Identifying Countries for Regional Cooperation in Low Carbon Growth: A Geo-environmental Impact Index

Abstract

This paper proposes a new geo-environmental Impact index to quantify the implications and dynamics for a country to join in a regional cooperation for low carbon growth (LCG) in Asia. The index helps differentiating the countries according to risk dissemination and risk assimilation categories, which are so crucial in framing effective LCG policies. Empirical results reveal that under the proposed grand regional bloc comprising of 20 Asian countries, eight countries are identified as predominantly geo-environmental risk assimilators, one risk neutral, while the rest of the countries are identified as predominantly risk disseminators. Empirical results also show that synergy effect is evident in all the regional or sub-regional groupings. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the proposed grand regional bloc would yield higher possibility for reducing CO2 emissions in the respective countries as compared to the actions taken by separate sub-regional groupings. The proposed model can also be used as an imperative tool in resolving the regional disputes under the climate change negotiations.

Highlights

  • A new Geo-Environmental Importance (GEI) index is estimated to quantify the impact of regional cooperation (RC) for low carbon green growth (LCG).

    Using the GEI the following research questions are answered:

    • How much would it benefit a country if its partner countries could reduce the carbonization activities (i.e., emission and environmental degradation) to a certain level? and vice versa.

    • What should be the costs and payoffs of the countries’ decisions under a game-theoretic approach?

    • Under a regional cooperation framework, how the roles and liabilities of each country can be quantified?

    • How effective the RC bloc would be in achieving overall CO2 reduction in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. ADB (2011) Asia 2050: realizing the Asian century. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. https://www.adb.org/publications/asia-2050-realizing-asian-century. Accessed 12 July 2019

  2. ADB (2017) Asian economic integration report 2017: the era of financial interconnectedness; how can Asia strengthen financial resilience? Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/375196/aeir-2017.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2019

  3. ADB-ADBI (2012) Policies and practices for low-carbon green growth in Asia: highlights. Asian Development Bank & Asian Development Bank Institute, Metro Manila

    Google Scholar 

  4. Becky O (2014) Watch carbon pollution spread across the planet. Planet earth, November 18. https://www.livescience.com/48798-carbon-dioxide-global-computer-model.html. Accessed 23 Aug 2019

  5. Bowen A (2012) Green growth: what does it mean? Environ Sci 21:7–11

    Google Scholar 

  6. Florax RJGM, Voortman RL, Brouwer J (2002) Spatial dimensions of precision agriculture: a spatial econometric analysis of millet yield on Sahelian coversands. Agric Econ 27:425–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Irwin EG, Bockstael NE (2002) Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the evolution of residential land use patterns. J Econ Geogr 2:31–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kalirajan K, Anbumozhi V (2014) Regional cooperation toward Green Asia: trade in low carbon goods. Int Trade J 28:344–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCafferty G (2015) Indonesian haze: why it’s everyone’s problem. CNN (online edition), 18 September

  10. Nagase Y, Silva ECD (2007) Acid rain in China and Japan: a game-theoretic analysis. Reg Sci Urban Econ 37:100–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. OECD (2011) Towards green growth A summary for policy makers May 2011. Organization for economic co-operation and development, 2, rue André Pascal 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France

  12. Rodrik D (2011) The future of economic convergence. NBER working paper series, no. 17400, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138

  13. Schmidtner E, Lippert C, Engler B, Häring AM, Aurbacher J, Dabbert S (2012) Spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany: does neighbourhood matter? Eur Rev Agric Econ 39:661–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. UNEP (2011) Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication—a synthesis for policy makers. United Nations Environment Programs, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. UNEP (2018) Environment live data downloader dataset. United Nations Environment Programs. https://environmentlive.unep.org/downloader. Accessed 10 July 2019

  16. World Bank (2017) World development indicator dataset. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators. Accessed 14 July 2019

  17. World Bank (2019) World development indicator data set. World Bank website. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-developmentindicators. Accessed 23 Aug 2019

  18. Wyes H, Lewandowski M (2012) Narrowing the gaps through regional cooperation institutions and governance systems. ADBI working paper series, no. 359, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo

Download references

Acknowledgements

Comments and suggestions by the anonymous referees of this Journal are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaliappa Kalirajan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest for the authors.

Appendix

Appendix

Proposition 2

Country with proximity should matter in RC for LCG.

Let’s consider country-j as the reference country.

GEI of country-i on country-j:

$${\text{GEI}}_{i,j} = \frac{{A_{j} }}{{A_{i} }} \times \frac{{m_{i} }}{{m_{j} }} \times \frac{{g(m_{i} )}}{{g(m_{j} )}} \times \theta_{i,j} .$$

GEI of country-k on country-j:

$${\text{GEI}}_{k,j} = \frac{{A_{j} }}{{A_{k} }} \times \frac{{m_{k} }}{{m_{j} }} \times \frac{{g(m_{k} )}}{{g(m_{j} )}} \times \theta_{k,j} .$$
$${\text{Therefore}},\,\frac{{{\text{GEI}}_{k,j} }}{{{\text{GEI}}_{i,j} }} = \frac{{A_{i} }}{{A_{k} }} \times \frac{{m_{k} }}{{m_{i} }} \times \frac{{g(m_{k} )}}{{g(m_{i} )}} \times \frac{{\theta_{k,j} }}{{\theta_{i,j} }}.$$
(17)

Let’s consider the following cases as examples.

Case 1

Country-i and country-k with the same CO2 emission and , but different area.

Conditions are: \(m_{i}\) = \(m_{k}\) and \(\theta_{i,j}\) = \(\theta_{k,j}\).

Therefore, from Eq. (17) the following Eq. (18) can be derived:

$$\frac{{{\text{GEI}}_{k,j} }}{{{\text{GEI}}_{i,j} }} = \frac{{A_{i} }}{{A_{k} }} \times \frac{{g(m_{k} )}}{{g(m_{i} )}}.$$
(18)

Practically, the range of growth factor \(g(m_{i} )\) or \(g(m_{k} )\) swivels between 0.9 and 1.1; i.e., from 10% reduction to 10% increase in growth rate, on average. This would imply the probable range of \(\frac{{g(m_{k} )}}{{g(m_{i} )}}\) as \(\left( {\frac{1 - 0.1}{1 + 0.1}} \right)\) to \(\left( {\frac{1 + 0.1}{1 - 0.1}} \right)\,{\text{i}} . {\text{e}}.\) 0.82–1.22.

For simplification, it is assumed that \(\frac{{g(m_{k} )}}{{g(m_{i} )}} \approx 1\).

Hence, Eq. (18) implies,

$$\frac{{{\text{GEI}}_{k,j} }}{{{\text{GEI}}_{i,j} }} = \frac{{A_{i} }}{{A_{k} }}.$$
(19)

Again, \(\theta_{i,j} = \frac{{{\text{arc}}_{i} }}{{{\text{dist}}_{i,j} }},\)

$$\theta_{k,j} = \frac{{{\text{arc}}_{k} }}{{{\text{dist}}_{k,j} }}.$$
figurea

Hence, considering \(\theta_{i,j}\) = \(\theta_{k,j}\),

$$\frac{{{\text{arc}}_{i} }}{{{\text{dist}}_{i,j} }} = \frac{{{\text{arc}}_{k} }}{{{\text{dist}}_{k,j} }}.$$

Since \({\text{dist}}_{i,j} < {\text{dist}}_{k,j}\) is assumed, therefore,

$${\text{arc}}_{i} < {\text{arc}}_{k} .$$

Typically this implies that the area of country-k is bigger than country-i.

Now, if the area of country-k is larger than country-i, from Eq. (19)

$${\text{GEI}}_{i,j} > {\text{GEI}}_{k,j} .$$

So, the closer the country, ceteris paribus, more impact it has than the far-distant country.

Case 2

Country-i and country-k with the same area and CO2 emission but different \(\theta\).

Conditions of \(A_{i} = A_{k}\), \(m_{i}\) = \(m_{k}\) and \(\frac{{g(m_{k} )}}{{g(m_{i} )}} \approx 1\) will take the equation as:

$$\frac{{{\text{GEI}}_{k,j} }}{{{\text{GEI}}_{i,j} }} = \frac{{\theta_{k,j} }}{{\theta_{i,j} }}.$$
(20)

Again,

$$\theta_{i,j} = \frac{{{\text{arc}}_{i} }}{{{\text{dist}}_{i,j} }},$$
$$\theta_{k,j} = \frac{{{\text{arc}}_{k} }}{{{\text{dist}}_{k,j} }}.$$

For similar area, we can assume that, arci = arck.

So,

$$\theta_{k,j} = \frac{{{\text{dist}}_{i,j} }}{{{\text{dist}}_{k,j} }} \times \theta_{i,j} .$$

Therefore, if country-k is assumed far from country-i, then

$${\text{dist}}_{k,j} > {\text{dist}}_{i,j} .$$

If \(\theta_{k,j} < \theta_{i,j}\), then from Eq. (20):

$${\text{GEI}}_{i,j} > {\text{GEI}}_{k,j} .$$

So, the closer the country, ceteris paribus, is of more impact than the far-distant countries.

Case 3

Country-i and country-k with the same area and \(\theta\), but with different CO2 emissions.

Conditions of \(A_{i} = A_{k}\),\(\theta_{i,j}\) = \(\theta_{k,j}\) and \(\frac{{g(m_{k} )}}{{g(m_{i} )}} \approx 1\) will take the Eq. (17) as:

$$\frac{{{\text{GEI}}_{k,j} }}{{{\text{GEI}}_{i,j} }} = \frac{{m_{k} }}{{m_{i} }}.$$

Therefore, with such equal proximity, higher the level of CO2 emission, the greater impact of that country will be for the reference country.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zaman, K.A.U., Kalirajan, K. & Anbumozhi, V. Identifying Countries for Regional Cooperation in Low Carbon Growth: A Geo-environmental Impact Index. Int J Environ Res 14, 29–41 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-019-00233-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Regional cooperation
  • Low carbon growth
  • Geo-environmental impact index
  • Risk dissemination
  • Risk assimilation
  • Asian sub-regions

JEL Classification

  • R11
  • Q51
  • F02
  • O53
  • Q01