Measuring the Bilateral Energy Security Cooperation Sustainability between China and Its Neighboring Countries Based on the National Energy Security Level

Abstract

Strengthening bilateral energy security cooperation is crucial in the process of fostering the sustainable growth of China and neighboring Asian nations. Using data chosen from China and 25 adjacent nations between 2010 and 2019, this article first assesses the level of energy security using the TOPSIS (Technique of Ranking Preference with Similarity to Ideal Solution) and GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) methodologies. Additionally, based on the level of energy security, this article analyzes the coupling degree of bilateral capacity structure and, in the end, suggests a theoretical model to assess the stability of bilateral energy security cooperation. The findings demonstrate that China and its neighboring countries share the energy trilemma, which is the inability of these nations to simultaneously achieve the needs of energy supply security, energy justice, and environmental sustainability. The report also makes the case that Thailand, Kazakhstan, and the Philippines all have theoretically stronger sustainability of bilateral energy security cooperation with China. This study also offers some recommendations for improving bilateral collaboration between China and its neighbors on energy security.

1. Introduction

China’s foreign relations and policies are heavily reliant on its neighbors. In the 1988 Government Work Report, the phrase “neighborhood” first appeared in reference to Mongolia, the Korean Peninsula, ASEAN, and nations in South Asia, omitting Japan and the Soviet Union at the time [1]. China’s neighborhood diplomacy started to make considerable strides in Southeast Asia and Central Asia at the turn of the 20th century. China joined the WTO at the start of the new century, furthering its involvement in the trend of economic globalization. The idea of China’s “neighborhood” is still changing in light of China’s growth and impact. According to some studies, countries who share interests with China on land and at sea should also be considered China’s neighbors. This concept of a “great neighborhood” goes beyond geographical boundaries [2].

Energy security is a complex topic that affects both domestic and international security. In addition to being critical for China’s own energy security, bilateral energy security cooperation must be strengthened if we are to reduce conflict, achieve sustainable development, and ensure the safety and security of our partner nations. From the standpoint of different energy sources, cooperation between China and its neighbors is essential in a number of different ways. As a significant importer of traditional fossil fuels, China’s four main oil and gas import channels are crucial to the security of its energy imports [3]. The security of China’s energy imports is significantly impacted by the surrounding nations through which these import channels pass. Meanwhile, economic gains for these nations might result from trade in energy with China and relevant investments from China, which could advance energy equity [4]. In terms of clean and renewable energy, China’s export of renewable energy has occupied a significant position on the global market in recent years. Solar energy, hydropower, and geothermal energy are examples of renewable energy products that have improved their international competitiveness. China is currently the largest manufacturer of photovoltaic modules in the world, and several Southeast Asian and South Asian nations naturally have abundant sunlight resources and huge potential for cooperative solar energy development. Additionally, there is a lot of room for water resource development in China and its neighbors.

This work makes two contributions in comparison with previous research. First, the majority of the research has mainly measured the level of domestic energy security [5,6,7]. Despite the relatively limited number of countries represented, very few studies have simultaneously examined the status of energy security in many nations [8,9]. Because different studies have employed various evaluation measures, the results of gauging the levels of energy security are not comparable between nations. The degrees of energy security for China and its 25 neighbors are estimated in this research using a uniform system of indicators, and the findings are comparable among nations. Second, this study offers a theoretical model to evaluate the capacity of bilateral cooperation between China and its neighbors for the first time, based on the findings of the level of national energy security.

The following sections will comprise this paper. The second section covers the pertinent literature on how to gauge energy security levels and explains how theories about how tightly capacity structures are coupled can be used to gauge the potential for bilateral energy security cooperation. In the first part of the third segment, a measurement model for the level of energy security is presented. Then, based on the coupling degree of capacity structure, which is assessed by the level of national energy security, it proposes a theoretical model for evaluating the viability of bilateral energy security cooperation. The fourth section discusses the outcomes of each model. The paper’s key results and policy suggestions are presented in the last part.

2. Literature Review

2.1. A Brief Review of Studies on Energy Cooperation between China and Its Neighboring Countries

In general, studies tended to be more concerned with the state of energy cooperation, the factors that affect it, the challenges it encounters, and the corresponding countermeasures that were suggested in accordance with the potential for collaboration.

The following is a list of studies that go over the current foundation for cooperation. Li et al. (2016) analyzed the North East Asian electricity demand and suggests connecting the region’s power grids [10]. In terms of input–output interactions, Li and Xiang (2020) evaluated the effectiveness of cross-border grid projects in China, Central Asia, and South Asia [11]. After the commencement of the changes, Liao (2022) focused on the “One Belt, One Road” program while discussing the evolution of China–ASEAN environmental and energy cooperation since 2010 [12]. The implementation of certain renewable energy projects along the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor was examined by Han et al. (2022) [13]. Furthermore, Wang (2022) explained China’s participation in the pipelines between Southeast Asia and Central Asia using the neo-functionalist spillover theory [14]. Chi et al. (2022) measured the security of grid interconnection between China and its neighbors in terms of cross-border grid cooperation [15].

The following studies explored the determining variables and difficulties of cooperation. Wang and Li (2009) examined the geopolitical implications between China and its neighbors over oil and gas resources [16]. The challenges China’s energy security cooperation with its neighbors faced were discussed by Odgaard and Delman (2014) [17]. From the perspective of opposing geopolitical pressures, Kulkarni and Nathan (2016) compared China and India’s cooperation with South Asian countries on energy security and described the differences in project execution and the political justifications for the two nations’ gas pipelines in this region [18]. Ahmed et al. (2019) looked at the potential variables that would prevent the energy projects along the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor from successfully achieving energy security [19]. The challenges preventing energy links between China and Southeast Asian countries were discussed at Delina (2021) [20]. Gong and Balazs (2021) examined the factors that would allow and prevent China from participating more actively in regional energy governance [21].

The following research are concerned with examining and projecting future possibilities for cooperation. Mao (2013) forecasted the potential and scope of energy cooperation in the future up to 2030 by analyzing the geographical and geopolitical foundations of China’s energy cooperation with Russia and the five Central Asian nations [22]. The potential benefits of a five-nation North East Asian power grid interconnection plan were examined by Chang et al. (2021), along with the network structure that produces the optimum benefit distribution [23]. The position of China’s international energy cooperation was clearly discussed by Wang et al. (2021), who also examined the key issues that require attention in the country’s cooperation with its neighbors on energy security [24]. In the context of gas pipeline construction projects in Russia, Mongolia, and China, Xie (2022) offered a detailed study of the degree of energy cooperation as well as an appraisal of the prospects for cooperation [25]. In addition, Phompida and Yu (2022) investigated the network structure of China’s energy cooperation with adjacent nations in the context of “One Belt, One Road”, and assessed the significant role of core countries in the energy supply chain, based on the small world network theory [26].

2.2. A Brief Review of Research on Dividing Energy Security Dimensions

Energy security involves a large number of fields and complicated contents, some scholars chose 372 related indicators to analyze the level of energy security [27]. In order to simplify the dimensions while retaining as many important and representative key indicators as possible, the World Energy Council’s annual Energy Dilemma Index report divides energy security into three broad categories, namely, security of energy supply, energy equity, and environmental sustainability. This provides an integrated measure of the energy security performance of different countries [28]. The energy trilemma, also known as the energy trinity paradox, refers to the difficulty for an energy policy to simultaneously address three issues: security of energy supply, energy poverty eradication, and ecological protection. A number of scholars have selected energy security indicators based on the “energy trilemma” and used various statistical methods to compare and analyze the energy security situation of different countries [29,30].

In recent years, among a large number of studies on energy security level measurement, many scholars adopted the “4A” framework to divide dimensions [8,31,32]. Namely, energy availability dimension, energy applicability dimension, energy affordability dimension, and energy acceptability dimension. Specifically, energy availability mainly refers to the energy supply based on fossil energy resources [32]. Research has pointed out that energy applicability measures the ability of new technologies to protect and efficiently use fossil energy [8]. Energy affordability includes elements such as reasonable energy prices, equitable access to energy, and the quality of energy delivered to consumers [32]. Energy acceptability measures the impact of energy use on the environment and society mainly at the economic or social level [31].

The “4A” framework overlaps significantly with the “energy trilemma” dimension, but there are subtle differences between them. This paper integrates these two ways of developing energy security dimensions and constructs an evaluation indicator system for the level of energy security in China and neighboring countries on this basis. The selection of relevant indicators under each energy security dimension has been discussed in a large number of studies, as follows.

2.3. Relevant Indicators for Measuring the Level of National Energy Security

Indicators under the energy availability and energy adaptability dimensions have a high degree of overlap with the energy supply security dimension. Most studies used energy storage and production ratio to measure energy availability and energy supply security [8,32,33]. The dimension of energy availability, which gauges a nation’s level of energy supply security by measuring the various forms and proportions of energy supply, includes the diversity of energy supply. In recent years, some scholars began to use the Shannon Index to calculate the diversity of energy supply and assess the level of energy availability [9,34]. Numerous studies have used fossil energy import dependency as one of the indicators of security of energy supply, which mainly includes the three energy types of oil, gas, and coal [5,35,36]. Among them, natural gas dependency and coal dependency belong to the energy availability dimension. This paper argues that crude oil dependence reflects a country’s crude oil resource endowment and belongs to the energy availability dimension, while refined oil import dependence reflects a country’s crude oil distillation capacity to a certain extent and therefore belongs to the energy applicability dimension [32]. In addition, energy intensity is commonly used in existing studies to indicate a country’s energy efficiency [6,7]. Moreover, the distribution loss rate is considered as an important indicator of energy supply security [5]. This indicator reflects the level of national transmission infrastructure and technology, so it is also used to measure energy applicability [37].

The energy equity dimension and the energy affordability dimension share indicators. Some studies categorize the percentage of a nation’s population that has access to electricity as energy equity in order to analyze it [35,36]. The majority of research used per-person energy usage as a gauge of energy affordability [38,39]. Additionally, previous research has examined the security of energy affordability using the crude oil price volatility index [40,41,42].

There are indicators that relate to both the energy acceptability and environmental sustainability elements. Since it provides a significant representation of the use of renewable energy, the percentage of renewable energy generation in total power generation has become an essential indicator for determining the level of national environmental sustainability [38]. The two primary measures most commonly used by academics to evaluate the level of energy security under the heading of energy acceptability are carbon emission intensity and per capita carbon emission [9,37].

2.4. Relationship between the Coupling Degree of the Capacity Structure and the Stability of Bilateral Energy Security Cooperation

A region’s or a nation’s structural capacity, such as its configuration capacity, development capacity, technological capacity, and opening capacity, is referred to as its capacity structure [43]. According to this theory, a country or region will only have a high chance of growth if it is resource-rich and has a strong capacity structure, that is, if there is a balance and match between capacity structures [44]. It is obvious that a country will have a comparative advantage if its capacity structure is stronger. The theoretical framework is frequently employed as a more in-depth theoretical foundation for explaining persistent regional cooperation [45,46]. The capacity structure hypothesis states that the stability of bilateral cooperation will be further impacted by the difference in the capacity structures of two nations.

The characteristics of national energy security include multiple topics and aspects, and its fundamental components—such as energy supply, efficiency, price level, and degree of dependence—reflect the capacity structure of a nation to some extent. The capability structure coupling degree between the two countries should be maintained at a relatively high level of coincidence, claims the interdependence theory, in order to maintain long-term energy security cooperation between nations. Some articles have described the cooperation between various locations using the coupling degree of capability structure [47,48]. In light of the level of energy security, this study will evaluate the degree to which China and its neighbors’ bilateral capacity structures are coupled. Furthermore, using this information, the article calculates the hypothetical advantages of cooperation in order to assess the stability of bilateral energy security cooperation.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Source and Indicators Description

The data in this paper are selected from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the International Energy Agency, the websites of national official statistical departments, the BP Energy Statistical Yearbook, the Asian Development Bank database, and the World Bank WDI database.

Table 1. Energy security indicators based on the “Trilemma” and the “4A” framework.

Energy Trilemma Dimensions	“4A” Framework	Secondary Indicators	Tertiary Indicators	Contribution Direction	Original Data Source
Energy supply	Energy availability	Energy storage and production ratio	Crude oil storage/production ratio	Positive	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
			Gas storage/production ratio	Positive	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
			Coal storage and production ratio	Positive	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
		Diversity of energy supply	Diversity of energy supply	Positive	International Energy Agency [50]
		External energy dependence	External dependence of crude oil	Negative	International Energy Agency [50]
			External dependence of dry natural gas	Negative	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
			External dependence of coal	Negative	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
	Energy applicability		External dependence of refined oil products	Negative	International Energy Agency [50]
		Energy intensity	Energy consumption per unit of GDP	Negative	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
		Distribution loss rate	The proportion of distribution loss in total power generation	Negative	U.S. Energy Information Administration, Myanmar Statistical Information Service [51], the Ministry of Economy of the Kyrgyz Republic [52]
Energy equity	Energy affordability	The percentage of people with access to electricity	The percentage of people with access to electricity	Positive	World Bank WDI database [53]
		Energy consumption per capita	Energy consumption per capita	Positive	U.S. Energy Information Administration
		Oil price volatility	Crude oil price volatility	Negative	The spot crude oil prices of Dubai, Brent, and West Texas Intermediate are selected from BP Statistical Review of World Energy [54]; the spot crude oil prices of Omani in Asian markets are selected from the website of the Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China [55].
			Volatility of refined oil prices	Negative	Asian Development Bank [56], Korea Energy Statistical Information System [57], Laos Statistical Information Service [58], Agency on Statistics under president of the Republic of Tajikistan [59], Agency for Strategic planning and reforms of the Republic of Kazakhstan Bureau of National statistics [60], National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic [61], official website of the Petroimex in Vietnam [62], EMISS government statistics in Russia [63], Ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas of the Government of India [64], and the diesel prices in the Tokyo market and the gasoline spot prices in Singapore market are selected from the website of the Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China [55].
Environmental sustainability	Energy acceptability	The share of renewable energy in electricity production	The share of renewable energy in electricity production	Positive	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
		Carbon emission intensity	Carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP	Negative	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]
		Carbon dioxide emissions per capita	Carbon dioxide emissions per capita	Negative	U.S. Energy Information Administration [49]

If the contribution direction is positive, it means that the larger the index value is, the more beneficial it is to improve the level of energy security. If the direction of the contribution is negative, the opposite is true.

lists the indicators of energy security level used for this study, along with their dimensions and pertinent characteristics.

3.2. The Method for Measuring Energy Security Level

Numerous statistical techniques, such as TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution) and GRA (Grey Relational Analysis), have been applied in the current multi-objective comprehensive evaluation research [65,66]. In order to rank each plan among them, the TOPSIS approach determines the distance to the ideal solution. A way of systematic evaluation is the grey correlation degree. It can determine how closely each scheme is to the ideal scheme by evaluating the correlation between the degree of the changing condition among the indicators. The TOPSIS method’s limitation that it can only show the gap between each scheme and the ideal solution and cannot reflect the precise changes in index data can be compensated for by gray correlation degree. The majority of current studies compare and analyze these two evaluation techniques separately. It is easy to see from the analysis above that the combination of these two strategies may fully utilize each method’s advantages. Therefore, in order to thoroughly assess the state of energy security in China and its bordering nations, the grey correlation approach based on TOPSIS is utilized in this research.

The original data matrix, $X={\left(x_{ij}\right)}_{n\times m}$, is initially dimensionless, with $i$ and $j$ standing for national and energy security indices, respectively. All data are typically subjected to a linear treatment (Equation (1)) in existing investigations. Given that a logarithmic function may handle data with extreme values of several orders of magnitude and that some of the indicators in this paper do in fact have extreme values, linear treatment is only appropriate for dealing with data without extreme values (Equation (2)). In order to account for some of the negative values of the data, a power function with a power exponent of 1/3 is employed for data with extreme values of the same order of magnitude (Equation (3)). The following equations provide two methods for both low-performing indicators and high-performing indicators (the higher the value, the higher the level of energy security) (the smaller the value, the higher the level of energy security).

$$y_{ij}=\frac{x_{ij}-mi{n}_i\left\{x_{ij}\right\}}{ma{x}_i\left\{x_{ij}\right\}-mi{n}_i\left\{x_{ij}\right\}} ; y_{ij}=\frac{ma{x}_i\left\{x_{ij}\right\}-x_{ij}}{ma{x}_i\left\{x_{ij}\right\}-mi{n}_i\left\{x_{ij}\right\}}$$

(1)

$$y_{ij}=\frac{ln\left(x_{ij}\right)-ln\left\{mi{n}_i\left(x_{ij}\right)\right\}}{ln\left\{ma{x}_i\left(x_{ij}\right)\right\}-ln\left\{mi{n}_i\left(x_{ij}\right)\right\}} ; y_{ij}=\frac{ln\left\{ma{x}_i\left(x_{ij}\right)\right\}-ln\left(x_{ij}\right)}{ln\left\{ma{x}_i\left(x_{ij}\right)\right\}-ln\left\{mi{n}_i\left(x_{ij}\right)\right\}}$$

(2)

$$y_{ij}=\frac{x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}-mi{n}_i\left(x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}\right)}{ma{x}_i\left(x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}\right)-mi{n}_i\left(x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}\right)} ; y_{ij}=\frac{ma{x}_i\left(x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}\right)-x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}}{ma{x}_i\left(x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}\right)-mi{n}_i\left(x_{ij}^{\frac{1}{3}}\right)}$$

(3)

After normalization, the proportion of country $i$ under the $j$th indicator is calculated as $W_{ij}=\frac{Y_{ij}}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{i=1}^n{Y}_{ij}}$. The weight of each index is calculated using the entropy weight method and is displayed as follows.

$$E_j=-\frac{1}{lnn}{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^n{W}_{ij}ln\left(W_{ij}\right), j\in m, i\in n$$

(4)

If $W_{ij}=0$, there is $W_{ij}ln\left(W_{ij}\right)=0$ in Equation (4). According to the entropy value, this paper further determines the weight of each indicator as ${\omega }_j=\frac{1-E_j}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{j=1}^m\left(1-E_j\right)}$. The weighted choice matrix Z and its accompanying ideal solutions, both positive and negative, are depicted in Equations (5) and (6). From Equation (7) through Equation (10), the Euclidean distance, the correlation coefficient matrix, and total correlation degree are displayed. In Equation (11), they receive treatment that is dimensionless.

$${\left(Z_{ij}\right)}_{n\times m}=Y_{ij}\times S_j \left(i=1,2,\cdots ,n;j=1,2,\cdots ,m\right)$$

(5)

$$Z^{+}=\left(z_1^{+},z_2^{+},\cdots ,z_j^{+}\right) ; Z^{-}=\left(z_1^{-},z_2^{-},\cdots ,z_j^{-}\right); z_j^{+}={\left(z_{ij}\right)}_{max}; z_j^{-}={\left(z_{ij}\right)}_{min}$$

(6)

$$d_i^{+}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{\left(z_{ij}-z_j^{+}\right)}^2} ; d_i^{-}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{\left(z_{ij}-z_j^{-}\right)}^2}$$

(7)

$$r_{ij}^{+}=\frac{{\left|z_j^{+}-z_{ij}\right|}_{min}+\rho {\left|z_j^{+}-z_{ij}\right|}_{max}}{\left|z_j^{+}-z_{ij}\right|+\rho {\left|z_j^{+}-z_{ij}\right|}_{max}} ; r_{ij}^{-}=\frac{{\left|z_j^{-}-z_{ij}\right|}_{min}+\rho {\left|z_j^{-}-z_{ij}\right|}_{max}}{\left|z_j^{-}-z_{ij}\right|+\rho {\left|z_j^{-}-z_{ij}\right|}_{max}}$$

(8)

$$R^{+}={\left(r_{ij}^{+}\right)}_{m\times n} ; R^{-}={\left(r_{ij}^{-}\right)}_{m\times n}$$

(9)

$$r_i^{+}=\frac{1}{m}{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{r}_{ij}^{+} ; r_i^{-}=\frac{1}{m}{\displaystyle \sum }_{j=1}^m{r}_{ij}^{-}$$

(10)

$$D_i^{+}=\frac{d_i^{+}}{{\left(d_i^{+}\right)}_{max}} ; D_i^{-}=\frac{d_i^{-}}{{\left(d_i^{-}\right)}_{max}} ; R_i^{+}=\frac{r_i^{+}}{{\left(r_i^{+}\right)}_{max}} ; R_i^{-}=\frac{r_i^{-}}{{\left(r_i^{-}\right)}_{max}}$$

(11)

$$Q_i^{+}=\alpha D_i^{-}+\beta R_i^{+} ; Q_i^{-}=\alpha D_i^{+}+\beta R_i^{-}$$

(12)

In Equation (8), $\rho$ is set as 0.5. The larger the values of $R_i^{+}$ and $D_i^{-}$, the closer the energy security level of the country in a certain dimension is to the positive ideal solution. Conversely, the greater the values of $R_i^{-}$ and $D_i^{+}$, the closer we are to the negative ideal solution.

In Equation (12), $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are set as 0.5 according to the general experience. Finally, the relative closeness between the energy security level of each country and the ideal solution is calculated as $S_i=\frac{Q_i^{+}}{Q_i^{+}+Q_i^{-}}$. It can be seen that the larger $S_i$ is, the higher the energy security level of the country in this dimension is in that year. Otherwise, the energy security level is low.

3.3. Capability Structure Relationship Model

In this paper, the capacity structure index of countries can be expressed by Equation (13), where $CSI$ stands for energy security index, and $i$ stands for four energy security dimensions, including energy availability, energy applicability, energy affordability, and energy acceptability. $A$ represents China’s neighboring countries, $B$ represents China.$W_i$ is the weight of the index that constitutes the capacity of each dimension of energy security. Since the comprehensive energy security level of each country calculated in this paper is obtained by the sum of the four dimensions, $W_i=0.25$.

$$CS{I}_{Ai}=W_i\times A_i, CS{I}_{Bi}=W_i\times B_i, i=1,2,3,4$$

(13)

This study calculates the degree of energy security cooperation between China and its neighbors using the capability structure’s coupling degree improvement formula [67]. The specific formula is as follows.

$$C_{AB}=\sum \left|\frac{CS{I}_{Ai}}{CS{I}_{Bi}}-1\right|/\sqrt[i]{\prod \left|\frac{CS{I}_{Ai}}{CS{I}_{Bi}}-1\right|}$$

(14)

The energy security level coupling degree between China and country A is represented by $C_{AB}$ in Equation (14), and it is used to assess how well the two countries can cooperate in this area. The prospect of energy security collaboration increases with the level of connectivity between energy security levels.

Based on this, the benefits of energy security cooperation between China and its neighbors may be explained from a theoretical level using the following energy security level and bilateral energy security cooperation interest distribution diagram.

The energy security cooperation capacity of countries A and B is depicted in Figure 1 by the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively. The slope of the line where OA and OB are located is expressed by the function $arctg\left(1-CS{I}_A\right)$ and $arctg\left(\frac{1}{1-CS{I}_B}\right)$ of the energy security levels of country A and country B, respectively. The regions enclosed by AOC, BOC, and AOB in Figure 1 indicate, respectively, the revenue of country A, the revenue of country B, and the combined revenue of the two nations from their bilateral cooperation in the field of energy security.

The area size of the regional AOC, BOC, and AOB is determined by the slope and length of the OA and OB, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each region’s area expression is listed below.

$$S_{AOC}=\frac{1}{2}\times CS{I}_A\times CS{I}_B\times C_{AB}\times \left(\frac{\pi }{4}-arctg\left(1-CS{I}_A\right)\right)$$

(15)

$$S_{BOC}=\frac{1}{2}\times CS{I}_A\times CS{I}_B\times C_{AB}\times \left(arctg\left(\frac{1}{1-CS{I}_B}\right)-\frac{\pi }{4}\right)$$

(16)

$$S_{AOB}=\frac{1}{2}\times CS{I}_A\times CS{I}_B\times C_{AB}\times \left(arctg\left(\frac{1}{1-CS{I}_B}\right)-arctg\left(1-CS{I}_A\right)\right)$$

(17)

$$Benefit Ratio=\frac{S_{AOC}}{S_{BOC}}$$

(18)

Since $arctg\left(1-CS{I}_A\right)$ monotonically decreases with respect to $CS{I}_A$ and $arctg\left(\frac{1}{1-CS{I}_B}\right)$ monotonically increases with respect to $CS{I}_B$, $S_{AOC}$, $S_{BOC}$, and $S_{AOB}$, all monotonically increase with respect to $CS{I}_A$ and $CS{I}_B$. To put it another way, as bilateral energy security increases, so do the overall advantages of this partnership. There is $S_{AOC}>S_{BOC}$ if $CS{I}_A>CS{I}_B$. In other words, the nation with a better level of energy security gains more from bilateral collaboration on energy security. The total advantages and the equitable distribution of benefits between the two sides determine how stable the bilateral energy security cooperation between China and its neighbors will be. Theoretically, the nation with a higher allocation ratio will be more willing to collaborate if the overall benefits stay the same. If the percentage of benefits remains constant, the bilateral energy security cooperation will be more stable the bigger the total benefits.

4. Results

4.1. Overall Level of Energy Security of Each Country

This study calculates the sub-dimensional and overall energy security levels of China and its bordering nations for the period 2010–2019 using the aforementioned models, where the overall level is the sum of the levels of each dimension. The average for 2010 to 2019 is shown in

Table 2. Energy security levels in China and its neighboring countries from 2010 to 2019.

	Year	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	Average
Country
China		1.91	1.97	1.96	2.12	2.05	1.97	2.07	2.11	2.10	2.06	2.03
Japan		2.10	2.06	2.00	2.11	2.06	2.14	2.15	2.19	2.24	2.22	2.13
South Korea		2.03	1.99	1.98	2.08	2.00	2.07	2.11	2.14	2.20	2.06	2.07
Mongolia		1.94	1.72	1.80	1.82	2.07	2.04	2.02	2.09	2.07	1.99	1.96
Russia		2.20	2.20	2.20	2.14	2.20	2.16	2.14	2.10	2.20	2.05	2.16
Kazakhstan		2.03	1.90	2.03	1.94	2.07	2.10	2.09	2.08	2.17	2.03	2.04
Tajikistan		1.67	1.69	1.66	1.77	1.67	1.76	1.72	1.73	1.69	1.67	1.70
Kyrgyzstan		1.46	1.68	1.56	1.63	1.55	1.60	1.57	1.61	1.64	1.64	1.59
Uzbekistan		1.60	1.65	1.68	1.71	1.67	1.64	1.66	1.59	1.74	1.74	1.67
Turkmenistan		1.75	1.78	1.89	1.82	1.83	1.78	1.79	1.69	1.69	1.80	1.78
Pakistan		1.68	1.64	1.51	1.66	1.68	1.73	1.77	1.86	1.91	1.62	1.71
India		1.88	2.02	1.91	1.91	1.92	1.92	1.92	1.94	1.97	1.86	1.93
Sri Lanka		1.65	1.68	1.56	1.78	1.70	1.87	1.83	1.90	1.89	1.60	1.75
Bangladesh		1.63	1.56	1.49	1.62	1.57	1.64	1.65	1.61	1.65	1.51	1.59
Nepal		1.53	1.49	1.45	1.46	1.54	1.65	1.60	1.71	1.69	1.48	1.56
Myanmar		1.74	1.67	1.62	1.63	1.71	1.73	1.68	1.72	1.69	1.59	1.68
Laos		1.75	1.68	1.62	1.75	1.81	1.63	1.66	1.72	1.71	1.64	1.70
Thailand		1.99	2.08	1.97	2.11	2.09	2.03	2.11	2.12	2.15	2.09	2.08
Cambodia		1.57	1.48	1.56	1.48	1.52	1.60	1.60	1.56	1.58	1.47	1.54
Vietnam		1.87	1.79	1.79	1.86	1.90	1.85	1.91	1.95	1.89	1.77	1.86
Malaysia		2.08	2.00	1.96	2.02	1.93	2.02	2.00	1.99	2.07	1.86	1.99
Singapore		1.88	1.85	1.87	2.03	1.94	1.99	2.01	2.04	1.97	1.93	1.95
Indonesia		2.33	2.32	2.12	2.11	2.08	2.10	2.10	2.15	2.29	2.05	2.17
Philippines		2.05	2.05	2.01	2.06	2.06	2.04	2.06	2.05	2.03	1.97	2.04
Brunei		2.02	1.87	2.05	1.99	2.03	2.09	2.09	1.94	1.89	2.06	2.00

The data for China in this article has been replaced by data for mainland China.

along with the level of energy security by country and year.

This paper presents a heat map for Table 2 in order to make the trend and comparison among nations clearer and more noticeable for visualization. It is displayed as follows.

When Table 2 and Figure 2 are combined, it is clear that the top 10 countries in terms of total energy security from 2010 to 2019 were Indonesia, Russia, Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, China, Brunei, and Malaysia. As can be seen, Central Asia should theoretically have a high level of security if the usual concept of energy supply security is followed. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and other nations in this region have a relatively low level of security, albeit, after careful consideration of energy equality and environmental sustainability. Japan and South Korea, on the other hand, retain a relatively high overall degree of energy security while having relatively few energy resources.

4.2. The Level of Energy Security in Different Dimensions

Figure 3 shows the average level of energy security for each country under the “4A” framework.

For comparison, Russia and Mongolia are included in Northeast Asia.

The Central Asia nations have the highest overall levels of energy availability, as seen in Figure 3. China is ranked 16th out of 25 countries in terms of energy availability. Mongolia and Russia are the nations in Northeast Asia with the highest levels of energy availability by region, showing that both of these nations have abundant fossil fuel reserves. On the other hand, Japan and Korea score poorly because they do not have access to fossil fuels. Turkmenistan has the highest levels in Central Asia, followed by Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. Due to overexploitation or a lack of diversity in the energy supply, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in this region have relatively low levels of energy availability. Due to the absence of traditional energy resources, South Asian nations often have low levels of energy availability. In South East Asia, there is a lot of internal fluctuation in the energy supply. Both countries that are wealthy in oil and gas, such as Brunei and Indonesia, as well as those that significantly rely on energy imports, such as Singapore, are found in the region.

Korea, Russia, and Japan are the top three countries in terms of energy applicability, showing that these nations have advanced technology capabilities such as energy conservation and effective use. China has the seventh-highest level of energy applicability out of all nations. The degree of energy applicability between nations varies significantly within different regions. With the exception of Korea, Russia, and Japan, who are well ahead, Mongolia performs poorly in North East Asia. India has the best rating in South Asia, while Nepal has the worst. It is clear that nations with higher levels of technology and scientific advancement also have higher levels of energy applicability. Kazakhstan has the highest rating in Central Asia, followed by Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan, whereas Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have relatively low ratings. Thailand received the highest score in South East Asia, followed by Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Brunei. This shows that these nations profit from their own technological prowess, comparatively good energy infrastructure, and more effective use of energy compared with other nations in the region.

Singapore, Brunei, and South Korea are the nations with the highest levels of energy affordability. In terms of energy affordability, China came in ninth place overall. Similar to the energy applicability dimension, North East Asia has a large concentration of energy affordability in Korea, Russia, and Japan, with Mongolia scoring very poorly in this category. With all of the countries in the region exhibiting essentially comparable levels of energy affordability, South Asian countries generally underperformed on the energy equity component. Bangladesh had the lowest score, whereas India received a rather high one. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have better affordability levels than Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which are then followed by Tajikistan, which has the lowest degree of affordability in Central Asia. The most pronounced internal diversity is found in South East Asia, where there are both economically developed nations such as Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia and economically underdeveloped nations such as Myanmar and Cambodia. As can be observed, a nation’s level of economic and social development is highly correlated with how affordable its energy is.

The three nations with the highest levels of acceptable energy consumption are the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia. This is because these nations’ policies favor the development and use of renewable energy. The three nations with the lowest rankings are Brunei, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. These nations have limited incentive to create new energy sources because their economic progress is predicated on their own, plentiful fossil energy supplies. Out of 25 nations, China has the sixth-highest score for energy acceptance. Japan has the greatest score in North East Asia overall, followed by South Korea and Mongolia, in that order. Russia receives the lowest rating in the area, indicating that it needs to make more effort to cut emissions and develop alternative energy sources. The lowest overall energy acceptability level of any region is found in Central Asia, a sign that the area is not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions and employ more renewable energy sources. Tajikistan performs admirably in the region thanks to its efforts to expand its hydro energy resources. The relative scarcity of fossil fuel resources in the region and the necessity to increase energy security through the development of renewable energy sources may be contributing factors to South Asian countries’ high overall levels of energy acceptability. India performs the best in the region, followed by Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. South East Asia has large internal variations in energy acceptability, with the region including both nations with low levels of energy acceptability, such as Brunei, and those with higher levels, such the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia.

The findings in Figure 3 show that China and its neighbors generally lack the capacity to ensure their energy security, with no country exhibiting a strong level of energy security in all categories at once. The findings show that China and its neighbors frequently face the “energy trilemma”, which emphasizes the necessity of bilateral collaboration on energy security.

4.3. Coupling Degree of Bilateral Energy Security Capability between China and Its Neighboring Countries

The coupling degree of the bilateral energy security cooperation capability between China and its neighboring countries between 2010 and 2019 is determined by applying Equation (14) in accordance with each country’s sub-dimensional energy security index, and the results are displayed in Figure 4.

The Philippines, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan are among the nations with a high average capacity structure coupling from 2010 to 2019. Figure 4 shows this trend. This shows that these nations have a strong theoretical capacity to work with China to ensure bilateral energy security. In light of the findings in Figure 3, the Philippines has a clear advantage over China when it comes to the use of renewable energy. China, however, has greater capacity when it comes to energy efficiency-related technologies and energy equity, and there is more room for cooperation between the two countries in terms of various aspects of energy security. Regarding traditional energy resource endowments, India and China are comparable, but China has a large edge in energy fairness and efficiency technology, and India has a greater degree of energy acceptance. Therefore, there is a strong potential for bilateral collaboration between these two big countries in terms of energy security. Although Sri Lanka is relatively close to China in terms of energy applicability and environmental sustainability, it has a lower average level than China in all dimensions of energy security. Despite this, the two nations still have a high level of overall coupling, with the largest difference between them occurring in the energy equality dimension. In terms of conventional energy resources and environmental sustainability, Indonesia has an advantage over China, although China is better equipped in terms of energy applicability and affordability, and bilateral cooperation is relatively complimentary. In terms of energy equality and efficiency, Kazakhstan and China are comparable. Kazakhstan has a significant advantage in terms of traditional energy resources, whereas China has a more notable capacity in terms of environmental sustainability. As a result, there is a strong complementarity in the two countries’ cooperation on energy security.

By specific region, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Brunei have relatively high levels of coupling in Southeast Asia (the pink band in Figure 4), in addition to the Philippines and Indonesia. When Figure 3 and Figure 4 are combined, it is clear that Malaysia and China might collaborate more effectively on environmental sustainability and the security of traditional energy resources. Both Brunei and Thailand have the potential for long-term cooperation with China due to their exceptional skills in energy efficiency technology and the usage of renewable energy sources. Even though Cambodia does not perform as well as China in all areas of energy security, there is a greater disparity between the two countries in areas such as energy equity and energy efficiency, which are directly related to a country’s level of social and economic development and therefore partially offset the negative effects on the populace as a whole. Myanmar has a less connected capacity structure than the other Southeast Asian nations. Despite having a comparative advantage over China in terms of energy resources, the country is constrained by its degree of technological capacity, economic, and social development, and it lags behind China in other areas of energy security. Laos and Vietnam are both looking to improve their cooperation with China in areas such as green power, with the goal of improving their own energy security and stabilizing bilateral energy security cooperation. Both countries and Laos and Vietnam have significant gaps with China in terms of energy efficiency technologies, energy equity, and environmental sustainability. Although China has a greater advantage in energy applicability, Singapore’s developed economy gives it a clear advantage in terms of energy affordability. As a nation with limited energy resources, Singapore is less able to guarantee the security of the energy supply, but this could strengthen future cooperation in energy efficiency and clean energy use with China.

Mongolia and Russia have a high coupling of capacity structures in North East Asia (the blue band in Figure 4), followed by Japan and South Korea, respectively. Theoretically, this indicates that Russia and Mongolia are in a good position to work together with China on long-term bilateral agreements relating to energy security. As shown in Figure 3, Mongolia has the capacity to cooperate in order to guarantee the security of its energy supply, but it has less capacity to do so in areas where China has a comparative advantage, such as energy-related technologies, energy conservation and environmental protection, and energy equity. Due to the abundance of fossil fuel resources in Russia and China’s superiority in the development of renewable energy and environmental protection, there is a high degree of complementarity and coupling in their cooperation. In terms of all aspects of energy security, Japan and South Korea lag behind China only slightly, with Japan having higher levels of energy efficiency technologies, energy affordability, and renewable energy use than China. South Korea also has an advantage over China in terms of energy efficiency technologies. With the exception of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan have the highest degree of coupling with China in Central Asia (the yellow band in Figure 4). Turkmenistan has a significant hydrocarbon resource advantage over China, whereas China has a significant technological capability advantage in energy efficiency, carbon emission reduction, and renewable energy. As a result, there is a strong coupling between the capability structures of the two countries. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are comparable to China in that they have a big edge over it in terms of fossil energy supply but a significant disadvantage in other areas. The entire capacity structure suffers as a result of the poor coupling. All three nations should increase their levels of energy efficiency, energy equity, and environmental sustainability in their future bilateral collaboration with China, either independently or with the help of Chinese money and technology, in order to increase the stability of their partnership.

Bangladesh, one of the other South Asian nations (the green band in Figure 4), has a lower level of energy security than China across all dimensions, but the difference in the security of energy availability dimension is not large, somewhat lessening the detrimental effect on the coupling of capacity structures. The disparity between the two nations is mostly focused on the areas of energy applicability, energy affordability, and energy acceptability. Although Pakistan has a modest edge over China in terms of energy applicability, there is a significant disparity between the two countries in terms of other aspects of energy security, and as a result, Pakistan’s capacity structure is not well coupled with China. In all respects, Nepal’s degree of energy security is lower than China’s, especially in terms of energy applicability and cost, leading to a low level of capacity coupling between the two countries.

This study calculates the annual benefits of bilateral energy security cooperation between China and its neighbors using a theoretical model. The benefits for China (the area BOC in Figure 1), the benefits for partner nations (the area AOC in Figure 1), the total bilateral benefits (the area AOB in Figure 1), and the benefit distribution ratio are all averaged out throughout the period of 2010 to 2019.

The magnitude of the total benefits and the split between benefits for each party in the energy security collaboration will have an impact on how stable the cooperation remains, as was noted in the literature study. As shown in

Table 3. The average benefit of bilateral energy security cooperation during 2010–2019.

Partner Country	Benefits for Partner Country	Benefits for China	Total Benefits of Bilateral Cooperation	Benefit Distribution Ratio
Japan	0.239	0.226	0.465	1.059
South Korea	0.196	0.192	0.389	1.020
Mongolia	0.250	0.263	0.513	0.953
Russia	0.281	0.261	0.543	1.077
Kazakhstan	0.290	0.288	0.578	1.007
Tajikistan	0.123	0.153	0.276	0.804
Kyrgyzstan	0.122	0.165	0.287	0.743
Uzbekistan	0.136	0.174	0.311	0.784
Turkmenistan	0.204	0.240	0.443	0.849
Pakistan	0.153	0.189	0.342	0.807
India	0.297	0.318	0.614	0.935
Sri Lanka	0.221	0.266	0.487	0.830
Bangladesh	0.151	0.203	0.354	0.742
Nepal	0.119	0.165	0.284	0.725
Myanmar	0.122	0.155	0.277	0.790
Laos	0.130	0.163	0.293	0.801
Thailand	0.249	0.242	0.491	1.026
Cambodia	0.121	0.169	0.290	0.714
Vietnam	0.160	0.178	0.338	0.895
Malaysia	0.270	0.277	0.547	0.975
Singapore	0.191	0.201	0.393	0.950
Indonesia	0.346	0.319	0.665	1.083
Philippines	0.395	0.394	0.789	1.004
Brunei	0.214	0.218	0.432	0.981

, there will be significant overall gains from bilateral collaboration between China and the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Mongolia, and Thailand. The Philippines, Malaysia, and Kazakhstan are close to China’s overall level of energy security, whereas Russia, Indonesia, India, Mongolia, and Thailand have strong complementary relationships with China in terms of their collaboration on many facets of energy security.

The benefit distribution ratio is bigger than one for Indonesia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines, indicating that these nations could potentially profit more from bilateral energy security cooperation with China. The values for the other nations, on the other hand, are all smaller than one, indicating that China, theoretically, has more to gain from bilateral cooperation with its neighbors. Additionally, the benefit ratios for the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Brunei, South Korea, and Thailand are the closest to one, indicating that bilateral cooperation between China and these nations is theoretically more stable while maintaining total benefits constant.

This research comes to the conclusion that, among China’s neighbors, bilateral energy security cooperation between the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and China is theoretically more stable based on the results of the total benefits and benefit distribution ratios of bilateral cooperation.

4.4. Robustness Test

Instead of reporting each year separately, this paper’s previous section averages the capability structure and the advantages of bilateral cooperation on energy security for each country from 2010 to 2019. This study performs a robust-ness test to see whether the conclusions drawn from the averages are accurate. First, each country’s metrics for each year are ranked, including things such as the coupling of capacity structures and the advantages of bilateral collaboration. Second, each indicator’s mean values from 2010 to 2019 are ranked in order. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was then used to assess the relationship between the values of each indicator and the mean for each year.

A technique for investigating the relationship between two variables based on rank information is the significance testing of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. First, the rank correlation coefficient for the two series is determined. It is determined as per Equation (19).

$$r_s=1-\frac{6\times \sum d_i^2}{\left(n^3-n\right)}$$

(19)

In Equation (19), $X_i$ and $Y_i$ represent the rank series of each country in each year and the rank series of the mean values of all years, respectively. In addition, $d_i$ is the difference in rank between $X_i$ and $Y_i$, and $n$ represents each country.

Next, the following hypothesis is put forth after a hypothesis test is conducted to ascertain the serial connection.

$$H_0: r_s=0; H_1: r_s\ne 0$$

(20)

As in this paper, n = 24, which is a small sample case (n ≤ 30), the correlation coefficient $r_s$ was directly used to compare with the corresponding critical values in the critical value table [68].

Table 4. Correlation coefficient between each year’s rank series and the rank series of all years’ means.

	Item	Coupling Degree of Capacity Structure	Benefits for Partner Country	Benefits for China	Total Benefits of Bilateral Cooperation	Benefit Distribution Ratio
Year
2010		0.61 ***	0.89 ***	0.81 ***	0.83 ***	0.95 ***
2011		0.53 ***	0.78 ***	0.63 ***	0.67 ***	0.94 ***
2012		0.63 ***	0.73 ***	0.67 ***	0.69 ***	0.92 ***
2013		0.54 ***	0.87 ***	0.79 ***	0.82 ***	0.97 ***
2014		0.79 ***	0.92 ***	0.87 ***	0.89 ***	0.95 ***
2015		0.44 **	0.86 ***	0.62 ***	0.73 ***	0.95 ***
2016		0.76 ***	0.92 ***	0.84 ***	0.90 ***	0.98 ***
2017		0.85 ***	0.84 ***	0.86 ***	0.86 ***	0.94 ***
2018		0.59 ***	0.85 ***	0.77 ***	0.84 ***	0.92 ***
2019		0.50 ***	0.80 ***	0.68 ***	0.75 ***	0.93 ***

** means that the coefficient is significant at the significance level of 0.05 and *** means that the coefficient is significant at the significance level of 0.01.

shows the test results.

The findings in Table 4 show that there is a strong connection between the series of indicators for each year and the series of indicators for the mean of all years, indicating that the robustness test has validated the validity of the conclusions reached in this article.

5. Discussion

5.1. Cooperation with Countries in Southeast Asia

The findings of this study demonstrate that in Southeast Asia, China’s bilateral energy security cooperation with the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia is the most long term. China’s cooperation with Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia in terms of current power cooperation primarily entail natural gas-fired power generation and coal-fired power projects. The greater use of sustainable energy sources has been mentioned in all of these nations’ energy policy goals in recent years. In particular, the Indonesian government specifically seeks to increase the proportion of renewable energy to 23% by 2025 [69]. Malaysia aims to use 5% of its nationwide electricity demand from renewable sources by 2030 [70]. The Philippines has enacted various legislation specifically for the energy sector to accelerate the development of renewable energy in the country [71]. As a result, future solar and wind energy cooperation between China and the aforementioned nations can be strengthened. Additionally, earlier research has shown that, in certain economic conditions, the aforementioned nations are more competitive with China in the sector of nuclear energy than in the combination of wind and solar energy [72]. In light of this, future nuclear energy cooperation with the aforementioned nations can be improved.

According to the findings of this paper, the degree of energy security in each country in the Greater Mekong subregion is largely responsible for the sustainability of bilateral energy security cooperation between China and other nations in the region. The viability of bilateral collaboration with China is weak in all other nations, with the exception of Thailand. Hydropower projects are the focus of China’s power cooperation with Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand. Power cooperation procedures have been established by China, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam, and the volume of power exchanges has been increasing. However, electricity cooperation is still in its infancy due to system, technological, and geographic limitations [73]. Therefore, China can boost the development of regional power markets and increase the sustainability of cooperation in the future by enhancing cross-border power grid collaboration with the aforementioned nations. Although China and Myanmar are now working closely together in this region to exploit oil and gas resources, the findings of this research indicate that due to Myanmar’s own degree of energy security, the bilateral collaboration is not particularly sustainable. Chinese businesses are only now beginning to construct petrol stations in Myanmar [74]. In addition, Myanmar’s electricity supply is woefully inadequate to support the country’s economic growth due to the country’s lagging power generation and transmission technologies [75]. In order to help Myanmar improve its energy security and, therefore, increase the stability of bilateral energy security cooperation, China should continue to boost its collaboration with Myanmar in the area of energy infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative.

The findings of this study demonstrate that Singapore and Brunei have relatively high sustainability levels in their energy security cooperation with China compared with other ASEAN nations. China can further its energy security cooperation with both nations in the future in a number of areas. The Straits of Malacca and Singapore (SOMS), which are crucial strategic maritime routes for China’s liquefied natural gas (LNG), have significant consequences for China’s energy supply security. On the one hand, China’s energy transition has increased its reliance on LNG shipping imports [76]. Because of the legitimacy of the economic performance of its governing elite, Brunei welcomes energy investments from China [77]. In terms of environmental sustainability, there is also more room for cooperation between Singapore, Brunei, and China. Previous research has found that Chinese investment in green energy continues to expand in the countries along the Belt and Road, with Singapore having the lowest risk overall, reflecting Singapore’s strong desire for cooperation [78]. The Bruneian government has created a plan called “Brunei Vision 2025” to increase the usage of renewable energy sources and diversify the country’s energy supply [79]. Moreover, research has shown that China has a strong track record in energy efficiency technology while Brunei has a low degree of energy efficiency [80]. Therefore, in the future, China and Brunei can further their bilateral cooperation in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy.

5.2. Cooperation with Countries in North East Asia

Russia is a key partner for China’s energy dependency, and the two countries have a long-standing and solid foundation for cooperation on energy security [81]. According to the results of this paper, China should continue to work with Russia to supply fossil fuels in the future. For instance, China and Russia should collaborate more closely on energy projects in the “China-Mongolia-Russia” economic corridor and push for the implementation of the “Siberian Power-2” project. They should also work together on all aspects of Arctic oil and gas exploration and development [82]. The findings of this paper also imply that China has a competitive advantage in terms of energy acceptability, as research demonstrates that China outperforms Russia in terms of energy efficiency [83]. In light of this, China and Russia could decide to work together more closely in the future to develop technologies for energy efficiency.

The outcomes of this study imply that energy availability and acceptability are also indicators of how long China and Mongolia’s cooperation on energy security will last. Therefore, China and Mongolia could further their close collaboration in the fields of energy infrastructure and the use of renewable energy sources in the future. According to some analyses, a massive interconnected system of electricity grids connecting China, Mongolia, Japan, South Korea, and potentially Russia could be created in North East Asia [84]. This makes it possible to convert renewable energy into electricity using solar, wind, and a variety of other methods. The grid interconnection enhances energy security by enabling the flow of affordable wind energy from the Gobi Desert to China and Mongolia.

The findings of this study demonstrate that China, Japan, and South Korea have similar levels of energy security across all aspects in North East Asia, are all major net importers of oil and gas, and have energy conservation and emission reduction goals in their national policies. As a result, it is possible to anticipate that bilateral energy security cooperation between China, Japan, and South Korea will continue to be centered on boosting clean energy usage and improving energy efficiency. According to studies, countries can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, maximize their output of renewable energy, and address their power generating deficiencies by integrating renewable energy on a broad scale [85]. In order to accelerate the creation of a bilateral energy internet, it may be beneficial to create an institutionalized framework for energy interconnection cooperation in the future [86].

5.3. Cooperation with Countries in Central Asia

With regard to fossil fuel cooperation, China and Central Asia already have a solid base. Leveraging the “Belt and Road” initiative, China should continue to deepen its ties with the region. The issues with the current cooperation should also be taken into consideration at the same time.

On the one hand, collaboration in the area of energy efficiency technology, where China, as this paper’s findings show, has an edge over Central Asian nations, must be strengthened in order to keep the partnership sustainable. The mining and processing of fossil fuels may raise carbon emissions because before China’s energy security cooperation with Central Asian nations focused on hydrocarbon resources. China can also help Central Asian countries build clean and renewable energy sources. Tajikistan, for example, has an abundance of water resources; nevertheless, if the hydroelectric project there is developed, it will significantly alter the hydrology of watercourses in nations downstream [87]. China’s expertise in this field can indeed aid Central Asia in the development of hydropower.

On the other hand, research has shown that governments in Central Asian nations are reluctant to share information, which might result in fraud and secrecy in project bidding and procurement, which could impede the development of Belt and Road energy projects [88]. Large sums of money are typically needed for energy-related projects, and Central Asia countries—particularly Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan—are hampered by their high sovereign credit risk and sovereign insolvency, making “Belt and Road” project investments extremely problematic [89]. The measuring results in this study also demonstrate the comparatively poor sustainability of China’s cooperation with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Therefore, it is important to underline the role that institutional limitations and legal norms play in cooperation on Belt and Road projects in order to ensure the sustainability of cooperation as well as to increase cooperation in infrastructure in the future.

5.4. Cooperation with Countries in South Asia

According to the findings presented in this paper, Bangladesh’s own degree of energy security is what will ultimately determine how long China and Bangladesh’s energy security collaboration will last. According to studies, Bangladesh has low trade efficiency in both primary and renewable energy, in contrast to China, which has good trade efficiency in both [90]. As a result, collaboration in fields such as infrastructure and energy-saving technology can be improved. To help more people in Bangladesh have access to affordable and sustainable energy sources, China might export clean energy such as hydropower there [91].

In order to lessen its reliance on India for energy supplies, Nepal has gradually extended its energy cooperation with China in recent years, for instance by negotiating transit trade agreements. However, there is a significant disparity between China’s domestic energy security capacity structure and Nepal’s, and Nepal’s energy development policy is also greatly affected by India, from whom the nation imports and processes almost all of its fossil fuels [92]. As a consequence, and as demonstrated by the conclusions of this research, there are not many theoretically feasible benefits to China and Nepal’s collaboration in the area of energy security. Due to the inadequate domestic grid infrastructure in Nepal, which is constrained by the government’s financial resources, the rural sections of the nation have made a commitment to small-scale, affordable renewable energy [93]. In terms of both infrastructural development and expertise in the use of renewable energy in rural areas, China has a significant advantage. In order to help Nepal strengthen its domestic energy security and so increase the sustainability of bilateral energy security cooperation, China can in the future intensify its collaboration with these two nations in these two sectors.

Both China and India are net importers of conventional energy, and the findings of this research indicate that collaboration between the two regional powers in the domain of energy security is more likely to occur in the fields of energy-efficient technology and energy equity. Studies have revealed that a sizable quantity of implicit energy is included in China’s supply of products and services to India [94]. Furthermore, China’s manufacturing industry has lowered its energy consumption as a result of increases in energy efficiency, while China’s heavy manufacturing industry has recently been less energy efficient than its Indian equivalent [95]. Thus, China and India’s collaboration on energy efficiency in bilateral trade may increase in the future.

Chinese enterprises have heavily invested in the infrastructure development of Sri Lanka’s Colombo and Hambantota ports, which play a significant transit and support role in the shipping traffic of the “21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” using the already-existing base of cooperation [96]. The port and road/rail infrastructure in Sri Lanka have significantly improved as a result of increased cash inflows from China [97]. The findings of this article imply that China’s collaboration with Sri Lanka on energy security is theoretically sustainable because the data in this paper only pertain to the period from 2010 to 2019. However, Sri Lanka’s state bankruptcy declaration in 2022 will inescapably have a negative influence on China’s investment projects, which in turn will damage the viability of the two countries’ cooperation on energy security. As a result, both parties should appropriately address the pertinent debt issues. At the same time, Chinese businesses should improve their in-depth knowledge of the current local circumstances and give greater thought to the economic sense and risk management of foreign investments when investing in energy security-related projects in the future. Moreover, environmental deterioration may potentially have a disruptive impact on significant infrastructure projects in the Belt and Road Initiative, in addition to local political difficulties in Sri Lanka [98]. In order to help Sri Lanka increase its energy security, China may aim to intensify its collaboration with Sri Lanka in the future.

According to the findings of this study, Pakistan’s bilateral relationship with China is theoretically unsustainable because of Pakistan’s own degree of energy security. According to some analyses, the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will increase Pakistan’s economic and energy security while having significant effects on regional commerce and energy security [99]. In addition, Pakistan’s geostrategic position makes it essential for the safety of China’s imports of oil and gas. Likewise, it has been observed that Chinese investment in renewable energy plant projects has supplied a significant number of employment and produced a high level of production value for linked businesses in Pakistan, contributing to energy justice and environmental sustainability [100]. Therefore, in the future, the implementation of cooperative projects under the China–Pakistan Energy Corridor mechanism should continue to be supported, and China may assist Pakistan in modernizing its energy infrastructure and associated technological capabilities, thereby setting the stage for long-term energy security cooperation between the two countries.

6. Conclusions, Policy Implications, and Limitations

6.1. Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that Indonesia, Russia, Japan, Thailand, South Korea, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, China, Brunei, and Malaysia are among the nations with high levels of overall energy security. The “energy trilemma” dilemma nevertheless presents a challenge for China and its neighbors on a sub-dimensional level. For instance, China’s overall energy level has increased recently as a result of its improved performance in the areas of energy justice and environmental sustainability. However, due to its high reliance on imported traditional energy supplies, China’s total security of energy supply is constrained by its low level of energy availability.

The results of this study also demonstrate that China has strong bilateral energy security couplings with the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Russia, and India. Theoretically, bilateral collaboration between the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and China on energy security is more long lasting.

6.2. Policy Implications

This paper makes the case that China should increase its collaboration with its neighbors in several energy security areas in light of the study’s findings. Russia and Mongolia, in particular, are abundant in traditional energy resources in Northeast Asia, but less so in new energy and environmental protection. China should therefore continue to enhance its collaboration with these two nations on the security of the energy supply. In order to ensure the environmental sustainability of the region, China should also intensify its collaboration with Russia and Mongolia in the fields of renewable energy and environmental preservation. Theoretically, Japan and South Korea would gain more from bilateral energy security cooperation with China. As a result, China should continue to step up its collaboration with Japan and South Korea in the fields of environmental protection, new energy sources, and increased energy efficiency.

Despite having a significant competitive edge when it comes to traditional energy sources, Central Asia lags behind in terms of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Therefore, China can assist Central Asian nations in enhancing their technological innovation capacity by promoting cooperation in production capacity, the construction of international infrastructure, and the training of technical personnel, in addition to maintaining close cooperation with countries in the region in terms of energy supply security.

On the one hand, China should continue to promote energy cooperation projects with Pakistan for the South Asian region. On the other side, China and India can increase their level of cooperation in the development of clean and renewable energy as well as technologies that save energy and safeguard the environment. Recent years have seen a remarkable advancement in the BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, and Nepal) subregion’s energy cooperation [101], which primarily consists of bilateral energy agreements signed between India and another member state [102]. As a result, China should recognize that India plays a significant role in the region and improve communication with India in order to avoid making a mistake while working to expand energy security cooperation with other South Asian nations.

Additionally, China can further strengthen its trade and investment ties with fossil fuel-rich nations such as Brunei, Myanmar, and Indonesia in order to ensure the security of the energy supply in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, China may expand its practical collaboration in innovative technologies with Malaysia and Thailand in terms of efficient energy consumption. In order to cooperatively maintain bilateral energy security, China should also continue to promote electrical links with Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

6.3. Limitations

This paper has two primary shortcomings. First off, the research only discusses the possibility of bilateral energy security cooperation between China and its neighbors. It does not examine the impact of problems at the multi-nation level. Other nations play a role in true international energy security cooperation. For instance, China’s marine oil and gas corridor in the Straits of Malacca likewise incorporates a large number of regional nations, as does its oil and gas corridor with Central Asia. Geopolitical and extraterritorial powers as well as other systemic elements have a big impact on energy security cooperation with China’s neighbors as a special resource with strategic features. The results are not sufficiently comprehensive when merely taking into account bilateral components of influence. The second constraint is that this research can only analyze the sustainability of energy security cooperation from 2010 to 2019 and cannot be updated beyond 2020 due to the lack of some crucial data, which may limit the timeliness of the results.