sustainability

Article
Renewable Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions:
Evidence from an Oil-Rich Economy
Shahriyar Mukhtarov 1,2, * , Fuzuli Aliyev 3 , Javid Aliyev 4 and Richard Ajayi 5

1 Faculty of Economics and International Relations, Vistula University, Stoklosy 3, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
2 UNEC Empirical Research Center, Azerbaijan State University of Economics (UNEC), Istiqlaliyyat Str. 6,
AZ1141 Baku, Azerbaijan
3 School of Business, ADA University, Ahmadbey Aghaoghlu 61, AZ1008 Baku, Azerbaijan
4 Department of College of Islamic Studies, Islamic Finance and Economics, Hamad Bin Khalifa University,
Education City, Doha P.O. Box 34110, Qatar
5 Department of Finance, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL 32816, USA
* Correspondence: smuxtarov@beu.edu.az or s.mukhtarov@vistula.edu.pl

Abstract: This article examines the influence of renewable energy consumption, real GDP per capita,
exports and imports on consumption-based CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan from 1993 to 2019 by employ-
ing the Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares Method (DOLS). The results reveal that renewable energy
consumption has a negative impact on CO2 emissions, while real GDP per capita has a positive effect.
According to the findings, a 1% increase in renewable energy consumption leads to a 0.26% decrease
in consumption-based CO2 emissions, while a 1% rise in real GDP per capita leads to a 0.46% rise in
consumption-based CO2 emissions. In addition, imports and exports show positive and negative effects
respectively. Numerically, a 1% rise in imports results in a 0.18% rise in CO2 emissions, whereas a 1%
increase in exports reduces CO2 emissions by 0.16%. This is consistent with expectations and theoretical
outcomes described in the functional specification and data section. The negative influence of renewable
energy consumption, as well as the larger effect of imports, emphasize the necessity of implementing
ecologically friendly measures in both energy sectors (particularly, the need to increase the share of
renewable energy in total energy use) and international trade.

Citation: Mukhtarov, S.; Aliyev, F.; Keywords: renewable energy; CO2 emissions; DOLS; Azerbaijan
Aliyev, J.; Ajayi, R. Renewable Energy
Consumption and Carbon Emissions:
Evidence from an Oil-Rich Economy.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134. https://
1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/su15010134
A significant increase in carbon emissions is one of the main and most challenging
Academic Editors: Marc A. Rosen
issues of the modern global economy [1]. Based on the report of the World Bank, the
and Jacob Arie Jordaan
aggregate level of CO2 all over the world grew almost 70% from 1990 to 2018 [2]. This
Received: 8 November 2022 is an alarming fact that reflects the rapidly increasing greenhouse emissions. Taking this
Revised: 14 December 2022 situation into account, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that
Accepted: 19 December 2022 global warming could approach 1.5 ◦ C from 2030 to 2052 if the current trend continues [3,4].
Published: 22 December 2022 Regarding potential environmental effects, greenhouse gas emissions can form several
types of pollutions. The most notable one among them is air pollution, which leads to
climate change [5]. At present, rising levels of CO2 in the air lead to global warming and as
a result, hazardous effects, such as desertification (especially in Africa), floods (mainly in
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Indonesia), deforestation, erosion and others emerging in different parts of the world [6].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
These natural problems can affect all sectors of the global economy, including health, food
This article is an open access article
security, and many others. Realizing the importance of dealing with CO2 emission and
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
its consequences, several steps were taken by countries through the Kyoto protocol and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the Paris agreement with the aim of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, to
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
avoid harmful consequences of conventional energy and CO2 , the United Nations set a
4.0/).

Sustainability 2023, 15, 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010134 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 2 of 12

goal to shift toward clean and affordable energy (SDG 7). This goal is among 17 important
Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations [7].
Given the significance of developing strategies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions,
several researchers are examining this subject in an effort to identify viable solutions to
this global issue. Nevertheless, the methods and policy consequences of these findings
should be applied so as not to diminish the quality of life in different nations. One of the
best ways to reduce CO2 is to shift toward renewable energy, which is a good substitute
for conventional energy. The argument that the shift to renewable energy would lead to a
decrease in CO2 is supported by the fact that the primary renewable energy sources, solar
and hydropower, do not create greenhouse gases [8–10]. Hence, shifting toward renewable
energy will help to reduce hazardous emission levels.
Among the family of nations, resource-rich countries emit more harmful gases and
pollute the air more than the other countries [11]. In this regard, finding ways to reduce
CO2 emissions for these resource-abundant nations will be extremely important. Therefore,
in this context, we analyzed the effect of CO2 on renewable energy in Azerbaijan, the
biggest oil producing country after Russia in the Caucasian region.
Azerbaijan is one of the most oil-rich nations and was ranked 20th according to its
potential oil reserves, while taking 24th place in oil production (barrels per day) [12].
Along with this, it is also rich in renewable energy resources, which makes it a special
case for this research and increases the uniqueness of our investigation. Considering the
fact that in 2002, aggregate air polluting emissions were 620 thousand tons in Azerbaijan,
the level of the same indicator nearly doubled and approached 1122.0 thousand tons
in 2019 [13]. Meanwhile, the aggregate air pollutant emissions rose by 80.9% with an
average of 4.06% annual growth rate for the time span of 2002–2019 [13,14]. Regarding the
economic development of the country, it has demonstrated a remarkable economic growth
starting from 2006. For 1996–2019, the GDP of the country grew by almost 29.9 times, from
2733 million AZN in 1996 to 81,681 million AZN in 2019 [15]. However, this economic
growth is not without some unpleasant trade-offs and it might lead to significant negative
effects on the environment of the nation through different channels. Eventually, unchecked
environmental degradation could cause undesirable impacts on individuals and society.
Therefore, in the interest of keeping a proper balance among the elements of development,
or more clearly, to provide and pursue sustainable development, existing resources of the
country should be deployed in an environmentally friendly manner.
Meanwhile, as a result of the harmful influence of conventional energy production
and use on the environment, as well as the inefficiency of traditional energy resources,
the use of renewable energy sources is becoming increasingly necessary [16]. Therefore,
shifting toward clean and renewable energy is one of the most important objectives on
the agenda of many countries. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) defined
energy transition as a roadmap toward converting the global energy industry into the one
in which carbon-free energy resources replace fossil-fuels counterparts, and this process
must be done by the second half of the century. Renewable energy, which is also called
“clean energy”, can be broadly explained as energy obtained from solar, wave, geothermal,
tide, wind, wood, waste, and plant materials (biomass) [17]. The most valuable, attractive
and distinctive characteristic of renewable energy is that it can help in three critical areas:
pollution reduction, energy security, and long-term economic growth. Regarding higher
levels of environmental discharge and the global urgency of the issue, pollution reduction
is getting a lot of attention recently. In addition, the International Energy Agency (IEA) sets
environment concerns at the center of the renewable energy transition [5]. Moreover, some
recent studies such as Ali et al.’s [18], Ding et al.’s [19], Dong et al.’s [20], Aziz et al. [21], and
Bhattacharya et al.‘s [22], found that renewable energy lessened environmental degradation.
With the world’s attention and concern focused on global warming and its conse-
quences, studying the effect of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions will be
a timely exercise in the case of an oil-rich country, Azerbaijan. Therefore, the aim of this
paper is to investigate the relationship between renewable energy consumption and CO2
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 3 of 12

emissions in Azerbaijan. For this purpose, the Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares Method
(DOLS) was used to test the long run cointegration link between relevant variables.
Azerbaijan has significant potential for the development of clean energy sources;
more precisely, the country has tremendous solar (23,000 MW) and wind (3000 MW) re-
sources, as well as important prospects for hydropower (520 MW), biomass and geothermal
(380 MW) [23,24]. This gives the country a great opportunity to utilize them and, eventually,
shift toward clean energy. However, practical deployment has been limited compared
with the scale of the country’s available resources and long-term ambitions. This could be
explained by the country’s abundant oil and gas resources, which are less expensive than
renewable alternatives. Meanwhile, the gas and oil industries not only impede the transi-
tion to renewable energy sources, but they also contribute significantly more CO2 emissions
to the environment than other industries. For instance, in 2021, gas and oil industry ac-
counted for 26.03 million t and 11.11 million CO2 emissions, respectively. However, cement,
flaring, and coal were responsible for 1.1 million t, 252.8 thousand t and 3.6 thousand CO2
emissions, respectively [25]. For the last two decades, oil and gas accounted for, on average,
98% of CO2 emissions in the country [2].
This paper contributes to the existing literature in several ways. To begin, to the
best of our knowledge, no empirical study has examined the effects of renewable energy
consumption on CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan employing the Dynamic Ordinary Least
Squares Method (DOLS). At the same time, Azerbaijan provides a unique opportunity
to investigate the link between CO2 and renewable energy because the country is rich in
both natural and renewable energy resources, and it currently aims to have significant
investments in renewable energy. Furthermore, we deliberately chose consumption-based
CO2 emissions data in our analysis, which enables us to consider the effect of international
trade. This will be very helpful to notice carbon emissions produced in one country and
consumed in another [5,26,27]. Another contribution is that we also included other vari-
ables, such as exports, imports, and GDP per capita in the model, which were considered
in a few previous studies for Azerbaijan. Notably, the model specification is theoretically
grounded and proposed by a remarkable study such as Hasanov et al.‘s [5], rather than
many studies in the literature that examine the variables of interest in an ad hoc manner.
Additionally, we used both imports and exports as a measure of international trade in
our research, since combining indicators like trade openness and trade turnover does not
enable us to evaluate the distinct effects of exports and imports. As one of the primary
drivers of globalization, the increase of international commerce makes it crucial to account
for environmental degradation [5].
The remaining part of the paper proceeds as follows. Related studies are reviewed in
Section 2. This is followed by econometric specification and estimation in Section 3. Empirical
findings are discussed in Section 4, and Section 5 presents conclusions and policy implications.

2. Literature Review
Factors that affect CO2 emissions and its implications have been extensively studied.
Mikayilov et al. [28], Liddle [29,30], Hasanov et al. [31], and Ding et al. [32] investigated the
determinants of consumption-based CO2 emissions. Liddle [29,30] examined the impact of
GDP, exports and imports on consumption-based CO2 emissions and found that GDP and
imports have a positive effect on consumption-based CO2 emissions, while exports have
a negative effect on consumption-based CO2 emissions. In addition, Hasanov et al. [31]
found that there is a positive impact from GDP and imports on consumption-based CO2
emissions, in contrast with a negative impact form exports on consumption-based CO2
emissions in the case of nine oil-exporting countries. Moreover, Ding et al. [19] revealed a
positive effect of GDP and imports on CO2 emission in contrast with a negative influence
of renewable energy consumption and exports on CO2 emission.
In this paper, we focus on the research which studies the impact of renewable energy
consumption (RE), real GDP per capita, exports and imports among other factors, on CO2
emissions. Zakarya et al. [32] study cointegrates GDP per capita, CO2 emission per capita,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 4 of 12

FDI and the total energy consumption using Granger causality in panel. They report
a unidirectional causality from CO2 to other listed variables. Bastola and Sapkota [33]
examine causal relationship between real GDP, CO2 emission and energy consumption
using ARDL (Autoregressive Distributed Lag) bounds tests in one of the most climate
vulnerable countries, Nepal. They find unidirectional causality from real GDP growth
to both CO2 emissions and energy consumption. Considering Kazakhstan to be an oil-
rich post-Soviet country such as Azerbaijan, studies should be interesting. To examine
the effect of economic growth, which is proxied by GDP per capita on CO2 emissions,
Akbota and Baek [34] employ autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) cointegration for
the period of 1991–2014. Their findings show that GDP growth increases CO2 at a low
level of income; however, it decreases it at a high level, which means Environmental
Kuznets Curve (EKC) holds for CO2 emissions in Kazakhstan. Hasanov et al. [35] studied
the impact of GDP per capita on CO2 emission per capita from 1992–2013 using various
cointegration methods. They report monotonically increasing the impact of GDP on carbon
emission. In addition, Mikayilov et al. [27] investigate the impact of international tourism
on consumption-based CO2 emissions adding import and export variables as additional
explanatories in Azerbaijan from 1995 to 2013. Employing Fully Modified Ordinary Least
Square (FMOLS) method, they find an increase in international tourism raises CO2 emission.
Thio et al. [36] employed STIRPAT model to gauge impact of GDP per capita, technological
innovations, exports and imports on CO2 emissions in 10 selected countries, including
Mexico, India, China, South Africa and others. Their findings show that an increase in GDP
per capita has significant positive impact on carbon emissions.
In addition, Apergis et al. [37] studied the relationship between CO2 emission and
renewable energy consumption for 19 developed and developing economies utilizing panel
data. They revealed that there is a positive effect of renewable energy consumption on CO2
emissions. Additionally, Khoshnevis Yazdi and Ghorchi Beygi [38] found a negative effect of
RE on CO2 emissions in the case of 25 African economies using Pooled Mean Group (PMG)
approach. Dong et al. [20] evaluated the influences from renewable energy consumption on
CO2 emission in the case of 120 countries (including Azerbaijan). The empirical findings
indicated that there is a negative and insignificant effect of renewable energy consumption
on CO2 emissions. Moreover, panel cointegration tests were performed by Nguyen and
Kakinaka [39] to examine the relationship between renewable energy consumption and carbon
emissions for 107 economies throughout the 1990–2013 period. In the case of low-income
economies, they found a long-term a positive influence from renewable energy consumption
on CO2 emissions, but a negative effect was seen in the case of high-income economies.
Aziz et al. [21] studied the effect of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions in
MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey) countries and found that renewable energy
consumption negatively affects CO2 emissions. Moreover, Mahmood et al. [40] for Pakistan,
Leitão et al. [41] for BRICS, Li and Haneklaus [42] for China, Li and Haneklaus [43] for India,
and Li and Haneklaus [44] for China reached a negative and significant impact from renewable
energy consumption on CO2 emission. Hasanov et al. [5] analyzed the impact of total factor
productivity (TFP) and renewable energy consumption on consumption-based CO2 emission
for BRICS economies using cross-sectional augmented Autoregressive Distributed Lags (CS-
ARDL) technique and found negative influence of both the variables on the CO2 emissions. In
addition, the negative effect of renewable energy consumption showed by several studies,
such as Bilgili et al.’s [45], Bhattacharya et al.‘s [22], Khoshnevis Yazdi and Shakouri’s [46],
Dogan and Seker’s [47], Zoundi’s [48], Danish et al.’s [49], Waheed et al.’s [50], Adams and
Acheampong’s [51], Cheng et al.’s [52], Akram et al.’s [53], Saidi and Omri’s [11], Piłatowska
et al.’s [54], Leitão and Lorente’s [55], Shahnazi and Dehghan Shabani’s [56], and Ali and
Kirikkaleli’s [18].
The literature study reveals that no study has been undertaken on the influence of re-
newable energy consumption on consumption-based CO2 emissions in the case of Azerbaijan
utilizing time-series analysis. Hence, the purpose of this research is to fill this void by ex-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 5 of 12

amining the long-run consumption-based CO2 emissions impact of the renewable energy
consumption, alongside real GDP per capita, imports and exports, using DOLS method.

3. Econometric Methodology and Data

3.1. Functional Specification and Data
For BRICS countries, Hasanov et al. [5] proposed a framework in which the consumption-
based CO2 emissions is a function of renewable energy consumption, total factor productivity
(TFP), income, imports and exports. In this article, TFP data has not been included in the model
specification because it is not available for Azerbaijan. Following the econometric specification
suggested by Hasanov et al. [5], the consumption-based CO2 emissions is modelled as a function
of renewable energy consumption, real GDP per capita, exports and imports as follow:

lnCO2,t = β 0 + β 1 lnREt + β 2 lnYt + β 3 lnExpt + β 4 lnImpt + ε t (1)

where, CO2,t represent consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions, REt represents renew-
able energy consumption Yt represents gross domestic product per capita, Expt represents
exports of goods and services, Impt represents imports of goods and services and εt is an
error term. β1 , β2 , β3 , and β4 indicate the elasticities of consumption-based carbon dioxide
emissions with respect to renewable energy consumption, real GDP per capita, export and
import, respectively.
Consumption-based carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions is the dependent variable. It
is expressed in million tons of CO2 , (MtCO2). According to recent research, considering
consumption-based CO2 rather than territorial-based CO2 is preferable [5,27,29–31]. One
of the benefits of using consumption-based CO2 as a proxy of carbon emissions is that
it includes emissions from both final consumption and international purchasing [5,26].
It has been adjusted to account for international trade and so makes it simple to detect
carbon emissions produced in one country and consumed in another [57]. RE is renewable
energy consumption as percentage of total energy use. Consumption of renewable energy is
derived from non-fossil fuel sources. It is predicted that RE will reduce consumption-based
CO2 emissions. GDP per capita (Y) is proxied in US dollars at 2010 prices. This is the
market value of all final goods and services produced in Azerbaijan during a period of
time, expected to have a positive effect on consumption-based CO2 emissions. Exports
(Exp) are proxied at constant 2010 US dollars as percentage of GDP. Imports (Imp) are
proxied at constant 2010 US dollars as percentage of GDP. Based on the theoretical approach
suggested by Hasanov et al. [5], we can examine the CO2 impact of exports and imports
separately instead of combining them. Exports are predicted to have a negative influence
on consumption-based CO2 due to the measure of goods and services produced in one
economy but consumed in another. Imports are predicted to have a positive impact on
consumption-based CO2 due to measures of goods and services produced in abroad but
consumed in the domestic country [5,27,29–31].
The data of RE, Y, Exp and Imp are compiled from World Bank database [2]. The data
for CO2 emissions are compiled from the Global Carbon Atlas [58]. The logarithmic form is
used for all variables. The annual data from 1993 to 2019 are utilized.

3.2. Econometric Methodology

The variables are initially checked for properties of stationarity. The Augmented Dickey
Fuller (ADF) [59] and Phillips–Perron (PP) [60] unit root tests are employed for this. In the
second stage, the presence of long-run co-movement between the variables is checked utilizing
Engle–Granger [61], Phillips–Ouliaris [62], and Park’s Added Variables [63]. The Dynamic
Ordinary Least Squares Method (DOLS) [64] is used to assess the long-run influence of RE,
Y, Exp and Imp on CO2 emissions. The Dynamic Ordinary Least Squares (DOLS) method
was proposed by Stock and Watson [64] as an asymptotic efficient estimation tool. In this
approach, an evaluation methodology is proposed that eliminates the endogeneity problem in
the cointegration system. DOLS is used to estimate the equilibrium corrected for potential
simultaneity bias between variables in the long run [64]. For the cointegration analysis, the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 6 of 12

OLS estimates are super consistent, as shown by Engle and Granger [61]. They, however,
suffer from simultaneity bias issue caused by endogeneity, and standard inferential statistics
(based on the t and F statistics) are invalid. The DOLS method, like its counterparts FMOLS
and CCR, is designed to overcome these issues. In addition, DOLS, unlike FMOLS and
CCR, provides a dynamic framework. Furthermore, Stock and Watson [64] show that this
method is more favorable, particularly in small samples, compared to a number of alternative
estimators of long-run parameters, including those proposed by Engle and Granger [61],
Johansen [65] and Phillips and Hansen [66]. DOLS, like any other methods, has limitations as
well. For example, Pesaran and Shin [67] show that their ARDL method is better than DOLS
in terms of having less bias and inconsistent estimates. Moreover, DOLS, like any other single
equation or residual based methods, assumes one or no cointegration. However, the theory of
cointegration articulates that n variables can establish n-1 cointegration at maximum (e.g., see
Engle and Granger).
We do not present details about the aforementioned methods. Because we do not want
to bore the readers with complex mathematical tools that are widely used in many studies.
Dickey and Fuller [59], Phillips and Perron [60], Engle and Granger [61], Phillips and
Ouliaris [62], Park [63], and Stock and Watson [64], among others, present comprehensive
information.

4. Empirical Results and Discussion

The stationarity properties of the utilized variables are first evaluated using the ADF and
PP unit root tests. Table 1 shows the results of the unit root tests. According to tests results,
all variables become non-stationary at their levels but stationary at the first difference. As a
consequence, the cointegration link between the utilized variables may be examined.

Table 1. Findings of unit root tests.

The ADF Test The PP Test

Variable First First
Level k k Level
Difference Difference
CO2 −1.645 0 −10.461 *** 0 −1.351 −9.730 ***
RE −2.415 0 −5.764 *** 0 −2.399 −5.848 ***
Y −1.685 1 −2.746 * 1 −0.427 −2.953 *
Exp −0.787 1 −9.030 *** 0 −1.041 −3.097 **
Imp −2.010 1 −3.352 ** 1 −1.458 −2.716 *
Notes: ADF and PP, respectively, stand for Augmented Dickey–Fuller and Phillips–Perron tests; ***, **, and *,
respectively, stand for null hypothesis rejection at 1%, 5%, and 10% significant levels.

Then, the Engle–Granger, Park’s Added Variables, and Phillips–Ouliaris cointegration tests
are used to determine the cointegration relationship, and the findings are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Outcomes of cointegration tests.

Park’s Added Variables Test Phillips–Ouliaris

4.45609 Tau-statistics −5.4113 (0.00)
Chi-square
(0.21) Z-statistics −31.851 (0.00)
Engle–Granger
−5.2978 −27.916
Tau-statistics Z-statistics
(0.01) (0.01)
Notes: p-values are in parenthesis.

The critical values of the Z-statistics and Tau-statistic of the Engle–Granger and
Phillips–Ouliaris tests reported in the Table 2 are greater than the corresponding criti-
cal values, meaning that the null hypothesis of “no cointegration” can be rejected in favor
of alternative hypothesis of cointegration. This is the opposite for the Park’s added variable
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 7 of 12

test, where the sample reported in the Table 2 is lower than the corresponding critical value,
meaning that the null hypothesis of cointegration cannot be rejected in favor of alternative
hypothesis of “no cointegration”. Therefore, the results of the tests show that the variables
have a long-run cointegration relationship.
As a result, using DOLS technique, after validating the existence of cointegration
relationships between the variables, the long-term impact of RE, Y, Exp, and Imp on CO2
emissions may be assessed. Table 3 summarizes the findings.

Table 3. The results of DOLS.

Regressor Coefficients t-Statistics Probabilities

RE −0.26 −2.3478 0.04
Y 0.46 36.901 0.00
Exp −0.16 −2.0733 0.06
Imp 0.18 3.6929 0.00
Note: CO2 is dependent variable.

The estimation findings show that RE has a statistically significant and negative
influence on consumption-based CO2 emissions, as shown in Table 3. According to the
findings, a 1% rise in RE decreases consumption-based CO2 emissions by 0.26%. A rise
in consumption of renewable energy derived from non-fossil fuel sources will decrease
CO2 emissions. Our results are consistent with outcomes of Bhattacharya et al. [22] for
85 developed and developing countries, Nguyen and Kakinaka [39] for 107 economies,
Khoshnevis Yazdi and Ghorchi Beygi [38] for 25 African economies, Dong et al. [20] for
120 countries (including Azerbaijan), Aziz et al. [21] for MINT economies, Mahmood
et al. [40] for Pakistan, Leitão et al. [41] for BRICS, Li and Haneklaus [42] for China, Li
and Haneklaus [43] for India, Li and Haneklaus [44] for China, and Hasanov et al. [5] for
RICS countries. Furthermore, we revealed that real GDP per capita has a positive and
statistically significant impact on CO2 emissions. It implies that a 1% rise in real GDP per
capita is accompanied by a 0.46% increase in CO2 emissions. Our results are in line with
economic theory. From a theoretical point of view, an increase in production or income is
linked to increased consumption of intermediate and final good and services, resulting in
increased CO2 emissions. From a theoretical standpoint, high economic growth requires
more energy as a main input of the production of goods and services. However, the use
of traditional energy sources (fossil fuel) to create energy contributes to environmental
deterioration by emitting carbon dioxide (CO2 ) into the atmosphere, which raises the world
average temperature [4]. Since 2006, Azerbaijan’s economy has seen a substantial expansion
from an economic perspective. The GDP of Azerbaijan expanded by 10.4 times between
2000 and 2021, from USD 5.27 billion to USD 54.62 billion [68]. Additionally, approximately
98% of all energy used in Azerbaijan comes from fossil fuels [69]. This fact confirms the
estimation results of the current study. Moreover, our estimation findings are consistent
with the results of previous studies, such as Brizga’s [70], Shuai et al.’s [71], Chaabouni,
and Saidi’s [72], Yang et al.’s [73], Mikayilov et al.’s [74], Hasanov et al.’s [31], Chisti and
Sinha’s [75], Danish’s [76], Hasanov et al.’s [5] and Mukhtarov et al.’s [77], which found a
positive influence of GDP on CO2 emissions in the case of different developing economies.
In addition, export and import effects are revealed to be negative and positive, respectively,
which is consistent with expectations and theoretical outcomes described in the theoretical
framework section. According to the estimation results, a 1% rise in imports increases
CO2 emissions by 0.18%, while a 1% rise in exports will reduce CO2 emissions by 0.16%.
One explanation for these findings might be that Azerbaijan puts emphasis primarily on
the export of raw materials/resources (particularly, crude oil, natural gas, kerosene and
so on) and imports most consumption- and production-based goods and services. Thus,
Azerbaijan is an oil-rich developing country, and the main portion of its exports consists of
crude oil and gas (92% of total exports). Azerbaijan exports CO2 -intensive oil products such
as crude oil (including gas condensate), natural gas, motor gasoline, gold, cotton, polymers
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 8 of 12

of ethylene, etc. [78]. In addition, Azerbaijan is a less diversified economy which continues
to import the majority of consumption- and production-based products [27]. Azerbaijan
mainly imports products such as motor cars and other motor vehicles, petroleum oils
(not crude), electrical apparatus, etc., which increase carbon emissions [78]. These facts
support the conclusion that exports and imports have a negative and positive effect on
CO2 emissions, respectively. As we saw in Section 3, when any country exports more
products, it domestically consumes a fewer goods and services, resulting in a decline in
consumption-based CO2 emissions. On the other hand, more imports imply increased
domestic consumption and, as a result, increased consumption-based CO2 . It’s worth
mentioning that Hasanov et al. [26] found a positive effect of imports on consumption-
based CO2 emissions, whereas exports have a negative effect for oil-exporting developing
countries, Mikayilov et al. [27] for Azerbaijan, Hasanov et al. [5] for BRICS countries,
Liddle [29] for 117 countries, Liddle [30] for 20 Asian economies, and Ding et al. [19] for
G-7 nations.

5. Conclusions
The study analyzes the effect of renewable energy consumption, real GDP per capita,
exports, and imports on consumption-based CO2 emissions. We tested variables for a unit
root as a first step, and the findings confirmed their stationarity in first-differenced form,
allowing us to test variables for a common long-run trend. The cointegration link between
renewable energy consumption, real GDP per capita, exports, imports and consumption-
based CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan was estimated using the Engle–Granger, Park’s Added
Variables, and Phillips–Ouliaris tests. Finally, we performed the DOLS method to evaluate the
long-run link among these variables. According to DOLS’s estimation results, both renewable
energy consumption and exports reduce CO2 emissions in the long-term, with a 1% increase
in renewable energy consumption and exports resulting in 0.26% and 0.16% fall in CO2
emissions, respectively. On the other hand, empirical results revealed that GDP per capita
and imports have a positive effect on CO2 emissions. More specifically, 1% increase in GDP
per capita and imports will lead to a 0.46% and 0.18% increase in CO2 emissions, accordingly.
Based on the outcome of the empirical analysis, the negative effect of increasing
renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions can be explained from the perspective of
the substitution effect. This means people will meet some portion of their energy demand
through renewable energy. Therefore, the rising usage of clean renewable energy will
substitute and drive out some portion of conventional energy. Eventually, lower level
of traditional energy will be needed for consumption purposes. As conventional energy
resources are main cause of greenhouse gas emissions, decrease in their usage will lead
CO2 emissions to lessen.
The positive impact of GDP per capita on greenhouse gas emissions is plausible from
an economic point of view. This is because increasing real production (rise in GDP per
capita) can only be achieved by using more energy. Therefore, demand for energy will
increase during the time of rising GDP per capita. To meet rising energy demands in
this period, the country will try to utilize more affordable energy resources. In the case
of Azerbaijan, oil and gas is more affordable than renewable energy sources. Therefore,
country prefers the usage of oil and gas reserves to generate energy, which consequently
increases CO2 emissions.
However, initial steps were performed in the direction of increasing clean energy
production. For instance, recently, 12 big and 7 small hydroelectric plants were constructed
in Azerbaijan. In addition to this, the country built 6 wind, 10 solar, and 6 biomass
power plants during 2018–2020 that own an installed capacity of 420 megawatts (MW) [79].
However, to better address the rising energy need, Azerbaijan should efficiently increase
investment in renewable energy. If the country invests highly in renewable energy plants
using its oil revenues, the cost of generating renewable energy in these plants could be
competitive with the cost of producing energy from conventional oil and gas reserves in
the near future. Considering all of these, relevant reforms and projects in these directions
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 9 of 12

should be undertaken by the government. In this regard, one plausible reform that should
be implemented is slow energy reform. This means eliminating incentives for conventional
fuel energy or raising the prices of energy products. Considering the fact that fossil
fuel energy consumption accounts for about 98% of total energy consumption [69], it is
important to bring up negative incentives, such as slow energy reform. Moreover, according
to Mukhtarov [14], higher conventional fuel energy prices will lead to a decrease in CO2
emissions. From this perspective, this reform could have a positive result on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, if the slow energy reform is applied, the
higher revenues will be achieved as a result of increased oil prices. These additional
revenues could also be reinvested on new renewable energy projects. Furthermore, low-
interest loans, tax exemption and similar government incentives should be utilized to
promote clean energy projects.
Consequently, this study has some limitations. Firstly, the data of CO2 emissions
ended in 2020, while the data of renewable energy consumption ended in 2019, so we could
not consider the effects of COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 recovery in our research. Our
empirical estimation in this study is aggregate, but it would be desirable to carry out a
disaggregated analysis of CO2 emissions for sectors such as hydrocarbon, services, and
transportation in order to be capable to suggest sector-specific policies. Lastly, TFP has not
been taken into consideration in the analysis due to data unavailability.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.A., S.M. and J.A.; Methodology, S.M.; Validation, J.A.
and R.A.; Formal analysis, F.A. and J.A.; Investigation, S.M.; Data curation, S.M.; Writing—original
draft, S.M., F.A. and J.A.; Writing—review & editing, S.M. and R.A.; Visualization, F.A. and R.A.;
Supervision, S.M.; Project administration, F.A.; Funding acquisition, R.A. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mukhtarov, S.; Yüksel, S.; Dinçer, H. The impact of financial development on renewable energy consumption: Evidence from
Turkey. Renew. Energy 2022, 187, 169–176. [CrossRef]
2. World Bank 2022. World Development Indicators. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-
development-indicators (accessed on 10 January 2022).
3. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5 ◦ C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 ◦ C Above
Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat
of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.,
Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., et al., Eds.; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2018; 32p. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
4. Mukhtarov, S.; Mikayilov, J.I.; Maharramov, S.; Aliyev, J.; Suleymanov, E. Higher oil prices, are they good or bad for renewable
energy consumption: The case of Iran? Renew. Energy. 2022, 186, 411–419. [CrossRef]
5. Hasanov, F.J.; Khan, Z.; Hussain, M.; Tufail, M. Theoretical framework for the carbon emissions effects of technological progress
and renewable energy consumption. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 29, 810–822. [CrossRef]
6. Todaro, M.P.; Smith, S.C. Economic Development, 10th ed.; Pearson Addison Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2009.
7. UNDP 2021. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 10 January 2022).
8. Dong, F.; Qin, C.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, X.; Pan, Y.; Gao, Y.; Zhu, J.; Li, Y. Towards carbon neutrality: The impact of renewable energy
development on carbon emission efficiency. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13284. [CrossRef]
9. Karacan, R.; Mukhtarov, S.; Barış, İ.; İşleyen, A.; Yardımcı, M.E. The impact of oil price on transition toward renewable energy
consumption? Evidence from Russia. Energies 2021, 14, 2947. [CrossRef]
10. Mukhtarov, S.; Mikayilov, J.I.; Humbatova, S.; Muradov, V. Do high oil prices obstruct the transition to renewable energy
consumption? Sustainability 2020, 12, 4689. [CrossRef]
11. Saidi, K.; Omri, A. Reducing CO2 emissions in OECD countries: Do renewable and nuclear energy matter? Prog. Nucl. Energy
2020, 126, 103425. [CrossRef]
12. Worldometer 2016. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/oil/azerbaijan-oil/ (accessed on 10 January 2022).
13. SSCA. State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Available online: https://stat.gov.az/source/environment/
(accessed on 1 December 2022).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 10 of 12

14. Mukhtarov, S. The impact of carbon pricing on international competitiveness in the case of Azerbaijan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
2022, 29, 33587–33594. [CrossRef]
15. State Statistical Committee of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Available online: https://www.stat.gov.az/menu/9/indexen.php
(accessed on 18 October 2020).
16. Kravets, A.; Shcherbakov, M.; Kultsova, M.; Shabalina, O. Creativity in intelligent technologies and data science. In Communications
in Computer and Information Science; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 535, pp. 222–233.
17. IRENA, R.E.S. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Energy Target Setting; International Renewable Energy Agency:
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2017.
18. Ali, M.; Kirikkaleli, D. The asymmetric effect of renewable energy and trade on consumption-based CO2 emissions: The case of
Italy. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022, 18, 784–795. [CrossRef]
19. Ding, Q.; Khattak, S.I.; Ahmad, M. Towards sustainable production and consumption: Assessing the impact of energy productivity
and eco-innovation on consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions (CCO2 ) in G-7 nations. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27,
254–268. [CrossRef]
20. Dong, K.; Dong, X.; Jiang, Q. How renewable energy consumption lower global CO2 emissions? Evidence from countries with
different income levels. World Econ. 2019, 43, 1665–1698. [CrossRef]
21. Aziz, N.; Sharif, A.; Raza, A.; Jermsittiparsert, K. The role of natural resources, globalization, and renewable energy in testing the
EKC hypothesis in MINT countries: New evidence from Method of Moments Quantile Regression approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 2020, 28, 13454–13468. [CrossRef]
22. Bhattacharya, M.; Awaworyi Churchill, S.; Paramati, S.R. The dynamic impact of renewable energy and institutions on economic
output and CO2 emissions across regions. Renew. Energy 2017, 111, 157–167. [CrossRef]
23. Azerbaijan Renewable Energy Agency under the Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Azerbaijan (AREA). Available online:
https://area.gov.az/en/page/yasil-texnologiyalar/boem-potensiali (accessed on 2 December 2022).
24. EIA. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/AZE (accessed on 2 December 2022).
25. Ourworldindata 2021. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/azerbaijan (accessed on 2 December 2022).
26. Wiebe, K.S.; Yamano, N. Estimating CO2 emissions embodied in final demand and trade using the OECD ICIO 2015: Methodology
and results. In OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2016; Volume 5, pp. 1–38.
[CrossRef]
27. Mikayilov, J.I.; Mukhtarov, S.; Mammadov, J.; Aliyev, S. Environmental consequences of tourism: Do oil-exporting countries
import more CO2 emissions? Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2020, 15, 172–185. [CrossRef]
28. Mikayilov, J.; Shukurov, V.; Yusifov, S. The impact of economic growth and population on CO2 emissions from transport sector:
Azerbaijan case. Acad. J. Econ. Soc. 2017, 3, 60–67.
29. Liddle, B. Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus. Energy Econ. 2018, 69, 71–78. [CrossRef]
30. Liddle, B. Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus in Asia: A heterogeneous, common factor panel
analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3627. [CrossRef]
31. Hasanov, F.J.; Liddle, B.; Mikayilov, J.I. The impact of international trade on CO2 emissions in oil exporting countries: Territory vs.
consumption emissions accounting. Energy Econ. 2018, 74, 343–350. [CrossRef]
32. Zakarya, G.Y.; Mostefa, B.; Abbes, S.M.; Seghir, G.M. Factors affecting CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries: A panel data
analysis. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 26, 114–125. [CrossRef]
33. Bastola, U.; Sapkota, P. Relationships among energy consumption, pollution emission, and economic growth in Nepal. Energy
2015, 80, 254–262. [CrossRef]
34. Akbota, A.; Baek, J. The environmental consequences of growth: Empirical evidence from the Republic of Kazakhstan. Economies
2018, 6, 19. [CrossRef]
35. Hasanov, F.J.; Mikayilov, J.I.; Mukhtarov, S.; Suleymanov, E. Does CO2 emissions–economic growth relationship reveal EKC in
developing countries? Evidence from Kazakhstan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 30229–30241. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Thio, E.; Tan, M.; Li, L.; Salman, M.; Long, X.; Sun, H.; Zhu, B. The estimation of influencing factors for carbon emissions based on
EKC hypothesis and STIRPAT model: Evidence from top 10 countries. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 24, 11226–11259. [CrossRef]
37. Apergis, N.; Payne, J.E.; Menyah, K.; Wolde-Rufael, Y. On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable
energy, and economic growth. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2255–2260. [CrossRef]
38. Khoshnevis Yazdi, S.; Ghorchi Beygi, E. The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption and financial development on
CO2 emissions: For selected African countries. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2017, 13, 13–20. [CrossRef]
39. Nguyen, K.H.; Kakinaka, M. Renewable energy consumption, carbon emissions, and development stages: Some evidence from
panel cointegration analysis. Renew. Energy 2019, 132, 1049–1057. [CrossRef]
40. Mahmood, N.; Wang, Z.; Hassan, S.T. Renewable energy, economic growth, human capital, and CO2 emission: An empirical
analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 20619–20630. [CrossRef]
41. Leitão, N.C.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Cantos-Cantos, J.M. the impact of renewable energy and economic complexity on carbon
emissions in BRICS countries under the EKC scheme. Energies 2021, 14, 4908. [CrossRef]
42. Li, B.; Haneklaus, N. The role of renewable energy, fossil fuel consumption, urbanization and economic growth on CO2 emissions
in China. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 783–791. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 11 of 12

43. Li, B.; Haneklaus, N. The potential of India’s net-zero carbon emissions: Analyzing the effect of clean energy, coal, urbanization,
and trade openness. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 724–733. [CrossRef]
44. Li, B.; Haneklaus, N. The role of clean energy, fossil fuel consumption and trade openness for carbon neutrality in China. Energy
Rep. 2022, 8, 1090–1098. [CrossRef]
45. Bilgili, F.; Koçak, E.; Bulut, Ü. The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: A revisited Environmen-
tal Kuznets Curve approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 838–845. [CrossRef]
46. Khoshnevis Yazdi, S.; Shakouri, B. The effect of renewable energy and urbanization on CO2 emissions: A panel data. Energy
Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2017, 13, 121–127. [CrossRef]
47. Dogan, E.; Seker, F. Determinants of CO2 emissions in the European Union: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy.
Renew. Energy 2016, 94, 429–439. [CrossRef]
48. Zoundi, Z. CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 72, 1067–1075. [CrossRef]
49. Zhang, B.; Wang, B.; Wang, Z. Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: Evidence from Pakistan.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 855–864. [CrossRef]
50. Waheed, R.; Chang, D.; Sarwar, S.; Chen, W. Forest, agriculture, renewable energy, and CO2 emission. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172,
4231–4238. [CrossRef]
51. Adams, S.; Acheampong, A.O. Reducing carbon emissions: The role of renewable energy and democracy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240,
118245. [CrossRef]
52. Cheng, C.; Ren, X.; Wang, Z. CO2 emissions, renewables, environmental patents, and economic growth-Evidence from BRIICS.
Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 1328–1338. [CrossRef]
53. Akram, R.; Chen, F.; Khalid, F.; Ye, Z.; Majeed, M.T. Heterogeneous effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on carbon
emissions: Evidence from developing countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119122. [CrossRef]
54. Piłatowska, M.; Geise, A.; Włodarczyk, A. The effect of renewable and nuclear energy consumption on decoupling economic
growth from CO2 emissions in Spain. Energies 2020, 13, 2124. [CrossRef]
55. Leitão, N.C.; Lorente, D.B. The linkage between economic growth, renewable energy, tourism, CO2 emissions, and international
trade: The evidence for the European Union. Energies 2020, 13, 4838. [CrossRef]
56. Shahnazi, R.; Dehghan Shabani, Z. The effects of renewable energy, spatial spillover of CO2 emissions and economic freedom on
CO2 emissions in the EU. Renew. Energy 2021, 169, 293–307. [CrossRef]
57. Peters, G.P.; Minx, J.C.; Weber, C.L.; Edenhofer, O. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 8903–8908. [CrossRef]
58. Global Carbon Atlas. Available online: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions (accessed on 18 October 2021).
59. Dickey, D.A.; Fuller, W.A. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1979, 74,
427–431.
60. Phillips, P.B.; Perron, P. Testing for unit roots in time series regression. Biometrika 1988, 75, 335–346. [CrossRef]
61. Engle, R.F.; Granger, C.W.J. Co-integration and error correction: Representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica 1987, 55,
251–276. [CrossRef]
62. Phillips, P.C.B.; Ouliaris, S. Asymptotic properties of residual based tests for co-integration. Econometrica 1990, 58, 165–193.
[CrossRef]
63. Park, J. Canonical cointegrating regressions. Econometrica 1992, 60, 119–143. [CrossRef]
64. Stock, J.H.; Watson, M. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica 1993, 61,
783–820. [CrossRef]
65. Johansen, S. Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J. Econ. Dyn. Control 1988, 12, 231–254. [CrossRef]
66. Phillips, P.C.B.; Hansen, B.E. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1990,
57, 99–125. [CrossRef]
67. Pesaran, M.; Shin, Y. An autoregressive distributed lag modeling approach to cointegration analysis. In Econometrics and Economic
Theory in the 20th Century: The Ragnar Frisch centennial Symposium; Strom, S., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
1999.
68. World Bank 2022. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=AZ (accessed on 14
December 2022).
69. World Bank 2022. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM (accessed on 1 December 2022).
70. Brizga, J.; Feng, K.; Hubacek, K. Drivers of CO2 emissions in the former Soviet Union: A country level IPAT analysis from 1990 to
2010. Energy 2013, 59, 743–753. [CrossRef]
71. Shuai, C.; Chen, X.; Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Tan, Y. The turning points of carbon Kuznets curve: Evidences from panel and time-series
data of 164 countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 1031–1047. [CrossRef]
72. Chaabouni, S.; Saidi, K. The dynamic links between carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions, health spending and GDP growth: A case
study for 51 countries. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 137–144. [CrossRef]
73. Yang, X.; Lou, F.; Sun, M.; Wang, R.; Wang, Y. Study of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the economic
growth of Russia based on the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Appl. Energy 2017, 193, 162–173. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 134 12 of 12

74. Mikayilov, J.I.; Galeotti, M.; Hasanov, F.J. The impact of economic growth on CO2 emissions in Azerbaijan. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,
197, 1558–1572. [CrossRef]
75. Chishti, M.Z.; Sinha, A. Do the shocks in technological and financial innovation influence the environmental quality? Evidence
from BRICS economies. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101828. [CrossRef]
76. Baloch, M.A.; Mehmood, N.; Zhang, J.W. Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2
emissions in BRICS countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 632–638. [CrossRef]
77. Mukhtarov, S.; Aliyev, S.; Mikayilov, J.; Ismayilov, A.; Rzayev, A. The FDI-CO2 nexus from the sustainable development
perspective: The case of Azerbaijan. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2021, 28, 246–254. [CrossRef]
78. TrendEconomy 2022. Available online: https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/Azerbaijan/TOTAL (accessed on 14 December 2022).
79. Bilalova, S. Eurasia Review. Azerbaijan in The Light of Climate Change–Analysis. Available online: https://www.eurasiareview.
com/01052020-azerbaijan-in-the-light-of-climate-change-analysis/ (accessed on 13 May 2020).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.