Page 150 - AJWEP-v22i2
P. 150

Anser, et al.

                of equations is estimated using the GMM framework,   and  2.951,  respectively,  suggesting  distributions  that
                incorporating instruments derived from the differenced   are approximately normal, with moderate variability. In
                data to ensure robust parameter estimates.          contrast, REC, with a kurtosis of 2.679, demonstrates
                                                                    a platykurtic distribution, signifying lower variability.
                4. Results                                          The  POPG  kurtosis  of  6.108  indicates  a  leptokurtic
                                                                    distribution  characterized  by  limited  variability
                Table  1 presents  descriptive  statistics  for selected   but  heavier  tails.  CROP  shows  a  modestly  peaked
                Asian countries from 1996 to 2022.  The mean  WS    distribution, with a kurtosis of 4.031, exhibiting minor
                level  across  these  countries  was  43.751  m  of total   variability in agricultural output. AGLD, with a kurtosis
                                                        3
                freshwater withdrawal per constant 2015 US$ of GDP,   of 18.688, displays a strongly leptokurtic distribution,
                with considerable variability, as indicated by a standard   indicating  significant  variability  likely  driven  by
                deviation  of  114.613.  GEF  and  RQ  exhibited  overall   diverse regional land-use patterns. CLF, with a kurtosis
                negative evaluations, with mean indices of −0.036 and   of 3.217, suggests a distribution that is approximately
                −0.112,  respectively,  reflecting  diverse  governance   normal with somewhat pronounced tails. Collectively,
                performances across the region. REC accounted for an   these  results  illustrate  the  diverse  distributional
                average  of  25.223%  of  GDP,  highlighting  a  regional   characteristics  of  the  variables  examined  across  the
                commitment to sustainability. POPG averaged 1.597%,   investigated sites, enhancing the understanding of their
                while  CROP  recorded  an  average  index  of  87.603,   statistical behavior. The analysis presented in Table 2
                suggesting variability in agricultural productivity.  employs a two-step GMM dynamic panel data approach
                  The percentage of land area designated for agriculture   to investigate the factors influencing WS governance in
                (AGLD)  averaged  400,195.4,  with  large  variability   selected Asian countries.
                indicated  by  a  standard  deviation  of  945,180.9.  CLF   The study finds that GEF has a significant negative
                had a mean index of 0.0003, reflecting relatively low   impact  on  WS  governance.  Specifically,  a  1%
                financial  support  for  climate-related  projects,  yet   improvement  in  GEF  leads  to  a  substantial  17.581%
                with  the  potential  for  notable  fluctuations  (standard   reduction  in  WS issues.  This  suggests that  nations
                deviation: 1.183).                                  with stronger governance systems are better equipped
                  The  kurtosis  coefficients  offer  additional  insights   to  manage  water  shortages  and  promote  sustainable
                into  variable  distributions.  Leptokurtic  distributions   water resource management. Similarly, the coefficient
                have  heavier  tails  and  sharper  peaks  compared  to  a   of RQ also exhibits a significant and negative impact
                normal  distribution,  whereas  platykurtic  distributions   on WS governance. A 1% enhancement in RQ results
                exhibit  flatter  peaks  and  lighter  tails.  The  high   in  a  remarkable  55.049%  reduction  in  WS  issues.
                kurtosis  value  of  34.634  for WS  indicates  significant   This  finding  suggests  that  fragmented  water  resource
                heterogeneity  and  substantial  variability  across Asian   institutions  –  often  stemming  from  poor  inter-agency
                nations.  GEF  and  RQ  have  kurtosis  values  of  2.977   coordination  –  hinder  the  efficient  management  of

                 Table 1. Descriptive statistics
                 Methods       WS         GEF          RQ         REC       POPG       CROP       AGLD        CLF
                 Mean         43.751     −0.036       −0.112     25.223     1.597      87.603    400195.4     0.0003
                 Maximum     996.803      2.436       2.260      96.041     7.349     203.570    5290386      4.689
                 Minimum      0.196      −2.307       −2.344     0.0005    −3.6296     19.210     6.600       −3.086
                 Std. Dev.   114.613      0.870       0.878      29.704     1.279      27.439    945180.9     1.183
                 CV          261.966    −2416.670    −783.929    117.765    80.087     31.321    236.179     394333.3
                 Skewness     5.220       0.501       0.116       1.020     0.859      0.148      3.806       0.242
                 Kurtosis     34.634      2.977       2.951       2.679     6.108      4.031      18.688      3.217
                 Source: Author’s estimate. CV: Coefficient of variation; Skewness measures the asymmetry of distribution: a value of 0 indicates
                 symmetry, while positive and negative values indicate right- and left-skewed distributions, respectively; Kurtosis values >3 indicate
                 heavy-tailed distributions, <3 indicate light-tailed, a normal distribution has a kurtosis of 3.
                 Abbreviations: AGLD: Agricultural land degradation; CLF: Climate financing; CROP: Crop production; GEF: Government effectiveness;
                 POPG: Population growth; REC: Renewable energy consumption; RQ: Regulatory quality; Std. Dev.: Standard deviation; WS: Water
                 scarcity.



                Volume 22 Issue 2 (2025)                       144                           doi: 10.36922/AJWEP025090057
   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155