A comparative analysis between composite indexes of environmental performance: An analysis on the CIEP and EPI |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Federal University of Campina Grande and CAPES, R. Aprigio Veloso, 882, B. Universitario, Campina Grande/PB, CEP: 58.429-900, Brazil;2. Salamanca University, Campus Miguel de Unamuno. Edificio FES, Av. Francisco Tomás y Valiente, s/n. 37007, Salamanca, Spain;1. University of Brescia, Italy;2. Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Greece;3. Umweltbundesamt, Germany;4. Politecnico di Milano, Italy;5. Instytut Badań Systemowych PAN, Poland;6. European Commission, JRC, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Air and Climate Unit, Italy;7. University of Strasburg, France;8. Institut National de l’EnviRonnement Industriel et des RisqueS, INERIS, France;1. Department of Economic and Legal Studies – University of Naples “Parthenope”, Via Ammiraglio Ferdinando Acton, 38, 80133 Naples, Italy;2. Department of Philosophical, Pedagogical and Economic-Quantitative Sciences. University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara. Viale Pindaro, 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy;3. Department of Philosophical, Pedagogical and Economic-Quantitative Sciences. University “G. D’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro, 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy;1. Department of Environmental Sciences, Vytautas Magnus University, Vileikos st. 8, 44404 Kaunas, Lithuania;2. Departament of Drug Technology and Social Pharmacy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Eiveniu str. 4, 50009 Kaunas, Lithuania;3. Baltic Institute of Advanced Technology, Sauletekio av. 15, 10224 Vilnius, Lithuania;1. Laboratory of Environmental Chemometrics, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Gdansk, Wita Stwosza 63, 80-308 Gdansk, Poland;2. Center for Environmental Risk Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan;3. Institute of Socio-Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokushima, 2-24, Minamijosanjima-cho, Tokushima 770-8502, Japan;4. Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Fuchu, Tokyo 183-8509, Japan;1. Department of Political Science, School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;2. Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;3. Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | The measurement of environmental impact through composite indexes provides information about the effects of human activities on the ecosystem. Over recent years proposals regarding the environmental composite indexes (ECI) have emerged, suggesting that they can be used to help in decisions about public policies. Due the number of these indicators, issues arise about the asymmetry of information provided, although all ECI seek to measure ecosystem quality or damage. The present paper compares the Composite Index of Environmental Performance (CIEP) (García-Sánchez et al., 2015) and the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) (Hsu et al., 2014) in order to find convergent and divergent characteristics, studying methodological aspects and empirical evidence through statistical analysis, in order to favour the decision-making by stakeholders and to improve the existing ECI in order to determine adequately the environmental impact. The results show that the indexes were developed using different methods and variables, however, they share around 20% identical variables. Despite these differences, the rate of variation in ranking countries between the indexes is 21%, on average. The EPI policy category ‘water & sanitation (effects on humans)’ has two common variables and explains part of the CIEP performance. The effect dimension of the CIEP has one more identical variable and it reduces the individual variation between rank positions. |
| |
| Keywords: | Environmental composite index (ECI) Composite index of environmental performance (CIEP) Environmental performance index (EPI) Comparative analysis |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
