Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative analysis of the impact factors of conventional energy carbon emissions in Kazakhstan based on LMDI decomposition and STIRPAT model

  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of the impact factors in energy-related CO2 emissions serves as an important guide for reducing carbon emissions and building an environmentally-friendly society. This paper aims to use LMDI method and a modified STIRPAT model to research the conventional energy-related CO2 emissions in Kazakhstan after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The results show that the trajectory of CO2 emissions displayed U-shaped curve from 1992 to 2013. Based on the extended Kaya identity and additive LMDI method, we decomposed total CO2 emissions into four influencing factors. Of those, the economic active effect is the most influential factor driving CO2 emissions, which produced 110.86 Mt CO2 emissions, with a contribution rate of 43.92%. The second driving factor is the population effect, which led to 11.87 Mt CO2 emissions with a contribution rate of 4.7%. On the contrary, the energy intensity effect is the most inhibiting factor, which caused–110.90 Mt CO2 emissions with a contribution rate of–43.94%, followed by the energy carbon structure effect resulting in–18.76 Mt CO2 emissions with a contribution rate of–7.43%. In order to provide an in-depth examination of the change response between energy-related CO2 emissions and each impact factor, we construct a modified STIRPAT model based on ridge regression estimation. The results indicate that for every 1% increase in population size, economic activity, energy intensity and energy carbon structure, there is a subsequent increase in CO2 emissions of 3.13%, 0.41%, 0.30% and 0.63%, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aggarwal P, Jain S, 2016. Energy demand and CO2 emissions from urban on-road transport in Delhi: Current and future projections under various policy measures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 128: 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang B W, 2004. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: Which is the preferred method? Energy Policy, 32(9): 1131–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang B W, 2005. The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: A practical guide. Energy Policy, 33(7): 867–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang B W, 2015. LMDI decomposition approach: A guide for implementation. Energy Policy, 86: 233–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardak Yesdauletova, 2009. Kazakhstan’s energy policy: Its evolution and tendencies. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 6(4): 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnell N W, Gosling S N, 2016. The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Climatic Change, 134(3): 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azatbek T, Ramazanov A, 2016. Assessment of foreign direct investment, export and economic growth on the example of Kazakhstan. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 13(4): 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahgat G, 2010. Energy partnership: China and the Gulf States. OPEC Energy Review, 29(2): 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank S, 1995. Energy, economics and security in Central Asia: Russia and its rivals. Central Asian Survey, 14(3): 64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caillaud S, Kalampalikis N, Flick U, 2012. The social representations of the Bali Climate Conference in the French and German Media. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 22(4): 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng Z, Wang H, 2015. The mode of economic cooperation in the “One Belt and One Road” Construction. New Paradigm for International Business, 20(2): 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoerl A E, Kennard R W, 1970. Ridge Regression: Application to nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1): 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdren J P, Ehrlich P R, 1974. Human population and the global environment: Population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force. American Scientist, 62(3): 282–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC, 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismailova D, 2013. Some trends in energy policy of Kazakhstan. European Journal of Business and Economics, 3: 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Y L, Feng L G, 2006. Transport-related resource and environmental issues in China. World Transport Policy and Practice, 12(4): 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuzhnova Y, Patterson K, 2016. Kazakhstan: Long-term economic growth and the role of the oil sector. Comparative Economic Studies, 58(1): 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karatayev M, Clarke M L, 2016. A review of current energy systems and green energy potential in Kazakhstan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55: 491–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karatayev M, Hall S, Kalyuzhnova Y et al., 2016. Renewable energy technology uptake in Kazakhstan: Policy drivers and barriers in a transitional economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 66: 120–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katenova M, Nurmakhanova M, 2017. Financial development and economic growth: The case of Kazakhstan. International Review of Business Research Papers, 13(1): 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya Y, 1990. Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: Interpretation of proposed scenarios. IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya Y, Yokobori K, 1997. Environment, Energy, and Economy: Strategies for Sustainability. Tokyo, New York, Paris: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li D Q, Wang D Y, 2016. Decomposition analysis of energy consumption for an freeway during its operation period: A case study for Guangdong, China. Energy, 97: 296–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin S, Zhao D, Marinova D, 2009. Analysis of the environmental impact of China based on STIRPAT model. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6): 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin S J, Beidari M, 2015. Energy consumption trends and decoupling effects between carbon dioxide and gross domestic product in South Africa. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15(7): 2676–2687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Yang Z, Wu W, 2015. Assessing the impact of population, income and technology on energy consumption and industrial pollutant emissions in China. Applied Energy, 155: 904–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Z, Yang Y, Wang J et al., 2014. Factor decomposition of carbon productivity in China: Based on the Laspeyres Decomposition Method. Journal of Industrial Technological Economics, 61: 1893–1896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macgregor J, 2017. Determining an optimal strategy for energy investment in Kazakhstan. Energy Policy, 107: 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mao Z, 2014. Cosmopolitanism and global risk: News framing of the Asian financial crisis and the European debt crisis. International Journal of Communication, 8(1): 1029–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquardt D W, Snee R D, 1975. Ridge regression in practice. American Statistician, 29(1): 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mccarl B A, Adams D M, Alig R J et al., 2016. Effects of global climate change on the US forest sector: Response functions derived from a dynamic resource and market simulator. Climate Research, 15(3): 195–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers S, Schmitt B, Chester-Jones M et al., 2016. Energy efficiency, carbon emissions, and measures towards their improvement in the food and beverage sector for six European countries. Energy, 104: 266–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moutinho V, Moreira A C, Silva P M, 2015. The driving forces of change in energy-related CO2 emissions in Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern Europe: The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 50: 1485–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Movkebaeva G A, 2013. Energy cooperation among Kazakhstan, Russia, and China within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Russian Politics and Law, 51(1): 80–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicogossian A, Stabile B, Kloiber O et al., 2017. Climate change and global health in the 21st century: Evidence and resilience. World Medical and Health Policy, 9(3): 280–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouyang X, Lin B, 2015. An analysis of the driving forces of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in China’s industrial sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45: 838–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk I, Acaravci A, 2010. CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(9): 3220–3225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhomchik L, Syrlybayeva B, 2016. Evaluation of the shale gas potential in Kazakhstan. Shale Gas: Ecology, Politics, Economy. Cham: Springer, 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramlall I, 2017. Internalizing CO2 emissions via central banks’ financials: Evidence from the world. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72: 549–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland R H, 2001. Regional population change in Kazakhstan during the 1990s and the impact of nationality population patterns: Results from the recent census of Kazakhstan. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics, 42(8): 571–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruziev K, Majidov T, 2013. Differing effects of the global financial crisis on the Central Asian Countries: Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(4): 682–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarbassov Y, Kerimray A, Tokmurzin D et al., 2013. Electricity and heating system in Kazakhstan: Exploring energy efficiency improvement paths. Energy Policy, 60(5): 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer T J, Norman J M, Sivakumar M V K et al., 2017. Sustaining soil productivity in response to global climate change: Science, policy, and ethics. Vadose Zone Journal, 11(2): 531–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schandl H, Hatfield-Dodds S, Wiedmann T et al., 2016. Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: Scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132(1): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao S, Yang L, Gan C et al., 2016. Using an extended LMDI model to explore techno-economic drivers of energy-related industrial CO2 emission changes: A case study for Shanghai (China). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55: 516–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streets D G, Jiang K, Hu X et al., 2001. Recent reductions in China’s greenhouse gas emissions. Science, 294(5548): 1835–1837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan L G, Ugursal V I, Ian B M, 2013. Hybrid residential end-use energy and greenhouse gas emissions model: Development and verification for Canada. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 6(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang J R, 2014. Analysis on the carbon emission in Henan Province and its influence factors based on VAR model. Sustainable Development, 4(3): 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunç G I, Türüt-Aşık S, Akbostancı E, 2009. A decomposition analysis of CO2 emissions from energy use: Turkish case. Energy Policy, 37(11): 4689–4699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang C, Wang F, Zhang X et al., 2017a. Examining the driving factors of energy related carbon emissions using the extended STIRPAT model based on IPAT identity in Xinjiang. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67: 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang D, Nie R, Shi H Y, 2011a. Scenario analysis of China’s primary energy demand and CO2 emissions based on IPAT Model. Energy Procedia, 5: 365–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Jiang X T, Li R, 2017b. Comparative decoupling analysis of energy-related carbon emission from electric output of electricity sector in Shandong Province, China. Energy, 127: 78–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Li R, 2016. Drivers for energy consumption: A comparative analysis of China and India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62: 954–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W W, Zhang M, Zhou M, 2011b. Using LMDI method to analyze transport sector CO2 emissions in China. Energy, 36(10): 5909–5915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong C, Yang D, Huo J et al., 2015. The relationship between energy consumption and economic growth and the development strategy of a low-carbon economy in Kazakhstan. Journal of Arid Land, 7(5): 706–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, 2010. The oil and gas links between Central Asia and China: A geopolitical perspective. OPEC Energy Review, 23(1): 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York R, Rosa E A, Dietz T, 2003. STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecological Economics, 46(3): 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang C, Liu C, 2015. The impact of ICT industry on CO2 emissions: A regional analysis in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44(44): 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Li K, Zhou D et al., 2016. Decomposition of intensity of energy-related CO2 emission in Chinese provinces using the LMDI method. Energy Policy, 92: 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Y, Li H, Zhang Z et al., 2017. Decomposition and scenario analysis of CO2 emissions in China’s power industry: Based on LMDI method. Natural Hazards, 86(2): 645–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, CAS, Urumqi, 830011, China

    Jiaxiu Li, Yaning Chen & Zhi Li

  2. College of Resource and Environment Science, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, 830046, China

    Jiaxiu Li & Zhihui Liu

  3. College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China

    Jiaxiu Li

Authors
  1. Jiaxiu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaning Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhihui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaning Chen.

Additional information

Foundation: CAS Strategic Priority Research Program, No.XDA19030204; CAS Western Light Program, No.2015-XBQN-B-17

Author: Li Jiaxiu, PhD Candidate, specialized in climate change in central Asia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Chen, Y., Li, Z. et al. Quantitative analysis of the impact factors of conventional energy carbon emissions in Kazakhstan based on LMDI decomposition and STIRPAT model. J. Geogr. Sci. 28, 1001–1019 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1518-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1518-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation