Composite environmental indices—a case of rickety rankings

Author:

Stevens Shelley M.1,Joy Michael K.2,Abrahamse Wokje1,Milfont Taciano L.3,Petherick Lynda M.1

Affiliation:

1. School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

2. School of Government, Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

3. School of Psychology, Te Whare Wananga o Waikato University of Waikato, Tauranga, New Zealand

Abstract

Composite indices have been widely used to rank the environmental performance of nations. Such environmental indices can be useful in communicating complex information as a single value and have the potential to generate political and media awareness of environmental issues. However, poorly constructed, or poorly communicated indices, can hinder efforts to identify environmental failings, and there are considerable differences in rank among existing environmental indices. Here, we provide a review of the conceptual frameworks and methodological choices used for existing environmental indices to enhance our understanding of their accuracy and applicability. In the present study, we review existing global indices according to their conceptual framework (objectives of the index and set of indicators included) and methodological choices made in their construction (e.g., weighting and aggregation). We examine how differences in conceptual frameworks and methodology may yield a more, or less, optimistic view of a country’s environment. Our results indicate that (1) multidimensional environmental indices with indicators related to human health and welfare or policy are positively correlated; (2) environment-only indices are positively correlated with one another or are not correlated at all; (3) multidimensional indices and environment-only indices are negatively correlated with each other or are not correlated at all. This indicates that the conceptual frameworks and indicators included may influence a country’s rank among different environmental indices. Our results highlight that, when choosing an existing environmental index—or developing a new one—it is important to assess whether the conceptual framework (and associated indicators) and methodological choices are appropriate for the phenomenon being measured and reported on. This is important because the inclusion of confounding indicators in environmental indices may provide a misleading view of the quality of a country’s environment.

Funder

Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington Doctoral Scholarship

Publisher

PeerJ

Subject

General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine,General Neuroscience

Reference97 articles.

1. An environmental degradation index based on stochastic dominance;Agliardi;Empirical Economics,2014

2. Indices of environmental quality. The search for credible measures;Alberti;Environmental Impact Assessment Review,1991

3. CIEP Dataset Almeida, Thiago Alexandre Das Neves;Almeida,2015

4. A Proposal for a Composite Index of Environmental Performance (CIEP) for Countries University of Salamanca]. Salamanca;Almeida,2015

5. Pollution without subsidy? What is the environmental performance index overlooking?;Atici;Ecological Economics,2009

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3