Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Investment risk and natural resource potential in “Belt & Road Initiative”
countries: A multi-criteria decision-making approach
Jamal Hussain ⁎, Kui Zhou ⁎, Shili Guo, Anwar Khan
The West Center for Economics Research, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, 55, Guanghuacun Street, Chengdu 611130, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• The study assesses investment risk for

Chinese enterprises in 63 BRI countries.
• Geographic Information System (GIS)
map was created to assess the invest-
ment risks.
• Singapore, Malaysia, and Nepal are the
most suitable choices for investment.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Chinese enterprises that conduct overseas investment projects encounter diverse challenges that emerge from
Received 20 January 2020 political, economic, social, and environmental risks in the host countries. To better assess the overseas investment
Received in revised form 7 March 2020 risks faced by Chinese enterprises, this study introduced and assessed novel aspects and an indicator system.
Accepted 15 March 2020
Moreover, the “Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution” (TOPSIS) method based on en-
Available online 16 March 2020
tropy weight was performed to generate a comprehensive assessment of China's foreign investment risk and nat-
Editor: Huu Hao Ngo ural resource potential in 63 “Belt & Road Initiative” (BRI) countries. This study aims to encourage Chinese
enterprises to devise suitable overseas investment decision-making strategies concerning natural resource po-
Keywords: tential in host countries. A Geographic Information System (GIS) map was also created to assess the potential
Environmental risk risks and opportunities for Chinese enterprises when making investment decisions in host countries. The findings
Resource potential indicate that the majority of countries in Central and Eastern Europe and other BRI countries such as Singapore,
Entropy weight Malaysia, Nepal, Bhutan, Russia, Armenia, and the United Arab Emirates were the most suitable choices for Chi-
TOPSIS method nese enterprises engaging in overseas investment. Based on these results, Chinese enterprises could manage and
“Belt & Road Initiative” countries
execute BRI projects more effectively to minimise potential risks and maximise their investment benefits.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

On 10 September 2013, China adopted a foreign policy initiative,

⁎ Corresponding authors.
named the “Belt & Road Initiative” (BRI), to advance stable relationships
E-mail addresses: hussain.jamal@smail.swufe.edu.cn (J. Hussain), zhou@swufe.edu.cn with other countries. This is an essential Chinese policy that aims to con-
(K. Zhou), guoshili@swufe.edu.cn (S. Guo). tribute vast opportunities for regional integration and to strengthen

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137981
0048-9697/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981
economic ties to South Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA), Russia and the Commonwealth of Inde-
pendent States (CIS), and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) through
various advancement and development projects. The primary objec-
tives of the BRI were to manage the global safety and its trading system,
to identify the developmental route of collaboration and shared benefit
among countries, and to encourage the development of an extensive
world economic system by establishing interregional cooperation.
Broadly, the BRI covers extensive investments from China to Eurasian
countries in various infrastructure, mining, and energy projects. Accord-
ing to the Chinese government, approximately 65 countries will be par-
ticipating in the BRI, which accounts for one-fourth of global household
consumption, a one-third share of the world's GDP, and two-thirds of
the world's population (Chin and He, 2016). On many formal occasions,
Chinese President Xi Jinping has asserted that the BRI is a diverse and
win-win project that offers immense opportunities and benefits for en-
terprises from China and participant countries. According to the Minis-
try of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM, 2018),
Chinese enterprises invested 15.65 billion USD in 2017 and 12.96 billion
USD in 2018 within 56 BRI countries. To date, China has pledged more
than 1 trillion USD in projects to build infrastructure throughout the
BRI countries, and almost 50 Chinese state-owned companies have en-
gaged with more than 1700 BRI projects (Yuan, 2018). The primary pur-
pose of these projects is to connect China with other BRI countries.
These projects include gas and oil pipelines to Kazakhstan, Russia, and
Myanmar; a railway network in the Netherlands; and a high-speed rail-
way in Singapore. Other mega-infrastructure projects were planned
with the purpose to connect territories outside China, such as railways
between Mombasa and Nairobi, a Peshawar to Karachi motorway link,
and connecting Addis Ababa to Djibouti with a fully equipped railroad
(NDRC, 2015). It is expected that China's foreign direct investment
will result in economic transition, advancement, and win-win outcomes
and support with BRI countries. Although there are benefits from for-
eign investment, there is a viable threat for Chinese enterprises that in-
vest in BRI countries in regard to political, economic, and environmental
factors. Few studies have investigated the natural resource potential
and foreign investment risk for Chinese enterprises operating in BRI
Fig. 1. Belt & Road Initiative regions.
countries. Moreover, various investment risk factors in political, eco-
nomic, and environmental aspects in BRI countries have not adequately
been addressed by foreign investors. A lack of awareness in investment
risk factors was the motivation to conduct this research and to propose
future guidelines.
Environmental risk evaluation is a high priority for environmental
regulatory agencies. Environmental risk in overseas investment in BRI
countries is of primary concern because of the existence of highly sensi-
tive ecological regions, including protected areas, natural resources, key
biodiversity hotspots, and biodiversity areas or global ecoregions
(Ascensão et al., 2018; Tracy et al., 2017). The consequence of such en-
vironmental risks has led to setbacks of some BRI projects. For instance,
the Letpadaung copper project and the Myitsone Dam project in
Myanmar were halted because of internal political and environmental
concerns (CROIC-IWEP, 2017). The high-speed rail project between
China and Indonesia-Jakarta-Bandung was delayed due to the absence
of environmental risk assessment studies. Additionally, there are other
hydropower projects along the Mekong River in Laos, Cambodia, and
Vietnam, where objections have been raised regarding possible harm
to the environment and communities (John, 2017). These obstacles
have caused Chinese enterprises to have a greater awareness of the en-
vironmental risks of overseas investment projects. The Chinese govern-
ment needs to take action in protecting the country's reputation and the
concerns of its enterprises. Therefore, a complete assessment of envi-
ronmental risk in BRI countries and an outline of policy recommenda-
tions are required to ensure that effective overseas investment
activities are conducted by Chinese enterprises.
There is a growing awareness of political risks from China's enter-
prises engaging in overseas investment activities. The Chinese govern-
ment has developed various forms of investment mechanisms to assist
BRI countries. For example, the Chinese government has recommended
that its large enterprises should operate globally, invest in various ways
in BRI nations, introduce their advanced technological and environmen-
tal security measures, strengthen mutual economic support, and im-
prove political trust between countries (Chatzky and McBride, 2019).
However, many of the countries in the BRI are developing countries
with a comparatively weak economic foundation and poor financial
 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981
stability; some countries face high political risks, experience frequent
government changes, and have weak debt repayment capability
(CROIC-IWEP, 2017). According to the China Global Investment Tracker,
due to political unrest, policy changes, and government collapse in host
countries, China's enterprises have suffered 120 unsuccessful overseas
investments, costing more than 250 billion USD from 2005 to 2015
(CGIT, 2019). In most of the developing countries in the BRI, political un-
rest is frequent; for example, Afghanistan, Yemen, Myanmar, Pakistan,
India, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon presently face political turmoil
that may directly or indirectly affect foreign direct investment (Sheng,
2018). This collectively presents further obstacles and risks for proposed
projects within these BRI countries. For instance, the Myitsone Dam in
Myanmar and Hambantota Port project in Sri Lanka are two cases that
have highlighted the significant concerns regarding political risks for
other BRI projects (Huang, 2018).
In addition to political risk, the weak economic foundation of a coun-
try can be the most significant barrier for investors. Evaluation of a
country's economic fundamentals should be an essential step taken by
Chinese enterprises before investing in the host country. There are spe-
cific measures to examine the economic foundations of a country when
considering an investment, such as the country's ability to repay debt,
gross domestic product, inflation, exchange rate stability, and current
account balance (Brian, 2018). Chinese companies with investments
in BRI countries face significant economic risks. For example, many of
the BRI countries are fragile states; some of the Central Asian and
South Asian countries have weak economies and are defaulting on for-
eign lending because of corruption, weak institutions and ineffective
governance exacerbated by macroeconomic crises. The low creditwor-
thiness makes such countries riskier for investment by Chinese busi-
nesses (Miao, 2016).
Furthermore, many countries are either withdrawing or flaying back
their BRI projects because of the risk of foreign debt trouble, such as
Malaysia decided to cancel their two BRI mega projects, East Coast Rail
Link and gas pipeline projects financed by Chinese government worth
20 billion USD and 2.3 billion USD, respectively (Zhang, 2017). Other
BRI countries such as the Maldives, Mongolia, Laos, Tajikistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, and Pakistan are suffering debt problems,
which could lead to further derailing of BRI projects (Hurley et al.,
2018). To avoid economic problems for Chinese companies that make
investments in a BRI country, it is essential to investigate the economic
foundation of a country to ensure that investment activities are
optimised.
A host country can present natural resource potential and environ-
mental opportunities for investors. Some BRI countries have plentiful
or high potential natural resources for the bilateral development of re-
source systems (Huang et al., 2017). The internalisation theory presents
a positive relationship between Chinese enterprises and the natural re-
source potential of host countries (Buckley et al., 2007; Kang et al.,
2018). Some scholars believe that through this initiative, Chinese enter-
prises can play a leading role in promoting green infrastructure invest-
ment in BRI countries. For example, Wang et al. (2015), and Kolstad and
Wiig (2012), investigated the relationship between China's foreign di-
rect investment and the natural resources in host countries by using
deal-level samples and ordinary least square (OLS) estimates, and re-
ported that natural resources in host countries have a positive relation-
ship with China's foreign direct investment. Moreover, Chang (2014)
examined China's outward foreign direct investment in 138 countries
with a Spatial Gravity Model and confirmed that Chinese enterprises
should consider investments in a host country's fuel resources. China's
foreign investment has typically been viewed as natural resource-
seeking. Therefore, a complete assessment of overseas investment
risks for Chinese enterprises, including political, economic, and environ-
mental risks, and natural resource potential in BRI countries is essential
for optimal investment returns.
The outward overseas investment risk for Chinese enterprises is a
topic that has received increased attention. Various scholars have
3
examined China's foreign investment risk in detail for different risk clas-
sifications. For instance, Zhang et al. (2018) discussed the potential so-
cial and environmental risk aspects associated with Chinese
enterprises operating in the “China Pakistan Economic Corridor” region
and suggested some steps to mitigate risk. Yuan et al. (2018) investi-
gated electric power investment risk based on entropy weight and a
fuzzy integrated evaluation model in 20 BRI countries. They showed
that political risk and Chinese factors were primary determinants of
electric power investment risk. Duan et al. (2018) studied energy in-
vestment risk among 50 BRI nations using a fuzzy integrated evaluation
design with an entropy weight method. They suggested that investors
should consider the environmental and political risks in the host coun-
tries when considering investment decisions. Similarly, Huang (2018)
studied the investment location choice along BRI countries by mainly
adopting the environmental and ecological index system using TOPSIS
method based on entropy weight approach. They suggested that inves-
tors should consider the environmental risks in the host countries when
considering investment location choice. Similarly, Sánchez-Monedero
et al. (2014) considered nine economic fundamentals to describe the
sovereignty risk for 27 European Union nations. Furthermore, Brown
et al. (2015) analysed four diverse perspectives to form a more exten-
sive risk index.
The literature mentioned above primarily investigated the invest-
ment risk of countries in one dimension. Few studies have thoroughly
addressed BRI countries' social, economic, and environmental risks. To
the best of the authors' knowledge, this study cover the social, eco-
nomic, and environmental aspects combined with novel indicators for
each dimension to comprehensively assess investment risk for Chinese
enterprises in BRI countries. Additionally, we investigated the host
country's natural resource potential as an opportunity for Chinese
enterprises.
The main contributions of this study are presented from three per-
spectives. i) A new indicator system for assessing the investment risks
and natural resource potential was created by considering 36 indicators
from four aspects (economic foundation, political stability, environmen-
tal risk, and resource potential). We identified investment risk through
three dimensions (economic foundation, political stability, and environ-
mental risk). ii) Based on entropy weight, the TOPSIS method was used
to create an overall risk assessment of China's overseas investment. The
advantages of using TOPSIS models for evaluating China's overseas in-
vestment risk and resource potential are presented in the
Methodology section. iii) A comprehensive assessment of China's for-
eign investment risk and natural resource potential in BRI countries
was performed. Policies and strategies were proposed that could assist
Chinese enterprises engaging in overseas investments to make in-
formed decisions, minimise potential risks, and maximise sustainable
development benefits. Thus, this study aimed to advance China's strat-
egy for improving its global resource leadership.
This paper is outlined as follows: the second section presents the
methodology for evaluating investment risk and natural resource po-
tential. The third section presents the main findings of the evaluation
of 63 BRI countries' overall risks and inherent resource potential based
on the Geographic Information System (GIS). Finally, this study outlined
the main conclusions and proposes policy guidance.
2. Methodology
2.1. Sources of data
The investment activities of China's enterprises involved countries in
BRI regions (Fig. 1), including 18 countries in Central and Eastern
Europe, six countries in Russia and the CIS, eight countries in the
South Asian Association for Regional Corporation (SAARC), 14 countries
in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, five countries in the
Central Asia region, ten countries in the Association of Southeast Asian
Nation (ASEAN) region, Timor-Leste in Southeast Asia, and Mongolia
4 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981

Table 1
Summary of all aspects and indicators system of overseas investment.
Data source: WDI = World Development Indicators, ICRG = International Country Risk Guide, WGI = Worldwide Governance Indicators.

Aspects Indicators Supporting reference Source Impact

Environmental risk CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) (Dong et al., 2017) 2014, WDI Positive
CO2 intensity (kg per kg of oil equivalent energy use) (Dong et al., 2019) 2014, WDI Positive
Fossil fuel energy consumption (% of total) (Shammre, 2017) 2014, WDI Positive
Natural resources depletion (% of GNI) (Mudakkar et al., 2013) 2016, WDI Negative
Food production index (2004–2006 = 100) (Pham et al., 2015) 2016, WDI Positive
Total greenhouse gas emissions (kt of CO2 equivalent) (Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019) 2012, WDI Positive
Particulate emission damage (% of GNI) (Khan et al., 2016) 2016, WDI Positive
Fertiliser consumption (kilograms per hectare of arable land) (Ali et al., 2013) 2016, WDI Positive
PM2.5 air pollution, mean annual exposure (micrograms per cubic meter) (Jurewicz et al., 2018) 2016, WDI Positive
PM2.5 air pollution, population exposed to levels exceeding WHO guideline value (% of total) (Zhan et al., 2018) 2016, WDI Positive
Threatened species total (number) (McClure et al., 2018) 2018, WDI Positive
Terrestrial protected areas (% of total land area) (Huang, 2018) 2017, WDI Negative
Terrestrial and marine protected areas (% of total territorial area) (Huang, 2018) 2017, WDI Negative
Resource potential Arable land (% of land area) (Huang, 2018) 2016, WDI Positive
Agricultural land (% of land area) (Sharma and Vetaas, 2015) 2016, WDI Positive
Total fisheries production (metric tons) (Bhuiyan et al., 2018) 2016, WDI Positive
Forest area (% of land area) (Waheed et al., 2018) 2016, WDI Positive
Renewable electricity output (% of total electricity output) (Farhani and Shahbaz, 2014) 2015, WDI Positive
Renewable energy consumption (% of total final energy consumption) (Shahbaz et al., 2013) 2015, WDI Positive
Renewable internal freshwater resources, total (billion cubic meters) (Bhuiyan et al., 2018) 2014, WDI Positive
Long-term average annual precipitation in depth (mm/year) Y28 (Huang, 2018) 2014, WDI Positive
Net forest depletion (% of GNI) (Mudakkar et al., 2013) 2016, WDI Negative
Energy depletion (% of GNI) (Mudakkar et al., 2013) 2016, WDI Negative
Energy use (kg of oil equivalent per capita) (Cai et al., 2018) 2016, WDI Negative
Mineral depletion (% of GNI) (Mudakkar et al., 2013) 2016, WDI Negative
Economic foundation Budget balance as % of GDP (Duan et al., 2018) 2016,ICRG Negative
Current account balance/GDP (Duan et al., 2018) 2016,ICRG Negative
Total foreign debt as percent of GDP (Huang, 2018) 2016,ICRG Positive
Exchange rate stability (Huang, 2018) 2016,ICRG Negative
Annual inflation rate (%) (Duan et al., 2018) 2016,ICRG Positive
GDP per capita growth (annual %) (Duan et al., 2018) 2016,ICRG Negative
Real annual GDP growth (%) (Duan et al., 2018) 2016,ICRG Negative
Political risk Political stability and absence of violence (Kaufmann et al., 2011) 2017, WGI Negative
Rule of law (Kaufmann et al., 2011) 2017, WGI Negative
Control of corruption (Cieślik and Goczek, 2018) 2017, WGI Negative
Government effectiveness (Montes et al., 2019) 2017, WGI Negative

Note: ‘Positive’ represent benefit indicator (large value is desirable); ‘Negative’ indicates cost indicator (small value is desirable).

in East Asia (Table 2). For the environmental and resource potential as-
pects, data from the World Bank database were used. For the economic
foundation indicators, updated data were collected from the Interna-
tional Country Risk Guide (ICRG) database. Political risk indicator data
were sourced from the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) data-
base. All the indicators used for the assessment of China's enterprise's
overseas investment risk and natural resource potential data sources
and years are given in Table 1.
2.2. An evaluation framework
of each BRI country. The precise narratives of each aspect were devel-
oped in the subsequent sections.
2.2.1. Environmental risk
A stable environmental condition of a host country can positively in-
fluence the foreign investment activities of Chinese enterprises. How-
ever, biodiversity loss and ecological deterioration require the
attention of enterprises engaged in overseas investment projects. In
this paper, a total of 13 environmental risk indicators were presented
(Table 1).

The structure of the evaluation procedure of this study included

three steps. i) Four key aspects were identified—economic foundation,
political risk, environmental risk and natural resource potential—to as-
sess China's overseas investment risk and natural resource potential in
BRI regions. ii) The investment risk was evaluated from three aspects
—environmental risk, political risk, and economic foundation. iii) A
total of 63 countries in BRI regions were assessed. Finally, we classified
specific indicators of each aspect in evaluating environmental risk, eco-
nomic foundation, political risk, and resource potential in BRI regions.
With extensive searches of numerous investigations and data, this
study extracted 36 indicators from World Development Indicators
(WDI), Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), and the International
Country Risk Guide (ICRG) database with a consolidated description.
The detailed explanation of each indicator and data source are pre-
sented in Table 1. After data acquisition, we estimated the indicator
weights by using the entropy weight method. Finally, we applied the
TOPSIS method to assess the performance scores and rank outcomes
2.2.2. Economic foundations
The economic foundation provides long-term security and a produc-
tive environment for a country's investment. The economic foundation
also reflects a country's ability to pay foreign debts. If a country has a
better economic foundation, then the overall risk of investment in that
country is reduced. For instance, a country with a strong economy
should guarantee a more reliable investment than a country with a
weak economy. In this study, the aspect of economic foundation in-
cluded seven sub-indicators (Table 1).
2.2.3. Political risk
Political risk examines the essence of a country's governance func-
tion and the legislative responsibility of the state. Low political risk
and political stability are two of the provisions for the enterprise to es-
tablish a safe investment environment. Ineffective political elements
would consistently harm the investment opportunities of the
 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981 5

international business. In this study, four political risk indicators were
assessed (Table 1).
2.2.4. Natural resource potential
The natural resource potential of a host country is an essential aspect
to consider when determining the value of the investment. A resource-
rich country can attract Chinese enterprises to obtain the local resource
by investment. A nation's natural resource potential and in particular,
their renewable resources serve to enhance their investment potential.
This study included 12 indicators to assess the inherent resource poten-
tial (Table 1).
2.3. Determination of indicator weight using an entropy method
When defining weights of indicators, subjective fixed-weight
methods are typically used, such as the analytic hierarchy process

Table 2
Score and ranking for 63 BRI countries.

Region Country ERS Rank EFS Rank PRS Rank RPS Rank

East Asia Mongolia 0.191 10 0.516 33 0.560 33 0.349 62

Brunei Darussalam 0.144 20 0.651 15 0.325 56 0.464 22
Cambodia 0.092 50 0.422 46 0.704 13 0.431 55
Indonesia 0.205 5 0.496 36 0.547 38 0.466 15
Laos PDR 0.144 21 0.429 45 0.659 19 0.322 63
Malaysia 0.176 11 0.472 40 0.442 46 0.472 9
ASEAN
Myanmar 0.142 23 0.386 53 0.652 21 0.454 45
Philippines 0.143 22 0.406 48 0.580 29 0.454 46
Singapore 0.173 13 0.491 38 0.075 63 0.462 30
Thailand 0.133 29 0.503 34 0.529 39 0.446 52
Vietnam 0.140 26 0.376 56 0.565 31 0.477 7
Southeast Asia Timor-Leste 0.175 12 0.941 1 0.656 20 0.489 4
Kazakhstan 0.168 14 0.589 24 0.619 24 0.427 58
Kyrgyz Republic 0.135 27 0.633 19 0.714 12 0.391 61
Central Asian Tajikistan 0.086 53 0.383 54 0.781 5 0.448 51
Turkmenistan 0.115 37 0.552 26 0.767 7 0.454 44
Uzbekistan 0.159 15 0.516 32 0.717 10 0.412 60
Bahrain 0.154 16 0.801 4 0.521 40 0.455 42
Egypt 0.147 18 0.712 12 0.674 17 0.455 43
Iran 0.150 17 0.577 25 0.676 15 0.457 40
Iraq 0.200 7 0.538 29 0.891 4 0.450 48
Israel 0.104 45 0.667 14 0.317 57 0.462 31
Jordon 0.111 40 0.762 8 0.470 44 0.460 34
Kuwait 0.195 9 0.811 3 0.550 37 0.465 21
MENA
Lebanon 0.113 39 0.738 10 0.742 8 0.464 27
Oman 0.125 31 0.886 2 0.426 48 0.440 54
Qatar 0.597 1 0.499 35 0.328 54 0.448 50
Saudi Arabia 0.197 8 0.773 5 0.462 45 0.450 49
Syria 0.121 34 0.770 6 0.969 1 0.488 5
United Arab Emirates 0.144 19 0.635 18 0.239 60 0.465 17
Yemen 0.141 25 0.718 11 0.962 2 0.464 25
Afghanistan 0.216 4 0.695 13 0.913 3 0.458 38
Bangladesh 0.116 36 0.372 57 0.715 11 0.466 16
Bhutan 0.081 57 0.618 21 0.235 61 0.427 57
India 0.419 2 0.394 51 0.557 35 0.453 47
SAARC
Maldives 0.123 33 0.538 30 0.636 23 0.465 19
Nepal 0.097 47 0.255 61 0.689 14 0.430 56
Pakistan 0.124 32 0.548 27 0.739 9 0.459 36
Sri Lanka 0.134 28 0.647 17 0.566 30 0.464 23
Armenia 0.088 51 0.250 62 0.608 26 0.426 59
Azerbaijan 0.200 6 0.765 7 0.669 18 0.445 53
Belarus 0.111 41 0.603 23 0.593 28 0.469 11
Russia & CIS
Moldova 0.108 44 0.442 43 0.648 22 0.457 41
Russia 0.350 3 0.650 16 0.674 16 0.474 8
Ukraine 0.129 30 0.540 28 0.768 6 0.463 28
Albania 0.098 46 0.492 37 0.561 32 0.467 13
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.120 35 0.622 20 0.612 25 0.461 32
Bulgaria 0.064 62 0.394 52 0.507 42 0.458 39
Croatia 0.079 58 0.467 41 0.423 49 0.469 10
Czech Republic 0.083 56 0.458 42 0.314 58 0.464 26
Estonia 0.095 49 0.400 50 0.213 62 0.468 12
Georgia 0.109 43 0.432 44 0.378 51 0.466 14
Hungary 0.077 59 0.413 47 0.427 47 0.499 2
Latvia 0.083 55 0.297 60 0.341 53 0.498 3
Central and Eastern Europe
Lithuania 0.087 52 0.358 58 0.327 55 0.751 1
Macedonia 0.097 48 0.749 9 0.558 34 0.458 37
Montenegro 0.114 38 0.475 39 0.510 41 0.463 28
Poland 0.085 54 0.406 49 0.347 52 0.461 33
Romania 0.074 60 0.241 63 0.497 43 0.465 18
Serbia 0.110 42 0.605 22 0.551 36 0.460 35
Slovakia 0.066 61 0.526 31 0.395 50 0.465 20
Slovenia 0.042 63 0.376 55 0.279 59 0.484 6
Turkey 0.141 24 0.331 59 0.594 27 0.464 24

Note: ERs = Environmental risk scores, EFs = Economic foundation scores, PRs = Political risk scores, RPs = Resource potential scores.
6 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981
(AHP) method and the Delphi method. These methods could lead to
variations in indicator weight due to subjective elements. Objective
fixed weight methods such as an entropy weight method could make
the results more reliable because they are based on essential criteria
facts that determine weights of indicators, which could reduce
human-made changes (Li et al., 2011). The entropy method is primarily
applied to determine the objective weights of the evaluation criteria,
which rely on the indicators' degree of variation on the system. Typi-
cally, the indicator with a substantial level of change has a higher weight
(Duan et al., 2018; Huang, 2018; Shemshadi et al., 2011). Entropy
weight is a parameter that describes by how much alternative ap-
proaches are different from one another regarding distinct criteria. In
this paper, the entropy method was used to capture the weight of
every indicator following the same aspects. Assuming that we use ‘n’ as-
pects indicators to assess the risk for ‘m’ alternatives, then the indicator
procedure Y contains ‘n’ aspects, Y1; Y2………, Yn; i.e., Y = [Y1; Y2………,
Yn]. In this study, n = 4, Y1 denotes an environmental risk, Y2 signifies
an economic foundation, Y3 represents political risk and Y4 is natural re-
source potential. Provided that the qth aspect of indicator arrangement
Yq is formed of jq sub-indicators, then Yq = [Yq1,Yq2, …….,Yqjq]. For the ‘m’
alternatives, the qth aspects indicator arithmetical matrix is;
0 1
q q
B Y 11 ⋯ Y 1 jq C
B C
yq ¼ B : : : C;
@ A
Y qm1
q
⋯ Y mjq
where q = 1, 2………., n. Inside it, yqmjq signify the value of jth
q sub-
indicator for the qth indicator of mth alternative.
2.3.1. Indicator normalisation
Considering there are ‘m’ alternatives and ‘n’ indicators, δij is the jth
indicator value in the ith alternative. Commonly, each indicator units are
not the same. Hence, to reliably solve the indicators, the following ap-
proach was adopted for data normalisation.
If the δij is the benefit indicator, then the attribute value of the jth in-
dicator in the ith alternative can be converted by (Eq. (1)).
δij− minðδijÞ
δij ¼
maxðδijÞ− minðδijÞ
If the δij is the cost indicator, then the attribute value of the jth indi-
cator in the ith alternative can be changed by (Eq. (2)).
maxðδijÞ−δij
δij ¼
maxðδijÞ− minðδijÞ
After the normalisation of indicators, the normalize indicator matrix
is H = [δij]m×n.
2.3.2. Entropy value calculation
According to the explanation of entropy, the entropy value of the in-
dicator jth can be calculated by (Eq. (3)).
X
m
ej ¼ −h δij ln δij
i¼1
where ej represents entropy value, (i = 1, 2, ……, m, j = 1, 2, ……, n), h
1 
¼ and ‘m’ are many alternatives. If lnδij = 0, then it has no mean-
ln ðmÞ
ing in empirical research. Therefore, δij needs to be changed and deter-
v þ yijm
mined as δij ¼ ðv þ yijÞ where v is any small number. In this
∑i¼1
study v=1.0E−06.
2.3.3. Compute weight vector
The entropy weight vector of the jth indicator can be calculated by
(Eq. (4)).
1−ej
wj ¼ m ð4Þ
∑i¼1 ð1−ejÞ
where 1 − ej is known as the degree of diversification. i.e., dj = 1 − ej,
(j = 1, 2, ……, n).
2.4. TOPSIS method
Yoon (1980) and Hwang and Yoon (1981), introduced the notion of
the “Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution”
(TOPSIS), for solving the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)
challenges based on the idea that the best alternative should have the
smallest distance (i.e., Euclidean distance) from the ideal solution.
TOPSIS estimates the distances to both the positive ideal solution and
negative ideal solution. It is a useful and straightforward method for
ranking many desirable alternatives to identify the closest-to-ideal solu-
tions. This method has been widely used in different decision-making
evaluations, including environmental risk assessment (Huang, 2018),
supplier selection (Lima Junior et al., 2014; Onder and Dag, 2013),
bank performance evaluation (Emrah et al., 2014), tourism manage-
ment (Zhang et al., 2011), and transportation planning (Jones and
Mardle, 2004). According to Shih et al. (2007), three advantages of the
TOPSIS model are: i) a strong logic that describes the rationale of
human choice by co-analysing both the benefited and non-benefited
features of alternatives; ii) an ability to consider a finite number of as-
pects and alternatives in the decision-making process; iii) it relieves
the requirement of pair-wise comparisons. The TOPSIS model has
been used by various practitioners and researchers, which have been
documented in this study. The TOPSIS procedure consists of subsequent
steps:
Step 1: Compute the normalized vector. The normalized vector
value Xij (i = 1, 2, ……, m(alternative), j = 1, 2, ……, n(indicators),
is estimated as:
ð1Þ
Zij
X ij ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn ffi ð5Þ
2
j¼1 Z ij
where Zij is a performance value of indicator jth against ith alternative.
ð2Þ Step 2: Determine the weighted normalized matrix. Vij interprets
the weight of the indicator j in (Eq. (6)). The weighted normalized
decision matrix (Wij; i = 1, 2, ……, m, j = 1, 2, ……, n) is estimated
by using (Eq. (6)) with the performance value of the normalized
matrix.
W ij ¼ V ij  X ij ð6Þ
ð3Þ
Step 3: Determine the ideal best and ideal worse value, respectively,
as follows:

V þj ¼ vþ þ
1 þ v2 ; ……vn
þ
¼ ½ðmaxvij=j ¼ j1 Þ; ðmaxvij=j ¼ j2 Þ=i ¼; 1; 2; ……m ð7Þ
 − 
V− −
j ¼ v1 þ v2 ; ……vn
−
¼ ½ðminvij=j ¼ j1 Þ; ðminvij=j ¼ j2 Þ=i ¼; 1; 2; ……m ð8Þ
 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981
−
where V+ j = indicates the ideal(best) value, Vj = indicates the ideal
(worse) value, j1 represents benefited and j2 represents non-benefited
criteria.
Step 4: Compute the Euclidean distance. The separation of each al-
ternative from the positive and negative ideal solution is given
below, respectively.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uX
þ u n
di ¼ t ðxij −V þ 2
ij Þ ; i ¼ 1; 2; …:n
j¼1
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u n
uX
¼ t ðxij −V −
− 2
ij Þ ; i ¼ 1; 2; …:n
di
i¼1
Step 5: Calculate the performance score value.
−
di
Pi ¼ þ − ; i ¼ 1; 2; …::n
di þ di
where Pi is the performance score value, Pi ∈ [0,1].
Step 6: Finally, based on the performance score value, the ranking of
alternatives is set.
3. Results of investment risks and natural resource potential analysis
in BRI countries
3.1. Environmental risk
Environmental risk scores and ranking for each country is presented
in Table 2. Among 63 BRI countries, there were 15 low-risk countries, 32
moderate-risk countries, and 16 high-risk countries when ranked for
environmental risk (Fig. 2). The Central and Eastern Europe countries
were among the lowest environmental risk nations, including
Slovenia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary. Qatar, India, and
Russia were ranked in the high environmental risk category. Slovenia
had the minimum environmental risk score among BRI nations, while
Turkey and Bosnia & Herzegovina had high environmental risk among
Central and Eastern Europe countries. Turkey has a higher total green-
house gas emission than the other nations in this region, while Bosnia
& Herzegovina has high levels of air pollution. The other countries in
this region belonged to the low environmental risk level.
In the ASEAN region, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia received
high environmental risk scores. In Indonesia and Malaysia, where the
number of threatened species is high among BRI nations, the ecological
vulnerability is relatively high, and Singapore has high fertiliser con-
sumption in this region. The other countries in this region were given
average environmental risk scores. In East and Southeast Asian regions,
Timor-Leste and Mongolia belonged to the high environmental risk cat-
egory. Mongolia exhibited the highest risk score among BRI nations in
terms of CO2 emission intensity. Mongolia and Timor-Leste were ranked
the second and third highest countries for natural resource damage, re-
spectively. In the Central Asian region, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan re-
ceived high environmental risk scores. Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan
ranked in the medium-risk category while Tajikistan was ranked in
the low-risk category.
Among the BRI countries, Qatar had high environmental risk scores,
which exhibits high CO2 emission, fossil fuel energy consumption, and
fertiliser consumption. Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia all
ranked in the high environmental risk category. The remaining coun-
tries in the MENA region were rated as medium-risk. In the SAARC
7
region, India and Afghanistan were classed as high environmental risk.
India was ranked the second-highest for environmental risk among
BRI countries, where CO2 emission intensity, threatened species, fossil
fuel energy consumption, total greenhouse gasses emission, and
fertiliser consumption is high. In addition, India exhibited a high-risk
score for total greenhouse gas emission. Bhutan ranked as a low envi-
ronmental risk country, while other countries in this region were
ranked as medium-risk. In Russia and the CIS region, Russia and
Azerbaijan were rated as high environmental risk countries. Russia
was rated high in CO2 emission and total greenhouse gasses emissions,
ð9Þ and Azerbaijan was classed as high in natural resource damage. Belarus,
Moldova, and Ukraine were considered medium environmental risk
countries, while Armenia received low environmental risk scores.
ð10Þ
3.2. Economic foundation
A weak economic foundation also represents a significant barrier for
investors. The economic foundations for the BRI countries are presented
in Table 2 and Fig. 3. Based on the economic foundation score for each
country, 13 countries had a strong economic foundation, 37 nations
had a medium economic foundation, and 13 had a weak economic foun-
dation. The economies of most of the BRI countries are classed as
emerging-market economies, excluding Singapore, Hungary, Czech
ð11Þ
Republic, and Israel. Accordingly, most of the BRI nations have a weaker
economic foundation. Overall, the Central and Eastern Europe countries
were placed in the category of medium economic foundation, except for
Macedonia, which had a weak economic foundation because of a high
total foreign debt as a percentage of GDP compared to other nations in
this region. In Russia and the CIS region, Azerbaijan was placed in the
weak economic foundation category because it is suffering from a con-
siderable amount of foreign debt and an unstable exchange rate. Within
this region, Armenia attained a strong economic foundation, while the
other countries received a medium economic foundation score.
In the SAARC region, Afghanistan had a weak economic foundation
because of a high annual inflation rate and high foreign debt as a per-
centage of GDP. Bangladesh, India, and Nepal were classed as having a
strong economic foundation, while Bhutan, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri
Lanka had a moderate economic foundation. Belt and Road Initiative
countries in the MENA region, such as Oman, Kuwait, and Bahrain
showed weak economic foundations. Oman and Kuwait are experienc-
ing a low current account balance to GDP and a high foreign debt as a
percentage of GDP, while other countries in this region were ranked in
the medium economic foundation category. Central Asian countries
were ranked in the medium economic foundation category except for
Tajikistan, which had a weak economic foundation. Similarly, countries
in the ASEAN region were mostly classed in the medium economic
foundation category, while Myanmar and Vietnam had weak economic
foundations. In East Asia, Mongolia was classified in the medium eco-
nomic foundation category, and in Southeast Asia, Timor-Leste was
rated in the weak economic foundation category. The weak economy
of Timor-Leste can be attributed to its low GDP growth, declining bud-
get balance as a percentage of GDP, rising foreign debt ratio, and low ex-
change rate stability.
3.3. Political risk
Political risk scores and ranking for each country is presented in
Table 2. The categories of each country's political risk results are also
presented in Fig. 4. Among 63 BRI countries ranked for political risk,
there were 16 low-risk countries, 31 moderate-risk countries, and 16
high-risk countries. Countries in Central Asia and South Asia were
ranked in the high political risk category. The political risk of Lebanon
and Afghanistan was classed as high, while for Singapore and
Lithuania the political risk was classed as low.
Syria, Yemen, and Iran obtained high political risk scores, while
Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia had medium-risk scores. The remaining
8 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981

Fig. 2. Environmental risk for BRI countries.

Fig. 3. Economic foundations for BRI countries.

 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981
Fig. 4. Political risk for BRI countries.
countries in this region were ranked in the low political risk category. In
Russia and the CIS region, most countries were ranked in the high and
medium-risk categories. Russia and Ukraine had high political risk
scores, while Belarus and Moldova were classed as medium political
risk countries. In the SAARC region, only Bhutan received a low political
risk score, while other countries were given medium and high-risk
scores. Similarly, in the Central Asian region, most countries had high
political risk scores except for Kazakhstan. Countries in East Asia and
Southeast Asia exhibited moderate political risk. In the ASEAN region,
the political risk of Cambodia was high, whereas the political risk of
Singapore and Brunei Darussalam is low. Singapore has a low political
risk score among the BRI countries. The political risk for the remaining
countries in this region was moderate. In Central and Eastern Europe,
half of the countries were ranked in the medium political risk category
and the other half in the low-risk category. In this region, no country
was ranked in the high-risk category, indicating that the Central and
Eastern Europe region had less political risk than other BRI regions.
3.4. Resource potential
Natural resource potential scores and ranking for each country is
presented in Table 2. There were 17 high resource potential countries,
31 moderate resource potential countries, and 15 low resource potential
countries (Fig. 5). Central and Eastern Europe countries were
categorised as high resource potential nations.
Lithuania, which has a high total fisheries production, exhibited a
high resource potential among BRI countries. In addition, the rate of nat-
ural resource depletion of energy, net forest and minerals is low in
Lithuania. Other countries in Central and Eastern Europe regions such
as Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Turkey and
Serbia belonged to the medium resource potential country category.
9
In Russia and the CIS region, Russia and Belarus had high resource
potential, while Moldova and Ukraine had medium resource potential.
In the SAARC region, Bhutan and Bangladesh received a high rank in re-
source potential. Bhutan has a large forest-covered area, is a leader in
the use of clean energy, and has a greater portion of total internal re-
newable water resources per capita among BRI countries. In the MENA
region, only Syria had a high resource potential, while other countries
in this region were ranked in the medium and low resource potential
categories. Although Saudi-Arabia scored highly in terms of agricultural
land, most of the countries in this region are rich in non-renewable en-
ergy; consequently, renewable energy resources represent a compara-
tively small share. Qatar ranked as the top energy depletion country
among BRI nations. In the ASEAN region, Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Vietnam are rich in natural resources. In Malaysia, renewable resources
were ranked higher than the other countries in this region. In the South-
east Asian region, Timor-Leste was ranked second-highest in fisheries
production among BRI nations. The potential resource scores in East
Asian countries were low; even in Mongolia where mineral depletion
is high.
3.5. Top five high and low investment risk and natural resource potential
BRI countries
Belt and Road Initiative countries were evaluated with regard to
high and low investment risk and resource potential to devise invest-
ment decision-making strategies for Chinese enterprises. The risks and
opportunities bar chart results are shown in Fig. 6. Generally, from a
low investment risk and higher resource potential perspective,
Slovenia has a low environmental risk, Romania has a strong economic
foundation, Singapore has low political risk, and Lithuania has high re-
source potential among the BRI countries. In terms of high investment
risk and low resource potential, Qatar has a high environmental risk,
10 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981

Fig. 5. Natural resource potential for BRI countries.

Timor-Leste has a weak economic foundation, Syria has high political 4. Discussion
risk, and Laos PDR has low resource potential.
The host country's political stability, economic foundation, environ-
mental risk, and natural resource potential and capacity can influence

Fig. 6. Top 5 BRI countries with high and low investment risk and natural resource potential.
 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981
Chinese enterprises' overseas investment. This study developed an as-
sessment of economic foundation, political stability, environmental
risks and inherent resource potential for 63 BRI countries and presented
an investment decision-making strategy for Chinese enterprises en-
gaged in overseas investment. The evaluation method was combined
with assessments of political stability, economic foundations, environ-
mental risk, and natural resource potential indicators for Chinese enter-
prises to evaluate possible overall investment risks.
The result of such aspects in these countries has caused the cancella-
tion of some BRI projects. Examples for this include the internal political
and environmental issues with the Letpadaung copper project and the
Myitsone Dam project in Myanmar, and the absence of environmental
risk assessment studies for the high-speed rail project between China
and Indonesia-Jakarta-Bandung has led to the project's suspension.
These setbacks originated from a lack of information, rational expecta-
tions, decision-making choices, and scientific studies in the area of
investment.
From the perspective of a relatively strong economic foundation, sta-
ble political system, reduced environmental risk, and reasonable natural
resource potential, Slovenia, Romania, and Lithuania in Central and
Eastern Europe, and Singapore in the ASEAN region represent reason-
able choices for Chinese overseas investment. Singapore receives most
of China's investment in the industry sectors of mining, transport, and
energy generation (Huang, 2018).
In terms of environmental risk, Qatar has a high energy consumption
from fossil fuel and emits high levels of CO2. However, it holds a rela-
tively stable government, a sound economic foundation within the
MENA region, and has a high potential in energy investment (Duan
et al., 2018). Therefore, Chinese enterprises could consider focusing on
renewable energy investments rather than traditional energy from oil,
gas and coal. In East Asia, Mongolia was classed as a high CO2 emission
intensity country. However, Mongolia has a rich resource in wind en-
ergy, which could provide Chinese enterprises with investment possi-
bilities in high energy security and environmental sectors (Han et al.,
2009). In the SAARC region, India's greenhouse gas emissions are high
and have significant environmental problems. However, China's foreign
investment in India is considerably high (Huang, 2018). Therefore, be-
fore investing in India, there is a need for a thorough Environmental Im-
pact Assessment (EIA) to consider how investments in projects could
have ecological impacts. Russia is ecologically more vulnerable and
has more threatened animal species than other BRI countries (Huang,
2018; McClure et al., 2018). Therefore, before investing in Russian pro-
jects, Chinese enterprises should complete an ecological appraisal of
biodiversity and wildlife habitats.
For political risk in the MENA region, our results show that Syria ex-
hibits potential political threats for Chinese enterprise investment. Al-
though the political violence in Syria and Yemen is high, this region
has potential resources in the form of oil and gas (Duan et al., 2018),
which makes them attractive for energy investment. In the case of eco-
nomic foundation in Southeast Asia, Timor-Leste has a weak economic
foundation; however, it scored high in natural resource potential scores.
According to a recent report, it was confirmed that the Petroleum fund
meets almost 95% of Timor-Leste's economic activity expenditure
(Damien, 2018). Therefore, Chinese enterprises should consider invest-
ments in the technology-intensive oil and gas industry, which might
create new jobs in Timor-Leste and improve the local economy. For re-
source potential in Central and Eastern Europe, Lithuania had an out-
standing resource potential score in the area of fisheries production. In
the ASEAN region and East Asia, Laos and Mongolia exhibited low po-
tential for natural resource indicators. Mismanaged exploitation of nat-
ural resources has resulted in environmental losses to both of these
countries. Therefore, it is essential to consider investments in initiatives
that stimulate positive ecological, social, and sustainable development
in this region.
11
5. Conclusions and policy guidance
We used the TOPSIS method based on entropy weight to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of overseas investment risk for Chinese en-
terprises and produced a convincing evaluation of the political, eco-
nomic, and environmental risks and natural resource potential for 63
BRI countries. Based on the results of the GIS mapping, this study iden-
tified the spatial designs of political, economic, and environmental risk
and natural resource potential. Through a comprehensive evaluation, a
rigorous investment decision-making strategy was devised to minimise
potential investment risks and maximise benefits. This study described
recommendations for Chinese enterprise overseas investment when
planning BRI projects in host countries to avoid political, economic,
and environmental risks and sustainable use of natural resources.
Therefore, this paper aimed to improve China's inclination toward
greater global resource protection.
In summary, the results showed that the majority of BRI countries
have relatively moderate investment risks in political, economic, and
environmental aspects for Chinese enterprise investment. From the per-
spective of environmental risk, Qatar had a high environmental risk. In
contrast, Slovenia had a low environmental risk among BRI countries.
Romania had a strong economic foundation, while Timor-Leste had a
weak economic foundation. Singapore exhibited a low political risk
score, while Syria showed a high political risk score. Lithuania demon-
strated a high resource potential, and Laos PDR had low resource poten-
tial. However, Chinese enterprises have various suitable investment
choices in many BRI regions such as Slovenia, Lithuania, Bulgaria,
Romania, Hungary, and Latvia in Central and Eastern Europe; Armenia
and Russia in the CIS nations; Bhutan and Nepal in the SAARC region;
United Arab Emirates in West Asia; Malaysia and Singapore in the
ASEAN region; and Tajikistan in the Central Asia region. Currently, the
BRI is in the initial trial stage, where many investment agreements are
under negotiation. Moreover, the relationships of countries within the
BRI are not always wholly compatible due to regional differentiation.
In considering the potential risk confronted by Chinese enterprises in
overseas investment, we suggest the following policy guidelines.
First, considerable examination should be given to various aspects of
investment risks. When Chinese enterprises engage in overseas re-
source investments, they should not only focus on the risk of a single
project; instead, enterprises should assess the possible global risks.
Moreover, companies should not concentrate on submissive risk aver-
sion but instead focus on the sustainable development of overseas in-
vestment and opportunities in the prospective market. Second,
Chinese enterprises involved in overseas investment should advance
the use of quantitative investigation of the environmental costs and
benefits when making investment decisions. Also, they should encour-
age to employ the service of a third-party, such as an environmental
consultant, a think tank, or lawyers to appreciate the host country's en-
vironmental regulations. With the help of these services, Chinese enter-
prises would be better positioned to manage issues among BRI
countries, including political, social, economic and environmental-
related conflicts. Third, to enhance environmental supervision capabil-
ity, the Chinese government should urge companies to develop green
investment information web-portals to attract overseas investments.
Also, the government should encourage the creation of green resource
information platforms and enable technological routes and practices.
This might include the creation of knowledge bases, the establishment
of green management databases, installation of new information sys-
tems (IS) to contribute appropriate data on environmental guidance,
and to enable web-portals in retrieving the environmental management
experiences of host countries. Fourth, the Chinese government should
also expand the facilitation of information consultation channels for in-
vestors and implement a warning mechanism before any environmen-
tal risk.
The authors believe that without the proposed information de-
scribed in this study, Chinese enterprises have frequently lacked
12 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981
the attention of the overseas investment market, which increases the
risk for investors who are not gaining new business avenues. Fur-
thermore, the government of China should periodically circulate pol-
icy white books that address previous environmental risk issues and
investors' concerns.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jamal Hussain:Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Software, Writing - original draft, Investigation, Writing - review &
editing.Kui Zhou:Supervision, Validation, Resources.Shili Guo:Soft-
ware, Visualization.Anwar Khan:Data curation, Investigation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
References
Ali, S., Zahra, N., Nasreen, Z., Usman, S., 2013. Impact of biogas technology in the develop-
ment of rural population introduction definition of biogas. J. Anal. Environ. Chem 14,
65–74.
Ascensão, F., Fahrig, L., Clevenger, A.P., Corlett, R.T., Jaeger, J.A.G., Laurance, W.F., Pereira,
H.M., 2018. Environmental challenges for the Belt and Road Initiative. Nat. Sustain.
1, 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0059-3.
Bhuiyan, M.A., Jabeen, M., Zaman, K., Khan, A., Ahmad, J., Hishan, S.S., 2018. The impact of
climate change and energy resources on biodiversity loss: evidence from a panel of
selected Asian countries. Renew. Energy 117, 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RENENE.2017.10.054.
Brian, P., 2018. Evaluating country risk for international investing [WWW document].
Investopedia. URL. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/country-risk-
for-international-investing.asp, Accessed date: 27 February 2019.
Brown, C.L., Cavusgil, S.T., Lord, A.W., 2015. Country-risk measurement and analysis: a
new conceptualization and managerial tool. Int. Bus. Rev. 24, 246–265. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.IBUSREV.2014.07.012.
Buckley, P.J., Clegg, L.J., Cross, A.R., Liu, X., Voss, H., Zheng, P., 2007. The determinants of
Chinese outward foreign direct investment. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 40, 353–354. https://
doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.102.
Cai, Y., Sam, C.Y., Chang, T., 2018. Nexus between clean energy consumption, economic
growth and CO2 emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.JCLEPRO.2018.02.035.
CGIT, 2019. Chinese investment dataset - China Global Investment Tracker [WWW docu-
ment]. URL. Am. Enterp. Insthttp://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/,
Accessed date: 27 February 2019.
Chang, S.-C., 2014. The determinants and motivations of China’s outward foreign direct
investment: a spatial gravity model approach. Glob. Econ. Rev. 43, 244–268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1226508X.2014.930670.
Chatzky, A., McBride, J., 2019. China's massive belt and road initiative [WWW document].
Counc. Foreign Relationshttps://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-
and-road-initiative, Accessed date: 22 March 2019.
Chin, H., He, W., 2016. The Belt and Road Initiative: 65 Countries and Beyond.
Cieślik, A., Goczek, Ł., 2018. Control of corruption, international investment, and economic
growth – evidence from panel data. World Dev. 103, 323–335. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.028.
CROIC-IWEP, 2017. Country-risk Rating of Overseas Investment from China (No. 201702)
(January 18, 2017).
Damien, K., 2018. Hard times ahead for a politically divided Timor-Leste [WWW docu-
ment]. URL. East Asia Forumhttps://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/12/13/hard-
times-ahead-for-a-politically-divided-timor-leste/, Accessed date: 11 March 2019.
Dong, K., Sun, R., Hochman, G., 2017. Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption
lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. En-
ergy 141, 1466–1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.092.
Dong, F., Wang, Y., Su, B., Hua, Y., Zhang, Y., 2019. The process of peak CO2 emissions in
developed economies: a perspective of industrialization and urbanization. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 141, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2018.10.010.
Duan, F., Ji, Q., Liu, B.-Y., Fan, Y., 2018. Energy investment risk assessment for nations
along China’s Belt & Road Initiative. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 535–547. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.152.
Emrah, Ö., Nihat, T., Ali, H., 2014. Performance evaluation of Turkish banks using analyti-
cal hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. J. Int. Sci. Publ. Econ. Bus. Econ. Bus. 7.
Farhani, S., Shahbaz, M., 2014. What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity con-
sumption and output is needed to initially mitigate CO2emissions in MENA region?
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 40, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.170.
Han, J., Mol, A.P.J., Lu, Y., Zhang, L., 2009. Onshore wind power development in China:
challenges behind a successful story. Energy Policy 37, 2941–2951. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.021.
Huang, Y., 2018. Environmental risks and opportunities for countries along the Belt and
Road: location choice of China’s investment. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 14–26. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.11.093.
Huang, Y., Fischer, T.B., Xu, H., 2017. The stakeholder analysis for SEA of Chinese foreign
direct investment: the case of ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative in Pakistan. Impact As-
sess. Proj. Apprais. 35, 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1251698.
Hurley, J., Morris, S., Portelance, G., 2018. Portelance, G. 2018, 2018. Examining the Debt
Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative From a Policy Perspective (Washington
DC).
Hwang, C.-L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple attribute decision making. Methods and Applica-
tions a State-of-the-art Survey. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 58–191.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.
John, M., 2017. Why does Indonesia cling to its plagued Chinese infrastructure projects?
[WWW document]. URL. South China Morning Posthttps://www.scmp.com/week-
asia/geopolitics/article/2053395/why-does-indonesia-cling-its-plagued-chinese-in-
frastructure, Accessed date: 26 February 2019.
Jones, D.F., Mardle, S.J., 2004. A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights
from a pairwise comparison matrix. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 55, 869–875. https://doi.org/
10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601745.
Jurewicz, J., Dziewirska, E., Radwan, M., Hanke, W., 2018. Air pollution from natural and
anthropic sources and male fertility. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 16. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12958-018-0430-2.
Kang, L., Peng, F., Zhu, Y., Pan, A., 2018. Harmony in diversity: can the One Belt One Road
initiative promote China’s outward foreign direct investment? Sustainability 10,
1–28.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M., 2011. The worldwide governance indicators:
methodology and analytical issues. Hague J. Rule Law 3, 220–246. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S1876404511200046.
Khan, S.A.R., Zaman, K., Zhang, Y., 2016. The relationship between energy-resource deple-
tion, climate change, health resources and the environmental Kuznets curve: evi-
dence from the panel of selected developed countries. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 62,
468–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.061.
Kolstad, I., Wiig, A., 2012. What determines Chinese outward FDI? J. World Bus. 47, 26–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWB.2010.10.017.
Li, X., Wang, K., Liuz, L., Xin, J., Yang, H., Gao, C., 2011. Application of the entropy weight
and TOPSIS method in safety evaluation of coal mines. Procedia Eng 26, 2085–2091.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2410.
Lima Junior, F.R., Osiro, L., Carpinetti, L.C.R., 2014. A comparison between fuzzy AHP and
fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 21, 194–209.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.014.
McClure, C.J.W., Westrip, J.R.S., Johnson, J.A., Schulwitz, S.E., Virani, M.Z., Davies, R., Symes,
A., Wheatley, H., Thorstrom, R., Amar, A., Buij, R., Jones, V.R., Williams, N.P., Buechley,
E.R., Butchart, S.H.M., 2018. State of the world’s raptors: distributions, threats, and
conservation recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 227, 390–402. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.BIOCON.2018.08.012.
Miao, L., 2016. One belt, one road: risks and countermeasures for Chinese companies.
WWW Document. Brink – Edge Riskhttps://www.brinknews.com/one-belt-one-
road-risks-and-countermeasures-for-chinese-companies/, Accessed date: 27 Febru-
ary 2019.
MOFCOM, 2018. MOFCOM Department of Outward Investment and Economic Coopera-
tion Comments on China’s Outward Investment and Cooperation.
Montes, G.C., Bastos, J.C.A., de Oliveira, A.J., 2019. Fiscal transparency, government effec-
tiveness and government spending efficiency: some international evidence based
on panel data approach. Econ. Model. 79, 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
econmod.2018.10.013.
Mudakkar, S.R., Zaman, K., Khan, M.M., Ahmad, M., 2013. Energy for economic growth, in-
dustrialization, environment and natural resources: living with just enough. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 25, 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.024.
NDRC, 2015. Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-
century Maritime Silk Road (China).
Onder, E., Dag, S., 2013. Combining analytical hierarchy process and TOPSIS approaches
for supplier selection in a cable company. J. Business, Econ. Financ. 2.
Pham, T.P.T., Kaushik, R., Parshetti, G.K., Mahmood, R., Balasubramanian, R., 2015. Food
waste-to-energy conversion technologies: current status and future directions.
Waste Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.004.
Sánchez-Monedero, J., Campoy-Muñoz, P., Gutiérrez, P.A., Hervás-Martínez, C., 2014. A
guided data projection technique for classification of sovereign ratings: the case of
European Union 27. Appl. Soft Comput. 22, 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ASOC.2014.05.008.
Sarkodie, S.A., Strezov, V., 2019. Effect of foreign direct investments, economic devel-
opment and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing
countries. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 862–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.07.365.
Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q.M.A., Tiwari, A.K., Leitão, N.C., 2013. Economic growth, energy con-
sumption, financial development, international trade and CO2emissions in
Indonesia. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 25, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.04.009.
Shammre, A.A., 2017. Environmental Impact of Economic Variables: Carbon Emission
Case Study.
Sharma, L.N., Vetaas, O.R., 2015. Does agroforestry conserve trees? A comparison of
tree species diversity between farmland and forest in mid-hills of central
Himalaya. Biodivers. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0927-3.
Shemshadi, A., Shirazi, H., Toreihi, M., Tarokh, M.J., 2011. A fuzzy VIKOR method for sup-
plier selection based on entropy measure for objective weighting. Expert Syst. Appl.
38, 12160–12167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.03.027.
Sheng, J., 2018. Analyzing the risks of China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative conference
report. The 8th International NASD Conference on Economic and Legal Challenges,
14 January 2018, in L’viv, Ukraine.
 J. Hussain et al. / Science of the Total Environment 723 (2020) 137981 13

Shih, H.-S.S., Shyur, H.-J.J., Lee, E.S., 2007. An extension of TOPSIS for group decision Yuan, J., Zeng, Y., Guo, X., Ai, Y., Xiong, M., 2018. Electric power investment risk assess-
making. Math. Comput. Model. 45, 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ment for belt and road initiative nations. Sustain 10, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/
mcm.2006.03.023. su10093119.
Tracy, E.F., Shvarts, E., Simonov, E., Babenko, M., Babenko, D.A., Amur Branch, M., 2017. Zhan, D., Kwan, M.P., Zhang, W., Yu, X., Meng, B., Liu, Q., 2018. The driving factors of air
China’s new Eurasian ambitions: the environmental risks of the Silk Road Economic quality index in China. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1342–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Belt. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 58, 56–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/ jclepro.2018.06.108.
15387216.2017.1295876. Zhang, X., 2017. Chinese capitalism and the maritime silk road: a world-systems perspec-
Waheed, R., Chang, D., Sarwar, S., Chen, W., 2018. Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, tive. Geopolitics 0, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2017.1289371.
and CO2 emission. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4231–4238. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Zhang, H., Gu, C. lin, Gu, L. wen, Zhang, Y., 2011. The evaluation of tourism destination
JCLEPRO.2017.10.287. competitiveness by TOPSIS & information entropy - a case in the Yangtze River
Wang, Y., Du, J., Wang, K., 2015. The determinants of location choices of China’s ODI: in- Delta of China. Tour. Manag. 32, 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
stitutions, taxation and resources. Front. Econ. China 10, 540–565. https://doi.org/ tourman.2010.02.007.
10.3868/s060-004-015-0024-6. Zhang, R., Shi, G., Wang, Y., Zhao, S., Ahmad, S., Zhang, X., Deng, Q., 2018. Social impact as-
Yoon, K., 1980. Systems Selection by Multiple Attributes Decision Making. Kansas State sessment of investment activities in the China–Pakistan economic corridor. Impact
University, Manhattan, Kansas. Assess. Proj. Apprais. 36, 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2018.1465227.
Yuan, M., 2018. Belt and road initiative: connecting the economic dots. WWW Document.
East West Bankhttps://www.eastwestbank.com/ReachFurther/News/Article/Belt-
and-Road-Initiative-Connecting-the-Economic-Dots, Accessed date: 25 February
2019.