Next Article in Journal
Conserve My Village—Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish Students’ Valued Landscapes and Well-Being
Next Article in Special Issue
Factors That Influence the Safe Disposal Behavior of E-Waste by Electronics Consumers
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Urbanization on Water Quality: Case Study on the Alto Atoyac Basin in Puebla, Mexico
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Econometric Assessment of Institutional Quality in Mitigating Global Climate-Change Risk

1
Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Management and Technology, Lahore 54770, Pakistan
2
Department of Economics and Business Administration, Division of Administrative and Management Science, Faisalabad Campus, University of Education, Faisalabad 38004, Pakistan
3
Faculty of Informatics and Computing, Universiti of Sultan Zainal Abidin, Kuala Terengganu 21300, Malaysia
4
Mathematical Sciences Department, College of Science, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
5
Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Arts, Al-Badaya, Qassim University, Buraydah 51951, Saudi Arabia
6
Department of Operations Research, Faculty of Graduate Studies for Statistical Research, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt
7
Department of Economics, Forman Christian College, University Lahore, Lahore 54600, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(2), 669; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020669
Submission received: 2 December 2021 / Revised: 29 December 2021 / Accepted: 3 January 2022 / Published: 7 January 2022

Abstract

:
Background: Environmental deterioration is the alarming situation that results from rapid urbanization and development. The rising temperature and climate volatility are accounted for by the massive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The research on climate-change mitigation is trying to curtail the situations before they become irreversible and unmanageable. This study explores the role of institutions in mitigating climate change by moderating the impact of environmental quality on climate change risk. Methodology: Global data sets have been collected from world big data depositories like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the World Development Indicators (WDI), and the International Country Risk Guide (ICRG). Countries that are listed in WEF were used as the sample of the study. An analysis was based on 114 countries that are based on the availability of data. For estimation, descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, change effects, and a Panel Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS) model were used for estimating the results. Results: The global assessment indicates that CO2 emissions increase the climate risk, but its impact can be reduced by increasing the quality of institutions. Additionally, an increase in renewable energy consumption and economic growth reduces the climate risk. Implications: It is an instrumental study that empirically investigated the role of institutions in reducing climate risk by moderating CO2 emissions. The results of this study will help policymakers to formulate policies regarding environmental protection.

1. Introduction

Climate presents as a “hazard” and a “resource.” “Climate resource” is the characteristics of climate that put constraints or allow activity. For example, seasonal temperature cycles affect the heating/cooling demand of energy, and rainfall patterns affect the production of crops. Where this resource is excessively used, the occurrence of some discrete events present itself as hazardous consequences. These events are drought, windstorms, floods, hot and cold spells discussed in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, likelihood timing, spatial extent and variability [1].
Environmental deterioration is an alarming situation that results from rapid growth. Human exploration of things and non-regulated activities resulted in abrupt changes in the environment [2]. Economic activities are responsible for increasing air, water, and many other forms of pollution [3], which has unmanageable and irreversible consequences [4].
In South Asia, more than 750 million people depend on these glaciers. Approximately 9% of the present ice-covered area in 1970 disappeared in 2000. Climate change is the leading cause of glaciers melting in the Himalayas, altering temperature and precipitation. A primary reason for this change is the existence of black carbon deposits that have resulted from human activity, resulting in glaciers absorbing solar radiation and increasing the temperature. Melting glaciers, changing precipitation, and loss of seasonal snow are causing the risk of water resources in South Asia. According to estimates, by 2050, about 70–81% of the population will suffer due to water scarcity in South Asia [5].
According to the estimates of 2018, China emitted 10.06 metric gigatons of CO2 emission. In terms of CO2 emission per capita, Saudi Arabia is first with 18.48 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita. Developed and emerging countries are leading in terms of CO2 emissions compared to developing nations. CO2 emissions per capita are high in developed countries, while the growth rate of CO2 emission is high in developing countries [6].
In Xiangyang, China’s average concentration of PM2.5 is 169.29 ± 56.98 µg m−3. PM2.5 (Particulate Matter) has a significant impact on global warming and creates asthma and premature deaths. This emission has threatened the life of 600 million people of 17 provinces in 2013. The carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk associated with PM2.5 that depends on the absorption of metal is higher in adults (3.07 × 103 & 3.78 × 10−3) than in the children (2.71 × 103 & 2.99 × 10−3) [7].
Due to rapid economic growth in China, the exposed population to flood are expected to rise in the future. Projected flood losses at global warming 1.5 °C and 4 °C are 4 and 17 times the present losses in China, respectively. With a 0.5 °C reduction in global warming, these losses can be reduced by approximately USD 67 billion [7]. Wang et al. [8] projected the deaths in the densely populated cities of China at a global warming of 1.5 °C and 2 °C, and the adaptation capacity mortality rate in China will increase annually from 32.1 per million residents in 1986–2005 to 48.8–67.1 per million for 1.5 °C and 59.2–81.3 per million for 2 °C. When all urban residents of 831 million are considered, additional warming from 1.5–2 °C will cause more than 27.9 thousand deaths annually.
Abadie [9] used the diffusion model to calculate the future damage and risk associated with sea level in 120 major coastal cities by considering the uncertainty. In 2100, the expected damage for New Orleans and Guangzhou was USD 1,251,732 million and USD 1,196,517 million, respectively. According to the risk measurements, in 5% worse cases, the damage will be USD 2,800,756 million and USD 1,832,466 million for Guangzhou and New Orleans, respectively. Both the USA and China need to focus on the development of infrastructure in future.
Two factors determine the vulnerability of climate change. One is the “sensitivity to climate change” and the other is “adaptive capacity.” Sensitivity determines the physical impact of climate change. At the same time, adaptive capacity describes the ability of a nation to deal with climate risk [10]. These adaptation measures are necessary to decrease the loss associated with rising sea levels. In 2100, 0.2% to 4.6% of the world population is expected to be flooded under a mean sea level rise of 25–123 cm if adaptive measures are not followed. This rise in sea level will incur an annual cost of 0.3 to 9.3% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [11]. With the rise in 1 m and 5 m sea-level, the total expected loss of the global GDP will lie between 1.3–6.05 percent [12].
Developing countries are more vulnerable to climate change than developed countries because developing nations mostly rely on the agriculture sector. They face high sensitivity to climate change, and their lower ability to deal with the climate shocks causes severe consequences in these countries [13,14]. Climate change causes severe consequences for the countries that rely on rainfall and agricultural productivity [14]. In the case of developing countries, climate change affects the level of output and affects the growth in these economies. Climate change seriously impacts labor productivity and growth [15]. A temperature rise is not only associated with agriculture, industrial output, and investment but also increases political instability. A 1 °C increase in the temperature in a year will decrease the economic growth in these countries by 1.1% points on average [16]. The World Bank launched the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC) in 2009 to study the adaptation cost of climate change for developing countries. The adaptation cost to stabilize the temperature at 2 °C by 2050 was USD 70 to 100 billion per year for the years 2010–2050 [17].
Many countries are paying attention to the quality of the environment. For this purpose, the USA, the EU, and China are focusing on reducing CO2 emissions. They have formulated their policies with environmental protection by reducing carbon emissions. Due to abrupt climate changes, many nations have added the objective to raise renewable energy as part of their policies [18]. The efforts to stabilize the global temperature at 2 °C with 0.66 probability require that cumulative carbon emissions 2000 to 2500 should not exceed the median estimate of 590 pentagrams of carbon (PgC) (200–950 PgC range). If a temperature target of 2 °C is to be achieved with a probability of 0.9, then allowable cumulative carbon emissions are 170 PgC (−220–700 PgC range) [19].
Renewable energy consumption reduces environmental pollution. Renewable energy is derived from natural resources that are repetitively renewed. Different renewable energy sources are solar, hydropower, biothermal, and wind [20]. The literature has revealed the positive role of renewable-energy consumption in mitigating climate change [18,21]. Regulatory authorities play an essential role in the mitigation of climate change. Different institutions set various standards and codes to reduce environmental pollution [22].
The problem of global warming cannot be resolved without government regulations and policies to protect the environment. Government’s costly policies rely on the public that supports government spending to protect the environment. This relationship is dependent on the quality of government where institutions are fair, non-corrupt, and effective [23]. Climate-change policies, projects, and programs either control the greenhouse gases and carbon emissions to mitigate the impact of climate change or create necessary conditions for people to adapt to climate risk and variability [24]. Public policies play an essential role in mitigation or adaptation to climate change [25].
First, to investigate the role of institutions in reducing climate risk by controlling carbon emissions, institutions play an essential role in the mitigation of climate risk. This study highlights the importance of institutions in reducing the environmental pollution that brings abrupt climate changes. For this purpose, this study used the panel-data FGLS method, and the sample comprised 114 countries at risk of climate change. The generalized estimates will be a stepping stone in developing a cross-national strategy to mitigate the climate-change risks.
The structure of the article is organized as follows. The literature of the previous studies is discussed in Section 2. Section 3 will cover the theoretical framework and methodology of the study. The results of the estimated models are presented in Section 4, while Section 5 will cover the conclusion and policy recommendation of the study.

2. Literature Review

There are empirical studies available that have focused on the regional antecedents of climate-change risk. Being regional reduces their generalizability for national and international policy makers [26,27]. In order to develop a generalizable model, multi-country macroeconomic determinants must be explored. There are several studies that have introduced the macroeconomic variables against climate change, and the most important of them are discussed in this study [28,29,30,31].

2.1. Carbon Emission and Climate Change

Carbon emission is closely related to climate change; it relates to black carbon or the carbon-sink effect. Although these emissions produce pollution in the environment, they are also responsible for global warming, the ecological footprint, and abrupt climate changes. A reduction in greenhouse gases and emissions is the only way to reduce the risk of climate change. Zickfeld et al. [19] set the emissions targets as a way to reduce the climate risk. They adopted the risk-management approach to present the carbon-cycle modelling. Their results indicate that a temperature target of 2 °C can only be achieved if CO2 emissions are removed from the atmosphere.
Molina et al. [4] discussed the abrupt changes in climate due to CO2 emissions. They used the Montreal Protocol to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, and besides reducing carbon emissions, they proposed the fastest strategy that brings the fastest climate-change response. The implementation time of this strategy was 5–10 years, and this plan will take a decade or earlier to bring a climate response. The literature also points out that an increase in the CO2 concentration in the economy is highly correlated with global warming [32,33], which is the major driver for climate- related hazards for the ecosystems [34] and standard of living [35,36]. Hence, in developing any model related to climate-change risk, CO2 content in the environment must be considered as an important indicator.

2.2. Institutional Quality and Climate Change

According to Starker [22], regulation plays a vital role in climate mitigation, like codes in different mandatory standards. Abduqayumov et al. [37] investigated the impact of institutional quality on the environment in the 15 post-Soviet countries from 2001 to 2017 by using the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) approach. The findings of this study indicate a positive impact of institutional quality on the environment quality.
Problems that are related to climate change cannot be solved without the regulation of the government [2,38]. Kulin and Johansson Sevä [23] highlighted the importance of institutions’ quality in implementing the government’s environmental-protection policies.
Arnell et al. [1] calculated the policy-relevant indicators responsible for changing the climate risk in the UK in the health, transport, water, floods, energy, and agriculture sectors. They adopted the approach that focuses on climate-change changes in risk components by using climate projection UNCP18. The finding of this study indicates that climate risk will increase in the absence of adaptation. Extreme heat will also increase and affect health, productivity, infrastructure, etc. So, in order to incorporate the adaptability effect of institutional quality, it has been used as a moderator to reduce the harmful effects of CO2 emissions on the economy [39,40].

2.3. Renewable Energy and Climate Change

Renewable energy and climate change are interrelated with each other. The literature has revealed the positive impact of renewable energy on the mitigation of climate-change effects. Renewable energy reduces the carbon emissions in the atmosphere and helps increase the standard of living [41,42] and reduce the resource dependency. Therefore, it is used as a policy tool to mitigate climate change, and it plays a very important role in adaptation strategies. Eitan [43] examined whether the policymakers in Israel should focus on renewable energy as a mitigation strategy or an adaptive strategy. The results indicate the minor impact of Israel on the world carbon emissions, so policymakers should promote renewable energy as a mitigation strategy rather than an adaptive strategy.
Mathiesen et al. [18] analyzed the model of 100-percent renewable energy for Denmark by 2050. Its results indicate the positive impact of energy-saving and renewable energy on the mitigation of climate change. In addition, this system will generate employment that has positive socio-economic effects. Lima et al. [21] reviewed the government strategies to promote the use of renewable energy in Brazil to mitigate climate change. Expansion in the use of renewable energy in Brazil reduces greenhouse gases’ emission.
Hence, while studying the antecedents of climate change, renewable energy policy plays an important role. The level of renewable energy may define how other policies are abating climate change.

2.4. Economic Growth and Climate Change

Climate change causes serious consequences and reduces the growth of countries. At one side, there are several studies that advocate that an increase in economic activity produces friction, which is observed in the form of the carbon footprint and global warming [2,44,45]. At the same time, high growth in countries reduces the climate risk. Fankhauser and Tol [46] used different approaches to investigate the link between climate change and economic growth. They investigated the dynamic effects of saving and the accumulation of capital. Theoretical analysis suggests that net saving will decrease because of climate change that reduces physical capital. With constant saving, reducing output due to climate change will lower future welfare, decreasing investment and economic growth. If saving is endogenous, forward-looking rational agents can change their saving behavior to reduce future climate change.
Some studies revealed the effect of high growth in the mitigation of climate risk. Thus, growth can cushion the negative consequences of climate change. Economic growth is an essential factor that builds the adaptive capacity of people. The adaptive capacity that reduces the adverse impact of climate change depends on the economic status. Developing countries are more vulnerable to climate change than developed countries with high adaptive capacity [47]. Bowen et al. [13] investigated the link between climate change and economic growth. Economic growth decreases the vulnerability of climate change. Different growth policies like access to finance and investment to enhance skills decrease vulnerability to climate change.

2.5. Population Density and Climate Change

Samson et al. [48] investigated the relationship between climate change and the human population. For this purpose, they developed a global index of the predicted impact of change in climate on the population. The findings of this study indicate the negative impact of climate on humans in different regions of Africa, Southeast Asia, Central America, the Arabian Peninsula, and Central South America. These regions are away from high-latitude areas where the impact of climate change is high.
Ahmadalipour et al. [49] assessed the drought risk in Africa during three future periods between 2010–2100. The results indicate that drought risk will rise in future, and control of population growth can mitigate the drought risk.
Population density is linked with climate risk. Therefore, it can be used to reduce climate hazards in the future, such as droughts [50]. Baur et al. [51] investigated the 62 cities of Europe to analyze the importance of population density in reducing the CO2 emissions in the environment and in mitigating climate change. This study indicates that in European urbanities, carbon emission increased with household size and household wealth reduction.
Lastly, empirical studies have underexplored the linear socio-economic determinants of climate-change risk for a data set of 114 countries. This study also interacts the role of institutional quality with CO2 emissions to assess the regulatory efforts in limiting the CO2 emissions and its effect on climate-change risk, while controlling for contextual factors like renewable energy, economic growth, and population density. This macroeconomic assessment based on secondary data will provide the guidelines to policymakers to abate climate-change risk.

3. Methodology

3.1. Theoretical Framework

Carbon emissions and greenhouse gases cause pollution in the environment, but these emissions are also responsible for high temperatures and unpredictable changes in the climate. Abrupt climate changes cause extreme events and climate-change risks (link shown in Figure 1).
Climate change causes negative consequences on the economic growth of the countries. In addition, climate change has a severe impact on the productivity of labor. There are two main reasons for the reduction in productivity. One is through the health issues of labor caused by climate change, and the second is the direct effect of climate on productivity due to abrupt changes in weather, i.e., hot and cold weather [15].
Economic growth reduces the negative impact of climate change and its risk. However, it depends on the adaptive capacity of the people to deal with climate change. The adaptive capacity of people can only be increased by economic growth because it is linked with the development indicators like education, income, and quality of institutions [13]. The literature revealed that countries that mainly rely on such activities directly affected by climate change suffer due to climate risk. Renewable energy is used as a policy tool in the mitigation of climate change and adaptation capacity. The promotion of renewable energy can mitigate the impact of climate change [43].
Densely populated areas of low-income countries are affected mainly by a change in the climate. The impact can be reduced by developing the infrastructure in those areas. At the same time, the experience of middle- and high-income countries shows that highly urbanized populations and the structure of production can be developed with lesser climate risk [52]. Population density is associated with climate risk. Population density reduces the climate risk, i.e., droughts that affect nutrition and create health issues [50]. Climate change harms humans in the regions where the population primarily relies on the climate [48]. Figure 2 presents the connection between variables that are interlinked with each other and cause climate risk.
Regulations can control extreme events. Institutional quality plays an important role to mitigate the impact of climate change. The literature revealed that the better institutions respond quickly to the problem as it arises. This quick mitigating response results in reducing the damage of output arising from climate shocks. These institutions also increase the adaptive capacity of people to deal with climate risk [13,16].

3.2. Model Specification

To investigate the role of institutions in reducing climate risk by controlling CO2 emissions, a linear-panel-data model with moderation was utilized. This model conducts a spatial temporal assessment of empirical patterns of selected independent and dependent variables to provide its marginal effects. Here, the climate-risk index was used as a dependent variable in the model, and CO2 emissions, institutions, renewable-energy consumption, population density, and GDP per capita were used as explanatory variables in the model. The interaction term of CO2 emissions and institutions was used to assess the moderating role of institutions. Although CO2 emissions increase the risk of climate, institutions can mitigate its impact by controlling CO2 emissions. Renewable-energy consumption, population density, and GDP per capita are transformed into natural-logarithm form.
The following is the parameterized equation, which linearly estimates the effect of independent variables on the climate-risk index for the selected empirical data.
CRIit = α + β1 CO2it + β2 CO2 × NSit + β3 INSit + β4 RENEit + β5 PDENit + β6 GDPit + µt

3.3. Data Source

In order to investigate the impact of CO2 emissions on climate risk, the climate-risk index was used as a dependent variable in the model. Its data were taken from Germanwatch. The data of explanatory variables, i.e., CO2 emissions, renewable-energy consumption, population density, and GDP per capita were taken from WDI. The data source of institutional quality was ICRG. Countries that are listed in WEF were used as the sample of the study. An analysis was based on 114 countries. These countries were selected based on the availability of data. Table 1 presents the representation and transformation of variables.

3.4. Estimation Method

Different steps were adopted to obtain the empirical results of the study. Initially, descriptive statistics were estimated to check the mean and standard deviation of the variables. Then, the normality of the variables was checked by using the skewness and kurtosis test of normality. The correlation matrix and variance inflation factor were estimated in the next step to check the multicollinearity of the data.
This study resorted to the panel-data models, which have an inherit ability to account for the contemporaneous effects of estimates in the one cross section to other. The model that is being discussed asks for the data setup to allow the effects of one country to spillover to another. Such a setup was missing in past studies, which have focused on regional assessment. A commonly random or fixed-effect model were used in panel data, but they fail to account for the differences across countries. Finally, the panel FGLS method was used to find the empirical results of the study. It solves the heteroscedasticity problem in the data [53]. There are several studies that have used the generalization approach of panel data and then explored the country-specific estimates with the help of moderators [54,55,56,57]. This model was also used in assessing the vulnerability to climate change for 73 countries between 1998 to 2013 [58]. Further, Pedroni [59] states that the dynamic-panel data are only used if the data are more than 20 years per cross section.

4. Results

Estimation of descriptive statistics reported in Table 2 is the first step to start any empirical investigation. It provides information about the variables mean, standard, median, and maximum and minimum values, etc. The values of Kurtosis and skewness show that most variables were non-normal. All the mean values of data except the mean value of CO2 were greater than their standard deviation, which means that these variables were under-disbursed and CO2 emission was over-disbursed.
Table 3 provides the results of a correlation matrix. None of the variables showed a very high correlation with other variables. The high correlation was 0.71, which was between GDP and Institutions.
The multicollinearity of the data was checked through a variance-inflating factor. As the VIF of all the variables was less than 10, there was no multicollinearity problem in the data [60]. Its results are presented in Table 4.
Table 5 presents the results of the panel FGLS method. This model climate-risk index was used as a dependent variable. In contrast, CO2 emissions, institutions, renewable-energy consumption, population density, and GDP per capita were used as explanatory variables in the model. In addition, the interaction term of CO2 emissions and institutions was used in the analysis with the view that CO2 emissions increase the climate risk. Still, institutional quality plays an essential role in mitigating the effect of CO2 emissions and reducing climate risk.
The empirical results show a positive association between carbon emissions and climate risk. These results indicate that a 1 unit increase in CO2 emissions will increase the climate risk by 3.29 units. A 1-unit increase in institutions will increase the climate risk by 13.65 units.

5. Discussion

This study included the moderating role of institutions in abating the climate-change risk. The interaction terms of CO2 emissions and institutions showed that an increase in CO2 emissions and the quality of institutions will decrease the climate risk by 0.93 units. CO2 pollution increases the climate risk, and institutional quality mitigation is supported in the literature [19,37,58]. Hence, when there is an increase in the institutional quality, it places a higher cost of CO2 emissions in the society; hence, the economy resorts to other carbon-saving production measures. Second, a 1-percent increase in renewable-energy consumption will decrease the climate risk by 3.37 units. The inverse relationship of renewable energy with climate change is empirically supported because if its sustainability effects [18,21]. Third, a 1 percent-increase in GDP per capita will decrease the climate risk by 1.5 units. Economic growth decreases the vulnerability of climate change, as the developed countries have done by financing climate-resilient and sustainable systems [13]. All the variables were statistically significant. Figure 3 presents the relationship between CO2 emissions and climate risk in the presence of institutional quality. Figure 3 indicates that when institutional quality is low, CO2 emissions increase the climate risk, but high institutional quality decreases the climate risk by controlling CO2 emissions.

6. Conclusions and Policy Recommendation

Rapid development and human exploration of new things have deteriorated the alarming environment for the whole world [2]. Furthermore, rapid changes in the environment and discrete events like drought, rising sea levels, high atmospheric temperature, floods, etc. have worsened the situation. A high temperature lowers economic growth in developing countries as compared to developed countries. It causes severe consequences by lowering the productivity of the agriculture and industrial sector. Besides these effects, it reduces investment in poor developing countries and increases political instability [16]. CO2 emissions and greenhouse gases are responsible for these changes. If these emissions are not controlled properly, they can bring even worse situations that will be irreversible and unmanageable.
The current study highlights the importance of renewable energy, economic activity, and institutions in mitigating climate change. The estimated model provides guidelines in controlling global warming and, most importantly, the risks associated with climate change. Many countries have formulated policies regarding environmental protection, but there was a lack of studies providing a macroeconomic framework for them to follow. Hence, because of this, developing countries suffer more due to climate change because agriculture is a major profession in these nations and directly depends on climate change [13,14], and they have lower ability to mitigate the adverse conditions.
To investigate the role of institutions in moderating the impact of CO2 emissions on climate change, this study used the panel FGLS method as an estimation technique. This moderator setup in the panel data helps to explore the cross-country heterogeneities within the overall model with respect to the differences in the institutional quality. A sample is comprised of countries that are listed in the WEF. One-hundred fourteen countries were selected based on the availability of the data. Its results indicate that CO2 emissions increase the climate risk, but its impact can be reduced by increasing the quality of institutions. Here, the direct effect of institution was positive, but the moderating effect was negative; this shows that with the increase in institutions, it creates ease an of doing business that increases global warming—but with the formation of regulations, the economic activities are transformed to be environment friendly, thus reducing climate-change risk. Other results of this study indicate that an increase in renewable-energy consumption and economic growth reduces the climate risk. All the variables were significant, and its outcomes were complied with the literature.
This study proposed that countries listed in the WEF should focus on the quality of institutions, improve the adaptive capacity, and encourage the use of renewable energy. Coupled together, they will help in regulating the economic activity by using environment-friendly energy in order to engage in a combined effort in reducing the climate-change risk.
This study provided estimates that are valid for the selected countries and the selected time period; hence, estimation in extended data must also suffice for the linear-regression assumptions. Future studies should also explore different sub-dimensions of climate-change risk and institutional quality and split the sample into countries in terms of similar climate-change extreme events and hazards to see the effectiveness of institutional quality in mitigating climate-change risk.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.J. and N.A.; formal analysis, N.A.; methodology, M.M.; supervision, U.H. and Z.A.Z.; writing—original draft, N.A and F.S.A.; Validation, A.J.; Writing—review & editing, H.A.E.-W.K. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the valid databases are available and accessible online.

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research, Qassim University for funding the publication of this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Arnell, N.; Kay, A.; Freeman, A.; Rudd, A.; Lowe, J. Changing climate risk in the UK: A multi-sectoral analysis using policy-relevant indicators. Clim. Risk Manag. 2020, 31, 100265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arshed, N.; Munir, M.; Iqbal, M. Sustainability assessment using STIRPAT approach to environmental quality: An extended panel data analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 18163–18175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, S.; Liu, X. China’s city-level energy-related CO2 emissions: Spatiotemporal patterns and driving forces. Appl. Energy 2017, 200, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Molina, M.; Zaelke, D.; Sarma, K.M.; Andersen, S.O.; Ramanathan, V.; Kaniaru, D. Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 20616–20621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Mani, M. Glaciers of the Himalayas: Climate Change, Black Carbon, and Regional Resilience; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. UCS. Each Country’s Share of CO2 emissions; Union of Concerned Scientists USA: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jiang, H.; Xiao, H.; Song, H.; Liu, J.; Wang, T.; Cheng, H.; Wang, Z. A Long-lasting Winter Haze Episode in Xiangyang, Central China: Pollution Characteristics, Chemical Composition, and Health Risk Assessment. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020, 20, 2859–2873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, Y.; Wang, A.; Zhai, J.; Tao, H.; Jiang, T.; Su, B.; Yang, J.; Wang, G.; Liu, Q.; Gao, C.; et al. Tens of thousands additional deaths annually in cities of China between 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C warming. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Abadie, L.M. Sea level damage risk with probabilistic weighting of IPCC scenarios: An application to major coastal cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 582–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barr, R.; Fankhauser, S.; Hamilton, K. Adaptation investments: A resource allocation framework. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2010, 15, 843–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hinkel, J.; Lincke, D.; Vafeidis, A.; Perrette, M.; Nicholls, R.; Tol, R.; Marzeion, B.; Fettweis, X.; Ionescu, C.; Levermann, A. Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3292–3297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Dasgupta, S.; Laplante, B.; Meisner, C.; Wheeler, D.; Yan, J. The impact of sea level rise on developing countries: A comparative analysis. Clim. Chang. 2008, 93, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bowen, A.; Cochrane, S.; Fankhauser, S. Climate change, adaptation and economic growth. Clim. Chang. 2011, 113, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Millner, A.; Dietz, S. Adaptation to climate change and economic growth in developing countries. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2014, 20, 380–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Roson, R.; van der Mensbrugghe, D. Climate change and economic growth: Impacts and interactions. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2012, 4, 270–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dell, M.; Jones, B.; Olken, B. Climate Change and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Half Century. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Narain, U.; Margulis, S.; Essam, T. Estimating costs of adaptation to climate change. Clim. Policy 2011, 11, 1001–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mathiesen, B.V.; Lund, H.; Karlsson, K. 100% Renewable energy systems, climate mitigation and economic growth. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 488–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zickfeld, K.; Eby, M.; Matthews, H.D.; Weaver, A.J. Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 16129–16134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Krey, V.; Clarke, L. Role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: A synthesis of recent scenarios. Clim. Policy 2011, 11, 1131–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lima, M.A.; Mendes, L.F.R.; Mothé, G.A.; Linhares, F.G.; de Castro, M.P.P.; De Silva, M.G.; Sthel, M.S. Renewable energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Reaching the goals of the Paris agreement in Brazil. Environ. Dev. 2020, 33, 100504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Starke, L. State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress toward a Sustainable Society; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kulin, J.; Sevä, I.J. The Role of Government in Protecting the Environment: Quality of Government and the Translation of Normative Views about Government Responsibility into Spending Preferences. Int. J. Sociol. 2019, 49, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Corbera, E.; Roth, D.; Work, C. Climate change policies, natural resources and conflict: Implications for development. Clim. Policy 2018, 19, S1–S7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Stern, N. Economic development, climate and values: Making policy. Proc. R. Soc. B: Boil. Sci. 2015, 282, 20150820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Aven, T. Climate change risk-what is it and how should it be expressed? J. Risk Res. 2020, 23, 1387–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Aksit, O.; McNeal, K.S.; Gold, A.U.; Libarkin, J.C.; Harris, S. The influence of instruction, prior knowledge, and values on climate change risk perception among undergraduates. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2017, 55, 550–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Batten, S. Climate Change and the Macro-Economy: A Critical Review; Bank of England Working Paper No. 706; Bank of England: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  29. Shobande, O.A. Is climate change a monetary phenomenon? Evidence from time series analysis. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Batten, S.; Sowerbutts, R.; Tanaka, M. Climate Change: Macroeconomic Impact and Implications for Monetary Policy. Ecol. Soc. Technol. Risks Financ. Sect. 2020, 13–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Krogstrup, S.; Oman, W. Macroeconomic and Financial Policies for Climate Change Mitigation. IMF Work. Pap. 2019, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Smith, J.B.; Schellnhuber, J.; Mirza, M.M.Q.; Fankhauser, S.; Leemans, R.; Lin, E.; Ogallo, L.; Pittoc, B.; Richels, R.G.; Rosenzweig, C.; et al. Vulnerability to climate change and reasons for concern: A synthesis. Clim. Chang. 2001, 2001, 913–967. [Google Scholar]
  33. Patwardhan, A.; Schneider, S.H.; Semenov, S. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. Clim. Chang. 2007, 2007, 779–810. [Google Scholar]
  34. Scholze, M.; Knorr, W.; Arnell, N.W.; Prentice, I.C. A climate-change risk analysis for world ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 13116–13120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Fatima, R.; Arshed, N.; Hanif, U. Do ecological factors dictate the longevity of human life? A case of Asian countries. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2021, 11, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  36. Arshed, N.; Ahmad, W.; Munir, M.; Farooqi, A. Estimation of national stress index using socioeconomic antecedents–A case of MIMIC model. Psychol. Health Med. 2021, 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Abdulqayummov, S.; Arshed, N.; Bukhari, S. Economic Impact of Institutional Quality on Environmental Performance in Post-Soviet Countries. Transit. Stud. Rev. 2020, 27, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, M.; Arshed, N.; Munir, M.; Rasool, S.F.; Lin, W. Investigation of the STIRPAT model of environmental quality: A case of nonlinear quantile panel data analysis. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 12217–12232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Koop, S.; Koetsier, L.; Doornhof, A.; Reinstra, O.; Van Leeuwen, C.J.; Brouwer, S.; Dieperink, C.; Driessen, P. Assessing the Governance Capacity of Cities to Address Challenges of Water, Waste, and Climate Change. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 3427–3443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Duchek, S. Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Bus. Res. 2019, 13, 215–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zahid, T.; Arshed, N.; Munir, M.; Hameed, K. Role of energy consumption preferences on human development: A study of SAARC region. Econ. Plan. 2020, 54, 121–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yasmin, S.; Hassan, M.S.; Arshed, N.; Tahir, M.N. Psychological and environmental empirics of crimes in Pakistan. J. Public Aff. 2021, e2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Eitan, A. Promoting Renewable Energy to Cope with Climate Change—Policy Discourse in Israel. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Salem, S.; Arshed, N.; Anwar, A.; Iqbal, M.; Sattar, N. Renewable Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions—Testing Nonlinearity for Highly Carbon Emitting Countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hassan, M.S.; Iqbal, M.; Arshed, N. Distribution-based effects of disaggregated GDP and environmental quality—a case of quantile on quantile estimates. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 28081–28095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Fankhauser, S.; Tol, R.S. On climate change and economic growth. Resour. Energy Econ. 2005, 27, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Francisco, H.A. Adaptation to Climate Change: Needs and Opportunities in Southeast Asia. Asean Econ. Bull. 2008, 25, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Samson, J.; Berteaux, D.; McGill, B.J.; Humphries, M.M. Geographic disparities and moral hazards in the predicted impacts of climate change on human populations. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2011, 20, 532–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ahmadalipour, A.; Moradkhani, H.; Castelletti, A.; Magliocca, N. Future drought risk in Africa: Integrating vulnerability, climate change, and population growth. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 662, 672–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ehrlich, D.; Kemper, T.; Pesaresi, M.; Corbane, C. Built-up area and population density: Two Essential Societal Variables to address climate hazard impact. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 90, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Baur, A.H.; Thess, M.; Kleinschmit, B.; Creutzig, F. Urban Climate Change Mitigation in Europe: Looking at and beyond the Role of Population Density. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2014, 140, 04013003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Dodman, D. Urban density and climate change. Anal. Rev. Interact. Urban Growth Trends Evironmental Chang. 2009, 1, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  53. Martinho, V.J.P.D. Energy consumption across European Union farms: Efficiency in terms of farming output and utilized agricultural area. Energy 2016, 103, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kalim, R.; Arshed, N.; Shaheen, S. Does competitiveness moderate inclusive growth: A panel study of low-income countries. Competitiveness Rev. 2019, 29, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kalim, R.; Arshed, N.; Ahmad, W. Aligning the Real Sector Production with Human Development: Exploring Role of Multi-sector Collaboration. Soc. Indic. Res. 2021, 157, 955–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Arshed, N.; Anwar, A.; Hassan, M.S.; Bukhari, S. Education stock and its implication for income inequality: The case of Asian economies. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2018, 23, 1050–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Taye, B. Analysis of Household Vulnerability to Climate Change and Adaptation Options: Evidence From Adama and Lume Woredas, Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economic Society of Ethiopia 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 23–25 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
  58. Abdelzaher, D.M.; Martynov, A.; Zaher, A.M.A. Vulnerability to climate change: Are innovative countries in a better position? Res. Int. Bus. Finance 2019, 51, 101098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pedroni, P. Panel Cointegration: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties of Pooled Time Series Tests with an Application to the Ppp Hypothesis. Econ. Theory 2004, 20, 597–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Gujarati, D.N.; Porter, D.C. Basic Econometrics International Edition; McGraw-Hills Inc: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Steps that lead toward climate risk.
Figure 1. Steps that lead toward climate risk.
Sustainability 14 00669 g001
Figure 2. Connection between variables.
Figure 2. Connection between variables.
Sustainability 14 00669 g002
Figure 3. CO2 emissions and climate risk.
Figure 3. CO2 emissions and climate risk.
Sustainability 14 00669 g003
Table 1. Variable representation and their composition.
Table 1. Variable representation and their composition.
VariablesClimate-Risk IndexCO2 Emission Per CapitaInstitutional QualityRenewable Energy Consumption % of TotalPopulation DensityGDP Per Capita
SymbolCRIitCO2itINSitRENEitPDENitGDPit
DefinitionIndexln(CO2)Indexln(RENE)ln(PDEN)ln(GDP)
Data SourceGermanwatch, WEF, WDI, ICRG
Where i represents country and t represents time
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
VariableCRICO2INSRENEPDENGDP
Observation176573081386722175226884
Mean73.45685.032184.101342.584124.222968.44514
Std. Dev.32.25688.584980.872872.061091.498691.48168
Min1.5−18.352.45888−23.034−1.99195.10192
Max126.17161.4636.186445.018959.9706412.1743
Median74.52.6514813.8934633.122424.2092858.379764
Skewness−0.139877.651780.589475−3.181870.1522620.097784
Kurtosis1.994916100.01342.39135224.587725.0595642.120888
Table 3. Correlation matrix.
Table 3. Correlation matrix.
CRICO2INSRENEPDENGDP
CRI1
CO20.0941
INS0.15850.54121
RENE−0.1523−0.6661−0.20081
PDEN−0.0541−0.05240.0505−0.1071
GDP0.13610.68880.7186−0.39270.00421
Table 4. Variance-inflating factor.
Table 4. Variance-inflating factor.
CRICO2INSRENEPDENGDP
CRI1
CO21.0089151
INS1.025771.4142221
RENE1.0237461.7975561.0420151
PDEN1.0029351.0027531.0025571.0115821
GDP1.0188731.9027522.0677651.1823311.000018
Table 5. Cross-sectional time-series FGLS regression (dependent variable = climate-risk index).
Table 5. Cross-sectional time-series FGLS regression (dependent variable = climate-risk index).
VARIABLESCRI
CO23.29846 **
(1.26151)
CO2 ∗ INS−0.93113 ***
(0.25815)
INS13.6563 ***
(1.9004)
RENE−3.3718 ***
(0.59235)
PDEN−2.4143 ***
(0.59775)
GDP−1.5329 *
(0.88843)
Id−0.03320 **
(0.010)
Year1.4188 ***
(0.24659)
Constant−2801.47 ***
(496.04)
Observations1196
Number of id114
Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Javaid, A.; Arshed, N.; Munir, M.; Amani Zakaria, Z.; Alamri, F.S.; Abd El-Wahed Khalifa, H.; Hanif, U. Econometric Assessment of Institutional Quality in Mitigating Global Climate-Change Risk. Sustainability 2022, 14, 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020669

AMA Style

Javaid A, Arshed N, Munir M, Amani Zakaria Z, Alamri FS, Abd El-Wahed Khalifa H, Hanif U. Econometric Assessment of Institutional Quality in Mitigating Global Climate-Change Risk. Sustainability. 2022; 14(2):669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020669

Chicago/Turabian Style

Javaid, Anam, Noman Arshed, Mubbasher Munir, Zahrahtul Amani Zakaria, Faten S. Alamri, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa, and Uzma Hanif. 2022. "Econometric Assessment of Institutional Quality in Mitigating Global Climate-Change Risk" Sustainability 14, no. 2: 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020669

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop