What is Right and What is Wrong in the Environmental Governance Model? Environmental Regulations for Improving Environmental Sustainability Ratings

• Autorzy: Ardiwinata Jajat S. , Zaman Khalid , Nassani Abdelmohsen A. , Haffar Mohamed , Pasani Chairil Faif , Sriyanto Sriyanto

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/pe.2022.1.12

Warianty tytułu

PL

Co jest dobre, a co złe w modelu zarządzania środowiskiem? Analiza przepisów środowiskowych dla poprawy jakości zrównoważenia środowiskowego

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The improper allocation of economic and environmental resources damages the United Nations sustainable development Agenda, which remains a challenge for policymakers to stop the rot through efficient governance mechanisms. The study designed an efficient environmental governance framework by extending the different governance factors linked to the environmental sustainability ratings in the cross-section of 67 countries. The results of the two-regime based estimator show that environmental corruption (regime-1), environmental politics (regime-2), and environmental laws (regime-2) negatively correlated with the environmental sustainability rating, whereas environmental democracy (regime-1 & 2) positively correlated with the environmental sustainability agenda across countries. The government effectiveness and the country’s per capita income both escalates environmental sustainability ratings. The results align with the Demopolis theory, the effective regulatory theory, and the theory of law and politics. The causality estimates show that environmental corruption and government effectiveness causes environmental politics and economic growth. In contrast, environmental democracy and environmental regulations cause a country’s per capita income. The bidirectional causality is found between environmental regulations and environmental corruption on the one hand, while environmental regulations and environmental politics Granger cause each other on the other hand. The results show the importance of environmental regulations in managing ecological corruption and politics across countries. The variance decomposition analysis suggested that environmental politics likely influenced the environmental sustainability agenda, followed by government effectiveness and environmental democracy for the next ten years. The study emphasized the need to design an efficient environmental governance framework that minimizes environmental corruption and enables them to move towards environmental democracy, stringent environmental laws, and regulations. Government effectiveness would mainly be linked to reducing corruption and political instability to achieve clean, green and sustainable development.

PL

Niewłaściwa alokacja zasobów gospodarczych i środowiskowych szkodzi Agendzie ONZ na rzecz zrównoważonego rozwoju, która pozostaje wyzwaniem dla decydentów, aby powstrzymać negatywne trendy za pomocą skutecznych mechanizmów zarządzania. W ramach tego studium opracowano efektywne ramy zarządzania środowiskiem poprzez rozszerzenie zakresu różnych czynników zarządzania związanych z ocenami poziomu zrównoważenia środowiskowego wśród 67 krajów. Wyniki pokazują, że korupcja środowiskowa (system-1), polityka środowiskowa (system-2) i prawo środowiskowe (system-2) ujemnie korelowały z oceną zrównoważenia środowiskowego, podczas gdy demokracja środowiskowa (systemy-1 & 2) pozytywnie skorelowane są z Agendą zrównoważonego rozwoju środowiska w różnych krajach. Zarówno skuteczność rządu, jak i dochód kraju na mieszkańca podnoszą oceny zrównoważenia środowiskowego. Wyniki są zgodne z teorią Demopolis, efektywną teorią regulacji oraz teorią prawa i polityki. Szacunki przyczynowości pokazują, że korupcja środowiskowa i skuteczność rządu wpływają na politykę środowiskową i wzrost gospodarczy. W przeciwieństwie do tego, demokracja środowiskowa i regulacje środowiskowe powodują wzrost dochodu na mieszkańca. Dwukierunkowy związek przyczynowy występuje między regulacjami środowiskowymi a korupcją środowiskową z jednej strony, podczas gdy regulacje środowiskowe i polityka środowiskowa Granger są ze sobą bezpośrednio związane. Wyniki pokazują znaczenie przepisów środowiskowych w zarządzaniu korupcją ekologiczną i polityką w różnych krajach. Analiza rozkładu wariancji sugeruje, że polityka środowiskowa prawdopodobnie wpłynęła na program zrównoważonego rozwoju środowiska, a następnie skuteczność rządu i demokrację środowiskową przez następne dziesięć lat. W badaniu podkreślono potrzebę zaprojektowania skutecznych ram zarządzania środowiskiem, które zminimalizują korupcję środowiskową i umożliwią dążenie do demokracji środowiskowej, rygorystycznych przepisów i regulacji dotyczących ochrony środowiska. Skuteczność rządu byłaby powiązana głównie z ograniczaniem korupcji i niestabilności politycznej w celu osiągnięcia czystego, zielonego i zrównoważonego rozwoju.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

environmental sustainability rating; environmental governance indicators; environmental regulations; government effectiveness; switching regression

PL

klasyfikacja zrównoważoności środowiskowej; wskaźniki zarządzania środowiskowego; regulacje środowiskowe; skuteczność rządu

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Problemy Ekorozwoju
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 17, nr 1
• Strony: 123--139
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 54 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ardiwinata Jajat S.

• Department Community Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Kota Bandung, Jawa Barat 40154, Indonesia

autor

Zaman Khalid

• Department of Economics, University of Haripur, Haripur Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

autor

Nassani Abdelmohsen A.

• Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Saud University, P.O. Box 71115, Riyadh, 11587, Saudi Arabia

autor

Haffar Mohamed

• Department of Management, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

autor

Pasani Chairil Faif

• Mathematics and Science Education, Universitas Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin 70123, Indonesia

autor

Sriyanto Sriyanto

• Social Studies Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto, Purwokerto, 53182, Indonesia

Bibliografia

• 1. ADAMS D., ADAMS K., ULLAH S., ULLAH F., 2019, Globalisation, governance, accountability and the natural resource ‘curse’: Implications for socioeconomic growth of oil-rich developing countries, Resources Policy, 61: 128-140.
• 2. ADEKUNLE I.A., 2021, On the search for environmental sustainability in Africa: the role of governance, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(12): 14607-14620.
• 3. AGUILERA R.V., ARAGÓN-CORREA J.A., MARANO V., TASHMAN P.A., 2021, The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research, Journal of Management, DOI: 10.1177/0149206321991212.
• 4. AHMED Z., CARY M., LE H. P., 2021, Accounting asymmetries in the long-run nexus between globalization and environmental sustainability in the United States: an aggregated and disaggregated investigation, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 86:106511.
• 5. ANSER M. K., AHMAD M., KHAN M. A., NASSAN, A. A., ASKAR S. E., ZAMAN K., KABBANI A., 2021, Progress in nuclear energy with carbon pricing to achieve environmental sustainability agenda: on the edge of one’s seat, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-12966-y.
• 6. ARMINEN H., MENEGAKI A.N., 2019, Corruption, climate and the energy-environment-growth nexus, Energy Economics, 80: 621-634.
• 7. ASONGU S.A., ODHIAMBO N.M., 2021, Enhancing governance for environmental sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa, Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 39(1): 444-463.
• 8. BARBOSA L.G., ALVES M.A.S., GRELLE C.E. V., 2021, Actions against sustainability: Dismantling of the environmental policies in Brazil, Land Use Policy, 104: 105384.
• 9. BENNETT N.J., SATTERFIELD T., 2018, Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis, Conservation Letters, 11(6): e12600.
• 10. CHENG R., LI W., LU Z., ZHOU S., MENG C., 2020, Integrating the three-line environmental governance and environmental sustainability evaluation of urban industry in China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 264: 121554
• 11. COENEN J., BAGER S., MEYFROIDT P., NEWIG J., CHALLIES E., 2021, Environmental Governance of China's Belt and Road Initiative, Environmental Policy and Governance, 31(1): 3-17.
• 12. DRESSEL S., SJÖLANDER-LINDQVIST A., JOHANSSON M., ERICSSON G., SANDSTRÖM C., 2021, Achieving Social and Ecological Outcomes in Collaborative Environmental Governance: Good Examples from Swedish Moose Management, Sustainability, 13(4): 2329, DOI: 10.3390/su13042329.
• 13. GANDA F., 2020, The influence of corruption on environmental sustainability in the developing economies of Southern Africa, Heliyon, 6(7): e04387.
• 14. GIANNETTI B.F., AGOSTINHO F., ERAS J.C., YANG Z., ALMEIDA C.M.V.B., 2020, Cleaner production for achieving the sustainable development goals, Journal of Cleaner Production, 271:122127.
• 15. GIESEKE T., 2020, Collaborative Environmental Governance Frameworks: A Practical Guide. CRC Press, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, UK, https://www.routledge.com/Collaborative-Environmental-Governance-Frameworks-A-Practical-Guide/Gieseke/p/book/9781138584501# (16-07-2021).
• 16. GÖK A., SODHI N., 2021, The environmental impact of governance: a system-generalized method of moments analysis, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28: 32995-33008.
• 17. GUPTA A.C., CHATTERJEE N., 2021, Economic Values for the Environment with Special Reference to the Contingent Valuation Method, Environmental Management: Issues and Concerns in Developing Countries, ed. Sikdar P.K., Springer, Cham, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-62529-0_14.
• 18. GUPTA, A., BOAS I., OOSTERVEER P., 2020, Transparency in global sustainability governance: to what effect?, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 22(1): 84-97.
• 19. HASEEB M., ZAM M., 2021, Dynamic nexus among tourism, corruption, democracy and environmental degradation: a panel data investigation, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(4):5557-5575.
• 20. JAGER N.W., NEWIG J., CHALLIES E., KOCHSKÄMPER E., 2020, Pathways to implementation: Evidence on how participation in environmental governance impacts on environmental outcomes, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3): 383-399.
• 21. JIANG X., LI G., FU W., 2021, Government environmental governance, structural adjustment and air quality: A quasi-natural experiment based on the three-year action plan to win the blue sky defense war, Journal of Environmental Management, 277:111470.
• 22. KAGAYA S., WADA T., 2021, The application of environmental governance for sustainable watershed-based management, Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 5(2): 643-671.
• 23. KAMAH M., RITI J. S., BIN P., 2021, Inclusive growth and environmental sustainability: the role of institutional quality in sub-Saharan Africa, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13125-z.
• 24. KHAN H., WEILI L., KHAN I., 2021, Environmental innovation, trade openness and quality institutions: an integrated investigation about environmental sustainability, Environment, Development and Sustainability, DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01590-y.
• 25. LAWLESS S., SONG A. M., COHEN P. J., MORRISON T. H., 2020, Rights, equity and justice: a diagnostic for social meta-norm diffusion in environmental governance, Earth System Governance, 6:100052.
• 26. LE H. P., SARKODIE S.A., 2020, Dynamic linkage between renewable and conventional energy use, environmental quality and economic growth: evidence from Emerging Market and Developing Economies, Energy Reports, 6: 965-973.
• 27. LEAL P.H., MARQUES A.C., 2021, The environmental impacts of globalisation and corruption: Evidence from a set of African countries, Environmental Science & Policy, 115: 116-124.
• 28. MAZUR K., TOMASHUK I., 2019, Governance and regulation as an indispensable condition for developing the potential of rural areas, Baltic journal of economic studies, 5(5): 67-78.
• 29. MOUSSA T., KOTB A., HELFAYA A., 2021, An Empirical Investigation of UK Environmental Targets Disclosure: The Role of Environmental Governance and Performance, European Accounting Review, DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2021.1890173
• 30. MURSHED M., RAHMAN M.A., ALAM M.S., AHMAD P., DAGAR V., 2021, The nexus between environmental regulations, economic growth, and environmental sustainability: linking environmental patents to ecological footprint reduction in South Asia, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13381-z.
• 31. NGUYEN B., 2021, Does Local Environmental Governance Improve Tourism Companies’ Performance? Evidence from Vietnam, Journal of Travel Research, DOI: 10.1177/00472875211002653.
• 32. PASGAARD M., VAN HECKEN G., EHAMMER A., STRANGE N., 2017, Unfolding scientific expertise and security in the changing governance of Ecosystem Services, Geoforum, 84: 354-367.
• 33. PEKER E., ATAÖV A., 2021, Governance of Climate Responsive Cities: Scale Matters!, Governance of Climate Responsive Cities. The Urban Book Series, eds. Peker E., Ataöv A., Springer, Cham, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-73399-5_1.
• 34. PICKERING J., BÄCKSTRAND K., SCHLOSBERG D., 2020, Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(1): 1-15.
• 35. QUANDT R.E., 1972, A new approach to estimating switching regressions, Journal of the American statistical association, 67(338): 306-310.
• 36. QURESHI M.I., QAYYUM S., NASSAN A.A., ALDAKHIL A.M., ABRO M.M.Q., ZAMAN K., 2019, Management of various socio-economic factors under the United Nations sustainable development agenda, Resources Policy, 64: 101515.
• 37. RAJESH, R., 2020, Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores, Journal of Cleaner Production, 247: 119600.
• 38. RAJESH, R., RAJENDRAN, C., 2020, Relating environmental, social, and governance scores and sustainability performances of firms: An empirical analysis, Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3):1247-1267.
• 39. RAJMOHAN K.V.S., RAMYA C., VISWANATHAN M.R., VARJANI S., 2019, Plastic pollutants:effective waste management for pollution control and abatement, Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 12: 72-84.
• 40. RAMZAN S., LIU C., MUNIR H., XU Y., 2019, Assessing young consumers’ awareness and participation in sustainable e-waste management practices:a survey study in Northwest China, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(19): 20003-20013.
• 41. REED G., BRUNET N.D., LONGBOAT S., NATCHER D.C., 2021, Indigenous guardians as an emerging approach to indigenous environmental governance, Conservation Biology, 35(1): 179-189.
• 42. SAVAGE J.M., HUDSON M.D., OSBORNE P.E., 2020, The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia, Marine protected areas, Elsevier:343-359.
• 43. SUN H., MOHSIN M., ALHARTHI M., ABBAS Q., 2020, Measuring environmental sustainability performance of South Asia, Journal of Cleaner Production, 251: 119519.
• 44. TACCONI L., WILLIAMS D.A., 2020, Corruption and Anti-Corruption in Environmental and Resource Management, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 45: 305-329.
• 45. TAN Y., GENG Y., 2020, Coupling coordination measurement of environmental governance: case of China, Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(2): 253-272.
• 46. THALER G.M., 2021, Ethnography of environmental governance: Towards an organizational approach, Geoforum, 120: 122-131.
• 47. USMAN O., OLANIPEKUN I.O., IOREMBER P.T., ABU-GOODMAN M., 2020, Modelling environmental degradation in South Africa: the effects of energy consumption, democracy, and globalization using innovation accounting tests, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(8): 8334-8349.
• 48. VAN ASSCHE K., BEUNEN R., GRUEZMACHER M., DUINEVELD M., 2020, Rethinking strategy in environmental governance, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(5): 695-708.
• 49. WANG S., WANG H., WANG J., YANG F., 2020, Does environmental information disclosure contribute to improve firm financial performance? An examination of the underlying mechanism, Science of the Total Environment, 714: 136855.
• 50. WGI 2021, World governance indicators, World Bank, Washington D.C.
• 51. WILLIAMS A., DUPUY K., 2017, Deciding over nature: Corruption and environmental impact assessments, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65: 118-124.
• 52. WORLD BANK 2021, World development indicators, World Bank, Washington D.C.
• 53. ZAMAN K., AZIZ A.R.A., SRIYANTO S., INDRIANTI Y., JAMBARI H., 2021, The role of solar energy demand in the relationship between carbon pricing and environmental degradation: A blessing in disguise, Journal of Public Affairs, e2702.
• 54. ZHANG J., CHANG Y., ZHANG L., LI D., 2018, Do technological innovations promote urban green development? – A spatial econometric analysis of 105 cities in China, Journal of cleaner production, 182: 395-403.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).