Is environmental sustainability influenced by socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors? cross-country empirical evidence

Abstract

The current study attempts to understand the relationships among Environmental Quality (EQ), Human Development (HD) and political and governance regimes in a cross‐country framework through secondary data analysis. The underlying hypothesis is that in addition to income, as reflected from the literature on the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis, several other factors, including socioeconomic (e.g. human development and corruption) and sociopolitical (e.g. ability to exercise democratic rights) factors, may influence environmental policy‐making, and thereby environmental sustainability, in a country. The EQ (i.e. environmental sustainability) of the countries in the current study is denoted by their Environmental Performance Index (2008). Human development is represented by Human Development Index (2007). Democracy Index (2008) and Corruption Perceptions Index (2008) are considered as proxies for political transparency in a country and its susceptibility to rent‐seeking activities, respectively. The cross‐country empirical findings confirm the closer association between the socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors and sustainable development. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Impact of Climatic and Non-climatic Factors on Sustainable Livelihood Security in Gujarat State of India: A Statistical Exploration

“…Numerous studies have estimated the sustainable livelihood security index (SLSI) based on primary and secondary in different economies [4,7,17,[28][29][30]. Existing studies estimate the SLSI at the micro level (i.e., individual/household) using primary data and macro level (i.e., block/district/region/state/country) using secondary data.…”

“…Many indices have been developed by the scientific research community to measure the situation of human livelihood in term of SLSI [4,11] livelihood security index (LSI), household's livelihood security index, livelihood vulnerability index (LVI). Besides, scientific research community has also developed several indexes to assess the sustainable livelihood and environmental security of a region such as living planet index (LPI), ecological footprint (EF), city development index (CDI), human development index (HDI), environmental performance index (EPI), environmental vulnerability index (EVI), environmental sustainability index (ESI), index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW), genuine progress index (GPI), well-being index (WI), genuine savings index (GSI), and environmental adjusted domestic product (EDP) [17,20,[28][29][30][31][32][33]. These indexes integrate various components like socio-economic, demographics, livelihoods, social networks, health, food and water security and natural disaster to estimate SLSI [7].…”

Open Economy, Institutional Quality, and Environmental Performance: A Macroeconomic Approach

“…Private institution requirements enforce economic actors to adjust their operations in order to gain legitimacy, or adapt to the general sector's or society's expectations [12,13]. Other political institutions requirements, such as good governance (or an open political system) seem to be affected by economic actors in having a positive effect on environmental performance [14][15][16]. Another significant institutional factor is democratic establishments that also contribute to better environmental performance [17,18].…”

“…Another significant institutional factor is democratic establishments that also contribute to better environmental performance [17,18]. Mukherjee and Chakrabotry [15] show the positive relation between environmental performance and socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors. Finally, there is an admittedly positive effect of institutional quality [19,20] and an open political system [21] on economic growth.…”

Attitudes toward Environmental Democracy among Urban Communities

“…The goal of promotion of sustainable development is one that calls for co-operation of the government, private individuals, non-governmental organizations, businesses and others sectors of the society (Mukherjee & Chakraborty, 2013). The public involvement achieved through this cooperation helps enhance sustainable development efforts in diverse ways.…”