Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Energy security measurement – A sustainable approach

Mirjana Radovanović a,n, Sanja Filipović b, Dejan Pavlović c
a
Educons University, Vojvode Putnika 87, Sremska Kamenica 21208, Serbia
b
Economics Institute, Kralja Milana 16, Belgrade 11000, Serbia
c
NIS Gazprom Neft, Novi Sad, Narodnog fronta 12, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Available online 16 March 2016 The main objective of this paper is to define а new energy security indicator with the long-term sustainability
Keywords: and to test it in a sample of 28 European Union countries for the period 1990–2012, as well as to determine
Energy security the level of impact of six different indicators on energy security. The previous methodologies for measuring of
Quantification energy security have been mainly focused on security of supply, while not taking into account environmental
Sustainable approach indicators and the social component. The newly proposed indicator, Energy Security Index, differs from the
existing measuring methods precisely in a way that it includes environmental and social aspects. Energy
Security Index recorded a decline in values in most countries in the period 1990–2000. In the period 2000–
2008, the values became positive, and after 2008 some countries reported again gradual deterioration. The
Index value varies by year, and the biggest positive changes were recorded in the case of the Netherlands,
Slovenia and Spain. The four economically strongest EU countries (the United Kingdom, France, Germany and
Italy) recorded significantly less fluctuations in energy security over 23 years, compared to other countries.
The data for France and Denmark show that an increased share of energy from nuclear and renewable sources
can compensate even increased energy import dependence. The assessment of impact of individual indicators
on Energy Security Index was conducted by using Principal Component Analysis and showed that Energy
Intensity, GDP per capita and Carbon Intensity have the greatest impact. The countries of the former Eastern
Bloc are facing particular challenges of energy security, which is primarily related to the rapid economic
growth and, at the same time, a high degree of dependence on import of energy generating products. In terms
of energy security, the most stable transition was reported in Hungary and Poland.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1020
2. Material and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1021
3. Theory/calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023
3.1. Selection of data processing method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1023
3.2. Selection of individual indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1024
4. Results and discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1029
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030

1. Introduction countries and regions in the future [1]. Energy resources are lim-
ited and unevenly distributed, the demand for energy is increas-
Energy security is one of the key parameters used to determine ing, and the countries undergoing rapid development are facing
the current position and orientation of the development of all huge energy needs – all of which suggests that energy security is

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 381 64 205 7261.
E-mail addresses: mirjanagolusin@sbb.rs (M. Radovanović), sanja.filipovic@ecinst.org.rs (S. Filipović), dejan.pavlovic@nis.eu (D. Pavlović).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.010
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
one of the priority issues of each country's development [2].
Complex geopolitical changes indicate that energy security is part
of national security and must be considered an integral part
thereof [3]. Dyer and Trombetta [4] implicitly state that "energy
security is in association with national security and defines the
continuous availability of energy in varied forms, in sufficient
quantities and at affordable prices."
International Energy Agency (2014) has developed short-term
and long-term approach to energy security, which defines energy
security as "an interrupted availability of energy sources at an
affordable price". Short-term approach considers energy security as
the system's ability to meet the particular country's energy needs,
whereby the absolute focus is on the security of supply [6,7]. New
approaches to energy security highlight the need to take into further
consideration the environmental and social aspects as well [44,8].
Further studies in the field of defining a methodology for mea-
suring energy security have to shift their focus from strictly scientific
to practical application [39]. Energy security is a specific parameter
influenced by numerous factors, thus the position of a certain part of
scientific and expert public, according to which the defining of a
unique methodology for measuring energy security is not possible, but
is neither essentially necessary, becomes more pronounced. Each
country has its own peculiarities and own approach to development,
which change over time, so the defining of the method for deter-
mining energy security at the level of each country individually, can be
considered more meaningful [11,12]. It should also be borne in mind
that it is not possible to develop a unique methodology that will be
applicative to all countries, because each country has different wealth
of energy resources, different economic growth, climate conditions,
demographic indicators, priorities, geopolitical position and the like.
Thus, this paper is a contribution to the efforts to better interpret the
factors affecting energy security, as well as a contribution to efforts to
improve the methodology for measuring energy security. The defini-
tion of energy security alone is connected with a number of chal-
lenges, so the changes and corrections in the field of defining the
methodology for measuring energy security are constant and entirely
expected in the future [13].
There are currently several important obstacles hindering a unique
and simple definition of energy security. First of all, the countries have
different energy resources, whereby the use of energy resources differs
in type and intensity at different points of development [14]. Given the
different historical, political and social specificities, each country
develops its own plans for the future and defines different priorities
[15]. It is therefore most real to argue that the methodology for
measuring energy security in a certain country can be considered
applicable only at a given moment. Along with the change in strategic
priorities, the methodology of measurement must be changed con-
sequently [16]. Furthermore, the practice has shown that energy prices
have an impact on energy consumption and economic development,
and thus on energy security as well. With the increase in energy prices
the consumption does not decline, but with the decrease in energy
prices energy consumption increases significantly [17].
Regardless of methodological difficulties, the practice shows
that all countries are trying to improve their energy security by
increasing energy efficiency, improving the stability of energy
system, reducing energy system vulnerability [18,29], increasing of
resistance and self-sufficiency [19]. "All aforementioned leads to
conclusion that the stability in the field of energy security is a lot
more important than estimated figures, as well as the economic
and environmental costs related to it" [20].
2. Material and methods
Different approaches to measuring energy security have been
developed thus far. Ten methodologies have been most commonly
1021
used, whereby standard methods are applied that may be considered
appropriate for this kind of research, as well as new methods devel-
oped specifically for this purpose [21]: Herfindahl – Hirschmann Index,
Supply/Demand Index for long-term security of supply, Oil Vulner-
ability Index, Vulnerability index, Risky External Energy Supply, Socio-
economic Energy Risk, The US Energy Security Risk Index, MOSES –
The IEA Model of Short-term Energy Security, Energy Security Index
developed by EU Joint Research Center in Italy and Global Energy
Architecture Performance Index, proposed by World Economic Forum.
Herfindahl – Hirschmann Index determines the degree of a cer-
tain country's dependence on a certain supplier [22] and can be
used as an indicator that indirectly points to energy security of a
country. It is completely supply-oriented, is sum of the squares of
the market shares of the countries of import for any given country.
The survey conducted by the International Energy Agency [23,5]
showed that Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Slovakia and Ireland are at
maximum risk (value 1.0). Poland and Czech Republic reported the
risk of 0.8. Medium risk (0.55) was recorded in Hungary and
Switzerland. The values between 0.3 and 0.4 were reported by
Portugal, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and Germany. The lowest
risk was recorded in Belgium, Italy, Spain and France. Of the
countries of Eastern Bloc, the research included only Estonia, but,
given the total dependence on gas imports all the other countries
in the region can be considered to be in a high-risk zone.
Supply/Demand Index for long-term security of supply (S/D
Index) is a composite indicator that comprises 30 individual
indicators and considers the characteristics of demand, supply and
transport [24]. The research conducted in the sample of eight EU
member states indicates that the value of this index, thus energy
security, is the highest in Denmark, which is followed by the
United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Estonia and
Italy. The same research showed that the value of this index is
expected to decline by 2020 in the United Kingdom and Ireland,
whilst in other countries it will remain at a similar level [25].
Oil Vulnerability Index is, to some extent, more comprehensive
composite index that takes into account certain economic indica-
tors, import dependence and political stability, the range of values
between 1 and 100 [26]. Measuring energy security by using this
index [27] showed that the highest level of energy security was
recorded in Sweden (0.37). Values between 0.40 and 0.50 were
recorded in Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland and Ireland.
These countries are further followed by a group of countries where
the value of the index stands between 0.51 and 0.60, i.e. the
Netherlands, Finland and Italy. The values between 0.61 and 0.70
are reported by Belgium and Hungary. Spain and Slovakia are
vulnerable countries (0.71 to 0.80), while the group of most vul-
nerable ones includes Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic and
Greece, with values ranging between 0.81 and 0.89.
"Vulnerability index is a composite index which considers five
different indicators: energy intensity, energy import dependency,
ratio of energy-related carbon emissions to TPES, electricity supply
vulnerability and non diversity in transport fuels" with the range of
values between 1 and 100 [28]. This index, unlike the previous ones,
considers carbon emission as an environmental indicator. The
available data of the research [18,29] conducted for 2003 show that
the greatest value of index, thus the greatest level of vulnerability, is
reported by Cyprus (0.75). Luxembourg and Estonia reported the
value of 0.70, and are followed by Ireland and Portugal with 0.65.
The values between 0.60 and 0.50 are reported by Belgium, Spain,
Romania, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Austria and Finland.
The group of countries with lower index values (between 12.49 and
12.40) includes the United Kingdom and Slovakia.
Risky External Energy Supply is entirely supply-oriented because
it considers solely the level of diversification, with particular
emphasis on the assessment of transport safety of energy gen-
erating products [30]. A specific study of this indicator for crude
1022 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
oil, natural gas and coal for the European Union countries [31]
indicates that there are significant differences in terms of energy
generating products. The highest level of risk in general was
reported by natural gas (9.8), twice as low by crude oil (4.4), and
the lowest by coal (1.6). The highest risk in terms of natural gas
supply is recorded in Slovakia (39.4) and Hungary (33.6) which are
followed by Latvia (21.0), Lithuania (20.1), Austria (16.7) and
Romania (15.2). Germany reported the value of 5.5 and the United
Kingdom 0.1. The risk is not registered (index value 0) in Denmark,
Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden. When it comes to crude oil,
the highest risk is reported by Hungary (18.3) which is followed by
Slovakia (10.8), Greece (10.4) and Lithuania (10.2). The risk value
for crude oil, reported by Germany is 2.4 and by the United
Kingdom 0.7. The risk for Ireland is not recorded. The research of
the security of coal supply shows that the greatest risk was
reported by Portugal (6.4), Denmark (5.0), Ireland (4.7) and Slo-
venia (4.7). The risk was not recorded in Austria, and the risk lower
than 1 was recorded in 12 countries of the European Union.
Generally speaking, the results of this research show that come
countries reported no risk at all, others reported very low risk in
terms of transport of energy resources, while the risk reported for
natural gas is the greatest in the countries closer to the sources of
gas. Said results are particularly confusing because they involves
political risk in the supplier country (which in many cases is only,
or mainly, Russian Federation) and transport distance.
Socio-Economic Energy Risk is a composite index that considers
the following indicators: energy sources diversification, energy
resources availability and feasibility, energy intensity, energy trans-
port, energy dependence, political stability, market liquidity and GDP
[32]. The research conducted in a sample of 25 European Union
countries [33] indicates that the average value of this parameter in
the European Union is 28.9, whereby the risk is greatest in Latvia
(40.9), Lithuania (40.8), Estonia (40.1), Bulgaria (40.0) and Greece
(35.2). The lowest, and at the same time the identical value of risk is
recorded in Denmark (11.5) and the United Kingdom (11.5). Low
levels of risk are recorded in the Netherlands (15.5) and Germany
(15.8). Ireland reported the risk higher than average (32.3), while the
risk somewhat lower than average was reported by Italy, Sweden,
Austria, France and Romania. The research shows that proportionally
high risks for Ireland and Luxembourg result from total dependence
on imports of energy generating products in said two countries,
which high risks in the countries of former Eastern Bloc are mainly a
consequence of political instability and social insecurity in these
countries. Also, Sweden is considered to be a country exposed to
energy risk similar to that reported by Latvia and Greece.
The US Energy Security Risk index is a complex composite index
obtained based on 83 individual indicators assessing geopolitical
indicators, economic development, environmental concerns and
reliability [34]. The 2012 research by the US Chamber of Com-
merce, that included nine European countries, has shown that the
minimum energy security risk exists in the United Kingdom (973)
and Germany (1.047), which are the values above the OECD aver-
age (1.051). Higher values (and higher risk) were recorded in
France (1.088), Poland (1.107), Spain (1.173), Italy (1.208) and the
Netherlands (1.312).
International Index of Energy Security Risk represents an upgrade
of the previous one, and the most important parameters taken into
account are: global fuel resources, fuel import, energy expendi-
ture, energy prices and market volatility, energy intensity, energy
transport and environmental concerns [35]. The data pertain to
the year 2013 and show that the United Kingdom risk stands at
866. This is the only country whose risk values are below the OECD
average of 912. The risk value for France stands at 942, for
Germany 944 and for Poland 987. Spain (1.037), Italy (1.043) and
the Netherlands (1.106) are at greater risk.
The IEA Model of Short-term Energy Security (MOSES) is based on
the application of 35 different indicators which are supply-oriented
and it considers robustness (adequacy and reliability of energy
resources and infrastructure), sovereignty (sensitivity to threats
from foreign actors) and resilience (capability to handle and
respond to various disturbances) on the short term [36]. The results
of this research have been defined specifically for each type of
energy generating product. Energy security in terms of diversity of
supply of crude oil and oil products is highest in Denmark, Estonia,
France and Italy. When it comes to natural gas, Hungary, Ireland,
Finland and Sweden are at the greatest risk. Slightly lower risk is
reported by Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, Slovakia and Czech
Republic, and the lowest by Denmark, Italy, Estonia, France and the
United Kingdom. When it comes to natural gas, the same research
included storage capacities as percentage of annual demand in the
assessment of energy security. These results indicate that Estonia,
Switzerland, Luxembourg, Norway, Finland and Sweden are at the
greatest risk in this respect. Medium level of risk is reported by the
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, France and
Czech Republic. The lowest risk in this respect is reported by Aus-
tria, Hungary and Slovakia. When it comes to coal, not a single
European Union country has more than 60% of coal from own
reserves, so the risk is determined indirectly, by considering the
adequacy of importing infrastructure. The highest level of risk in
this regard is reported by Finland and Switzerland.
Determination of energy security by applying composite indi-
cators was conducted by the EU Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy
[37], which took into consideration eight basic indicators (energy
intensity, carbon intensity, import dependency on oil, gas and coal,
primary energy production), as well as two indicators determined
by application of the Shannon-Wiener Index (electricity production
capacity and energy demand in transport). Weights are determined
by applying Ordered Weighted Averaging, whereby the user can place
most of the weights near the first components (optimistic scenario)
or near the last components (pessimistic scenario). The results of
this research showed that, in the case of a pessimistic scenario
(value 1), Finland, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands,
Denmark, and Greece have the highest levels of energy security.
Slightly lower level of energy security (2–9) is reported by the
United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, France and Romania. Lithuania,
Latvia, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal have the medium level of
energy security (10–15). Bulgaria, Italy, Czech Republic and Belgium
(16–19) are at greater energy risk. The greatest risk (20–27) is
recorded in Estonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Cyprus. As regards
pessimistic determination of weights, the results are substantially
different. In this case, the lowest risk (1–2) is recorded again in
Sweden and Finland, but they are joined by Germany and Spain.
Slightly higher risk (3–6) is reported by France, the United Kingdom
and Hungary. The risk values ranging from 7 to 10 are recorded in
Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Switzerland. Higher
risk (11–17) refers to Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Czech
Republic, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. The highest risk (18–24) is
recorded in Poland, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus.
Another methodology for measuring energy security, which
has found institutional acceptance over time is methodology
proposed by the World Energy Council. It launched a few versions
of global energy security index. The first version (Assessment Index)
was developed in 2009. This was not strictly energy security index
but an attempt for measuring the effectiveness of national energy
policy. National energy policy was analyzed from four aspects:
economy, social capacity and equity, institutions and environment.
It was a composite index composed of 46 indicators which were
normalized to a range of 0–10 and then weighted with the aim of
generating overall Assessment Index.
In 2010, the World Energy Council launched Energy Architecture
Performance Index (EAPI) with the focus on energy and climate
 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
policy. The following year, this index was modified into Energy
Sustainability Index 2011 while the methodology and the approach
remained unchanged. Over the years up until 2015 this index was
slightly modified in the number of indicators while, the general
framework remained unchained. The last EAPI is a composite index
based on a set of indicators divided into three basic categories
(energy security, energy equity and environmental sustainability),
the so-called Energy Trilemma Index. The Energy Trilemma Index
for 2015 showed that a group of top 10 countries includes 7 Eur-
opean Union countries (Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom,
Austria, Denmark, France and Finland), while Switzerland is the
country ranked 1st, globally [38]. All these countries have low car-
bon emission and well-developed energy efficiency policy. They
have different energy mix with large differences in use of nuclear
energy. This fact leads to a conclusion that there is no single solu-
tion and that every country should use its own advantages and
develop adequate policy that will support energy security.
3. Theory/calculation
3.1. Selection of data processing method
The previous measurements of energy security have shown
certain specificities. The view has been pronounced according to
which the exact values of energy security are not of the utmost
importance – the monitoring of changes occurring over the years
is of a much greater importance because the stability of energy
security is much more important than the range of values in which
it is expressed. Another problem in determining energy security is
the fact that energy security is affected by many factors, and vice
versa, whereby the exact values of individual factors are less
important than the relationships existing between said factors.
Brief overview of methodologies commonly used to assess energy
security, shows two basic approaches: supply-oriented approach and
method of applying composite indices. Application of supply-
oriented approach is an extremely useful short-term method that
puts emphasis on safety in the procurement and transport of energy
generating products, necessary to a certain country at a given time.
Social and environmental concerns are not included when using the
supply-oriented approach to measuring energy security. The second
method, which is based on the use of composite indices, allows by its
nature the use of different individual indicators, and therefore can
still be considered as very acceptable for studies of such kind. In
addition, the method of composite indices allows the application of
weighting coefficients, which corresponds to the fact that different
indicators affect energy security at varying intensity. Furthermore,
the level of urgency, which often occurs in energy related affairs, may
be estimated precisely by giving a certain degree of importance to
said occurrence [39].
Measurement of characteristics of multidimensional concepts, such
as energy security, is a particular challenge due to a number of spe-
cificities. First of all, energy security is an extremely complex phe-
nomenon that itself is neither clearly defined, nor are its limits clearly
identified. Second, the very energy security is affected by a large
number of factors that are different in types and levels of influence,
whereby most of them are very complex by their nature. Therefore,
selecting of methodology to be used to measure energy security
should be conditioned primarily by the need to obtain results that will
show the essential characteristics of the observed system and will
have a specific purpose [40]. In this case, application of the weighting
coefficients method was selected because it acknowledges the fact 1)
that energy security is in itself a complex phenomenon which is
influenced by numerous factors, 2) that the aim of the research is to
determine the value of energy security and the trend in some coun-
tries, and 3) that the purpose of the research is to indicate the specific
1023
reasons that led to the observed trend. Energy security cannot be
included and clearly defined by only one indicator, so the use of
aggregate coefficients is almost a necessity. Establishment of weight-
ing coefficients can be based on different methods: factor analysis,
principal component analysis, data envelopment analysis, as well as
weighting coefficients method. Each indicator is assigned certain
importance, whereby the sum of all their values has to be 100. In
addition, the indicator can have a positive or negative impact on end
result, depending on real impact on energy security. The selection of
indicators in this case is based on the experts' view about causes that
affects energy security and the extent to which it is affected.
The use of composite indicators encounters varying degrees of
acceptance by policy makers and the scientific community, pri-
marily due to unclear or insufficiently clear criteria used when
selecting the indicators and weighting coefficients. Numerous
indicators that are normally used in monitoring are, by their nat-
ure, aggregated to some extent. For example, 'import dependence'
aggregates "imports at different periods of time (usually
throughout the year), from different suppliers, at different prices,
by different routes and for different purposes. There is even more
aggregation involved when import dependence is calculated not
for an individual fuel or a carrier (such as LNG or gasoline) but for
‘oil products’, ‘fossil fuels’ or total ‘energy’, or similar" [41].
Modern science considers that composite indicators can also be
used in energy policy as a useful starting point for determining the
situation in a particular group of countries, primarily for mon-
itoring the situation in the field of energy security, while it can also
serve as a tool for early warning system [42].
Selection of a weighting indicator is an issue that, in this case, can
be observed in two ways: as an advantage and as a disadvantage. The
selection and determination of a weighting coefficient for each
individual indicator is subject to subjective assessment, which may
call into question the validity of the results obtained [43]. On the
other hand, one must take into account the fact that energy security
is very specific precisely since it has to be determined in accordance
with conditions and priorities applicable to a particular country,
region or the period of the research, so, in this case, subjectivity is
preferred [45,9]. Subjectivity in assessing the energy policy priority,
thus the energy security of each country, is certainly acceptable
because the assessment can never be absolutely accurate but is
desirable to be as realistic as possible [46]. Energy security and the
factors affecting it are rapidly changing in type and intensity, differ-
ent countries have different priorities in different periods, and the
impact of dynamic geopolitical changes is also important. Due to the
above, when assessing energy security it is necessary to select a
flexible method, which the method of weighting coefficients cer-
tainly is, since the changes in the selection, scaling, weighting and
aggregation can be done easily and in a very short time [47].
The main objective of this research is to define sustainable
approach to energy security measurement, which is based on the
introduction of new indicators and on measurement of energy
security values which is based on this principle. In determining
weighting coefficients, we used subjective approach, i.e. experts' opi-
nion on the importance of specific indicators for the observed system.
The study provides concrete indicators of energy security in the
EU-28 sample, with an evident presentation of changes that have
occurred over the 23 analyzed years, reflecting complex changes
that affect energy security in different ways. Data analysis was
performed using the following formula:
ESI ¼ xtq;c Uwq;r ð1Þ
ESI: Energy Security Index
xtq;c : Raw value of individual indicator q for country c at time t,
with q ¼1,…,Q and c ¼1,…,M
wq;r : Weight associated to individual indicator q, with r ¼1,…,R
denoting the weighting method
1024 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
By using the Budget Allocation Process for weighting, the fol-
lowing formula was used:
ESI ¼ EI  20 þ FEC  20–ED  20 þGDPpc  10–CI  10 þ SRN
 20 ð2Þ
where:
EI – Energy Intensity
FEC – Final Energy Consumption
ED – Energy Dependency
GDP/pc – Gross Domestic Product per capita
CI – Carbon Intensity
SRN – Share of Renewable and Nuclear Energy
Weighting indicators have been selected depending on the
(positive or negative) impact that said indicator, to which they
refer, has on energy security as a whole.
The assessment of an individual effect of a selected indicator on
Energy Security Index was performed by using Principal Component
Analysis.
Given that the study refers to the EU-28 countries, the Eurostat
and the World Bank databases have been used as a source. The
remainder of this paper presents and explains the indicators
included in defining the composite indicator.
3.2. Selection of individual indicators
The number and types of indicators, which are used to determine
energy security, are defined on the basis of recommendations
existing in applying the method of weighting coefficients and refer-
ring, as an imperative, to the necessity of the selected indicators to
show the relevant features of the observed system, while their
number has to be appropriate [48]. Most methods of the composite
indices currently applied are obtained by processing a large number
of indicators (while ignoring the environmental and social indica-
tors). Moreover, the indicators of energy security are usually based on
the use of shorter time series, which is of great importance for
energy security. In addition, the indicators that are currently applied
are often vague and ill-defined per se (of which some are composed
of several individual values), and sometimes also directly opposed
[49]. Further, a large number of reliable values can be provided only
in countries with a quality system of data collection [50]. All of the
above leads to the conclusion that it is necessary to reduce the
number of indicators and to carefully select them, as well as to
include environmental and socially related indicators.
The authors have tried to overcome the aforementioned lim-
itations by defining a composite indicator which would include
environmental and social components. At the same time, the aim
of the study was to perceive a temporal dimension, i.e. to consider
the changes in the indicator values in the period 1990–2012 on a
larger sample of countries. The exact values obtained by using the
new Energy Security Index are not of primary importance, because
their prime purpose is to define the trend and to compare the
achieved level of energy security in the observed countries. Also,
the negative value of Energy Security Index does not necessarily
imply that energy security in a given country is at a disturbingly
low level. Establishing of the trend and interpreting of the
resulting changes are of prime importance because they are fully
compliant with the aim of the study – monitoring of changes that
have taken place in the European Union.
Specifically, the European Union is highly energy-dependent,
because it imports 55% of energy generating products, whereby oil
and gas imports account for the greatest percentage thereof [51],
but the ways in which the European Union should improve its
energy security are not harmonized and said Strategy is not
adopted. The European Union countries are at different stages of
development and their energy future is largely linked to their
specificities and national priorities [52].
There is a complete consensus about the fact that high energy
dependency directly threatens energy security, as well as the
security of each country as a whole [53]. The countries that
establish the basis of their development on application of energy-
demanding technologies, while having no energy sources of their
own, are especially vulnerable. Economic development of the said
countries may decelerate in the case of any disruption on energy
market [54]. For now, energy dependence can be considered the
most important indicator of energy security [55].
Energy intensity is widely used as an indicator of energy-efficient
development, because it shows in a simple way the extent to which
certain country consumes energy resources in producing a unit of
gross domestic product. On the other hand, this indicator has been
criticized a lot and several shortcomings thereof have been pointed
out. First of all, energy intensity is an indicator composed of energy
consumption and GDP, the two indicators whose ratio is not clearly
defined, in terms of both the type and the degree of positive and/or
negative impact [56,57]. There is a general view that energy intensity
is certainly a better indicator than energy consumption [58]. However,
changes in energy intensity do not often reflect real progress towards
the efficient use of energy. On the contrary, improved energy intensity
can result from reduced GDP, which may happen as a consequence of
economic crisis [59]. Regardless of said shortcomings, energy intensity
is still one of the best proxy indicators of energy efficiency [60], and is
therefore used in this paper.
The largest portion of carbon dioxide emissions is produced by
burning of fossil fuels [61] so Carbon Intensity indicator can be
considered as a reasonable proxy environmental indicator of
energy security, especially in the long run [62,63]. Carbon Intensity
indicator in this study is also being used as a proxy indicator of the
level of technological development in the field of production,
transport and energy consumption [64].
In addition, the previous studies have demonstrated that there
is no clearly defined relationship between economic growth,
energy prices, environmental concerns and social wellbeing, so
further studying of the specificities of their relationship is of
paramount importance for the development of new and reliable
methodologies for determining energy security, especially in the
countries with huge energy consumption and rapid economic
growth [65]. In addition, there is also a clear need to include cli-
mate indicators, geographic area specifics and population density
in further studies on energy security [66].
Economic growth is largely based on energy use, whereby both
said parameters have great impact on energy security. On the other
hand, the impact of environmental concerns and social wellbeing
exists as well, and also has to be observed. However, there are
different views regarding the exact relationship that exists between
these indicators, especially between energy consumption and eco-
nomic growth, but there is scientific consensus according to which
more precise relationship between energy consumption and eco-
nomic growth can only be determined on a long term basis [67,71].
The research which was conducted in the G7 countries and pub-
lished for the period 1960–2006 (excluding Germany for which the
first year of analysis is 1971) shows that there is no clear causal link
between economic growth and energy consumption in these
countries, except for Canada, to a lesser extent [68]. The studies
conducted in 16 Asian countries with the fastest economic growth
indicate that there is causal relationship between economic growth
and energy consumption, but that it is usually short-run [69]. The
studies on the relationship between economic growth, energy
consumption and prices showed that there is short-run and long-
run bidirectional causality between economic growth and energy
consumption in developed countries. In developing countries, such
relationship is only short-run [70]. Similar data have been obtained
 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
from studies conducted in a sample of countries of the former
Soviet Union [67,71]. Furthermore, studies show that there is par-
ticularly strong bidirectional causality between energy consump-
tion and emission in BRIC countries [72]. In the case of Turkey, this
dependence was not observed [73].
The study on the relationship between pollutant emissions, energy
use and real output, conducted for Russia for the period 1990–2007,
showed that "emissions appear to be energy use elastic and output
inelastic. This elasticity suggests high energy use responsiveness to
changes in emissions". The results also showed that investment in
energy effective technologies, which will not have negative impact on
economic development, is possible [74]. "Unidirectional Granger
causality running from GDP to energy consumption, and unidirec-
tional Granger causality running from energy consumption to carbon
emissions" was recorded in China. In addition, it was found that
"neither carbon emissions nor energy consumption leads economic
growth", suggesting that both China and Russia could invest in pol-
lution reduction without jeopardizing economic development [75].
However, regardless of the different views and the results of the
research in this field, each country is trying to provide sufficient
energy generating products for a planned economic growth [76].
Energy security itself, in its definition, very often includes the need
to provide sufficient energy for human wellbeing, so energy con-
sumption per capita can be considered an acceptable indicator for such
kind of study [77]. The said is particularly evidenced by the fact that
differences in quality of life and energy consumption per capita are
particularly noticeable in countries at different stages of development
[78]. Apart from everything aforementioned, there is evidence that
"value per capita is important when forecasting energy security, so
smaller countries with lower per capita are exposed to higher risk"
[79]. In this study, Final Energy Consumption Per Capita is considered a
proxy indicator of the quality of life of citizens.
Gross Domestic Product per capita is the standard indicator of
measurement of the economic growth which, in spite of the
controversy, is still considered necessary for the studies measuring
economic prosperity and the quality of life of citizens [80].
The use of energy from renewable sources and its impact in all
segments is the subject matter of a considerable number of studies
in science and practice. It is absolutely clear that the use of energy
from renewable sources is completely environmentally friendly
[81]. When it comes to nuclear energy, there are different opinions
about its application and all are related to operational safety of
nuclear installations. There are also various results of studies on
the impact of consumption of nuclear energy and of energy from
renewable sources on economic growth [82].
In any event, the use of own nuclear energy and energy from
renewable sources certainly has a positive impact on energy security of
a certain country, especially in the long run, because it reduces to some
extent the level of fossil fuels import [83,84], whereby the positive
impact on energy security is particularly recorded in the emerging
countries that are highly dependent on fossil fuels import [85]. Said
impact on energy security exists also in high-income countries, but the
effects can be considered only in the long run [86–88].
A particular challenge for the future is to determine energy
security and predict the future in the countries with short times
series of available data [89], as well as to consider a clearer defi-
nition of the current, insufficiently clear relationship that exists
between carbon emission and economic development [90].
Namely, "energy security is not a new term, but it definitely
demands a new point of view, definition and measurement" [91].
4. Results and discussion
The final results of energy security measurement in the EU-28
region in the period 1990–2012 are shown in Table 1.
1025
The review of energy security trend in the EU-28 is provided
based on the previously grouped countries. The grouping was
conducted based on the value of Energy Security Index measured in
2012, and four groups of countries were selected.
ESI greater than plus 55: Austria, Estonia, Ireland, Spain,
Lithuania, the Netherlands and Slovenia.
ESI between plus 15 and 55: Czech Republic, Croatia, Greece,
Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Finland and the United
Kingdom.
ESI between plus 15 and minus 25: Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany,
France, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania
ESI less than minus 25: Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, Slovakia and
Sweden.
The trend review in said groups of countries is presented in
Figs. 1–4.
It is evident that the countries which reported the highest level of
energy security in 2012 (measured by Energy Security Index), recor-
ded very different values in 1990. Stable growth of energy security is
evident in the observed period in Austria, the Netherlands and Spain
as a result of a uniform increase in GDP with improvements of
energy intensity and reduction of import dependence. In the case of
Ireland, the decline was recorded in 1994 and 1995 as a result of high
values of energy dependence which were reported in this period.
After that, Ireland entered a period of stable growth of energy
security. On the other hand, the high level of energy security in
Estonia and Lithuania dropped within two years and remained the
same as in other countries in the sample. The main reason for the
decline in Estonia is reduction of energy consumption per capita
(which is observed in this research as the indicator of social well-
being), with simultaneous increase in energy dependence. Also, in
1994 Estonia recorded the highest value of carbon intensity in the
observed period of 23 years. In the case of Lithuania, the highest
values of energy dependence in the observed period of 23 years were
reported in 1992, 1993 and particularly in 1995, along with the
decline in energy consumption per capita. After that, all countries in
the group started moving slightly upward.
In the second group of countries there are also variations in the
results. However, it is noticeable that the level of energy security is
growing over the years in all countries. At the individual level,
significant decline in the initial period was recorded in Czech
Republic as a result of sharp decline in GDP in the period of dis-
integration of the former Czechoslovakia, with an increase in
import dependence. A similar situation, with the same reason, was
recorded in Hungary. In the case of Italy, the largest decline was
recorded in 1993, 1994 and 1995 when this country saw a record
high import dependence, the highest in the observed period of 23
years, along with the lowest GPD due to unstable economy in this
period. In said period, Italy recorded a high level of political
instability and a decline in the value of the national currency.
Poland is referred to as the European Union country that suc-
cessfully conducted economic system reforms (as early as 1997 it
became a member of OECD) during the 90 s, and after escalation of
the global economic crisis Poland was the only European Union
country with no economic recession. Similarly, Poland saw no
decline in energy security. Political stability, successfully imple-
mented transition reforms and openness to foreign investment are
the main reasons for said. In the reporting period of 23 years,
Poland recorded the highest annual rates of real GDP growth
compared to the most European Union countries, it had stable
monetary policy and the rule of law while enforcing the economy
based on knowledge instead of on resource utilization.
The data referring to countries in which the value of Energy
Security Index was between 15 and 55 in 2012, show much greater
variations over 23 years.
 1026
Table 1
Energy security index in the EU-28 (1990–2012).

M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

AT  66.68  55.02  51.81  41.81  48.34  29.26  3.38  7.77 6.72  12.49  13.67 5.54 10.68 10.81 35.39 52.12 42.94 20.64 17.50 13.86 20.01 37.93 56.07
BE  31.78  10.23 0.35  12.43  11.64  29.49 6.05 20.13 26.03 27.37 33.19 24.66 15.58 30.51 28.92 18.32 0.35  11.71 11.08  30.15  6.11  7.5  2.61
BG 105.79 7.82  58.15  30.68  12.54 24.46 32.64 4.10  14.09  37.81  25.50  19.72  14.94  19.75  7.96 25.07 50.89 27.01 34.20  14.30  20.21  21.88  14.47
CZ 34.32  42.89  40.64  77.37  60.86  22.10  4.78  12.22  13.96  28.33  27.20  9.99 1.08 28.56 34.42 29.94 36.88 20.02 23.59 10.82 25.97 51.59 43.15
HR  45.18  68.74  80.37  66.41  54.54  63.88  21.42  47.84  39.40  2.50  7.47 10.99 4.68 0.35 47.62 51.99 49.86 26.25 48.20 67.08 96.04 35.50 38.57
DK  14.29  1.56  15.36 1.75 0.68 11.00 39.04 12.95 6.17  13.15  32.86  16.82  38.45  11.07  7.64  6.49 5.04 17.00 9.68  23.96 1.65 30.56 31.83
DE  48.60  42.04  28.99  23.85  31.54  16.68 22.46 24.98 13.99 18.83 15.46 28.90 12.76 25.99 30.69 22.08 41.04  34.48 5.74  33.33 11.65  15.78 0.72
EE 87.23 78.98  4.64 22.19 29.12 9.03 14.85 6.34 7.52  4.50  16.90  5.51  22.32  21.79  3.38  6.78 5.07 14.66 17.88 14.73  0.57 22.72 92.01
IE  32.88  31.14  34.90  36.15  31.16  103.2  82.46  58.93  33.91  21.23  3.43 7.36 16.66 13.65 20.33 35.37 51.04 53.87 57.08 41.90 32.98 72.04 67.17
EL  33.5  38.12  24.18  40.37  43.13  81.91  51.16  61.92  49.79  41.27  29.47  30.60  17.11 22.28 25.95 27.85 62.83 48.38 60.58 62.26 76.16 68.03 54.72
ES  54.12  49.75  50.05  50.18  37.30  39.88  31.20  24.47  5.62  9.84 10.31 23.69 14.83 32.39 41.80 28.70 25.56 15.63 15.23  8.28 26.80 62.87 62.87
FR  44.07  56.52  54.88  56.29  70.38  59.98  14.20  16.95 10.58 13.43 25.59 36.57 30.45 42.87 51.82 55.55 45.94 15.93 27.29  15.54  9.76 1.13  2.65
IT  50.57  40.04  44.18  51.84  89.20  70.87  61.16  58.14  25.27 2.52 10.98 9.69 2.29 53.04 65.27 71.58 56.72 35.92 35.22 12.62 34.45 49.72 51.24
CY  48.81  17.74  17.79  40.55  46.59  22.94 3.82  3.25 6.00 4.02 15.58 18.42 17.84 47.72 21.19 27.31 35.32 22.41 26.04 12.88  1.32 16.19  75.76
LV 54.09 68.36  9.98  19.10  10.14  29.29  39.74  29.96 10.29  49.15  36.81  31.53  45.22  42.75 0.19 11.18  2.32 9.12 16.08 19.96 12.24 28.79  65.31
LT 70.52 66.30  13.22  17.38  25.96  12.76  13.01  11.12  8.20  33.70  33.45  19.93  17.45  7.75 4.00  0.76  0.14  1.73 13.24 7.34  21.42 14.46 62.12
LU 32.69 48.50 26.21 25.31  10.29  46.98  47.68  38.57  26.06  29.08  4.14  6.66  15.32  5.99 33.22 25.18 25.44 17.67 15.56  7.91  1.00  7.28  2.84
HU 4.59 4.82  34.94  37.18  29.38  54.38  34.25  45.72  34.25  24.43  18.67  1.63 7.86  9.46 1.39 39.97 31.78 29.55 39.90 36.22 44.23 46.63 37.35
MT  39.86 0.19 2.35 35.11 16.95 22.81  17.22 86.66 1.39  5.96  5.51  23.48  47.03  31.17 2.30  17.94  14.52  23.39 35.72 26.10 16.76 47.76  68.01
NL  88.49  69.99  70.12  53.34  53.04  26.15 2.70  66.55  15.99  21.26 4.60 12.01 8.82 24.47 19.47 25.42 9.49 56.34 60.26 40.49 55.24 73.98 71.63
PL  44.61  52.61  58.02  50.22  55.47  11.29 19.04 11.08  8.82  25.05  39.48  27.91  35.51  36.23  16.19  5.41 15.27 32.67 43.40 39.75 41.27 47.58 46.79
PT  20.52  28.54  4.75  3.48 24.20  47.01  32.04  22.17  7.82  10.98  3.02  0.36  2.17 18.48 18.36 23.43 23.68 15.56 11.53 10.90 19.51 12.02 5.20
RO  21.02  3.18  39.46  59.55  34.93  14.41 47.04 53.93 23.51  65.66  59.61  32.67  20.43  14.81 18.86 28.75 33.55 36.22 55.84  8.27 9.43 37.24 8.61
SI  52.29  23.08  103.7  78.92  28.05  22.93  2.53  2.34  3.57  4.02  8.94 6.51  0.56  13.19 16.74 28.67 11.24 3.86 55.76 39.31 42.78 78.62 60.64
SK  14.45 35.76 67.83  4.51  28.26  23.90  0.19  1.76  16.59  30.00  22.14  4.11 8.38  0.82 7.82 26.19 18.55 16.92 10.81  20.70  2.97  3.35  32.98
FI  24.45 14.58 3.60 4.38 13.99  36.46  23.94  27.13 26.27  10.82 17.60 4.76  18.59 16.45 25.90  9.50  29.62 18.96 23.19  7.60  26.03 25.01 19.44
SE 0.86  7.60 41.32 36.16 31.49 26.69 46.87 36.40 35.75 26.55 29.36 17.89  13.98 6.33  3.16  13.23  35.80  48.81  35.54  74.30  48.62  24.28  30.35
UK  48.63  23.76  13.97 14.51  2.54  12.68 9.98 16.94 20.80 15.65 12.33 27.39 15.02 16.38 16.10 22.58 12.35  14.76  45.65  30.58  34.12 7.39 19.27
 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032 1027

Fig. 1. Energy Security Index trend in the selected EU countries (1990–2012).

Fig. 2. Energy Security Index trend in the selected EU countries (1990–2012).

Fig. 3. Energy Security Index trend in the selected EU countries (1990–2012).

The countries with Energy Security Index between minus 25
and plus 15 show even higher degree of trend variation over 23
years, with particularly large changes recorded in Bulgaria and
Romania. Romania welcomed the collapse of the Eastern Bloc
with one of the most firmly rooted totalitarian regimes, and thus
rapidly fell into crisis. The year 1993 was the most difficult in
economic terms, with the lowest values of GDP, a record high
unemployment and turbulent social unrest. The process of sta-
bilization and economic progress began in 1994. Romania
entered a period of stable economic growth, accompanied at the
1028 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
Fig. 4. Energy Security Index trend in the selected EU countries (1990–2012).
same time by disproportionately increasing dependency on
energy imports and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic growth
based on energy-inefficient technologies mainly led to energy
security decline in the period 1997–1999. Bulgaria entered the
year 1990 as the country with small and closed market, with
centralized, poorly managed economy (in which agriculture
predominated), as well as with great problems in the banking
sector. In accordance with low GDP values and due to high
dependence on energy imports, Bulgaria recorded low levels of
energy security in the initial period. After 1993, Bulgaria entered
the process of privatization and transition to market economy.
The problems which Bulgaria still faces, the same as is the case
with Romania, are energy-inefficient technologies and high
greenhouse gas emissions.
In all other countries in the sample there are no significant
fluctuations, except that decline is evident in the year of escalation
of global economic crisis (2008), after which energy security
values remain mostly at the same level.
The greatest trend variations were observed in the group of
countries that reported in 2012 the lowest value of Energy Security
Index (below minus 25), with a tendency of a continuing downward
trend. Cyprus and Malta are island countries that are highly energy
dependent. However, the economy of said countries is not based on
the use of large amounts of energy resources. On the other hand,
Latvia is a country that, traditionally, as well as other countries of the
former Eastern Bloc, had the economy based on inefficient use of
energy resources. In 1990, Latvia became independent and began to
manage its economy by itself. The main problem Latvian economy
faced thereafter was restructuring of large industrial complexes
which operated by that time solely for the Soviet Union's needs. After
gaining independence Latvia lost this market, which reflected on
GDP decline and unemployment increase. Transfer to energy-
efficient industrial production is long and slow, so Latvia is in the
group of European Union countries with the lowest GDP, the highest
level of pollution and the highest dependence on energy imports. A
similar situation arose in Slovakia, which entered the year 1990 as
part of the former Czechoslovakia. The years 1991 and 1992 were the
worst for Slovakia in economic terms, with botched privatization and
reliance on inefficient energy production and transport. Poor gov-
ernance decelerated economic growth. Even today, Slovakia reports a
record high energy dependence in the European Union.
In general, the measured values of Energy Security Index in the
individual European Union countries vary. Major changes are evident
primarily in the countries of the former Eastern Bloc (1990–2000), but it
has a positive trend in general. A slight delay in the positive trend was
reported in the crisis year of 2008 and immediately thereafter. It should
be noted that the reported negative value does not necessarily imply
that the situation in the given country is critical in terms of energy
security, because it needs to be considered in the context of other values
which are reported for the same country over the observed period. An
increase in the index value indicates a positive trend.
The highest value of Energy Security Index in 1990 was recorded
in Bulgaria (105.79) and the lowest one in the Netherlands
( 88.49). In the final year of the study (2012), the highest value
was recorded in Slovenia (60.64) and the lowest in Malta (  68.01)
and Cyprus ( 75.76), which is certainly a consequence of the
specifics of island countries. Constantly negative values in most of
the observed years were recorded in Luxembourg. The slightest
trend changes were recorded in Lithuania and Estonia.
The changes in the value of Energy Security Index were recorded
in all countries, but the changes differ in scope. The biggest change
occurred in the Netherlands where Energy Security Index increased
from  88.49 in 1990 to 71.63 in 2012. Furthermore, Slovenia's
Energy Security Index increased from  52.29 in 1990 to 60.64 in
2012, Energy Security Index reported in 1990 in Spain was  54.12
and 62.87 in 2012. Bulgaria, Latvia and Lithuania, as the countries
of the former Eastern Bloc, all recorded positive values of Energy
Security Index at the beginning of the observed period, so later,
over time, they were going through various stages where Energy
Security Index was negative in some years. Poland and Hungary
are the only countries of the former Eastern Bloc, today the EU
members, which saw a steady transition and constant improve-
ment in the value of Energy Security Index.
In the case of developed countries, it turned out that the United
Kingdom was safest in energy terms, whereby changes in the
improvement of energy security in the case of France and Ger-
many are almost identical.
At an individual level, the indicators which are used to deter-
mine energy security have different impact, both in terms of
direction and intensity. The effect of each indicator on end result
can be observed conditionally, but it is a good indicator for
channeling future research. The results of Principal Component
Analysis, which was used for assessment of the individual effect of
selected indicators, are published for 2000 and 2010. The results
are shown in Table 2.
The results of Principal Component Analysis show that Energy
Intensity, GDP per capita and Carbon Intensity have the greatest
impact on Energy Security Index, at almost equal degree. At the
 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
same time, such similar results obtained for the above-mentioned
indicators suggest that these three indicators are changing in
almost identical manner – an increase in one indicator affects a
proportional increase (or decrease) in the other. The above is
certainly largely due to the fact that all three indicators are based
on application of GDP. Final energy consumption per capita has
somewhat smaller impact on Energy Security Index. The impact of
Energy Dependence on end result is on average four times smaller
than the impact of GDP-based indicators. Observed by years, there
are no significant deviations in the manner and the degree of
impact of the selected indicators.
Energy intensity, as an indicator associated with GDP, declines
over time in all the European Union countries, which would cer-
tainly have to imply improvement in energy security. The largest
reduction in consumption of energy generating product per GDP
unit was reported by the countries of former Eastern Bloc. This is
due primarily to GDP growth and much less to reduced energy
consumption, especially in the period 1990–2000 when the econ-
omy of said countries was still based on energy-inefficient tech-
nologies, while reporting high degree of pollution. These countries
are still highly dependent on energy imports. More reliable data can
be obtained through further research in the field of redefining GDP.
Energy consumption per capita over the observed period does
not record huge fluctuations, but has a permanent trend of gradual
decline. The largest drop in energy consumption per capita was
recorded in the former countries of Eastern Bloc: Bulgaria, Estonia
and Slovakia. The largest countries of the European Union, which
are the bearers of economic growth (the United Kingdom, France
and Italy), recorded relatively small changes in energy consump-
tion per capita. The results of the Principal Component Analysis
show that this indicator has a significant impact on the level of
energy security that is three times higher than the impact of
Energy Dependence.
Specifically, the research has shown that Energy Dependence,
identified by many researchers as one of the key parameters that
affects energy security and, as such, the subject to improvement by
the official European Union policy, has a relatively small impact on
Energy Security Index. It is especially important to emphasize that
there were no changes in the intensity of impact over these 23 years.
Economic growth, measured by the indicator of Gross Domestic
Product per capita, is used despite numerous denials as traditionally
most commonly used indicator in studies of this kind. GDP changes
in different countries of the European Union have different impact
on energy security, which is particularly evident in the case of the
countries – former members of Eastern Bloc, which, after accession
to the European Union reported strong economic growth but also
different level of energy security: Lithuania and Estonia reported
improvement, while Bulgaria and Latvia reported significantly
negative trend. During said period, the EU-15 member states
increased their GDP, but not to such a great extent as new members.
The research has shown that, individually speaking, this indicator
has the single largest impact on Energy Security Index.
The use of the indicator that aims to include environmental
concerns in determining energy intensity, i.e. Carbon Intensity, has
also revealed certain specificities. The values of Carbon Intensity
decreased after 1990 in all countries of the EU-28 region. The
above is a consequence of the impact of numerous factors, but is
primarily an indicator of the improvement in quality of technology
used in a certain country. The assessment conducted by using
Principal Component Analysis indicates that Carbon Intensity has
very big impact on end result. However, this must be considered
with caution because said indicator is based on GDP.
When it comes to the impact of Share of energy consumption from
nuclear and renewable sources, it has been observed that the impact
on energy security exists, but that it is proportionally small, i.e. the
smallest compared to other observed indicators. In all the observed
1029
Table 2
Impact assessment of selected indicators on Energy Security Index in the EU-28
(2000 and 2010).
Variable 2000 2010
Energy intensity  0.5079  0.5063
Final energy consumption per capita 0.4085 0.3987
Energy dependence 0.1388 0.1446
GDP per capita 0.5297 0.5320
Carbon intensity 0.5200  0.5269
Share of nuclear and RES in total energy consumption 0.0686 0.0548
countries, the share of energy consumption from nuclear and
renewable sources increased over the observed period, except in
the case of Norway, Sweden and Malta, which saw small decline.
Changes exist, but are not proportionate to the change that occurs
in the very value of Energy Security Index. Specifically, in most
countries of the European Union, including the countries of the EU-
15 region, energy consumption from nuclear and renewable sources
increased over 23 years, but the increase was proportionally mild
compared to the change in other indicators. The countries that
consumed five times more renewable energy in 2012 than in 1990
are Denmark, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Ireland. France and
Denmark are countries that were constantly reporting positive
trend in energy consumption from nuclear and renewable sources
in the observed period of 23 years, while changes in all other
indicators were in the range of average and insignificant ones. The
abovementioned leads to a conclusion that an increase in the con-
sumption of nuclear and renewable energy has a positive impact on
energy security, but that the impact is proportionally small in most
countries. It is noteworthy that the impact of this indicator was
even lower in 2010 than it was in 2000.
5. Conclusion
The main aim of the study is to define a new approach to mea-
suring of energy security, which is based on the compliance with the
principle of sustainability, pragmatism and applicability. Specifically,
the majority of previous approaches to measuring have been supply-
oriented, without including environmental and social aspects,
although the definitions of energy security imply that energy security,
inter alia, should provide sufficient energy needed for the social
wellbeing of citizens, without harmful effects on the environment. The
study does not aim at proposing a new definition of energy security,
but provides a practical solution for the improvement of measurement
by already existing perceptions of energy security.
Regardless of the fact that energy security is one of the key
contemporary issues, the studies show that the accurate measur-
ing of energy security is almost impossible, but that the value
thereof has to be adequately determined, primarily with a view to
monitoring of trends and early warning. To this end, Energy
Security Index has been defined as an indicator of energy security
which includes environmental and social concerns. Measurement
of the value was carried out in the sample of 28 countries of the
European Union over a period of 23 years (1990–2012). Data
processing was performed by using the method for determining
the composite indicators (weighting coefficient technique), which
method can be considered as eligible for studies with this goal. In
addition, the method of composite indicators allows the inclusion
of environmental and social aspects, which is one of the key
proposals of the new method.
The study results show that the values of the Energy Security
Index show positive trend in general, with the exception of data
recorded for the countries of the former Eastern Bloc in the period
1990–2000. The highest level of energy security in 1990 was
1030 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
recorded in Bulgaria, and the lowest in the Netherlands. At the end
of the observed period, the highest level of energy security was
recorded in Estonia and the lowest in Cyprus and Malta. Among
the countries of continental Europe, the lowest level of energy
security in 2012 was recorded in Latvia. The largest positive pro-
gress in terms of energy security was observed in the case of the
the Netherlands, Austria and Spain. All countries recorded fluc-
tuations in value over 23 years, whereby the greatest one was
reported in the countries of Eastern Bloc.
In determining the impact of each indicator on end result, which
was performed by using Principal Component Analysis, it was estab-
lished that, first of all, there were no significant deviations in the
degree of impact of the selected indicators in 2000 and 2010. It was
further found that GDP per capita, Energy Intensity and Carbon
Intensity have the greatest impact on the improvement (or worsen-
ing) of the Energy Security Index. Somewhat less impact was reported
by Final energy consumption per capita, which is followed by Energy
Dependence, while the least impact was reported by Share of nuclear
and RES in total energy consumption. However, the actual impact of
Energy Intensity and Carbon Intensity can be considered conditional,
primarily due to the fact that they are based on application of GDP.
This is supported by the fact that the impact of energy production
from renewable sources (which is, inter alia, established, adopted and
officially supported on the basis of the need to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions) is disproportionately small compared to the impact of
Carbon Intensity. The abovementioned points to the fact that simul-
taneous use of GDP-related indicators in such research may lead to
misleading results. This leads to the conclusion that the selection of
weighting coefficients by use of subjective method has its drawbacks,
but the control thereof also has certain limitations, so further
research should be modified towards elimination of the identified
methodological problems.
The research also reports a relatively small impact of Energy
Dependence, normally defined in other studies and by the official
EU policy as one of the key threats to energy security of the region.
In addition, a number of previous methods for measuring energy
security is based precisely on the assessment of the security of
supply, with frequent inclusion of data on geopolitical stability in
the supplier countries. The results of this research show, for their
part, that monitoring of situation in the supplier countries is cer-
tainly of great importance, but measuring of energy security must
be based solely on the internal indicators. Finally, the impact of
energy production from renewable and nuclear sources has pro-
ven to be an indicator of low importance, the significance of which
has even declined over time.
The main contribution of the research is that it analyzes energy
security for the period of 23 years for 28 European Union countries.
Furthermore, the research is based on a real need to examine the
trend in energy security, to detect specific reasons for changes and to
provide explanations. In addition, this paper presents an overview of
the results obtained in measuring energy security thus far. However,
some differences can be observed in the assessment of energy
security in certain countries, whereby different estimates for indivi-
dual countries are very significant. Unlike most other methodologies
(which are mainly focused on security of supply), this research has
considered environmental concerns and social wellbeing.
This research also provides the results that are different in
some segments than the results of studies conducted by using
other methodologies. Specifically, the research conducted by the
EU Joint Research Centre (Ispra, Italy) provides the data that Fin-
land, Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Denmark and Greece can
be considered most secure. The results of this research show that
Austria, the Netherlands, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Spain and
Ireland and the most energy-secure countries In general, most
studies conducted thus far agree than Denmark, Estonia, Ireland,
the Netherlands and Austria are the most energy-secure countries.
As for other countries, there are different views.
Monitoring and measuring of energy security shall certainly
remain the subject of future studies. This study, as well as the
studies with similar subject matter, indicates the fact that the
precise measuring of energy security is impossible, but that
monitoring of energy security is an absolute necessity and that
applied methodologies should be adjusted accordingly. The exact
value of energy security is not the data of great importance, but its
changes and differences compared to other countries are very
significant source of information for further improvement of
energy policy and overall relations between the countries of the
European Union, as a region with big energy dependence, and
between individual Member States and energy suppliers.
Due to disparate methodological approaches and evident dif-
ferences in determining the degree of energy security in most
countries, further also researches are necessary in this regard.
However, further researches should be based, above all, on pre-
viously determining the purpose of measurement, which primarily
serves the purpose of monitoring and forecasting energy policy. In
addition, further research needs to take into account complex
changes that occur as a result of developments on the world energy
market. Therefore, definition of a new methodology for measuring
and monitoring energy security in the future should include the
following priorities: 1) defining clear limits, quality and quantity of
the national energy security system, 2) introducing proven reserves
and energy potentials into the factors of importance for energy
security, 3) introducing indicators of the financial stability of
countries (which change in accordance with changes in the global
energy market) into the group of factors that largely define the
national energy security, 4) review of the impact of GDP and GDP-
related indicators (with the possible introduction of the modified
GDP), 5) analysis of implementation of the sensitivity analysis
methods and defining the ways for their proper implementation
and 6) continuous monitoring and scientific analysis of the research
results in the field of relations between economic growth, energy
consumption, environmental and social concerns, especially in the
European Union countries and in emerging economies.
Acknowledgments
This study is part of the project Interdisciplinary Research: No.
III 47 009-Basic Research No. 179015-Challenges and Prospects of
structural changes in Serbia: strategic directions for economic
development and harmonization with EU requirements and pro-
ject of Basic Research No. 179015-Challenges and Prospects of
structural changes in Serbia: strategic directions for economic
development and harmonization with EU requirements which is
supported by the Ministry of Science and Technological Develop-
ment of Serbia in the period 2011–2014.
References
[1] Winzer C. Conceptualizing energy security. Energy Policy 2012;46:36–48.
[2] Kruyt B, Van Vuuren DP, de Vrijes HJM, Groenenberg H. Indicators for energy
security. Energy Policy 2010;37:2166–81.
[3] Downs ES. The Chinese security debate. China Q 2014;177:21–41.
[4] Dyer H, Trombetta MJ. The concept of energy security: broadening, deepening
transforming. In: Dyer H, Trombetta MJ, editors. International handbook of
energy security. Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2013.
p. 3–18.
[5] Energy Supply Security: The emergency response of IEA countries. 2014 Ed.
Paris, France; 2014.
[6] Sovacool BK, Mukherjee I, Drupady IM, D’Agostino AL. Evaluating energy
security performance from 1990 to 2010 for eighteen countries. Energy
2011;36:5846–53.
 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
[7] Kanellakis M, Martinopoulos G, Zachariadis T. European energy policy—a
review. Energy Policy 2013;62:1020–30.
[8] Simpson A. The environment–energy security nexus: critical analysis of an
energy ‘love triangle’ in Southeast Asia. Third World Q 2007;28:539–54.
[9] Augutis J, Krikstolaitis R, Martisauskas L, Peciulyte S. Energy security level
assessment technology. Appl Energy 2012;97:143–9.
[11] Golušin M, Muinitlak-Ivanović O, Andrejević A, Vučenov S. Survey of socio
economic growth in SE Europe – new conceptual frame for sustainability
metrics. J Econ Surv 2014;28:152–68.
[12] Umbach F. Global energy security and the implications for the EU. Energy
Policy 2010;38:1229–40.
[13] Vivoda V. Evaluating energy security in the Asia-Pacific region: a novel
methodological approach. Energy Policy 2010;38:5258–63.
[14] Chester L. Conceptualizing energy security and making explicit its poly-semic
nature. Energy Policy 2010;38:887–95.
[15] Leung GCK. China's energy security: perception and reality. Energy Policy
2011;39:1330–7.
[16] McCarthy RW, Ogden JM, Sperling D. Assessing reliability in energy supply
systems. Energy Policy 2007;35:2151–62.
[17] Checchi A, Behrens A, Egenhofer C. Long-term energy security risks for Eur-
ope: a sector-specific approach (Working document). Brussels: Centre for
European Policy Studies; 2009.
[18] Gnansounou E. Assessing the energy vulnerability: case of industrialized
countries. Energy Policy 2008;36:3734–44.
[19] Molyneaux L, Wagner L, Froome C, Foster J. Resilience and electricity systems:
a comparative analysis. Energy Policy 2012;47:188–201.
[20] Cherp A, Jewell J. The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual his-
tory, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration. Curr Opin Environ
Sustain 2011;3:1–11.
[21] Månsson A, Johansson B, Nilsson LJ. Assesing energy security. Energy
2014;73:1–14.
[22] Cherp A. In: Johansson TB, Patwardhan A, Nakicenovic N, Gomez-Echeverri L,
editors. Energy and security. Toward a sustainable future. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge, University Press; 2012. p. 325–84.
[23] Energy Supply Security. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2014.
[24] Scheepers M, Seebregts A, De Jang J, Maters H. EU standards for energy
security of supply, ECN/Clingendael International Energy Program. Petten. The
Netherlands: European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and
Transport; 2007.
[25] Jansen JC. Energy services security: Some metrics and policy issues. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 4th Conference on Energy Economics and Technology. Dres-
den; 2009.
[26] Gupta E. Oil vulnerability index of oil-importing countries. Energy Policy
2008;36:1195–211.
[27] Gnansounou E. Indicators of energy vulnerability. London: UK: World Energy
Council; 2009.
[28] Von Hippel D, Suzuki T, Williams JH, Savage T, Hayes P. Energy security and
sustainability in Northeast Asia. Energy Policy 2013;39:6719–30.
[29] Gnansounou E. Assessing the energy vulnerability: case of industrialised
countries. Energy Policy 2008;36:3734–44.
[30] Blyth W, Lefevre N. Energy security and climate change. Paris: International
Energy Agency; 2004.
[31] Le Coq C, Paltseva E. Measuring the security of external energy supply in the
European Union. Energy Policy 2011;37:4474–81.
[32] Risk of Energy Availability Common Corridors for Europe Supply Security,
Summary Report. Project funded by EC FP7 under the theme “Energy Security
of Supply”. Final Workshop, Brussels May 13th; 2011.
[33] Muñoz-Delgado B. Energy security indices in Europe. Economic Challenges for
Energy – Workshop. Madrid, Spain; February 7–8th 2011.
[34] Index of US Energy Security Risk. 2012 Ed. Washington DC: US Chamber of
commerce; 2011.
[35] International Index of Energy Security Risk, 2015 Ed. Washington DC: US
Chamber of commerce; 2015.
[36] Jewell J. The IEA model of short-term energy security (MOSES) primary –
energy sources and secondary fuels. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2011.
[37] Badea AC, Rocco CM, Tarantola S, Bolado R. Composite indicators for security
of energy supply using ordered weighted averaging. Reliab Eng Syst Safety
2011;96:651–62.
[38] Global Energy Architecture Performance Index Report 2015. Geneva: World
Economic Forum; 2015.
[39] Jansen JC, Seebregts AJ. Long-term energy services security: what is it and
how can it be measured and valued? Energy Policy 2010;38:1654–64.
[40] Cherchye L, Moesen W, Rogge N, Van Puyenbroeck T. Constructiong composite
indicators with imprecise data: a proposal. Expert Syst Appl 2011;38
(9):10940–9.
[41] Jonsson DK, Johansson B, Nilsson LJ, Månsson A, Nilsson M, Sonnsjo H. Energy
security matters in EU energy roadmap. Energy Strategy Rev 2015;6:48–56.
[42] Bambawale MJ, Savacool BK. Energy security: insight from a ten country
comparison. Energy Environ 2012;23:559–86.
[43] Geng JB, Ji Q. Multi-perspective analysis of China's energy supply security.
Energy 2014;64:541–50.
[44] Augustis J, Krikstolaitis R, Martisauskas L, Peciulyte S. Energy security level
assessment technology. Appl Energy 2012;97:143–9.
[45] Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CFZhao JH. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis
aid in sustainable energy decision making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:2263–78.
1031
[46] Golušin M, Munitlak-Ivanović O, Redžepagić S. Transition from traditional to
sustainable energy development in the region of Western Balkans – current
level and requirement. Appl Energy 2013;101:182–91.
[47] Booysen F. An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development.
Social Indic Res 2002;59:115–51.
[48] Golušin M, Munitlak-Ivanović O. Definition, characteristics and state of indi-
cators of sustainable development in countries of Southeastern Europe. Agric
Ecosyst Environ 2009;130:67–74.
[49] Salahuddin M, Gow J, Ozturk I. Is the long-run relationship between economic
growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and financial
development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust? Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;51:317–26.
[50] Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Methodology and user
guide. Ispra, Itally: Joint Research of the European Commission; 2008.
[51] European Energy Security Strategy. Communication from the Commission to
the European Parliament and Council (COM/2014/0330). Brussels; 2014.
[52] Golušin M, Munitlak-Ivanović O, Teodorović N. The review of achieved degree
of sustainable development in South Eastern Europe – the use of linear
regression method. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;15 776–772.
[53] Patlitzianas KD, Doukas H, Kagiannas AG, Psarras J. Sustainable energy policy
indicators: Review and recommendations. Renew Energy 2009;33:966–73.
[54] Loschel A, Moslener U, Rubbelke DTG. Indicators of energy security in
industrialized countries. Energy Policy 2010;38:1665–71.
[55] Greene DL. Measuring energy security: can United States achieve oil inde-
pendence? Energy Policy 2010;38:1614–21.
[56] Yuan JH, Kang JG, Zhao CH, Hu ZG. Energy consumption and economic
growth: evidence from China at both aggregated and disaggregated levels.
Energy Econ 2008;30:3077–94.
[57] Filipović S, Verbič M, Radovanović M. Determinants of energy intensity in the
European Union: a panel data analysis. Energy 2015 [in press].
[58] Warr BS, Ayres RU. Evidence of causality between the quantity and quality of
energy consumption and economic growth. Energy 2010;35:1688–93.
[59] Fiorito G. Can we use energy intensity to study "decoupling" in modern
economies? J Clean Prod 2013;47:465–73.
[60] Wang X. On China's energy intensity statistics: toward a comprehensive and
transparent indicator. Energy Policy 2011;39:7284–9.
[61] Radovanović M, Filipović S. New approach to energy Intensity in the EU – total
energy and carbon cost approach. Energy Environ 2015;26:601–9.
[62] Turton H, Barreto L. Long-term security of energy supply and climate change.
Energy Policy 2006;34:2232–50.
[63] Vera I, Langlois L. Energy indicators for sustainable development. Energy
2007;32:875–82.
[64] Konstantinaviciute I, Bobinaite V. Comparative analysis of carbon dioxide
emission factors for energy industries in European Union countries. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:603–12.
[65] Long X, Naminse EY, Du J, Zhuang J. Nonrenewable energy, renewable energy,
carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in China from 1952 to 2012.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:680–8.
[66] Shadman F, Sadeghipour S, Moghavvemi M, Saidur R. Drought and energy
security in key ASEAN countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:53–8.
[67] Apergis N, Payne JE. Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence
from the commonwealth of Independent States. Energy Econ 2009;31:641–7.
[68] Balcilar M, Ozdemir ZA, Arslanturk Y. Economic growth and energy con-
sumption causal nexus viewed through a bootstrap rolling window. Energy
Econ 2010;32:1398–410.
[69] Lee CC, Chang CP. Energy consumption and economic growth in Asian
economies: a more comprehensive analysis using panel data. Resour Energy
Econ 2008;1:50–65.
[70] Mahadevan R, Asafu-Adjaye J. Energy consumption, economic growth and
prices: a reassessment using panel VECM for developed and developing
countries. Energy Policy 2007;4:2481–90.
[71] Apergis N, Payne JE. Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence
from the Commonwealth of Independent States. Energy Econ 2009;5:641–7.
[72] Pao HT, Tsao CM. Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions,
energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic
product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and
China) countries. Energy 2011;36:685–93.
[73] Jobert T, Karanfil P. Sectoral energy consumption by source and economic
growth in Turkey. Energy Policy 2007;35:5447–56.
[74] Pao HT, Yu HC, Yang YH. Modeling the CO2 emissions, energy use, and eco-
nomic growth in Russia. Energy 2010;36:5094–100.
[75] Zhang XP, Cheng XM. Energy consumption, carbon emissions, and economic
growth in China. Ecol Econ 2009;68:2706–12.
[76] Narayan PK, Smyth R. Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries: new
evidence from panel co-integration with structural breaks. Energy Econ
2008;30:2331–41.
[77] Martinez DM, Ebenhack BW. Understanding the role of energy consumption in
human development through the use of saturation phenomena. Energy Policy
2008;36:1430–5.
[78] Mazur A. Does increasing energy or electricity consumption improve quality
of life in industrial nations? Energy Policy 2011;39:2568–72.
[79] Cohen G, Joutz F, Loungani P. Measuring energy security: trends in the
diversification of oil and natural gas supplies. Energy Policy 2011;39:4860–9.
[80] Lambiri D, Biagi B, Royela V. Quality of life in the economic and urban eco-
nomic literature. Social Indic Res 2007;84:1–25.
1032 M. Radovanović et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017) 1020–1032
[81] Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y. CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy
and economic growth in the US. Energy Policy 2010;38:2911–5.
[82] Aspergis N, Payne JE, Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y. On the causal dynamics
between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth.
Energy Econ 2010;69:2255–60.
[83] Verbruggen A. Renewable and nuclear power: a common future? Energy
Policy 2008;36:4036–47.
[84] Apergis N, Payne JE. Renewable energy consumption and economic growth:
evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy 2010;38:656–60.
[85] Asif M, Muneer T. Energy supply, its demand and security issues for developed
and emerging economies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:1388–413.
[86] Lund H, Mathiesen BV. Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy sys-
tems – the case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy 2009;34:524–31.
[87] Wolde-Rufael Y, Menyah K. Nuclear energy consumption and economic
growth in nine developed countries. Energy Econ 2010;32:550–6.
[88] Scarlat N, Dallemand JF, Monforti-Ferrario F, Banja M, Motola V. Renewable
energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Union –
an overview from National Renewable Energy Action Plans and Progress
Reports. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:969–85.
[89] Ahmed M, Riaz K, Khan AM, Bibi S. Energy consumption–economic growth
nexus for Pakistan: taming the untamed. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;52:890–6.
[90] Furuoka F. The CO2 emissions–development nexus revisited. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;51:1256–75.
[91] Blum H, Legey FL. The challenging economics of energy security: ensuring
energy benefits in support to sustainable development. Energy Econ
2012;34:1982–9.