Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Measuring dynamic competitive relationship and intensity among the

global coal importing trade
Wenya Wang a, Liwei Fan a, Zhenfu Li b, *, Peng Zhou a, Xue Chen b
a
School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao, Shandong 266580, PR China
b
School of Transportation Engineering, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, Liaoning 116026, PR China

H I G H L I G H T S

• The global coal import competition network is tight.

• Japan and China have made coal competition on the Asian-Pacific region more drastic.
• The competition intensity of European importers is becoming weaker.
• Asian countries should make out strategies to decrease the carbon dioxide emission.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Until today, the volume and trade relationships of the global coal trade still follow an increasing trend, which
Competitive coal import network adversely affects both the environment and coal supply security. However, whether the possibility exists to
Evolution change this trend to a decrease in global coal trade competition remains unknown. If this were possible, the
Network features
volume and relationships of coal trade would gradually decrease. To address this question, this paper applies the
Complex network
complex network model and comprehensively explores the dynamic competitive relationship and intensity
among the global coal import trade. At the global level, the results indicate that more competitive relationships
regarding coal imports emerge, and the coal import competition network has changed from a core periphery
structure to a reticular structure. In addition, the competitive intensity of the global coal trade continues to rise.
At the regional level, the role of the Asian-Pacific region, led by Japan and China, in the evolution of this
competitive pattern is increasingly becoming prominent. In contrast, the competitive intensity of European
importers has declined since 2007. At the national level, Japan bore the greatest competitive pressure among all
coal-importing countries from 1998 to 2007, when it was replaced by China. The intensity of competition in
China has increased fiercely, from seventh in 2009 to first in 2016. Finally, based on the results, meaningful
policy implications are presented. For example, it is recommended that the result of record-high levels of coal
competition in Asia should receive more attention, and a more appropriate use of coal should be developed.

1. Introduction
Coal, one of the three major energy resources, remains an important
source for meeting the energy demand of countries and promote eco­
nomic growth. In recent years, with the expansion of energy transition
practice, coal demand in Europe, Canada, and the USA has declined.
However, Asia witnessed a notable increase in coal consumption, which
offset the reduction in coal demand in the above-mentioned countries
[1]. Overall, the international coal trade volume and density still in­
crease [2]. From a global perspective, this not only implies high-level
demand for coal, but also increased dependence on foreign coal. Ac­
cording to the International Energy Agency, the proportion of carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions derived from coal resources across the world
reached 62% in 2017. Such a high demand for coal is not a favorable
trend for mitigating climate change. Furthermore, the growing depen­
dence on coal imports is positively related to the risk associated with
undermining the stability of the energy supply. Today, efforts are made
toward improving this situation, e.g., by the development of renewable
energy resources. Under this background, this paper presumes the ex­
istence of the possibility the trend of the global coal trade competition
decreases. If this decreasing trend indeed exists, this means that

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lizhenfu@dlmu.edu.cn (Z. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117611
Received 2 April 2021; Received in revised form 29 June 2021; Accepted 30 July 2021
Available online 27 August 2021
0306-2619/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Wang et al. Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611

Table 1
Nomenclature Comparison between existing surveys on coal trade and the survey proposed in
this paper.
Parameter Existing Surveys Objective Year of
c the common coal import source on Coal Trade Publication
Ci the clustering coefficient of coal importer i [2] Investigating the evolution of the global coal 2019
eij the actual competitive relationship between coal trade relationships from 1996 to 2015
importer i and j [3] Analyzing the robustness and application of 2013
the structure of the coal transportation
ki the degree of importer i (The number of competitive
network
relationships of coal importer i worldwide) [4] Risk evaluation and analysis of the coal 2009
L the average shortest path length between nodes in the logistics network
network [5] Constructing an index system for evaluating 2011
the efficiency of coal logistics transportation
Mi the total coal import volume of importer i
[6] Analyzing the evolution of the hard coal 2006
Mic the coal import volume that importer i imports from all trade in the Atlantic and Pacific markets, and
coal exporters presenting the import, export, consumption,
Mj the total coal import volume of importer j and proportion of major countries
Mjc the coal import volume that importer j imports from all [7] Quantifying the impact of coal consumption 2012
restrictions in several large countries on
coal exporters global coal consumption and trade
Mw the world’s total coal import volume [8] Assessing possible interactions between 2012
mi the total number of competitive relationships among climate policies and the global steam coal
competitors of coal importer i market
[9] Analyzing the economic impacts of the 2017
p(q) the probability of the occurrence of nodes, of which
China–Australian Free Trade Agreement
degree value is q (ChAFTA) on global coal trade and
Si the strength of node i consumption
δij the ideal relationships among nodes [10] Analyzing the spatial evolution of coal 2018
transportation at China’s coastal ports
ρi the correlation coefficient between the ideal structure
[11] Discussing the spatial evolution of coal 2014
and actual structure i distribution in China
[12] Investigating the evolution of China’s 2019
Matrix & Vector interregional coal trade network between
Wij competition intensity between coal importer i and j 1997 and 2016
[13] Analyzing the temporal and spatial evolution 2019
Acronym of worldwide seaborne coal trade
CO2 carbon dioxide relationships between 1990 and 2016
CICN coal import competition network Survey proposed Portraying competitive import relationships –
in this paper and competitive intensity of the global coal
LNG liquefied natural gas trade between 1998 and 2016

network theory to international energy trade. For example, An et al.

countries are becoming less dependent on coal. Thereby, the high level
of CO2 emissions and the risk for the stable supply of energy would be
gradually reduced in the future. However, if the global competition
among coal importers would become more drastic and complex, further
efforts are required to control the global coal trade competition. For
example, regions or countries where complex competitions are
concentrated need to be identified, the drivers behind the increasingly
complex competition in these regions and countries need to be dis­
cussed, and policy implications toward a decline of the competition in
the global coal trade should be proposed. To test this hypothesis, it is
necessary to systematically investigate the structure, the dynamic
competitive relationship, and intensity of global coal trade competition
over an extended period.
Previous studies on coal trade primarily emphasized trade robustness
[3,4], trade efficiency [5], the coal market [6-9], and the evolution of
the regional [10-12] or global coal flow [2,13]. These studies were based
on data sources of coal trade at different time periods. However, far less
research has addressed the coal trade competition. Therefore, this paper
fills this research gap in the coal resource trade from the perspective of
competition. The comparison between existing surveys on coal trade
mentioned above and the survey proposed in this paper are shown in
Table 1.
Furthermore, in this paper, complex network theory is applied to
deeply analyze the competitive relationship among the players of the
global coal trade. Complex network theory is capable of analyzing such
complex systems and facilitating an understanding of the international
coal trade [14]. With the wide prevalence of complex network theory,
an increasing number of researchers worldwide have applied complex
assessed the relationship among countries with common trade partners
by building a crude oil trade network model at the global level [15].
Chen et al. applied complex network analysis tools to uncover the
structure of the embodied energy flow network [16]. Kitamura et al.
applied complex network analysis tools to analyze national attributes
influencing the bilateral oil trade volume and the relationships between
countries in the international oil trade [17]. Gao et al. built an inter­
national fossil energy trade multilayer network and studied the evolu­
tionary characteristics and relationships among networks for
2002–2013 [18]. Zhong et al. quantitatively analyzed the features and
evolution of the international fossil fuel trade by complex network, and
showed that countries with more than 20 trade relationships tend to
have a hierarchical structure [19]. Du et al. assessed the relative
importance of countries in the international oil trade, and showed that
major oil importers exert a strong effect on other countries [20]. Using a
complex network method, Liu et al. found a substantial decline in oil
import dependence on the Middle East from 1965 to 2016 [21]. Song
et al. compared the differences of topological structures of the direct oil
trade network and embodied an oil transfer network by complex
network method. They showed that the direct trade network had fewer
relational links but a higher internal intensity level, while the embodied
oil transfer network had more relational links but a lower internal in­
tensity level [22]. Ding et al. built a natural gas importing network and
found that the network is even more sensitive to node failures caused by
malicious attacks compared with random attacks [23].
In particular, scholars applied complex network theory for analyzing
the competitive relationship in energy trade. Zhang et al. examined the
competition and transmission pattern of the international oil trade

2
W. Wang et al. Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611

utilizing complex network analysis; they showed that large oil importers This network model representation uses a graph of a fully connected
are of great importance in the process of oil-trading competition trans­ network, consisting of nodes that are connected by links, representing
mission [24]. Chen et al. assessed the competition in the liquefied nat­ bilateral relationships. In particular, countries taking part in the global
ural gas (LNG) trade on a global level for the years from 2005 to 2014; coal import trade are the nodes, and all coal stations a country possesses
they built a network model in terms of LNG trade competition, and are aggregated into one node. Links correspond to competition for coal
divided LNG exporters into three categories, according to development between nodes, showing that coal import competition exists between
trends in the LNG trade [25]. Hao et al. constructed an iron ore import any pair of nodes. In this paper, eij represents the actual competitive
competition network and drew the conclusion that the structure of relationship between coal importers i and j. If the coal imports of country
global iron ore import competition changes toward a reticular import i and country j arise from mutual exporters, this would be the product of
competition rather than a core-periphery import competition [26]. a link drawn between i and j, i.e., eij = 1. Otherwise, eij = 0. The coal
Taking these papers as reference, the present paper attempts to capture trade flowing from country i to country j is denoted as Wij .
the coal trade import competition around the world by applying com­ For a detail explanation of links, a simple example is presented. In
plex network theory. Fig. 1, nodes V1, V2, V3, and V4 are coal importers, and nodes C1 and C2
This study focuses on the competitive import relationships and in­ are coal exporters. A competitive relationship exists between V1, V2,
tensity of each pair of competitors, which is followed by the construction and V3 because they all import coal from C1. Moreover, V3 also has a
of the coal import competition network (CICN) from 1998 to 2017 using competitive relationship with V4 because of their joint coal resource (i.
complex network analysis. First, the growth of competitive relationships e., C2).
and the competitive globalization features of the coal trade are analyzed The intensity of the link is characterized by the level of competitive
by quantifying the degree, clustering coefficient, and the core–periphery intensity, which is calculated by Eq. (1) [15]:
structure of global coal trade competition. Then, the intensities of the ⎧ ⎡ ⃒ ⃒⎤⎫
⃒M ⃒ ⎪
competitive relationships are further investigated from a regional ⎪
⎪ ⃒ Mjc ⃒
( ) ⃒ Mi Mj ⃒ ⎥ ⎪
−
ic
∑⎨ Mic + Mjc ⎢ ⎬
perspective. In addition, coal importers with the strongest coal import Wij = *⎢1− M ⎥ *100 (1)
⎣ Mjc ⎦
competition and their competitive evolution are identified. In the pro­ ⎪ M + Mj ⎪
ic
c ⎪
⎩ w
Mi ⎪
⎭
cess of analysis, adaptative strategies for decreasing the global coal trade
competition are proposed based on the results of this investigation.
where Wij represents the competition intensity between coal importers i
The main contributions of this paper are: (1) The hypothesis that
and j, c represents the common coal import source, Mic denotes the coal
there is a possibility to achieve a decreasing trend in global coal trade
import volume importer i imports from all coal exporters, Mjc represents
competition is tested. This is helpful for clarifying the trend of global
the coal import volume importer j imports from all coal exporters, Mw is
coal consumption and incentivizing countries to apply coal strategies
the world’s total coal import volume, Mi is the total coal import volume
that lower CO2 emission rates and lead to a better utilization of energy.
of importer i, and Mj is the total coal import volume of importer j.
(2) The results and analysis might help to understand how network to­
As the competition is mutual, edges are undirected. Overall, the
pology and function in the coal trade competition system interact, and
competitive coal import relationships among countries, or network
the roles countries play in global coal trade competition. Furthermore,
connections, represent a certain intensity and heterogeneity.
national governments can adopt feasible and targeted policies on the
reduction of coal trade and CO2 emissions. (3) Potentially effective
implications for investors and policymakers are discussed with respect 2.2. Corresponding indicators
to facing the current situation of global coal-trading competition. These
implications can further extend the literature on strategies for an Based on the CICN model, degree and cumulative distribution, node
improved coal trade. strength, clustering coefficient, and core–periphery structure are used to
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 pre­ assess the structural characteristics of the global coal trade competition.
sents the methodology and data source used to analyze the CICN. The
results and analysis of empirical findings are presented in Section 3, and 2.2.1. Degree and degree distribution
policy recommendations are given in Section 4. Degree represents the number of direct competitive relationships a
coal importing country has, which reflects the competitive level and
2. Methodology and data scope of coal importer i worldwide [19]. This value is computed ac­
cording to Eq. (2):
2.1. Coal import competition network model
∑
n
ki = eij (2)
Given the overbalance of coal resources, it is inevitable that at least j=1

two coal importers import coal from the same coal exporter, which
In addition, degree distribution is a typical index regarding the
drives importers to compete for coal resources. In addition, the in­
analysis of the fundamental properties of the CICN structure. It is
tensities of the competition between coal importers are necessarily
described in Eq. (3), where γ denotes the power law index and k cor­
different because of differences in their coal demand.
responds to the nodal degree [29]. If the degree distribution of the
Thus, in this paper, by applying complex network theory, a sym­
network presents a power law distribution, a scale-free network is
metric weighted model is constructed to comprehensively grasp the
demonstrated [30]. This is represented by a straight line in the figure of
characteristics of the evolution of competitive relationships between
the power law distribution with log-log coordinates. Regarding a scale-
coal importers. Many scholars have verified the complex network model
free network, most nodes have very few connections, while few nodes
by comparing the model-generated behavior with the observed behavior
have many connections. Those minority hub nodes are of significance in
of the real system, which also is a useful verification method [27]. For
the scale-free network. In this paper, the power law exponent of the
example, Zhong et al. studied the evolution of the international fossil
degree distribution is estimated by the least squares method.
fuel trade network community using a complex network model. Their
community division result is consistent with the actual situation, i.e., p(q) q− γ
(3)
countries in the same community tend to be in the same trade bloc, such
as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Orga­ 2.2.2. Node strength
nization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) [28]. Therefore, a In this study, node strength represents nodal competition intensity,
result obtained from complex network model is available. which, in network analysis, is defined as the relative position of a given

3
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 1. Diagram of competitive relationships.
node or vertex regarding other players in the network [31]. The higher
the value, the stronger the competitive intensity the country experiences
in the competitive network. Node strength is defined by Eq. (4) [32],
where Si denotes the strength of node i:
∑ where δij represents the ideal relationships among nodes, i.e., only in the
Si = Wij (4)
j∈n
2.2.3. Clustering coefficient
The clustering coefficient depicts the tightness of the competitive
relationships among the coal trade competition network, which ranges
from 0 to 1. The clustering coefficient Ci is used, as defined by Eq. (5)
[33]:
Ci =
2mi
(5)
ki (ki + 1)
where Ci is the clustering coefficient of coal importer i,ki is the actual
number of competitive relationships of coal importer i, and mi denotes
the total number of competitive relationships among the competitors of
coal importer i. The closer the clustering coefficient is to 1, the tighter
the competitive relationships between coal importers.
2.2.4. Average shortest path length
The average shortest path length denotes the average number of
steps for each point-to-point coal importer to construct a competitive
coal import relationship. Thus, the average shortest path length is
expressed by Eq. (6) [34]:
1 ∑
L= * dij (6)
n(n − 1) i,j
where L denotes the average shortest path length between nodes in the
network. n is the number of nodes, and dij denotes the shortest distance
between node i and node j. If these is no connection between node i and
node j, or if i = j, then, dij = 0.
2.2.5. Core-periphery structure
The core periphery structure is derived from the group or network
that is difficult to divide into cohesive subgroups [35]. This is regarded
as a useful tool to detect densely connected core nodes that mainly
interact with other core actors, and sparsely connected periphery nodes
that connect to the core but do not interact among themselves. Both
form the whole global coal import competition system, although the
core nodes generally play a leading role in the system [24]. An explo­
ration of the core-periphery structure depicts how well the current
structure matches the ideal core-periphery structure [36]. The core-
periphery detection model, as recommended by Borgatti and Everett
(1999), is applied in this paper. The specific model is shown in the
following:
∑ distribution in different periods are skewed slightly toward the right
ρ= eij δij
ij
4
Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611
1 if i = CORE and j = CORE
δij = { 0 if i = PERIPHRY and j = PERIPHRY (7)
⋅ otherwise
case that both coal importers i and j are core nodes, δij = 1.
2.3. Data sources
e data source of the global coal trade used in this research was ob­
tained from the United Nations Comtrade1. This is an authoritative and
widely-covering database, containing all export and import flows among
226 countries since 1962. These data entail almost 700 million records.
Each type of commodity in the database is associated with a specific
Harmonization System Code (HS code) and every record contains in­
formation about importer, exporter, trade volume, and trade value. The
market share of all reporting countries entails more than 90% of all
global trade. Furthermore, point-to-point trade flows in both trade
volume and weight can be observed. The annual data of all available
countries for the period from 1998 to 2017 was selected and the
competitive relationship and intensity of global coal importing trade
was calculated. The used HS code is 2701. The unit for the coal trade
volume is kg. The reason why the United Nations Comtrade Database
was used is the comprehensiveness of data collection and the availability
of point-to-point coal trade data.
3. Results and analysis
3.1. The importing competitive relationship
To clearly identify the competitive relationships between importers,
the link weights were ignored. A binary and unweighted network was
built that directly depicts whether coal trade competition exists between
any pair of nodes. The first part presents the overall features of CICN in
terms of competitive relationships in the coal import trade. The second
part analyzes the tightness of their relationships, and the third part
depicts the core and periphery structure of the network.
3.1.1. Overall features
Fig. 2 shows that all cumulative degree distributions for different
time periods present approximately straight lines. The R2 value calcu­
lated by Eq. (3) is 0.714, which remains below 0.8, indicating that the
CICN follows a power-law distribution. This means that the CICN can be
regarded as a scale-free network, and that few importers have a large
number of coal competition partners, while the majority of importers
have a few coal competition partners. Furthermore, Fig. 2 presents the
evolutionary trend of the cumulative degree distribution of the CICN
over the analyzed period. The lines representing the cumulative degree
1
https://comtrade.un.org/data/.
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 2. Cumulative degree distributions of coal import competition network
(CICN) in five different years.
over time. This provides convincing evidence that the competitive re­
lationships and the resulting competition pressures across the world
continued to increase in the period from 1998 to 2017. This is very
closely related to the fact that an increasing number of countries
expanded coal importing channels and established partnerships with a
great number of coal exporters. These measures were taken to spread
supply risks, thus yielding an increasing number of competitive re­
lationships among coal importers.
3.1.2. Tightness
As shown in Fig. 3, the average degree increased from 64 in 2002 to
87 in 2017. In contrast, importing countries only experienced a slight
increase (from 91 to 97) from 1998 to 2017. During this period, several
importers may have stopped importing coal in a certain year, whereas
new participants may have entered the global coal importing market.
Nevertheless, the increasing average degree and number of import
countries indicate that the coal import market expanded, and that more
competitive relationships have formed between importers. In addition,
the number of coal import competitors of each importing country
accounted for approximately 60% of all coal importing countries in
1998; however, until 2007, this proportion increased sharply to more
than 90%. This indicates that each coal importing country made efforts
to reduce their import risk and enhance their coal supply security by
increasing the number of their import sources. Fig. 2 also shows that,
although the global economic crisis of 2009–2011 affected most coun­
tries and industries, competitive relationships continuously increased
because coal is regarded as a staple commodity and a critical industrial
raw material that plays an important role for national development.
Fig. 4 exhibits the clustering coefficient and the average shortest
path length in the CICN for the years between 1998 and 2017. Fig. 4
shows that all average clustering coefficient values (i.e., the blue line)
Fig. 3. Average degree and importing countries in the CICN.
5
Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611
Fig. 4. Clustering coefficient and the average shortest path length of CICN.
increased consistently over time. However, the maximum value 1 was
approximated, which demonstrates the extreme tightness among
competitive relationships in the global coal trade. Furthermore, none of
the values of average shortest path lengths (i.e., the red line) exceed a
value of 2 and present a declining trend. This means that no competitive
relationships exist between any two importers if one middleman is
removed, and that the closeness of the competition is increasingly
strengthened. In conclusion, competitive tightness among coal im­
porters across the world can be regarded as being at a high level and
following a trend of increasing competition over time, combining the
values of clustering coefficients and shortest path lengths.
3.1.3. Core and periphery structure
The core–periphery structure index is a valuable method to evaluate
the roles of coal importers and helps to intuitively comprehend the
dynamic spatial location of core competitive coal import regions. Thus,
this indicator is applied and world maps are drawn for 1998, 2007, and
2017, as shown in Fig. 5.
These maps for 1998 and 2007 show that the network has a
remarkable core–periphery structure, given that correlation coefficients
between the ideal structure (as represented by ρ1 and ρ2 in Fig. 5), are
assumed to be relatively large values (exceeding 0.8). In particular, the
coal importers in Europe, the Asian-Pacific region, North America, and
South America (all of which are dominant coal-consuming areas) were
core coal importers during this period. In 2007, although the value of the
correlation coefficient slightly decreased compared with 1998, the
core–periphery structure remains obvious. Moreover, specific core im­
porters in Europe and South America changed to periphery importers (e.
g., Peru and Germany), while countries in the Asian-Pacific and North
American regions continued to compete intensely. This resulted in an
increasing competition density among core coal importers (from 0.975
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 5. Core–periphery structure of CICN in 1998, 2007, and 2017.
to 0.988).
However, by 2017, with the development of competitive globaliza­
tion and the breaking of the trade barrier, competitive relationships
among coal importers had become increasingly complex and close. This
is evident in the following points. First, additional countries joined the
core group, e.g., Mongolia, Madagascar, and Mozambique, while only
few small coal importers remained in the periphery group (as shown in
Fig. 3). Second, the value of the correlation coefficient is distinctly lower
(ρ3 = 0.756) than values in 1996 and 2005, which implies that the
network core–periphery structure had become less clear. In addition, the
density of both competition among periphery coal importers and
competition between periphery coal importers and core coal importers
clearly increased to 0.8 and 0.281 from 0.677 and 0.214, respectively.
This demonstrates that the competition pattern of the global coal import
trade gradually transitioned from a core–periphery structure toward a
reticular structure, where the competition in the coal import trade
network is interrelated, interactive, and restricted.
Fig. 6. Competitive intensity distribution of CICN in 1998, 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017.
6
Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611
3.2. Importing competitive intensity
To deeply assess the competitive intensity between importers, the
link weights are considered and the extent of coal trade competition
between any country-pair is depicted by conducting a weighted
network. The weight of each link is obtained by Eq. (1), as presented in
Section 2.1. The overall features of CICN are presented in terms of the
competitive intensity, which is followed by the importing competition
evolution from the regional and national perspective.
3.2.1. Overall features
To capture the overall situation of competitive intensity between
countries involved in the coal import trade, the distribution of the
competition intensity is computed, as shown in Fig. 6. The distribution
of competitive intensity is rather unbalanced. Approximately 80% of the
competitive intensity arise from 20% of competition relationships,
which implies that the fiercest competition for coal is generated by few
countries. This also provides partial evidence that competition between
countries represents competition for resources.
W. Wang et al.
3.2.2. Regional competition
Fig. 7 enables the understanding of the level of intra-region import
competitions and competitive relationships in each region. As shown in
Fig. 7, the ranking position of intra-region competitions of the Asian-
Pacific, European, and South American regions, from 1998 to 2017,
remained relatively stable, ranking first, second, and third, respectively.
In contrast, since 2007, Africa has weaker intra-region competition, and
its ranking decreased from fourth to fifth, which can be seen by the color
change in Fig. 7. For competitive intra-region relationships, the greatest
competitive import relationships of the Asian-Pacific region are
concentrated in northeast Asian countries such as Japan, China, and
South Korea. In particular, all the strongest competitive relationships in
different years are related to Japan, which indicates the important role
Japan plays in the CICN. A similar situation is found in South America,
where Brazil is the major driving force in the growth of coal competition
in the South American region. Regarding North America, the increasing
competitive intensity of the USA led to a growing trend of coal import
competition of the whole region. The Netherlands have lost their
dominant position in the intra-region competition within Europe ac­
cording to a comparison of the data for different years. The reason for
this is explained in Section 3.2.3.
Fig. 8 shows that the coal import competitive intensity primarily
affects intra-Asian and intra-European contexts, as well as both the
European and Asian-Pacific markets. This is related to the fact that most
coal importers are located in the Asian-Pacific region and Europe, e.g.,
China, Japan, and the United Kingdom. In addition, in 2007, most
competitive intensities between regions decreased, although the degree
of competitive relationship among importers in this period was much
higher than in 1998, as shown in Fig. 3. The reason may be that im­
porters expanded their importing sources and reduced the intensity of
their competition with single import competitors through an import
diversification strategy, that enhanced their coal supply security.
Specifically, the Asian-Pacific region faces the largest competitive
pressure. Intra-Asian competition was the major source, particularly in
2017, when the competitive intensity among intra-Asian countries
doubled from its 1998 level. In addition to intra-Asian competition,
Europe and South America are the main competitors of the Asian-Pacific
region, to which the increasing coal consumption of China has greatly
contributed.
Nevertheless, competition between Europe and other regions is
Fig. 7. The level of intra-region import competitions and the greatest import competition relationships for each region.
7
Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611
declining, compared with competition in 1998. The reason is the
diminishing demand for coal. Regarding North America, South America,
and Africa, because of the development of the Asian-Pacific region,
competition between these three regions with the Asian-Pacific region
increased. In contrast, because of the relatively stable competitive
structures between North America and the countries of South America,
competition among these areas remained extremely steady during the
whole period.
3.2.3. National competition
In this section, the top ten countries of import competition intensity
in 1998 are selected, and their ranking changes over time are tracked.
Fig. 9 depicts their rankings from 1998 to 2017. Japan exhibited the
greatest coal import competitive intensity from 1998 to 2015, and
ranked second in 2016 and 2017, which means that it bore the strongest
competitive pressure. In addition, compared with countries such as
South Korea and Brazil, which remained relatively stable and were
continually included among the top ten countries, most importers
experienced a marked change in terms of their competition rankings. For
example, the competitiveness of countries of the Asian region followed
an increasing trend. China first appeared in the top ten list in 2009 and
climbed from seventh to first placed in 2016, while India has experi­
enced the third strongest competition intensity since 2014. Thus, the top
four countries with the highest competitive import intensity are all Asian
countries, which is consistent with previous results obtained from the
analysis of regional competition.
With respect to European importers, the coal-trade competitiveness
levels of most coal importers (e.g., Italy, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and
the Netherlands) have clearly declined, and a number of these countries
even left the top ten list in 2017. Italy fell from third place in 1998 to
ninth place in 2015, and Germany fell from fifth place in 2004 to seventh
place, and eventually left the top ten list in 2007. Although the United
Kingdom was still part of the top then list in 2017, its ranking decreased
significantly compared with that in 1998. These countries may gradually
lose their coal import markets. Only France remained at the seventh
place in 2017, although it experienced a distinct fluctuation between
2002 and 2017. In contrast, the competitive intensities of Brazil and
Argentina, which are large countries of the South American region,
increased, particularly during the period from 2013 to 2017.
To test whether a connection exists between competition and volume
W. Wang et al. Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611

Fig. 8. Competition intensity among regions.

Fig. 9. Top ten countries according to their import competition intensity.

in coal imports, the main coal importing countries were ranked ac­
cording to their total import volumes (Table 2). The major import
competitions for coal-trading resources are concentrated in large coal
importers.
Japan has consistently maintained the highest level of coal imports
during the period of 1998 to 2007, when it was replaced by China. High
consistency such as this was also found for South Korea. Table 2 also
indicates the great coal import demand of Japan over the whole obser­
vation period. In Japan, as much as 99.3% of all domestic coal demand
depends on coal imports because of the strengthening of security mea­
sures and the decline in the number of Japanese coal mines. In contrast,
both the import and competitive ranking of South Korea decreased after
2007 and South Korea ranked fourth in 2017. This was mainly related to
the policy of levying a tax on coal used for power generation and

Table 2
The top ten import countries and the top ten intense competitive importers in 1998, 2007, and 2017.
Ranking 1998 2007 2017

A B A B A B

1 Japan Japan Japan Japan China China

2 South Korea South Korea South Korea South Korea Japan Japan
3 Netherlands Italy India India India India
4 Italy Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands South Korea South Korea
5 France UK UK UK Brazil Brazil
6 Germany France Germany Spain Germany Argentina
7 India Brazil France Italy UK France
8 UK Spain USA France Turkey Turkey
9 Brazil Belgium China Brazil Netherlands Malaysia
10 Spain Germany Italy Turkey Ukraine UK

Note: A stands for the top ten import countries; B stands for the top ten intense competitive importers; UK stands for the United Kingdom.

8
W. Wang et al.
heating, a measure aimed to reduce domestic electricity consumption
and avoid power outages during peak hours.
Regarding China, because of the limited production of coal resources
in recent years and the increase in the number of power stations, China
imports considerable coal resources. Moreover, both Table 2 and Fig. 9
show China’s dominant position in the global coal import trade in 2017,
which is consistent with the trend of China’s import rankings. Compared
with China, most European importers decreased had a lower competi­
tive intensity ranking, as well as import volume in 2017. Taking the
Netherlands as an example, this country is one of the world’s leading
maritime nations and provides coal transportation for the hinterland of
Europe. This resulted in a large import volume and high competitive
intensity in the earlier years of the studied period. However, with the
decreasing coal demand in Europe because of the development of
alternative energy, the position of the Netherlands in the coal import
trade has decreased and, as a result, its import volume and competitive
intensity decreased sharply. Overall, Asian importers (e.g., China,
Japan, South Korea, and India) remain at the center of the world’s coal
consumption market; moreover, these countries are also the most
intense competitive importers.
In addition, the evolution of competitive intensity between these
large coal importers and their main competitors was explored. Countries
such as China, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, and the United
Kingdom are presented in Fig. 10. The import competition intensities
between China and its main competitors increased far more than other
competitive relationships that had increasing trends from 1998 to 2017.
In both 2012 and 2017, the competitive intensity between China and
Japan had the highest value of all competitive relationships. This
competition between China and Japan plays a dominant role in the coal
import competition pattern. Additionally, the competition China and
Japan face has become more intense because of their increased coal
demand. As the other three largest Asian competitors of China, India,
Fig. 10. Evolution of the competitive intensity of the major coal importers with other large coal importers.
9
Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611
South Korea, and Indonesia rapidly increased their competitive intensity
with China. Recently, Indonesia has introduced policies to control coal
production for a more sustainable exploitation; therefore, Indonesia has
to increase coal imports to meet its needs. Based on the above results,
Asian countries will play leading roles in the development of the coal-
trading competition pattern in the future.
Interestingly, as the second largest coal importing country, the total
competitive import intensities between Japan and its main competitors
decreased during the research period. The reasons differ depending on
the competitors of Japan. For example, the declining trend between
Japan and Sweden is the result of Sweden’s condemnation by interna­
tional governments because of 12 Swedish-built coal-fired power sta­
tions in Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, and Denmark (instead of in
Sweden). This resulted in a decreasing volume of coal imports. Similarly,
the United Kingdom showed a declining trend with its main competitors,
except for the increasing competitive intensity with China.
The competitions India and South Korea face show remarkable
regional characteristics, and import competitions with Asian countries
remained intense during the research period. In contrast, the competi­
tive intensity with European countries (e.g., the United Kingdom and
France) has decreased dramatically from 2007 to 2017. This decrease is
related to the declining coal import volume of European countries. In
contrast, Brazil faced steadily increasing competition with its major
competitors. Overall, the competition with Asian countries is much
higher than with other main competitors in Europe and North America.
This is consistent with the dominant position of Asia in the global coal
import competition.
The top ten point-to-point competitive intensities from 1998 to 2017
are shown in Fig. 11. It is important to emphasize that, during the
research period, the greatest import competitions are all related to large
coal importers, such as China and Japan. In 1998, 2002, and 2007, all
competitive relationships include Japan; however, in 2012, only five
W. Wang et al.
Fig. 11. Competitive relationships of the top ten point-to-point import competition intensities.
competitive relationships include Japan among the top ten competitive
intensities, and by 2017, all ten strongest competitive relationships
include China rather than Japan. Furthermore, during the period of
1998 to 2007, the strongest competitive relationships between Japan
and other importers are trans-regional. However, in 2012, competitive
relationships have clearly changed. Import competitions that occupy the
most important places are among countries belonging to the Asian re­
gion, such as China, Japan, India, and South Korea. This can be
explained by emerging economies (e.g., China and India) becoming the
new driving force in the growth of coal consumption over the past ten
years. In 2017, this regional centrality of competitive relationships was
changed by the rapid development of South America and the growth of
the energy demand of these countries, which can be seen by Brazil and
Argentina becoming China’s second and third largest coal import com­
petitors, respectively. In this case, China should place an important
weight on Brazil and Argentina when developing coal trading strategies,
given that these countries pose a threat to China’s coal import market.
4. Policy recommendations
The results negated the proposed hypothesis. Accordingly, policy
recommendations are proposed for controlling the global coal trade
competition and reducing global coal imports.
First, it should be noted that increasingly complex competitive re­
lationships strengthen the restrictions imposed on interactions among
coal importers. As a result, a conflict or sanction incurred by a country or
10
Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611
the adjustment of a coal importer’s import strategy influences the
competition competitor face and the stability of the coal trade. Such an
impact will spread very quickly through the network, which will seri­
ously impact the coal import security. Thus, joint efforts, such as
developing a systematic framework or smart coal-consumption man­
agement system[37] at global level, should be made for coal trade
cooperation in a healthy competitive environment.
Second, the most intense competition for coal is caused by few
countries, especially Asian countries such as China, Japan, South Korea,
and India, but also European countries such as Germany and Turkey.
Accordingly, these countries should bear the responsibility for
addressing the growingly drastic trade disputes and improving the sus­
tainable development of the coal trade to ensure the steady operation of
coal imports.
Third, as competition related to the Asian-Pacific region is more
active and drastic compared with other regions, each highly competitive
coal importer in the Asian-Pacific region should develop corresponding
strategies for adapting to the current competitive coal-trading environ­
ment. For example, a re-examination or a better framework (ideally
involving the regular evaluation of coal resources at the stages of
development, application, and post-implementation) should be consid­
ered in Asia. In addition, investments should be directed toward the
appropriate use of coal resources and sophisticated technology pro­
moting new energy resources. Sources of renewable energy are also
great way for reducing coal consumption levels.
W. Wang et al.
5. Conclusions
In this study, complex network analysis was applied to assess the
dynamic competitive relationship and intensity of the global coal trade
system. This assessment was based on global coal trade data from 1998
to 2017. The present study is one of the first contributions analyzing the
competitive relationship and intensity of the international coal trade. In
the process of mapping the temporal evolution of the competitive re­
lationships among coal importers, a set of complex network indexes is
introduced. Specifically, cumulative degree distribution is applied to
assess whether the coal import competition network is a scale-free
network. Average degree, clustering coefficient, and the average short­
est path lengths are used to analyze the tightness of their relationships.
The core–periphery structure is adopted to investigate the hierarchy of
the network. To deeply analyze the competitive intensity, a weighted
competition network is built and analyzed from global, regional, and
national perspectives. Several interesting conclusions are drawn
through the above analysis. First, the hypothesis that a possibility of a
decreasing trend in global coal trade competition exists was verified. In
contrast to expectation, more competitive relationships are being built,
and the global competitive coal import pattern is changing from a core-
periphery structure toward a reticular structure. Second, the most
intense competition for coal is generated by few countries, especially
Asian countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, and India, but also
European countries such as Germany and Turkey. Third, the increasing
demand for coal by Asian countries, led by Japan and China (in
sequence), resulted in a more active and drastic coal competition related
to the Asian-Pacific region. This enhances the pressure of competition
and the level of competition for global coal resources. Moreover, the
competitive intensity of Brazil and Argentina increased clearly, partic­
ularly during the period of 2013 to 2017. In contrast, competition
among European importers, such as Italy, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and
the Netherlands has weakened. Fourth, China has clearly replaced Japan
as the major driving force in the growth of the global coal competition
intensity, as all top 10 competitive relationships include China;
furthermore, China experienced a far stronger competitive intensity
with its competitors than other importers. These results with help to
understand the competitive situation of the global coal trade system and
will also help national governments in adopting targeted policies on coal
trade toward reducing CO2 emissions and ensure a stable supply of en­
ergy. However, the analysis of competitive relationship and intensity
based on statistical data mostly involves theoretical analysis or data
modelling of the underlying network topology, which leads to a certain
disparity in true trade networks. Because of the limitations of the scope
of this study, other vital aspects of the complexity analysis on the coal
trade network need to be further addressed by future studies. For
example, the impact of events (e.g., economic crises and the COVID-19
pandemic of 2019) on the coal import competition network needs to be
assessed.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of
China (no. 17BGL251).
References
[1] IEA. Coal 2018. Pairs: International Energy Agency; 2018.
11
Applied Energy 303 (2021) 117611
[2] Wang WY, Li ZF, Cheng X. Evolution of the global coal trade network: A complex
network analysis. Resour Policy 2019;62:496–506.
[3] Qiao J, Wang X, Shen X. Robustness evaluation and application of structure of coal
transportation network. J Transport Syst Eng Inform Technol 2013;13(4):126–33.
[4] Guan X, Wang X, Zhao J. Risk evaluation and analysis of coal logistics network.
Logist Technol 2009;12:67–9.
[5] Guan X. Performance evaluation for coal logistics transportation network. Logist
Technol 2011;30(8):36–8.
[6] Ekawan R, Duchene M, Goetz D. The evolution of hard coal trade in the Pacific
market. Energy Policy 2006;34(14):1853–66.
[7] Riker DA. International coal trade and restrictions on coal consumption. Energy
Econ 2012;34:1244–9.
[8] Haftendorn C, Kemfert C, Holz F. What about coal? Interactions between climate
policies and the global steam coal market until 2030. Energy Policy 2012;48:
274–83.
[9] Xiang HJ, Kuang YX, Li CH. Impact of the China-Australia FTA on global coal
production and trade. J Policy Model 2017;39:65–78.
[10] Wang W, Wang CJ, Jin FJ. Spatial evolution of coal transportation at coastal ports
in China. J Geog Sci 2018;28:238–56.
[11] Wang CJ, Ducruet C. Transport corridors and regional balance in China: the case of
coal trade and logistics. J Transp Geogr 2014;40:3–16.
[12] Wang WY, Li ZF. The evolution of China’s interregional coal trade network,
1997–2016. Physica A 2019;62:496–506.
[13] Song Y, Wang N. Exploring temporal and spatial evolution of global coal supply-
demand and flow structure. Energy 2019;168:1073–80.
[14] Má S, Bogu M. Topology of the world trade web. Phys Rev E: Stat Nonlinear Soft
Matter Phys 2003;68:634–46.
[15] An HZ, Zhong WQ, Chen YR, Li HJ, Gao XY. Features and evolution of international
crude oil trade relationships: A trading-based network analysis. Energy 2014;74:
254–9.
[16] Chen B, Li JS, Wu XF, Han MY, Zeng L, Li Z, et al. Global energy flows embodied in
international trade: A combination of environmentally extended input–output
analysis and complex network analysis. Appl Energy 2018;210:98–107.
[17] Kitamura T, Managi S. Driving force and resistance: Network feature in oil trade.
Appl Energy 2017;208:361–75.
[18] Gao C, Sun M, Shen B. Features and evolution of international fossil energy trade
relationships: A weighted multilayer network analysis. Appl Energy 2015;156:
542–54.
[19] Zhong WQ, An HZ, Fang W, Gao XY, Dong D. Features and evolution of
international fossil fuel trade network based on value of emergy. Appl Energy
2016;165:868–77.
[20] Du RJ, Wang Y, Dong GG, Tian LX, Liu YX, Wang MG, et al. A complex network
perspective on interrelations and evolution features of international oil trade,
2002–2013. Appl Energy 2017;196:142–51.
[21] Liu LT, Cao Z, Liu XJ, Shi L, Cheng SK, Liu G. Oil security revisited: An assessment
based on complex network analysis. Energy 2020;194:116793.
[22] Song ZY, Zhu QL, Han MY. Tele-connection of global crude oil network:
Comparisons between direct trade and embodied flows. Energy 2021;217:119359.
[23] Ding YT, Zhang M, Chen S, Nie R. Assessing the resilience of China’s natural gas
importation under network disruptions. Energy 2020;211:118459.
[24] Zhang H, Ji Q, Fan Y. Competition, transmission and pattern evolution: A network
analysis of global oil trade. Energy Policy 2014;73:312–22.
[25] Chen ZH, An HZ, Gao XY, Li HJ, Hao XQ. Competition pattern of the global
liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade by network analysis. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2016;33:
769–76.
[26] Hao XQ, An HZ, Sun XQ, Zhong WQ. The import competition relationship and
intensity in the international iron ore trade: From network perspective. Resour
Policy 2018;57:45–54.
[27] Qudrat-Ullah H, BaekSeo S. How to do structural validity of a system dynamics
type simulation model: The case of an energy policy model. Energy Policy 2010;38
(5):2216–24.
[28] Zhong WQ, An HZ, Shen L, Dai T, Fang W, Gao XY, et al. Global pattern of the
international fossil fuel trade: the evolution of communities. Energy 2017;123:
260–70.
[29] Geng J, Ji Q, Fan Y. A dynamic analysis on global natural gas trade network. Apply
Energy 2014;132:23–33.
[30] Barabasi AL, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 1999;
286:509–12.
[31] Ducruet C, Lee SW, Ng AKY. Centrality and vulnerability in liner shipping
networks:revisiting the Northeast Asian port hierarchy. Marit Policy Manage:
Flagship J Int Ship Port Res 2010;37(1):17–36.
[32] Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1979;
1:215–39.
[33] Saramäki J, Onnela JP, Kertész J, Kaski K. Characterizing Motifs in Weighted
Complex Networks. Am Inst Phys 2005;177:108–17.
[34] Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. Nature
1998;393:440–2.
[35] Borgatti SP, Everett MG. Models of core/periphery structures. Soc Netw 1999;21:
375–95.
[36] Boyd JP, Fitzgerald WJ, Beck RJ. Computing core/periphery structures
andpermutation tests for social relations data. Soc Netw 2006;28:165–78.
[37] Yaqub R, Ahmad S, Ahmad A, Amin M. Smart energy-consumption management
system considering consumers’ spending goals (SEMS-CCSG). Int Trans Electr
Energy Syst 2016;26(7):1570–84.