IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9743-d882846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Assessment of Geopolitical Risk in the Himalayan Region Based on the Grid Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Shihai Wu

    (College of Resources and Environment, Southwest University, Chongqing 400716, China)

  • Yili Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
    CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Beijing 100101, China)

  • Jianzhong Yan

    (College of Resources and Environment, Southwest University, Chongqing 400716, China)

Abstract

The Himalayan region serves as a land bridge between China and South Asia but is vulnerable to geopolitical factors. It is important to conduct geopolitical risk assessments to facilitate the restoration and construction of traditional trade routes in the Himalayan region. Based on multisource natural, political, and socioeconomic data, we selected 12 indicators, including topographic relief, landslide risk, multi-hazard index, population density, territorial disputes, conflict risk, corruption perception index, transboundary water disputed risk, night light index, GDP, accessibility, and economic freedom, to assess these risks. A comprehensive assessment of the geopolitical risk in the Himalayan region is presented using the random forest (RF) model, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), entropy weight method, and AHP-entropy weight method. The results indicated that the geopolitical risk in the Himalayan region is generally high in the north and low in the south, with high level of risk primarily concentrated in the Kashmir valley and south, south-central Nepal and southern Tibet, and low level of risk mainly concentrated in the Bhutan and Tibet border areas of China. The high likelihood of natural risk is largely concentrated in the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, Nepal, southeastern Bhutan, and southern Tibet. Significant political risk is mostly confined to the Kashmir valley and its south, while economic risk is mostly concentrated in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan, Pakistani-administered regions of Kashmir, and Nepal. Geopolitical risk assessment based on the grid scale can better reveal and portray the spatial distribution of geopolitical risk in the Himalayan region and provide a basis for the restoration and construction of traditional trade routes in this region. According to the results of the geopolitical risk assessment, it is recommended that priority be given to construction in areas of relatively low risk, such as those close to Burang Country and Mustang, and that integrated planning be carried out for the restoration and construction of the predominantly low-risk trade routes between China and Bhutan, with further comprehensive analysis of each route conducted in conjunction with field surveys and proposed construction and control strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Shihai Wu & Yili Zhang & Jianzhong Yan, 2022. "Comprehensive Assessment of Geopolitical Risk in the Himalayan Region Based on the Grid Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9743-:d:882846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9743/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9743/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caetano, José & Caleiro, António, 2009. "Economic Freedom and Foreign Direct Investment -- How different are the MENA countries from the EU?," EconStor Preprints 144148, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    2. Dario Caldara & Matteo Iacoviello, 2022. "Measuring Geopolitical Risk," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(4), pages 1194-1225, April.
    3. Mengmeng Hao & Jingying Fu & Dong Jiang & Fangyu Ding & Shuai Chen, 2020. "Simulating the Linkages Between Economy and Armed Conflict in India With a Long Short‐Term Memory Algorithm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1139-1150, June.
    4. Stephen J Kobrin, 1979. "Political Risk: A Review and Reconsideration," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 10(1), pages 67-80, March.
    5. D. J. Weiss & A. Nelson & H. S. Gibson & W. Temperley & S. Peedell & A. Lieber & M. Hancher & E. Poyart & S. Belchior & N. Fullman & B. Mappin & U. Dalrymple & J. Rozier & T. C. D. Lucas & R. E. Howes, 2018. "A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015," Nature, Nature, vol. 553(7688), pages 333-336, January.
    6. Muñoz, Beatriz & García-Verdugo, Javier & San-Martín, Enrique, 2015. "Quantifying the geopolitical dimension of energy risks: A tool for energy modelling and planning," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 479-500.
    7. Feng, Yuhao & Wu, Shufan & Wu, Peixin & Su, Shiliang & Weng, Min & Bian, Meng, 2018. "Spatiotemporal characterization of megaregional poly-centrality: Evidence for new urban hypotheses and implications for polycentric policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 712-731.
    8. Xiaohui Sun & Jianbo Gao & Bin Liu & Zhenzhen Wang, 2021. "Big Data-Based Assessment of Political Risk along the Belt and Road," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Chen, Stephen, 2017. "Profiting from FDI in conflict zones," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 760-768.
    10. Busse, Matthias & Hefeker, Carsten, 2007. "Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 397-415, June.
    11. Asamoah, Michael Effah & Adjasi, Charles K.D. & Alhassan, Abdul Latif, 2016. "Macroeconomic uncertainty, foreign direct investment and institutional quality: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 612-621.
    12. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    13. Yuxin Zhu & Dazuo Tian & Feng Yan, 2020. "Effectiveness of Entropy Weight Method in Decision-Making," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-5, March.
    14. Fatemeh Zahedi, 1986. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---A Survey of the Method and its Applications," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 96-108, August.
    15. Robert F. Engle & Susana Campos-Martins, 2020. "Measuring and Hedging Geopolitical Risk," NIPE Working Papers 08/2020, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    16. Cullen S. Hendrix, 2019. "Keeping Up with the Future: Upgrading Forecasts of Political Instability and Geopolitical Risk," Policy Briefs PB19-10, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wei Hu & Yue Shan & Yun Deng & Ningning Fu & Jian Duan & Haining Jiang & Jianzhen Zhang, 2023. "Geopolitical Risk Evolution and Obstacle Factors of Countries along the Belt and Road and Its Types Classification," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-24, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimitrova, Anna & Triki, Dora & Valentino, Alfredo, 2022. "The effects of business- and non-business-targeting terrorism on FDI to the MENA region: The moderating role of political regime," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(6).
    2. Bussy, Adrien & Zheng, Huanhuan, 2023. "Responses of FDI to geopolitical risks: The role of governance, information, and technology," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4).
    3. Witte, Caroline T. & Burger, Martijn J. & Pennings, Enrico, 2020. "When political instability devaluates home-host ties," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 55(4).
    4. Dudda, Tom L. & Klein, Tony & Nguyen, Duc Khuong & Walther, Thomas, 2022. "Common Drivers of Commodity Futures?," QBS Working Paper Series 2022/05, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.
    5. Rodion Skovoroda & Shaun Goldfinch & Karl DeRouen & Trevor Buck, 2019. "The Attraction of FDI to Conflicted States: The Counter-Intuitive Case of US Oil and Gas," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 229-251, April.
    6. Layal Mansour-Ichrakieh, 2021. "The Impact of Israeli and Saudi Arabian Geopolitical Risks on the Lebanese Financial Market," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    8. Puhr, Harald & Müllner, Jakob, 2024. "Vox populi, vox dei: A concept and measure for grassroots socio-political risk using Google Trends," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(2).
    9. Carney, Richard W. & El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Wang, He (Helen), 2024. "Geopolitical risk and the cost of capital in emerging economies," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    10. Oliver E. Ogbonna & Jonathan E. Ogbuabor & Charles O. Manasseh & Davidmac O. Ekeocha, 2022. "Global uncertainty, economic governance institutions and foreign direct investment inflow in Africa," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 2111-2136, November.
    11. Akbar, Yusaf H. & Kisilowski, Maciej, 2015. "Managerial agency, risk, and strategic posture: Nonmarket strategies in the transitional core and periphery," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 984-996.
    12. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    13. Vincent F. Yu & Hsiu-I Ting, 2009. "Identifying key factors affecting consumers' choice of wealth management services: an AHP approach," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 929-939, May.
    14. R. Jothi Basu & Nachiappan Subramanian & Angappa Gunasekaran & P. L. K. Palaniappan, 2017. "Influence of non-price and environmental sustainability factors on truckload procurement process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 250(2), pages 363-388, March.
    15. Rao, Sandeep & Koirala, Santosh & Aldhawyan, Sulaiman & Corbet, Shaen, 2023. "Geopolitical risk and M&A: The role of national governance institutions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    16. Caroline T Witte & Martijn J Burger & Elena I Ianchovichina & Enrico Pennings, 2017. "Dodging bullets: The heterogeneous effect of political violence on greenfield FDI," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(7), pages 862-892, September.
    17. Tohid Atashbar, 2013. "Iranian Disease: Why a Developing Country's Government Did Not Listen to Economists' Advices," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 732-760, July.
    18. Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan & Ramanathan, Usha, 2010. "A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(3-4), pages 228-232, June.
    19. Ahmad Jafari Samimi & Reza Moghaddasi & Khosro Azizi, 2011. "Political Stability and FDI in OIC Countries," Journal of Social and Development Sciences, AMH International, vol. 1(1), pages 18-23.
    20. Xiaohan Yan & Qun Sun, 2023. "How to Evaluate Ecological Civilization Construction and Its Regional Differences: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-13, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9743-:d:882846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.