107.
SchleicherJSchaafsmaMBurgessND, et al.Poorer without it? The neglected role of the natural environment in poverty and wellbeing. Sustain Dev2018; 26: 83–98.
108.
MalerbaD. The trade-off between poverty reduction and carbon emissions, and the role of economic growth and inequality: an empirical cross-country analysis using a novel indicator. Soc Indic Res2020; 150: 587–615.
109.
QamruzzamanMKarimSKorS. Does environmental degradation matter for poverty? Clarifying the nexus between FDI, environmental degradation, renewable energy, education, and poverty in Morocco and Tunisia. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 52872–52894.
110.
CaoMXuDXieF, et al.The influence factors analysis of households’ poverty vulnerability in southeast ethnic areas of China based on the hierarchical linear model: a case of Liangshan Yi-autonomous prefecture. Appl Geogr2016; 66: 144–152.
111.
GonzálezENoguésS. Long-term differential effects of transport infrastructure investment in rural areas. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2018; 125: 234–247.
112.
Ogbeide-OsaretinEN. Analysing energy consumption and poverty reduction nexus in Nigeria. Int J Sustain Energy2021; 40: 477–493.
113.
ChattiWMajeedMT. Investigating the links between ICTs, passenger transportation, and environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 26564–26574.
114.
HussainZKaleem KhanMXiaZ. Investigating the role of green transport, environmental taxes and expenditures in mitigating the transport CO2 emissions. Transp Lett2023; 15: 439–449.
115.
BalochMA. Dynamic linkages between road transport energy consumption, economic growth, and environmental quality: evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 7541–7552.
116.
EssandohOKIslamMKakinakaM. Linking international trade and foreign direct investment to CO2 emissions: any differences between developed and developing countries?Sci Total Environ2020; 712: 136437.
117.
MajeedMTAsgharN. Trade, energy consumption, economic growth, and environmental quality: an empirical evidence from D-8 and G-7 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 61302–61316.
118.
TalbiB. CO2 Emissions reduction in road transport sector in Tunisia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2017; 69: 232–238.
119.
ChurchillSAInekweJIvanovskiK, et al.Transport infrastructure and CO2 emissions in the OECD over the long run. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ2021; 95: 102857.
120.
HalliruAMLoganathanNHassanAAG, et al.Re-examining the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in the economic community of West African States: a panel quantile regression approach. J Clean Prod2020; 276: 124247.
