4.7 Article

What are the causal conditions that lead to high or low environmental performance? A worldwide assessment

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107342

关键词

FsQCA; Environmental performance; Worldwide; Complex causalities; Environmental policies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study uses fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to identify causal conditions for high or low environmental performance (EPI). The findings suggest that there are multiple paths to improve environmental performance, contingent on the country's initial environmental development level.
This study focuses on causal conditions that lead to high or low environmental performance (EPI) using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis for 156 countries in 2018. Data for the EPI, economic growth, labor share of GDP, political freedom, the role of women, press freedom, corruption, and urbanization were used. Research findings allow us to conclude that no individual causal condition meets the necessary condition (thresholds) for high or low EPI. Five sufficient configurations for high EPI were found: (i) high GDP per capita is sufficient for high EPI; (ii) highly urbanized countries where corruption is absent; (iii) urbanized countries that protect individual rights and liberties and women's economic opportunities; (iv) high labor share of GDP coupled with the protection of individual freedom and women's economic rights; and (v) countries with high individual and press freedom where corruption is absent. Four sufficient configurations for low EPI were found: (vi) lack of protection of women's economic rights; (vii) lack of press freedom; (viii) low GDP per capita and high corruption rates, and urbanization as a peripheral condition; and (ix) low GDP per capita and high corruption rates and labor as a peripheral condition. Policymakers must acknowledge that there are many paths to improve environmental performance, contingent on the country's initial environmental development level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据