research papers on environmental policy

Environmental Policy and Innovation: A Decade of Research

CESifo Working Paper No. 7544

47 Pages Posted: 18 Mar 2019

Syracuse University - Department of Public Administration; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Date Written: 2019

Encouraging innovation is an important part of environmental policy. A large literature in environmental economics examines the links between environmental policy and innovation. This paper reviews recent literature on green innovation. I highlight major trends in the literature, including an increased number of cross-country studies and a focus on the effect of different policy instruments on innovation. I include a discussion of the justifications and evidence for technology-specific policy incentives and present evidence on the effectiveness of government R&D spending. My review concludes with a discussion of three promising areas for new research on environmental innovation.

Keywords: green innovation, induced innovation, pollution, climate change, renewable energy, energy efficiency, research and development, technology policy

JEL Classification: O310, O380, Q550

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

David C. Popp (Contact Author)

Syracuse university - department of public administration ( email ).

Syracuse, NY United States 315-443-2482 (Phone) 315-443-1075 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/dcpopp/index.html

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, cesifo working paper series.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

IO: Productivity, Innovation & Technology eJournal

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Organizations & Markets: Policies & Processes eJournal

Econometric modeling: corporate finance & governance ejournal, environmental economics ejournal, institutions & transition economics: microeconomic issues ejournal, energy policy & economics ejournal.

• My Favorites

You have successfully logged in but...

... your login credentials do not authorize you to access this content in the selected format. Access to this content in this format requires a current subscription or a prior purchase. Please select the WEB or READ option instead (if available). Or consider purchasing the publication.

OECD Environment Policy Papers

• ISSN: 23097841 (online)
• https://doi.org/10.1787/23097841
• Email this Page Email this Page
• Subscribe to the RSS feed Subscribe to the RSS feed

1 - 20 of 45 results

Climate change and Plastics OECD 01 May 2023

• Click to download PDF - 4.95MB PDF

Agendas on climate change mitigation and plastic pollution have largely developed independently. However, the two issues are closely linked. Most plastics are produced from fossil fuels. Jointly, the production, conversion and waste management of...

Financing a Future Free from Plastic Leakage OECD 01 Jan 2023

• Click to download PDF - 2.51MB PDF

As plastic use becomes more pervasive, the environmental repercussions of plastic pollution are expected to become increasingly unsustainable. The global community is far from achieving its long-term objective of ending plastic pollution unless...

Taming wildfires in the context of climate change: The case of Greece OECD 14 Jun 2024

• Click to download PDF - 3.07MB PDF

The frequency and severity of extreme wildfires are on the rise in Greece, causing unprecedented disruption and increasingly challenging the country’s capacity to contain losses and damages. These challenges are set to keep growing in the context of...

Demand-side policy measures for environmental sustainability OECD 17 May 2024

• Click to download PDF - 4.75MB PDF

The consumption of products, services and transportation has significant environmental consequences and account for the majority of global greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, demand-side policy measures have the potential to reduce the environmental...

Extended Producer Responsibility OECD 17 Apr 2024

• Click to download PDF - 1.00MB PDF

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach that makes producers responsible for their products along the entire lifecycle, including at the post-consumer stage. This policy paper summarises the current consensus on the EPR policy...

Taming wildfires in the context of climate change: The case of the United States OECD 22 Jan 2024

• Click to download PDF - 3.73MB PDF

The frequency and severity of extreme wildfires are on the rise in the United States, causing unprecedented disruption and increasingly challenging the country’s capacity to contain losses and damages. These challenges are set to keep growing in the...

Promoting nature-based solutions in municipalities in Hungary OECD 07 Dec 2023

• Click to download PDF - 4.39MB PDF

Nature-based solutions (NbS) aim to maintain, enhance and restore ecosystems to address a variety of social, economic and environmental challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss. This paper applies the OECD’s framework to provide...

Climate adaptation: Why local governments cannot do it alone OECD 04 Dec 2023

• Click to download PDF - 5.31MB PDF

Given the direct impacts of climate change are felt first and foremost at the local level, many have called for climate adaptation to be a local responsibility. Indeed, local authorities have a major influence on climate change adaptation - such as...

Taming wildfires in the context of climate change: The case of Portugal OECD 20 Sept 2023

• Click to download PDF - 3.42MB PDF

The frequency and severity of extreme wildfires are on the rise in Portugal, causing unprecedented disruption and increasingly challenging the country’s capacity to contain losses and damages. These challenges are set to keep growing in the context...

Assessing biodiversity-related financial risks OECD 27 Apr 2023

• Click to download PDF - 8.39MB PDF

Although measurements of biodiversity-related financial risks are in their infancy, several metrics and indicators are available to assess their impacts and dependencies in the financial system, and approaches are emerging to translate biodiversity...

Adaptation measurement: Assessing municipal climate risks to inform adaptation policy in the Slovak Republic OECD 13 Apr 2023

• Click to download PDF - 5.26MB PDF

Climate change presents a major social, economic and political challenge for the Slovak Republic. The majority of municipal administrations are unaware of the potential climate risks they face today and in the coming years. Identifying risks posed by...

Synergies and trade-offs in the transition to a resource-efficient and circular economy Linda Livingstone, Peter Börkey, Rob Dellink and Frithjof Laubinger 20 Dec 2022

• Click to download PDF - 1.63MB PDF

The world's raw materials consumption is expected to nearly double by 2060. This is particularly alarming because materials extraction, processing, use and waste management lead to significant environmental pressures. A circular economy aims to...

Supporting women’s empowerment through green policies and finance OECD 29 Sept 2022

• Click to download PDF - 1.54MB PDF

It is increasingly recognised that women and girls tend to be disproportionately impacted by climate change and other environmental challenges, especially in developing countries. Yet, little research or policy action has focused on how gender...

Framework for industry’s net-zero transition OECD 08 Sept 2022

• Click to download PDF - 6.49MB PDF

The manufacturing industry is a major source of global carbon dioxide emissions. Industrial production will continue to shift to emerging and developing economies. New investments are needed in low-carbon technologies to align industry’s growth with...

OECD blended finance guidance for clean energy OECD 30 Aug 2022

• Click to download PDF - 4.35MB PDF

Meeting the Paris Agreement goals will need a rapid acceleration of finance towards clean energy investments in emerging and developing economies. Blended finance is an important tool that can help mobilise commercial investment towards clean energy,...

Closing the loop in the Slovak Republic OECD 13 Jul 2022

• Click to download PDF - 14.51MB PDF

The use of materials globally has increased over the past century and it will continue to grow with sustained population and economic growth. Such growth also leads to increased environmental pressures, including climate change. While the Slovak...

Lessons learnt and good practice from APEC-economy fossil-fuel subsidy peer reviews OECD 09 Feb 2022

According to latest data from the OECD and the IEA, government support for the production and use of fossil fuels across 81 major economies totalled USD 351 billion in 2020, amounting to USD 183 billion across 50 OECD, G20, and Eastern Partnership...

De-risking institutional investment in green infrastructure OECD 29 Jun 2021

• Click to download PDF - 1.31MB PDF

This policy paper catalogues tools and techniques used by public actors such as national development banks and green investment banks to mitigate project-level risks and attract private investment in infrastructure. The paper updates the dataset...

Towards a national strategic framework for the circular economy in the Czech Republic OECD 17 Jun 2021

• Click to download PDF - 4.02MB PDF

The past decades have witnessed unprecedented growth in global consumption of raw materials, which also lead to increased environmental pressures. As a response to these challenges, countries across the world have made the transition to a circular...

Biodiversity, natural capital and the economy OECD 21 May 2021

• Click to download PDF - 5.95MB PDF

Nature underpins all economic activities and human well-being. It is the world’s most important asset. Yet humanity is destroying biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, posing significant but often overlooked risks to the economy, the financial...

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 29 August 2024

Policy spillovers from climate actions to energy poverty: international evidence

• Jun Li 1 , 2 ,
• Jiajia Li 3 , 4 ,
• Kun Guo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4787-8406 5 ,
• Qiang Ji 6 , 7 &
• Dayong Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8722-176X 8  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  1106 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Social policy

Policies to address climate change have been implemented worldwide in recent years. The core of these policies is to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which primarily stem from the consumption of fossil fuels. Consequently, the implementation of climate policies can affect other energy-related issues, such as energy poverty, a critical element of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This paper uses cross-country data from 2000 to 2020 to study the possible policy spillovers from climate actions to energy poverty. We show that a spillover effect does exist. In other words, a higher number of climate policies is associated with a lower level of energy poverty. The spillover is realized through improvements in energy efficiency, the promotion of renewable energy, and support for innovations. In addition, legislative policies are found to have stronger spillover effects. While the overall policy effects are positive for executive policies, regulations tend to have negative impacts on energy development. There is also evidence demonstrating heterogeneous effects between long-term and short-term policies, and between developed and developing countries. Discovering this spillover effect gives extra motivation for countries to adopt climate policies and actively seek synergies in achieving broader sustainable goals.

Similar content being viewed by others

How climate policy commitments influence energy systems and the economies of US states

EU climate action through an energy poverty lens

Energy demand reduction options for meeting national zero-emission targets in the United Kingdom

Introduction.

Climate change has become the most serious threat to the sustainability of the human race, as reported in the Global Risks Report 2023 by the World Economic Forum. Footnote 1 Despite the ongoing conflict of interests among nations, a global consensus has been slowly established to actively combat climate change. For example, the Paris Agreement was signed by almost all countries worldwide. From developed to developing nations, climate change-related policies have been introduced at an increasing pace. For instance, over seventy carbon pricing initiatives have been implemented globally, according to the World Bank. Footnote 2 More than 110 countries, including the world largest emitters, such as China and India, have committed to carbon-neutral targets. The number of countries pursuing these targets is on the rise. Various policies, including legislation, regulations, and strategies, have been implemented to support these climate goals (Eskander and Fankhauser, 2020 ).

Two important questions arise following these activities: first, can climate actions bring additional benefits to society, for instance, alleviating energy poverty? Second, if the answer to the first question is positive, which type of climate policies are more likely to bring synergies to resolve energy access problems? Bearing these questions in mind, this research performs a cross-country empirical study using a sample of 75 nations from 2000 to 2020. The first key contribution is to examine whether policy spillover exists from climate actions to energy poverty from an international perspective. Rather than focusing on the impacts of a particular climate policy, the accumulation of policies from various categories is considered. This approach allows us to comment more broadly on the policy spillover effects and to explore differences across policy types. Overall, this work hopes to provide new evidence for policymakers to properly evaluate climate actions. Among different pathways towards a sustainable future, there are potential win-win strategies that should be actively pursued.

Fundamentally, no matter what forms of policies are implemented against climate change, the fundamental issue or objective of these actions is to control GHG emissions (Martin and Saikawa, 2017 ). Given the fact that these emissions are mainly from the use of fossil fuel energy, transitioning towards a sustainable energy system (Solomon and Krishna, 2011 ) or using renewable energy (Staples et al., 2017 ) has become an inevitable option. However, the process of energy transition is fraught with significant challenges (Gillingham and Stock, 2018 ) and is often related to issues of justice and equity (Carley and Konisky, 2020 ; Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi, 2019 ). From this perspective, the impacts of climate change policies are multi-dimensional. Climate actions and policies can affect sustainable development (Swart et al., 2003 ), improve health conditions through better air quality (Nemet et al., 2010 ), influence the financial sector (Stolbova et al., 2018 ), and have spillover effects in many other aspects of the global community.

Referring to energy-related issues, some recent studies point out that the implementation of climate change policies can affect energy poverty (Streimikiene et al., 2020 ), which is central to the UN SDG target 7–affordable and clean energy. While the world seeks climate solutions, we must realize that a significant share of the population is unable to access modern energy or afford it (Zhang et al., 2019b ). IEA ( 2023 ), for example, reports about 760 million people without access to electricity, and ~2.3 billion people unable to use clean cooking fuels. These unfortunate figures lead to an urgent need for the international community to respond (Sovacool et al., 2012 ).

The question is whether and how climate change policies may affect energy poverty. First, by supporting the development of renewable energy, it allows the energy-poor to access electricity (Azad and Chakraborty, 2020 ). In the past decade, renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, has gained significant financial support. Favorable policies, along with advances in technological progress, have made the renewable energy sector more reliable and economically viable (Adefarati and Bansal, 2019 ). Second, climate policies can also alleviate energy poverty by improving energy efficiency (Zhao et al., 2022 ). Green innovation and new technology have changed the way energy is used. Machines are more powerful and less emissive. Third, the development of climate finance provides valuable resources to improve the current energy system (Long et al., 2022 ). In addition, subsidies to renewable energy and green finance can encourage innovation (Yu et al., 2021 ), which can further support reducing energy poverty.

In addition to the positive role of climate change policies in resolving energy poverty issues, they can also bring opposite impacts. Belaïd ( 2022 ), for example, argues that climate policies, if poorly designed, can worsen energy poverty through the price channel. In other words, energy prices can increase due to climate policy changes, leading to affordability problems. Similar arguments can also be found in Berry ( 2019 ) for France, Henry et al. ( 2021 ) for Guatemala, and other country-level studies. Carbon tax or environmental restrictions to cope with climate changes can add costs to fossil fuel energy, leading to consequential problems in energy poverty.

Overall, the impacts of climate change policies on energy poverty are not entirely clear, and conclusions from some recent studies are also inconsistent. For example, Chien et al. ( 2022 ) estimate the effect of green fiscal policy on energy poverty based on panel data for 2010–2020 in 17 countries. They find that green fiscal policy can reduce energy poverty by improving efficiency. Poblete-Cazenave et al. ( 2021 ) evaluate the accessibility of energy services under different climate mitigation policy scenarios in Africa and South Asia. They find that ambitious climate mitigation scenarios cannot fundamentally change access to energy services for households in developing countries.

Arguably, even if policy spillovers exist, not all climate policies can alleviating energy poverty. Authorities should pay attention to their policy mix and incorporate concerns of energy poverty when planning climate actions. Bonatz et al. ( 2019 ) explore a policy framework to simultaneously achieve energy poverty alleviation and carbon emissions reduction in the scenario of China. Streimikiene et al. ( 2020 ) analyze the energy poverty and climate change mitigation issues in EU households based on a systematic literature review. They argue that it is necessary to adopt more targeted climate change policies to alleviate energy poverty. Economidou et al. ( 2022 ) take the European policy designs as an example to show the need for strategic planning of energy and climate policies to achieve a synergetic effect. These studies point to a strand of recent literature explicitly discussing spillovers across different SDGs. Lusseau and Mancini ( 2019 ), for example, provide evidence that SDGs and their sub-categories can be used to form an interactive network, and the network differs across nations. Similar works can also be seen in Wu et al. ( 2022 ) and Cao et al. ( 2023 ), supporting the existence of policy spillovers. They suggest that the synergetic effect is more likely to be achieved with proper policy design.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 explains the construction of main variables based on relevant literature. Section 3 reports descriptive information on the data, and the empirical models used in the paper. Section 4 reports and analyzes the main results based on the empirical models. Section 5 concludes and discusses the policy implications.

Key variables

Measurement of energy poverty.

The concept of energy poverty can be traced back to Lewis ( 1982 ), who suggests that the well-being of people can be affected by insufficient use of energy. Boardman ( 1991 ) follows this logic to introduce the 10% threshold, which is the ratio of energy consumption to household income, as a measure of energy poverty. A household is considered to be in energy poverty if the ratio exceeds 10%, meaning that they cannot afford sufficient energy use, or because of high energy prices, the household must sacrifice other important expenditures to heat their home. In addition to affordable energy use, broader concepts of energy poverty have been developed to incorporate energy access into this framework (Zhang et al., 2019a ). Given that most of the developed world has almost 100% access to modern energy, the second dimension of energy poverty is primarily relevant to developing nations (Zhang et al., 2019b ). However, this broader concept has led to the development of multi-dimensional energy poverty indices (e.g., Sadath and Acharya, 2017 ). These measures are often based on fine micro-level or household-level survey data and thus are limited to a smaller sample of countries.

To construct a national-level measurement of energy poverty, while maintaining the multi-dimensional nature of this issue, Banerjee et al. ( 2021 ) developed the Energy Development Index (EDI). The EDI measure is designed to encompass the following four dimensions: (1) total primary energy use per capita; (2) renewable energy consumption (percentage of total end-used energy consumption); (3) electric power energy consumption per capita; (4) access to electricity (percentage of the population). Among these factors, a higher level of primary energy use per capita is relevant to affordability, while the renewable energy share indicates cleaner energy use. A higher level of electric power consumption reflects both accessibility and affordability elements, whereas the last factor directly captures energy accessibility in a country. In general, less energy poverty in a country is associated with a higher level of EDI. The measurements of these four dimensions ( j ) are scaled first (see Equation ( 1 )), and then averaged to get the index for a country i . E j , i t refers to the four dimensions of each country i in year t , where E I j , i t is the scaled measure ranging from 0 to 100, representing the worst to the best in terms of energy development.

Factors affecting energy poverty

Climate policy has become an important factor related to energy poverty in recent years, attracting more attention. For example, Belaïd ( 2022 ) suggests that poorly designed climate policy can exacerbate energy poverty by raising energy prices. Xing et al. ( 2024 ) present a stock-flow consistent model examining the economics impacts of varies climate policies. Through simulation, climate policies can have significant economic consequences, for instance, improving general social welfare. Climate policies may also lead to higher risks in financial sector, which requires policymakers to pay further attention. Overall, properly designed climate policies, in their model, can generate positive economic impacts and welfare improvements. Tracing back to the economic literature on climate policy, Jakob et al. ( 2020 ) discuss its relationship with economic growth and human well-beings. Their key point is to align environmental stainability with social welfare. Based on these theoretical discussions, climate policies can be designed to resolve energy poverty issues.

Empirically, Churchill et al. ( 2022 ) explore the impacts of climate change on household energy poverty in Australia. Climate risks are found to affect energy poverty in China through technological progress in the renewable energy sector (Lee et al., 2022 ). The development of this sector can have high exposure to climate policy uncertainties (Ma et al., 2023 ). Vandyck et al. ( 2023 ) argue that climate policies such as carbon pricing can exacerbate energy poverty by raising fuel prices, using the EU climate policies to explore the potential impacts on energy poverty.

To measure climate policy, we follow Eskander and Fankhauser ( 2020 ) in using the stock of climate change policies in each country. Two sub-categorical variables are derived according to the issuing authorities: the stock of climate change policies passed by legislative bodies ( C P _ l e g i ) and those passed at executive levels ( C P _ e x e c ). Climate change policies can also be divided into categories based on short- or long-term nature of the policies, namely, the stock of climate change policies passed within the previous 3 years ( C P _ s h o r t ), and those implemented more than 3 years ago ( C P _ l o n g ), respectively. Additionally, Chen et al. ( 2022 ) suggest dividing climate change policies into laws, regulations, and strategic policies according to their nature. Laws are generally similar to legislative-level policies, so we treat them in the same way, while policies passed at executive levels can be divided into regulations ( R e g u l a t i o n ) and strategic policies ( S t r a t e g y ). These different types of policies are also studied in this paper to understand which forms can benefit energy poverty.

Besides climate policies, a wide range of other factors is considered in the existing literature as affecting energy poverty, from economic variables to development issues. These variables will be used as control variables in our empirical model. The choice of these control variables is based on existing studies, such as Chaudhry and Shafiullah ( 2021 ); Chen et al. ( 2022 ); Eskander and Fankhauser ( 2020 ). We limit the choice to (1) the economic development level, or log of per capita GDP ( L g d p ), expected to reduce energy poverty; (2) the level of openness, measured by the share of import and export of goods and services to GDP ( O p e n ), where a country with strong import and export is expected to have lower energy poverty; (3) the industrial structure ( S e r v i c e ), the proportion of the tertiary industry output value, expected to be positively related to EDI; (4) the urbanization level ( U r b a n ), the percentage of the urban population, another positive factor to energy development; (5) the labor force participation rate ( L a b o r ), or the percentage of labor force participation rate for age 15–64; (6) the age dependency ratio ( D e p e n d e n c y ), or the percentage of people younger than 15 or older than 64. The impacts of labor force participation and age dependency ratio are not entirely clear and will be discussed with respect to the empirical results. Finally, energy development or poverty is related to climate change. Thus, the last control variable is climate-relevant and measured by abnormal temperature ( T e m p e r a t u r e ), or the difference between annual average temperatures and the long-term (1980–2015) average value. Footnote 3 .

Model and data

To investigate the aforementioned problems, panel fixed-effect models are utilized to analyze the empirical data Footnote 4 The baseline model is formulated as follows:

Whereas E D I i t refers to the EDI for country i at year t . C P i , t −1 is the measure of climate change policies for country i at year t − 1. X i , t −1 is the vector of control variables, as explained in section 2. These explanatory variables are lagged for one-period in all models similar to (Chen et al., 2022 ). The model controls for country-specific and year-specific fixed effects via θ i and η t , and ε i t is the error term. In addition to the model above, we also consider various types of climate policies as discussed above:

Moreover, following Chen et al. ( 2022 ), the policies passed at the executive level will be further divided into regulations ( R e g u l a t i o n ) and strategic policies ( S t r a t e g y ). These are also examined in the baseline models.

The empirical study utilizes annual data from 2000 to 2020 to analyze relevant issues. The primary data source is the World Development Indicators from the World Bank, which provides rich information about national-level socio-economic status. We first calculate the EDI following the methodology outlined by Banerjee et al. ( 2021 ). The cross-country EDIs are depicted in Fig. 1 , illustrating the distribution of energy development across all sample countries during the period. From this, we observe that the level of EDI has generally been increasing over time, indicating overall improvements in energy poverty at the international level.

Energy development index.

Among all countries in the sample, Iceland has the best level of energy development, or the lowest level of energy poverty, while Norway and Canada took the second and the third places, respectively. However, it is worth noting that many developing countries still experience serious energy poverty in 2020, particularly in regions such as Africa, Southeast and South Asia, Central and South America. As shown in Fig. 2 , developed countries are generally in a better position relative to developing countries.

EDI for developed and developing countries.

Regarding climate change policies, data is collected from the “Climate Change Laws of the World” dataset, which provides information on the national-level climate change laws and policies. The dataset includes detailed information about the titles, contents, release time, and types of policies. It has been used in recent literature and has proven to be a useful collection of climate policies worldwide (e.g., Eskander and Fankhauser, 2020 ). The original data covers 133 countries, but only 75 of them are used in our analysis due to the availability of information on other variables. Note that the dataset includes both mitigation and adaption policies; of the 2670 items of policies, 1994 are mitigation policies. Of these mitigation policies, 37% of them are legislative type, or passed by parliaments, while the remainder are in the form of executive orders.

Figure 3 plots the time trend of the implementation of climate change policies over the sample period, by policy types (panel A) and by the development status of countries (panel B). It shows that climate change policies have increased rapidly during this period, especially after the 2008 global financial crisis, when the world became more focused on sustainable development and climate change. Among all these policies, legislative policies are relatively stable over the entire sample period, whereas executive policies are more common than in the later stage. Developing countries started at a lower level compared to developed countries, but they have started to catch up and become more active in the recent decade.

A By policy types and B by development status.

For the information of other control variables and their descriptive statistics, please refer to Table 1 for more information. The range of EDI values is from 0 to 83.401, indicating a very large gap between countries in terms of energy poverty. The lowest value is recorded in Bangladesh, with all four dimensions of the EDI construction being the lowest among all countries. Iceland leads all countries with the highest EDI of 83.401. In terms of the number of climate policies, the average number of new policies issued every year is 0.647, and the average stock of climate policies is 5.993.

The correlation matrix of the key variables is presented in Fig. 4 , where all the diagonal elements (self-correlation) have been removed. The matrix reveals generally strong correlations among different types of policies. GDP, Urbanization and Labor participation are the top three variables correlated with EDI. For the main climate policy measure (CP), the correlation with EDI is 0.16.

Correlation matrix in heatmap.

Empirical results

Baseline regressions.

In this section, we examine the baseline regressions outlined in Equations ( 3 – 5 ) using the sample data. The primary focus of these models is to test whether climate policies can affect energy poverty (EDI) and to determine which types of policies are more effective. Our goal is to identify the overall impacts, as well as the impacts from sub-categories. The results are reported in Table 2 . All models presented here include both country-fixed effects and year-fixed effects.

In all models, climate policies are positively associated with EDI, indicating clear evidence of policy spillovers from climate actions to energy poverty. In other words, the adoption of climate policies can benefit a country’s energy development. These results are consistent across all sub-categories, though the coefficients show that policies legislated and long-term policy counts have relatively stronger effects compared to those in executive or short-term counts. This difference can be interpreted as an indicator of effectiveness in policy spillovers. Climate policies passed by legislations tend to be enforced more effectively and thus generate a stronger effect on energy development. These climate policies tend to take a longer time to bring extra benefits to EDI.

An interesting finding (Model 5–6) emerges when dividing executive policies into regulations and strategies. The results indicate that regulations tend to reduce EDI scores, whereas strategies increase them. The rationale behind this is straightforward: regulatory climate policies often suppress the use of fossil fuel energy, leading to lower EDI scores. This is consistent with findings such as those in Belaïd ( 2022 ); Vandyck et al. ( 2023 ), which suggest that regulations against climate change can induce energy poverty by raising energy prices and other costs. Conversely, strategic climate policies usually emphasize the development of renewable energy or infrastructure, which benefits the general EDI performance of a country. A recent work by Xing et al. ( 2024 ) shows that policy mix matters in terms of effectiveness. A poorly designed policy may generate unwanted effects, weakening or neutralizing the initial goals (Chen et al., 2024 ). Results here also indicate that policymakers need to take a more general view and carefully choose their policy mix.

To illustrate the effect of climate policies on EDI, we hypothetically assume no climate policy and calculate the counterfactual results based on the above regressions. The average differences across countries over time can be seen in Fig. 5 . The gap between the scenarios ‘without climate policy’ and ‘with climate policy’ widens over time, with the differences being quite significant, around 5% of the average EDI in the sample.

Counterfactual evaluation of the climate policy impacts on EDI.

Regarding the effects of other control variables, their impacts are intuitively consistent with expectations. Better economic development, as measured by per capita GDP, is positively and significantly associated with energy development. In other words, rich (developed) countries have better energy development (Simionescu et al., 2023 ); they tend to consume more energy resources, have better renewable energy development, and have broader access to modern energy forms. Countries with stronger imports and exports are also likely to have stronger energy development. Urbanization, often positively related to economic development and energy infrastructure, is expected to be linked to energy development (Zhao et al., 2022 ). The dependency ratio, which is often higher for developed nations (Muszyńska and Rau, 2012 ), becomes a critical issue for these countries. Although this implies a higher dependency ratio is often related to development and thus positively associated with EDI, it is somewhat surprising to see the negative relationship between labor force participation and energy development. Typically, the literature suggests that energy poverty negatively impacts labor force participation (Bakehe, 2022 ), as poorer access to energy can affect health status and lead to work absences. However, our results show the opposite: a higher labor participation rate is associated with lower EDI performance. This finding is consistent with Chaudhry and Shafiullah ( 2021 ), who also identified similar results. Climate itself, as measured by extreme temperatures, has no significant impact on energy development.

Further investigations

Building on the baseline regression results, we further explore which types of policies may be more effective in the positive spillovers identified earlier. First, we investigate the short-term and long-term effects. Specifically, we differentiate each policy type by the number of short-term policies (policies introduced within 3 years) and long-term policies (policies introduced more than 3 years ago).

Generally, we expect climate policies to take longer to be effective, as indicated in the baseline regressions. The results, reported in Table 3 , align with expectations. For legislative policies, it takes longer to see effectiveness, hence the coefficients for long-term legislative policies are significantly larger than those for short-term ones, where some coefficients of the short-term legislative policies are not significant. A similar pattern is observed for strategic policies, with the coefficients for Strategies_long being almost double those for Strategies_short .

Second, countries have different levels of development and different types of energy poverty. Developing nations, for example, countries in Africa, have much more complicated energy poverty status than wealthy nations. There, even the accessibility to modern energy cannot be easily resolved, and they also have trouble accessing financial resources. On the contrary, developed nations have other major concerns, such as the cost of energy use. In addition, considering that developed countries are the main players in global actions against climate change and tend to have stronger EDI compared to developing nations, it is also interesting to investigate the differences in policy spillovers between developed and developing countries.

The results dealing with sub-samples according to development status are reported in Table 4 . While the results are generally consistent with the baseline regressions in showing that climate policies can generate spillover effects on energy poverty, the implications for developed and developing nations appear to be markedly different. The spillovers of climate policy to energy poverty are significantly stronger for developing countries, which is not entirely surprising given that these countries generally have a smaller number of policies. The marginal effects of introducing more climate policies should, therefore, be larger. This finding provides a stronger incentive for developing countries to actively engage in climate change actions. However, regulations tend to have a more negative impact on the EDI for developed countries, whereas their impact on developing countries is insignificant. To further validate these findings, we also employed an alternative division approach by comparing industrialized countries, specifically the EU/OECD, with other countries. The results, which are similar, are provided in Appendix Table (C5) .

Possible mechanisms

Upon confirming the existence of policy spillovers from climate policies to the alleviation of energy poverty, there is also great interest in understanding how the system operates. To uncover the underlying mechanisms, this section considers three potential factors and performs relevant empirical tests. These variables are the natural resource rents (NRR) as a percentage of GDP, the share of electricity from renewable energy (Renewable), and a measure of innovation in terms of the number of researchers per million of the population (Innovation).

The rationale behind the selection of these variables is as follows: first, climate policies can improve market efficiency and the productivity of the energy sector (Shen et al., 2021 ), thereby facilitating energy transition and enhancing energy development (Huang, 2022 ). Second, climate policies can regulate the use of fossil fuel energy while simultaneously supporting the development of the renewable energy sector, which benefits overall energy development. Third, it is widely accepted that climate policies can promote benefits in the energy sector by supporting innovation (Yu et al., 2021 ). A few cases can be found in some recent studies to support the arguments above, for instance, Mukhtar et al. ( 2023 ) use Sub-Sahara Africa as an example to discuss renewable energy as a possible solution to energy poverty, they suggest that renewable energy development is crucial to achieve the net-zero climate goals, whereas it is a feasible solution to energy poverty. The key problem, though, is the significant cost of investment. Streimikiene et al. ( 2020 ) showcase that the EU climate policies can help energy-poor households by prompting energy efficiency technology and renewable energy use. In China, the 2017 green finance pilot policy is found to alleviate energy poverty, by enhancing efficiency and switching to cleaner energy sources (Xue et al., 2023 ).

Using data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, we empirically test these channels and report the results in Table 5 . A two-step approach is used. Generally, the results align with our expectations and those documented in the literature. As discussed earlier, climate policies can increase NRR, the share of renewable energy, and Innovation, all of which then significantly increase EDI in all specifications. However, it is important to acknowledge that the role of climate policy can be multi-dimensional. In other words, other possible channels exist, especially when investigating different types of policies. For instance, we would expect regulations to suppress the use of fossil fuel energy, leading to negative impacts on EDI, as demonstrated in the earlier analysis.

Robustness check

Although the results found in this paper are significant and consistent across different specifications, it is necessary to check for robustness, particularly considering endogeneity. To address this, we perform a simple exercise using an instrumental variable and the 2-stage least square (2SLS) approach. The instrument used here is the Red List Index , which shows trends in overall extinction risk for species. It ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 representing all species having goen extinct and 1 representing no risk of extinction in the near future. The index, measuring the risks of biodiversity loss, is not directly related to energy poverty but is relevant to climate policies due to the urgent need to integrate these issues into policy designs (Turney et al., 2020 ). Following this logic, a country facing a higher exposure to biodiversity risk is more likely to introduce climate-related policies, thus making the index a valid instrument. We use one minus the index as the actual instrument ( R e d l i s t ), which should be positively related to climate policies. The data is collected from the UN SDG website. Results are reported in Table 6 .

Note that in Table 6 , we also replaced the main dependent variable, EDI, with two single-dimensional energy poverty measures, namely access to clean cooking and access to electricity. Models (1–2) confirm the baseline regression results. Turning to the IV regression results, the 2SLS estimation strongly supports the baseline regressions. The underidentification test, Kleibergen-Paap LM-statistic, is statistically significant, and the Cragg-Donald Wald statistic exceeds the 15% Stock-Yogo critical value, indicating no weak identification problem. The Kleibergen-Paap F-statistic also validates this finding. In other words, the choice of IV is appropriate.

Conclusions and implications

Addressing climate change is presently the most important issue for the international community and will continue to be in the future. Taking action is costly and requires substantial resources, heavily reliant on government support. Consequently, climate policies are essential for making progress. After decades of debate and discussion, the world has gradually reached a consensus, and an increasing number of policies have been implemented. While these policies are positive, their effects need to be evaluated. In addition to direct impacts on climate, these policies can also affect other aspects of society through the complex economic system, leading to important questions about the existence of policy spillovers.

This paper aims to explore this line of research, with a special interest in understanding how climate policy may affect energy poverty. Alleviating energy poverty is a crucial target for many countries and is one of the most important parts of the UN SDGs. Intrinsically, climate change and energy use are closely connected, making policy spillovers more likely to exist. Unfortunately, the impacts are not entirely clear, as climate policies can bring both benefits and difficulties. In this paper, we use cross-country panel data to empirically test the possible impacts of climate policies on energy development and explore the detailed mechanisms behind them.

The results can be summarized as follows: First, there is clear evidence that more climate policies are associated with better energy development (or lower energy poverty). Second, the impacts of climate policies are sensitive to the nature of these climate policies. Policies passed by legislative bodies have stronger positive impacts compared to those passed by executive orders. Additionally, we find that climate regulations tend to reduce EDI, whereas strategic policies work in favor of EDI. Third, policy effects take longer to manifest, as demonstrated by stronger effects for longer-term climate policies. The impacts of climate policy are stronger for developing nations relative to developed countries. Fourth, the policy spillovers are shown to be effective through improving efficiency, increasing renewable energy shares, and supporting innovation. Our results are robust to a series of checks.

Several important policy implications can be drawn from this study. The first and most crucial is that recognizing the positive spillovers provides policymakers with an incentive to be more proactive in addressing climate change. Such policy actions can have positive externalities beneficial to other sustainable development goals (SDGs), such as alleviating energy poverty. Second, not all policies against climate change have the same effect. It takes longer for climate policies to generate larger benefits for energy development. Legislative or more formal policies work more effectively towards improvements in energy development. Short-term regulations tend to temporarily deteriorate energy poverty, as these policies often suppress the use of fossil fuel energy. When alternative energy is not fully ready to replace the gap, it can generate negative impacts on energy poverty. Third, given that policy spillovers work more effectively for developing nations, which are more affected by energy poverty, policymakers in these states should be more active. This also provides an important incentive for the international community to further support climate actions in developing nations. Energy market reforms, energy transition, and stronger support for green innovation should be considered by policymakers to further reinforce the benefits of these policies.

While the current study is valuable in revealing the impacts of climate action on energy poverty, a few limitations exist and deserve future investigation. First, the current empirical framework is based on national-level evidence, thus unable to show the very detailed responses at the micro-level, for example, households. This can, of course, be resolved by using survey data, which has been extensively utilized in single-country studies. Lacking a comprehensive and globally representative micro-level survey, however, makes this almost impossible in the current setup. A possible solution is to select representative countries and perform cross-country comparisons, which allow the topic to be extended further. Second, it is also worth noting that the effectiveness of different policy approaches may be affected by the country-specific status. Clearly, the EU and China have no major concerns about energy access, but there is still a significant share of the population in Africa who remains unable to access modern energy. Therefore, the major issue for Africa is how to finance the significant cost of investment, whereas the EU and China need to provide stronger policy support for technological innovation. Third, panel time series models might be useful to explore dynamic patterns, but the time dimension of our sample is rather small, resulting relatively inaccurate estimations. Anyhow, some additional analyses have been added in the appendix. Other possible extensions to the current framework are to include other SDGs and expand the scope of this research, for instance, Li et al. ( 2024 ).

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2023 .

https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/ .

The choice of these control variables is justified by the relevant literature, which are listed in Table A2 in the appendix.

Panel unit root tests are applied to all variables to check stationarity; the results are reported in Appendix Table B3 and all variables are stationary. To further justify the use of panel fixed-effect models, a series of statistical tests against alternative models are given in the Appendix Table B4, which shows the superiority of fixed-effect model.

Adefarati T, Bansal RC (2019) Reliability, economic and environmental analysis of a microgrid system in the presence of renewable energy resources. Appl Energy 236:1089–1114

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Azad R, Chakraborty S (2020) Green growth and the right to energy in India. Energy Policy 141:111456

Article   Google Scholar  

Bakehe NP (2022) Energy poverty: consequences for respiratory health and labour force participation in cameroon. J Environ Econ Policy 11:235–247

Banerjee R, Mishra V, Maruta AA (2021) Energy poverty, health and education outcomes: evidence from the developing world. Energy Econ 101:105447

Belaïd F (2022) Implications of poorly designed climate policy on energy poverty: global reflections on the current surge in energy prices. Energy Res Soc Sci 92:102790

Berry A (2019) The distributional effects of a carbon tax and its impact on fuel poverty: a microsimulation study in the French context. Energy Policy 124:81–94

Boardman, B. Fuel poverty: from cold homes to affordable warmth. (1991)

Bonatz N, Guo R, Wu W, Liu L (2019) A comparative study of the interlinkages between energy poverty and low carbon development in china and germany by developing an energy poverty index. Energy Build 183:817–831

Cao M, Chen M, Zhang J, Pradhan P, Guo H, Fu B, Li Y, Bai Y, Chang L, Chen Y (2023) Spatio-temporal changes in the causal interactions among sustainable development goals in china. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:1–9

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Carley S, Konisky DM (2020) The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat Energy 5:569–577

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chaudhry SM, Shafiullah M (2021) Does culture affect energy poverty? evidence from a cross-country analysis. Energy Econ 102:105536

Chen P, Wu Y, Meng J, He P, Li D, Coffman D, Liang X, Guan D (2022) The heterogeneous role of energy policies in the energy transition of asia–pacific emerging economies. Nat Energy 7:588–596

Chen Y, Zhang D, Guo K, Ji Q (2024) Emission trading schemes and cross-border mergers and acquisitions. J Environ Econ Manag 124:102949

Chien F, Hsu C-C, Zhang Y, Tran TD, Li L (2022) Assessing the impact of green fiscal policies and energy poverty on energy efficiency. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:4363–4374

Churchill SA, Smyth R, Trinh T-A (2022) Energy poverty, temperature and climate change. Energy Econ 114:106306

Economidou M, Ringel M, Valentova M, Castellazzi L, Zancanella P, Zangheri P, Serrenho T, Paci D, Bertoldi P (2022) Strategic energy and climate policy planning: lessons learned from european energy efficiency policies. Energy Policy 171:113225

Eskander SM, Fankhauser S (2020) Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from national climate legislation. Nat Clim Change 10:750–756

Gillingham K, Stock JH (2018) The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. J Econ Perspect 32:53–72

Henry CL, Baker JS, Shaw BK, Kondash AJ, Leiva B, Castellanos E, Wade CM, Lord B, Van Houtven G, Redmon JH (2021) How will renewable energy development goals affect energy poverty in guatemala? Energy Econ 104:105665

Huang S-Z (2022) The effect of natural resources and economic factors on energy transition: new evidence from china. Resour Policy 76:102620

IEA. Sdg7: data and projections. Technical report, IEA, Paris. (2023)

Jakob M, Lamb WF, Steckel JC, Flachsland C, Edenhofer O (2020) Understanding different perspectives on economic growth and climate policy. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Clim Change 11:e677

Google Scholar  

Lee C-C, Yuan Z, Lee C-C, Chang Y-F (2022) The impact of renewable energy technology innovation on energy poverty: does climate risk matter? Energy Econ 116:106427

Lewis, P. Fuel poverty can be stopped. National Right to fuel campaign, pp 40 (1982)

Li X, An L, Zhang D, Lee C-C, Yu C-H (2024) Energy access and female labor force participation in developing countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 199:114468

Long S, Lucey B, Kumar S, Zhang D, Zhang Z (2022) Climate finance: what we know and what we should know? J Clim Financ 1:100005

Lusseau D, Mancini F (2019) Income-based variation in sustainable development goal interaction networks. Nat Sustain 2:242–247

Ma Y-R, Liu Z, Ma D, Zhai P, Guo K, Zhang D, Ji Q (2023) A news-based climate policy uncertainty index for china. Sci Data 10:881

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Markkanen S, Anger-Kraavi A (2019) Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Clim Policy 19:827–844

Martin G, Saikawa E (2017) Effectiveness of state climate and energy policies in reducing power-sector co2 emissions. Nat Clim Change 7:912–919

Mukhtar M, Adun H, Cai D, Obiora S, Taiwo M, Ni T, Ozsahin DU, Bamisile O (2023) Juxtaposing sub-sahara africa’s energy poverty and renewable energy potential. Sci Rep. 13:11643

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Muszyńska MM, Rau R (2012) The old-age healthy dependency ratio in europe. J Popul Ageing 5:151–162

Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P (2010) Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ Res Lett 5:014007

Poblete-Cazenave M, Pachauri S, Byers E, Mastrucci A, van Ruijven B (2021) Global scenarios of household access to modern energy services under climate mitigation policy. Nat Energy 6:824–833

Sadath AC, Acharya RH (2017) Assessing the extent and intensity of energy poverty using multidimensional energy poverty index: empirical evidence from households in India. Energy Policy 102:540–550

Shen Y, Su Z-W, Malik MY, Umar M, Khan Z, Khan M (2021) Does green investment, financial development and natural resources rent limit carbon emissions? a provincial panel analysis of china. Sci Total Environ 755:142538

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Simionescu M, Radulescu M, Cifuentes-Faura J, Balsalobre-Lorente D (2023) The role of renewable energy policies in tackling energy poverty in the european union. Energy Policy 183:113826

Solomon BD, Krishna K (2011) The coming sustainable energy transition: history, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy 39:7422–7431

Sovacool BK, Cooper C, Bazilian M, Johnson K, Zoppo D, Clarke S, Eidsness J, Crafton M, Velumail T, Raza HA (2012) What moves and works: broadening the consideration of energy poverty. Energy Policy 42:715–719

Staples MD, Malina R, Barrett SR (2017) The limits of bioenergy for mitigating global life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. Nat Energy 2:1–8

Stolbova V, Monasterolo I, Battiston S (2018) A financial macro-network approach to climate policy evaluation. Ecol Econ 149:239–253

Streimikiene D, Lekavičius V, Baležentis T, Kyriakopoulos GL, Abrhám J (2020) Climate change mitigation policies targeting households and addressing energy poverty in european union. Energies 13:3389

Swart R, Robinson J, Cohen S (2003) Climate change and sustainable development: expanding the options. Clim Policy 3:S19–S40

Turney C, Ausseil A-G, Broadhurst L (2020) Urgent need for an integrated policy framework for biodiversity loss and climate change. Nat Ecol Evol 4:996–996

Vandyck T, Della Valle N, Temursho U, Weitzel M (2023) EU climate action through an energy poverty lens. Sci Rep. 13:6040

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wu X, Fu B, Wang S, Song S, Li Y, Xu Z, Wei Y, Liu J (2022) Decoupling of sdgs followed by re-coupling as sustainable development progresses. Nat Sustain 5:452–459

Xing X, Guo K, Zhang D, Ji Q (2024) On the interactive effects of climate policies: insights from a stock-flow consistent model. Appl Energy 358:122664

Xue Y, Hu D, Irfan M, Wu H, Hao Y (2023) Natural resources policy making through finance? The role of green finance on energy resources poverty. Resour Policy 85:104023

Yu C-H, Wu X, Zhang D, Chen S, Zhao J (2021) Demand for green finance: Resolving financing constraints on green innovation in china. Energy Policy 153:112255

Zhang D, Li J, Han P (2019a) A multidimensional measure of energy poverty in China and its impacts on health: an empirical study based on the china family panel studies. Energy Policy 131:72–81

Zhang T, Shi X, Zhang D, Xiao J (2019b) Socio-economic development and electricity access in developing economies: a long-run model averaging approach. Energy Policy 132:223–231

Zhao J, Dong K, Dong X, Shahbaz M (2022) How renewable energy alleviate energy poverty? a global analysis. Renew Energy 186:299–311

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC) Major project Grant No. 23&ZD093.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Finance, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China

Yingyang School of Financial Technology, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou, China

College of Economics, Sichuan Agricultural University, Sichuan, China

Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Halle, Germany

School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Research Institute of Economics and Management, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, China

Dayong Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Jun Li: methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing-original draft. Jiajia Li: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing-original draft. Kun Guo: methodology, investigation, writing-original draft, project administration, funding acquisition. Qiang Ji: validation, writing-review & editing; validation, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. Dayong Zhang: conceptualization, visualization, validation, writing-original draft, writing-review & editing; validation, supervision, project administration.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qiang Ji or Dayong Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Li, J., Li, J., Guo, K. et al. Policy spillovers from climate actions to energy poverty: international evidence. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 1106 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03614-0

Download citation

Received : 16 January 2024

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 29 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03614-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Methodology
• Open access
• Published: 13 June 2019

Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options

• Biljana Macura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4253-1390 1 ,
• Monika Suškevičs 2 ,
• Ruth Garside 3 ,
• Karin Hannes 4 ,
• Rebecca Rees 5 &
• Romina Rodela 6 , 7  

Environmental Evidence volume  8 , Article number:  24 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

23 Citations

26 Altmetric

Metrics details

Qualitative research related to the human dimensions of conservation and environment is growing in quantity. Rigorous syntheses of such studies can help develop understanding and inform decision-making. They can combine findings from studies in varied or similar contexts to address questions relating to, for example, the lived experience of those affected by environmental phenomena or interventions, or to intervention implementation. Researchers in environmental management have adapted methodology for systematic reviews of quantitative research so as to address questions about the magnitude of intervention effects or the impacts of human activities or exposure. However, guidance for the synthesis of qualitative evidence in this field does not yet exist. The objective of this paper is to present a brief overview of different methods for the synthesis of qualitative research and to explore why and how reviewers might select between these. The paper discusses synthesis methods developed in other fields but applicable to environmental management and policy. These methods include thematic synthesis, framework synthesis, realist synthesis, critical interpretive synthesis and meta-ethnography. We briefly describe each of these approaches, give recommendations for the selection between them, and provide a selection of sources for further reading.

Qualitative research related to the human dimensions of conservation and environment is growing in quantity [ 1 , 2 ] and robust syntheses of such research are necessary. Systematic reviews, where researchers use explicit methods for identifying, appraising, analysing and synthesising the findings of studies relevant to a research question, have long been considered a valuable means for informing research, policy and practice across various sectors, from health to international development and conservation [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ].

The methodological development of systematic reviews took off in the 1980s, initially with a strong focus on the synthesis of quantitative data. The exploration of specific methods for qualitative synthesis started to grow a decade or so later [ 8 , 9 ]. Examples addressed questions related to the lived experience of those affected by, and the contextual nuances of, given interventions. The methodology for the synthesis of quantitative research appears to have been adapted for environmental management for the first time in 2006 and has been developing since [ 10 , 11 ]. However, guidance in the field for those producing or interested in working with qualitative evidence synthesis still does not exist.

To date, the vast majority of systematic reviews in environmental management are syntheses of quantitative research evidence that evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention or the impact of an activity or exposure [ 12 ]—here called systematic reviews of quantitative evidence. These typically aggregate relatively homogenous outcome measures from similar interventions or exposures to create a more precise and accurate summary estimate of an overall effect [ 13 , 14 ].

Current debates about systematic reviews of quantitative evidence in other fields point out that such reviews, while they address essential questions about the magnitude of effects or impacts, cannot help us answer other policy- and practice-relevant issues [ 15 , 16 ]. In addition, the complexity within studies on impacts of environmental actions or exposures, and in studies of environmental management initiatives, will mean that a simple aggregation of study findings will only mask important differences and enable us to predict very little about what might happen to whom (human or otherwise) in any set of given circumstances. Here we argue that qualitative evidence syntheses can add value to environmental research and decision-making. Systematic reviews that make use of qualitative research can provide a rigorous evidence base for a deeper understanding of the context of environmental management. They can give useful input to policy and practice on (1) intervention feasibility and appropriateness (e.g., how a management strategy might best be implemented? What are people’s beliefs and attitudes towards a conservation intervention? ); (2) intervention adoption or acceptability (e.g., what is the extent of adoption of a conservation intervention?; What are facilitators and barriers to its acceptability? ); (3) subjective experience (e.g., what are the priorities and challenges for local communities? ); and (4) heterogeneity in outcomes (e.g., what values do people attach to different outcomes? For whom and why did an intervention not work? ) [ 8 , 15 , 17 , 18 ].

In common with individual studies of quantitative research, individual qualitative studies may be subject to limitations, in terms of their breadth of inquiry, conceptual reach and/or methodology or conduct. Projects that systematically find, describe, appraise and synthesise qualitative evidence can provide findings that are more broadly applicable to new contexts [ 19 ] or explanations that are more complete [ 20 ]. Such qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) may stand alone, be directly related to a systematic review of quantitative evidence on a related question(s) or may be part of mixed methods multi-component reviews that aim to bring two distinct syntheses of evidence together.

In spite of its value, there is a limited discussion on the synthesis of qualitative research evidence in the environmental field and tailored methodological guidance could usefully address how to:

conduct syntheses of evidence so as to go beyond questions of effectiveness or impact;

use synthesis to identify explanations for and produce higher levels of interpretation of the phenomena under study;

include rich descriptive and often heterogeneous evidence from different research domains; and

combine and link qualitative and quantitative evidence.

The objective of this paper is to present a brief overview of different methodological options for the synthesis of qualitative research developed in other fields (such as health, education and social sciences) and applicable to environmental management practice and policy. A selection of sources for further reading, including those that expand on how to identify, describe and appraise evidence for QES is also included. Before describing the different synthesis options, we briefly explore the nature of environmental problems and management to explain the context for QES in this field.

The context of environmental policy, management, and research

Environmental and conservation problems are wicked, highly complex, and embedded in ecological as well as social systems [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. The complexity stems from several sources: (1) a high level of uncertainty; (2) large temporal and spatial scale; (3) cross-sectoral and multi-level spanning; and (4) the irreversibility of potential damages [ 25 , 26 ]. The loss of global biodiversity or changes in the global climate system [ 27 , 28 ] can illustrate this complexity: our knowledge about these systems is imperfect, a multiplicity of actors is associated with them (see, e.g., [ 22 , 25 ]); their impacts span from local to global levels and the damages potentially cannot be repaired [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. On top of this, interventions to address these challenges are themselves often complex, in that they are made up of many interacting components and are introduced into and rely upon social systems for their implementation [ 32 ].

Instead, the dynamic nature and complexity of environmental problems, and their possible solutions call for the use and integration of scientific knowledge from several and different disciplinary domains. This need is reflected already in the interdisciplinary nature of environmental research that occurs at the level of theory, methods and/or data [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Environmental research is frequently based on observational studies [ 37 ]. Studies are commonly developed around a well-defined theoretical and a geographical boundary, with the aim to develop a comprehensive understanding of the chosen phenomena. However, this means that such research produces highly heterogeneous evidence scattered across different contexts [ 38 ].

These issues related to the type and nature of environmental evidence imply that systematic review methods need to include a plurality of different approaches [ 39 ]. Adding qualitative and mixed methods evidence synthesis to the systematic review toolbox may be vital in cases where context is very important, complexity and heterogeneity is the norm, and where a more in-depth understanding of the views and experiences of various actors can help to explain how, why and for whom an intervention does or does not work [ 18 ]. These methods can further aid in the understanding of success and failure of environmental interventions through the analysis of implementation factors. Furthermore, they can also help in describing the range and nature of impacts, and in understanding unintended or unanticipated impacts [ 40 ].

What is qualitative evidence synthesis (QES)?

Qualitative evidence synthesis refers to a set of methodological approaches for systematically identifying, screening, quality appraisal and synthesis of primary qualitative research evidence. Various labelling terms have been used (see Box 1 ).

It should be noted here that QES is distinct from two other categories of reviews that have been labelled as ‘qualitative’. The first category contains narrative summaries of findings from studies with quantitative data. Here, the original intention was to use quantitative synthesis methods (e.g., meta-analysis) but that was not possible due to, for example, the heterogeneity between studies. Review authors in the second category have the intention to use a narrative approach to synthesis of quantitative data right from the start. Neither of these two review categories is discussed further here.

Box 1 Definitions and labels

Qualitative research refers to a wide range of different kinds of research studies that tend to collect and analyse qualitative data, to organise and interpret the results and produce findings that are largely narrative in form (see also [ 41 ]).

Qualitative data typically refers to textual data (although other types of data, such as visual data, can be produced during the research process). Data are obtained through recording of, for example, e.g., individual or group interviews, or observations of behaviours.

Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is an umbrella term that encompasses a set of various methodological approaches for systematically identifying, screening, quality appraising and synthesising primary qualitative research evidence.

Other generic terms used for qualitative evidence synthesis:

Systematic review of qualitative research

Qualitative systematic reviews

Meta-synthesis

Qualitative research synthesis

An overview of QES approaches

In common with methods for systematic reviews of quantitative evidence, there are a number of stages of the systematic review process which are followed in most QES approaches, including (1) question formulation, (2) searching for literature, (3) eligibility screening, (4) quality appraisal, (5) synthesis and (6) reporting of findings. However, the methods used within each of these stages varies, depending on the specific review approach adopted with its epistemology and relation to theory.

QES approaches lie on an epistemological continuum between idealist and realist positions and can be positioned anywhere between the two extremes ([ 16 , 42 , 43 ], see Fig.  1 ). Idealist approaches to synthesis operate under the assumption that there is no single ‘correct’ answer, but the focus is in understanding variation in different conceptualisations [ 43 ]. They are less bound by pre-defined procedures and have open review questions allowing for constantly emerging concepts and theories [ 44 ]. In these iterative approaches, any stage of the review process may be revisited as the ideas develop through interaction with the evidence base. The iterations are recorded, described and justified in the write-up. These approaches may aim to create a model or theory that increases our understanding of what might hinder or facilitate the uptake of a policy or a program, or how a phenomenon operates and is experienced. Approaches on the realist side of the continuum assume that there is a single independent and knowable reality, and review findings are understood as an objective interpretation of this reality [ 43 , 45 ]. The review questions are closed and fixed, and the reviews follow strict formal linear methodological procedures. These approaches usually aim to test existing theories ([ 43 ], see Fig.  1 ).

(Source: Gough et al. [ 43 ])

Dimensions of difference in review approaches

QES approaches may also vary in the way they address and understand the importance of the context and so, they can be multi-context or context-specific. Multi-context reviews aim at an exhaustive sampling of literature to include diverse contexts, e.g., different geographical, socio‐cultural, political, historical, economic, ecological settings. Such reviews are currently common in systematic reviews of quantitative evidence. Context-specific QES use selective sampling and focuses on only one context to provide specific understanding to a targeted audience and develop theories that are specific to the local setting (see [ 46 ]).

In the following sub-sections, we give an overview of five commonly used qualitative synthesis methods: thematic synthesis, framework synthesis, realist synthesis, critical interpretative synthesis and meta-ethnography [ 47 , 48 ]. Table  1 shows the main purpose of the method, a type of the review question and a type of evidence commonly used in the synthesis stage (qualitative or mixed) and key readings. Anyone wanting to undertake a review should keep in mind that each method might imply a specific approach to review stages (from literature search to critical appraisal) and the key readings listed in Table  1 should be checked for specific advice.

• Framework synthesis

Framework synthesis uses a deductive approach and it has been used for the syntheses of qualitative data alone (e.g., [ 49 ]), as well as by those undertaking mixed methods syntheses [ 50 , 51 ]. Framework synthesis has been grouped along with other approaches that are less suitable for developing explanatory theory through interpretation or making use of rich reports in study findings. The approach can be seen as one means of exploring existing theories [ 42 ]. Framework synthesis begins with an explicit conceptual framework. Reviewers start their synthesis by using the theoretical and empirical background literature to shape their understanding of the issue under study. The initial framework that results might take the form of a table of themes and sub-themes and/or a diagram showing relationships between themes. Coding is initially based on this framework. This framework is then developed further during the synthesis as new data from study findings are incorporated and themes are modified, or further themes are derived. The findings of a framework synthesis usually consist of a final, revised framework, illustrated by a narrative description that refers to the included studies. The initial conceptual framework in framework synthesis is seen as providing a “scaffold against which findings from the different components of an assessment may be brought together and organise” ([ 52 ]:29). The approach builds upon framework analysis, which is a method of analysing primary research data that has often been applied to address policy concerns [ 53 ].

Six stages of framework synthesis are generally identified: familiarisation, framework selection, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation. In the familiarisation stage reviewers aim to become acquainted with current issues and ideas about the topic under study. The involvement of subject experts in the team can be particularly helpful at this stage. The next stage, framework selection, sees reviewers finalising their initial conceptual framework. Here some argue for the value of quickly selecting a ‘good enough’ existing framework [ 52 ], rather than developing one from a variety of sources. An indexing stage then sees reviewers characterising each included study according to the a priori framework. In the charting stage reviewers analyse the main characteristics of each research paper, by grouping characteristics into categories related to the framework and deriving themes directly from those data. During the mapping stage of a framework synthesis, derived themes are considered in the light of the original research questions and the reviewer draws up a presentation of the review’s findings. The interpretation stage, as with much research, is the point at which the findings are considered in relation to the wider research literature and the context in which the review was originally undertaken.

Framework synthesis is relatively structured and therefore able to accommodate quite large amounts of data. Like thematic synthesis (see below), researchers using this method often seek to provide review output that is directly applicable to policy and practice. This method can be suitable for understanding feasibility and acceptance of conservation interventions. A variation of the method, the ‘best-fit synthesis’ approach, might help if funder timescales are extremely tight [ 54 ]. A review by Belluco and colleagues [ 55 ] of the potential benefits and challenges from nanotechnology in the meat food chain is a recent example of framework synthesis. Here reviewers coded studies to describe the area of the meat supply chain, using a pre-specified framework. Belluco’s team interrogated their set of 79 studies to derive common themes as well as gaps—areas of the framework where studies appeared not to have been conducted.

• Thematic synthesis

Thematic synthesis draws on methods of thematic analysis for primary qualitative research and is a common approach to qualitative evidence synthesis in health and other disciplines [ 56 ]. Examples in the literature range from more descriptive to more interpretative approaches. Findings from the included studies are either extracted and then coded or, increasingly, full-texts of the eligible studies are uploaded into appropriate software (e.g., NVIVO or EPPI-reviewer) and coded there. These codes are used to identify patterns and themes in the data. Often these codes are descriptive but can then be built up into more conceptual or theory-driven codes. Initial line-by-line descriptive coding groups together ideas from pieces of text within and across the included papers. Similarities and differences are then grouped together into hierarchical codes. These are then revisited, and new codes developed to capture the meaning of groups of the initial codes. A narrative summary of the findings, describing these themes is then written. Finally, these findings can be interpreted to explore the implications of these findings for the context of a specific policy or practice question that has framed the review. The method is therefore suitable for addressing questions related to effectiveness, need, appropriateness and acceptability of an intervention [ 16 ] and usually from the point of view of the targeted groups (e.g., local communities, conservation managers, etc.). Similar to systematic reviews of quantitative research, this method attempts to retain the explicit and transparent link between review conclusions and the included primary studies [ 56 ]. There are only a few examples of reviews in the environmental management field that have explicitly applied thematic synthesis. For instance, Schirmer and colleagues [ 57 ] use “thematic coding” [ 56 ] (within the approach they call qualitative meta-synthesis) to analyse the role of Australia’s natural resource management programs in farmers’ wellbeing. Haddaway and colleagues [ 58 ] use thematic synthesis to define the term “ecotechnology”.

• Meta-ethnography

This method was developed by Noblit and Hare [ 59 ] and originally applied to the field of education. The method was further improved in the early 2000s by Britten and colleagues [ 60 ] who applied it to health services research and has since been used for increasing numbers of evidence synthesis, particularly in health research and other topic areas.

Meta-ethnography is an explicitly interpretative approach to synthesis and aims to create new understandings and theories from a body of work. It uses authors’ interpretations (sometimes called second-order constructs, where the quotes from study participants are first-order constructs) and looks for similarities and differences at this conceptual level. It uses the idea of “translation” between constructs in the included studies. This involves juxtaposing ideas from studies and examining them in relation to each other, in order to identify where they are describing similar or different ideas.

This method includes seven stages: (1) identification of the intellectual interest that the review might inform; (2) deciding what is relevant to the initial interest; (3) reading the studies and noting the concepts and themes; (4) determining how the studies are related; (5) translating studies into one another; (6) synthesising translations; and (7) communicating review findings [ 59 ]. There are three main types of synthesis (stages 5 and 6): reciprocal translation, refutational translation, and line of argument. Different findings within a single meta-ethnography may contain examples of one or all of these approaches depending on the nature of the findings within the included studies. Reciprocal translation is used where concepts from different studies are judged to be about similar ideas, and so can be “translated into each other”. Refutational translation refers to discordant findings, where differences cannot be explained by differences in participants or within a theoretical construct. A line of argument can be constructed to identify how translated concepts are related to each other and can be joined together to create a more descriptive understanding of the findings as a whole. This method is therefore very well suited to produce new interpretations, theories or conceptual models [ 61 , 62 ]. In the conservation, this method could be used to understand how, for example, local communities experience conservation interventions and how this influences their acceptance of conservation interventions. Head and colleagues [ 63 ] used meta-ethnography to understand dimensions of household-level everyday life that have implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Critical interpretive synthesis

The critical interpretive synthesis approach was originally developed by Dixon-Woods and colleagues [ 64 ]. Review authors using this approach [ 64 ] are interested in theory generation while being able to integrate findings from a range of study types, and empirical and theoretical papers. Further, this method can integrate a variety of different types of evidence from quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. We included critical interpretative synthesis in our paper because this method is often used for synthesis of qualitative evidence.

In the overall synthesis a coherent framework is usually presented, showcasing a complex network of interrelating theoretical constructs and the relationships between them. The framework partly builds on existing constructs as reported in the different studies and introduces newly derived, synthetic constructs generated through the synthesis procedure itself. Reported themes are then gradually mapped against each other to create an overall understanding of the phenomenon of interest. This is similar to developing a line of argument in a meta-ethnography (see above). Critical interpretive synthesis distinguishes itself from other approaches such as formal grounded theory [ 65 , 66 ] and meta-ethnography by adopting a critical stance towards findings reported in the primary studies, the assumptions involved, and the recommendations proposed. Rather than taking the findings for granted, review authors involved in critical interpretive synthesis “critically question the entire construction of the story the primary-level authors told in their research reports” [ 17 ]. They would potentially critique recommendations based on, e.g., ethical or moral arguments, such as the desirability of a particular rollout of an intervention. This method is therefore very well suited for understanding of what may have influenced proposed solutions to a problem [ 64 ] and to examine the constructions of concepts [ 67 ]. In the environmental field, this method could, for example, be applied to understand how different narratives influence environmental practice and policy or to critically assess new forms of conservation governance and management. Explicit examples of critical interpretive synthesis review projects applied to the broad area of environmental sciences are currently non-existent to our knowledge. However, there are a few related examples from health studies, such as review on environmentally responsible nursing [ 68 ]. In that review, authors justify the use of critical interpretative synthesis mainly by the ability of this method to synthesise diverse types of primary studies in terms of their topic and methodology.

• Realist synthesis

Realist synthesis is a theory-driven approach to combining evidence from various study types. Originally developed in 2005 by Ray Pawson and colleagues [ 69 ], it is aimed at unpacking the mechanisms for how particular interventions work, for whom and in which particular context and setting. It is included here because it is increasingly used for synthesising qualitative data, although data can be both qualitative and quantitative.

Realist synthesis has been developed to evaluate the integrity of theories (does a program work as predicted) and theory adjudication (which intervention fits best). In addition, it allows for a comparison of interventions across settings or target groups or explains how the policy intent of a particular intervention translates into practice [ 69 ].

The realist synthesis approach is highly iterative, so it is difficult to identify a distinct synthesis stage as such. The synthesis process usually starts by identifying theories that underpin specific interventions of interest. The theoretical assumptions about how an intervention is supposed to work and what impact it is supposed to generate are made explicit from the start. Depending on the exact purpose of the review, various types of evidence related to the interventions under evaluation (potentially both quantitative and qualitative) are then consulted and appraised for quality. In evaluating what works for whom in which circumstances, contradictory evidence is used to generate insights about the influence of context and so to link various configurations of context, mechanism and outcome. Conclusions are usually presented as a series of contextualised decision points. An example of a realist synthesis in the environmental context is the one from McLain, Lawry and Ojanen [ 70 ] in which the evidence of 31 articles examine the environmental outcomes of marine protected areas governed under different types of property regimes. The use of a realist synthesis approach allowed the review authors to gain a deeper understanding of the ways in which mechanisms such as perceptions of legitimacy, perceptions of the likelihood of benefits, and perceptions of enforcement capacity interact under different socio-ecological contexts to trigger behavioural changes that affect environmental conditions. Another example from the environmental domain is the review by Nilsson and colleagues [ 71 ] who applied a realist synthesis to 17 community-based conservation programs in developing countries that measured behavioural changes linked to conservation outcomes. The RAMESES I project ( http://www.ramesesproject.org ) offers methodological guidance, publication standards and training resources for realist synthesis.

Choosing the appropriate QES method

Here we explain the criteria for the selection of different QES methods presented in this paper.

There are several aspects to be considered when choosing the right evidence synthesis approach [ 42 , 67 , 72 ]. These include the type of a review question, epistemology, purpose of the review, type of data, and available expertise including the background of the research team and resource requirements. Here, we briefly discuss the more pragmatic aspects to be considered. For a detailed discussion of other criteria we refer the reader to the work of Hannes and Lockwood [ 67 ], and Booth and colleagues [ 42 , 72 ].

Particularities of the evidence

As noted above, environmental problems are complex and involve a high degree of uncertainty. Environmental research is often inter- and transdisciplinary and involves, for example, the use of contested and/or diverse concepts and terms, as well as heterogeneous datasets. Thus, it is very important to understand if the QES method is fit-for-purpose and if it will result in the expected and desired synthesis outcomes. More complex and contextual outcomes are expected from the idealist methods (such as critical interpretative synthesis or meta-ethnography) (Fig.  1 and Table  1 ), which offer insights to policy or practice only after further interpretation. In contrast, more concrete and definitive outcomes can be expected from more realist methods (such as thematic synthesis) [ 67 ]. The type of evidence to be synthesised (e.g., qualitative or mixed, see Table  1 ) is yet another aspect needing consideration when choosing the synthesis method.

Background of the researchers and the review team

Researchers should consider their methodological backgrounds and epistemological viewpoints, to make sure they have appropriate expertise as well as experience in the review team when choosing the method. Some more complex methods (such as realist synthesis) may require specific skills (e.g., a familiarity with the realist perspective), and larger teams of researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds. Such methods may also require that the researchers are more familiar with the content of the research they review. Other methods (such as thematic or framework synthesis) can be done in a smaller team of researchers who do not necessarily have deeper subject expertise.

Resource requirements

Requirements for review funding will obviously depend on the resource requirements, i.e. a number of researchers to be involved, the time needed to conduct a review, costs associated with access to a specific data analysis or review management software, and access to literature. Some methods may be more resource demanding. Multi-component mixed method reviews, for example, requires expertise in both qualitative and quantitative synthesis methods, as well as the allocation of time for producing more than one parallel and/or consecutive syntheses. Other methods, such as framework synthesis, are maybe less resource-consuming (needing comparatively fewer people over less time) as long as initial frameworks have already been developed and are uncontentious. The issue of time spent on a review also depends on the breadth of the research question and the extent of the literature.

Challenges and points of contestation

Whilst QES can be valuable for environmental practice and policy, readers should be aware of several well-known challenges that might also appear problematic when QES approaches are used for the synthesis of environmental qualitative research. Here we summarise some of the most important ones including conceptual and methodological heterogeneity in primary research studies, issues with quality appraisal and transparency in reporting.

Qualitative evidence is likely to be situated in different disciplines, theoretical assumptions, and general philosophical orientations [ 73 ]. For aggregative less interpretative methods (such as framework synthesis), this poses a challenge in terms of comparability during the synthesis stage of the review process. In case of more interpretive approaches (e.g., meta-ethnography), such diversity is often seen as an asset rather than a problem as the translation of one study to another [ 74 ] allows for a comparison of studies with different theoretical backgrounds.

As with systematic reviews of quantitative evidence, critical appraisal of study validity is perhaps one of the most contested stages of the QES review process [ 75 ]. Quality appraisal (and the extent to which it matters) likely depends on the methodological approach. For example, framework and thematic syntheses assess the reliability and methodological rigour of individual study findings and may exclude methodologically flawed studies from the synthesis. Meta-ethnography or critical interpretative synthesis assess included studies in terms of content and utility of their findings, level to which they inform theory and include all studies in the synthesis [ 16 ].

Finally, reviews can be often criticised for lack of transparency and unclear or incomplete reporting. However, to ensure that all the important decisions related to the review conduct are reported at the sufficient level of detail, there are reporting standards applicable for QES such as ENTREQ [ 76 ] and ROSES [ 77 ]. Additionally, RAMESES are reporting standards developed specifically for realist syntheses [ 78 ] and the EMERGE project developed reporting standards for meta-ethnographies ([ 79 ], http://emergeproject.org ). These standards aim to increase transparency and hopefully drive up the quality of the review conduct [ 80 ].

Additional methodological options: Linking quantitative and qualitative evidence together

In the following paragraphs, we briefly present an additional methodological option that could be, for example, useful for the synthesis of complex conservation interventions and is suited to address some of the above challenges (such as methodological heterogeneity).

Namely, in some cases, synthesis of only one type of study findings (either qualitative or quantitative) might not be sufficient to understand multi-layered or complex interventions or programs typical for the environmental sector. The mixed methods review approach has been developed to link qualitative, mixed and quantitative study findings in a way to enhance the breadth and depth of understanding phenomena, problems and/or study topics [ 81 , 82 ]. Mixed methods reviews is a systematic review in which quantitative, qualitative and primary studies are synthesized using both quantitative and qualitative methods [ 81 ]. The data included in such a review are the findings or results extracted from either quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods primary studies. These findings are then integrated using a mixed method analytical approach [ 17 ].

This approach allows us to study how different (intervention) components are related and how they interact with each other [ 83 ]. Apart from studying the effectiveness of interventions, these reviews include qualitative evidence on the contextual influence, applicability and barriers to implementation for these interventions. For example, topics covered by reviews that link qualitative and quantitative data are the impact of urban design, land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity [ 84 ]; the socio-economic effects of agricultural certification schemes [ 85 ]; the impact of outdoor spaces on wellbeing for people with dementia [ 86 ]. Qualitative and quantitative bodies of evidence can point to different facets of the same phenomena and enrich understanding of it. In a review on protected area impacts on human wellbeing [ 87 ], it is revealed that qualitative findings were not studied quantitatively and only once combined in a synthesis these two evidence bases could provide a complete picture of the protected area impact.

Conclusions

Synthesis of qualitative research is crucial for addressing wicked environmental problems and for producing reliable support for decisions in both policy and practice. We have provided an overview of methodological approaches for the synthesis of qualitative research, each characterised by different ways of problematising the literature and level of interpretation. We have also explained what needs to be considered when choosing among these methods.

Environmental and conservation social science has witnessed an accumulation of primary research during the past decades. However, social scientists argue that there is a little integration of qualitative evidence into conservation policy and practice [ 33 ], and this suggests that there is a ‘synthesis gap’ (sensu [ 88 ]). This paper, with an overview of different methodological tools, provides the first guidance for environmental researchers to conduct synthesis of qualitative evidence so that they can start bridging the synthesis gap between environmental social science, policy and practice. Furthermore, introduced examples may inspire reviewers to adapt existing methods to their specific subject and, where necessary, help develop new methods that are a better fit for the field of environmental evidence. This is especially important as currently used methods in synthesis of environmental evidence fall short on utilising the potential of qualitative research that translates into lack of a deeper contextual understanding around implementation and effectiveness of environmental management interventions, and disregard the diversity of perspectives and voices (e.g., indigenous peoples, farmers, park managers) fundamental for tackling wicked environmental issues.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Janssen MA, Schoon ML, Ke W, Börner K. Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Glob Environ Change. 2006;16(3):240–52.

Article   Google Scholar  

Xu L, Kajikawa Y. An integrated framework for resilience research: a systematic review based on citation network analysis. Sustain Sci. 2018;13:235–54.

Haddaway NR, Pullin AS. The policy role of systematic reviews: past, present and future. Springer Science Rev. 2014;14:179–83.

Pullin AS, Knight TM. Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Cons. 2009;142:931–4.

Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JAC. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(oct18_2):d5928.

The Steering Group of the Campbell Collaboration: Campbell collaboration systematic reviews: policies and guidelines. Campbell systematic reviews, (supplement 1), p. 46; 2015.

Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hannes K, Booth A, Harris J, Noyes J. Celebrating methodological challenges and changes: reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2(1):84–84.

Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):6–20.

Pullin AS, Stewart GB. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 2006;20:1647–56.

Roberts PD, Stewart GB, Pullin AS. Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol Conserv. 2006;132:409–23.

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 5.0; Eds. Pullin AS, Frampton GK, Livoreil B, Petrokofsky G. 2018. Available from: http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors . Accessed 1 Oct 2018.

Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012.

Google Scholar  

Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Leeman J, Crandell JL. Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. J Mixed Methods Res. 2012;6(4):317–31.

Dalton J, Booth A, Noyes J, Sowden AJ. Potential value of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in informing user-centered health and social care: findings from a descriptive overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:37–46.

Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.

Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Onghena P. Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews, vol. 4. London: Sage; 2017.

Adams WM, Sandbrook C. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx. 2013;47:329–33.

Sandelowski M. Reading, writing and systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64(1):104–10.

Paterson BL, Dubouloz C-J, Chevrier J, Ashe B, King J, Moldoveanu M. Conducting qualitative metasynthesis research: insights from a metasynthesis project. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:22–33.

Game ET, Meijaard E, Sheil D, McDonald-Madden E. Conservation in a wicked complex world: challenges and solutions. Conserv Lett. 2014;7(3):271–7.

Dewulf A, Craps M, Bouwen R, Taillieu T, Pahl-Wostl C. Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Sci Technol. 2005;52(6):115–24.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

DeFries R, Nagendra H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science. 2017;356(April):265–70.

Dick M, Rous AM, Nguyen VM, Cooke SJ. Necessary but challenging: multiple disciplinary approaches to solving conservation problems. Facets. 2017;1(1):67–82.

Brugnach M, Ingram H. Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environ Sci Policy. 2012;15:60–71.

Van Den Hove S. Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study. Ecol Econ. 2000;33:457–72.

Schneider SH. Abrupt non-linear climate change, irreversibility and surprise. Glob Environ Change. 2004;14:245–58.

Steffen W, Grinevald J, Crutzen P, McNeill J. The anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 1938;2011(369):842–67.

Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc. 2006;11:2.

Glaser M, Glaeser B. Towards a framework for cross-scale and multi-level analysis of coastal and marine social-ecological systems dynamics. Reg Environ Change. 2014;14:2039–52.

Wyborn C, Bixler RP. Collaboration and nested environmental governance: scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. J Environ Manage. 2013;123:58–67.

Kirschke S, Newig J. Addressing complexity in environmental management and governance. Sustain Sci. 2017;9:983.

Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Cons. 2017;205:93–108.

Hicks C. Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environ Conserv. 2010;37(4):464–77.

Mace GM. Whose conservation? Science. 2014;345:1558–60.

Rust NA, Abrams A, Challender DWS, Chapron G, Ghoddousi A, Glikman JA, Gowan CH, Hughes C, Rastogi A, Said A, et al. Quantity does not always mean quality: the importance of qualitative social science in conservation research. Soc Nat Resour. 2017;30(10):1304–10.

Schweizer VJ, Kriegler E. Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7(4):44011–44011.

Cook CN, Possingham HP, Fuller RA. Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions. Conserv Biol. 2013;27(5):902–15.

Pluye P, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I. Opening-up the definition of systematic literature review: the plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:2–5.

Petticrew M. Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ‘what works’ to ‘what happens’. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–6.

Jackson RL, Drummond DK, Camara S. What is qualitative research? Qual Res Rep Commun. 2007;8(1):21–8.

Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, Van Der Wilt GJ, Mozygemba K, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Tummers M, Rehfuess E. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions [Online]. 2016. Available from: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/ . Accessed 1 Oct 2018.

Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):28–28.

Thomas J, O’Mara-Eves A, Harden A, Newman M. Chapter 8: Synthesis methods for combining and configuring textual or mixed methods data. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An Introduction to systematic reviews. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2017.

Andrews T. What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Rev. 2012;11:39–46.

Hannes K, Harden A. Multi-context versus context-specific qualitative evidence syntheses: combining the best of both. Res Synth Methods. 2012;2(4):271–8.

Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qual Res. 2012;12(4):402–42.

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53.

Dixon-Woods M. Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med. 2011;9:9–39.

Lorenc T, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Oakley A. Attitudes to walking and cycling among children, young people and parents: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62:852–7.

Oliver S, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley A, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analyzing public involvement in health services research. Heal Expect. 2008;11:72–84.

Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K. A worked example of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:29–37.

Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Huberman AM, Miles MB, editors. The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2002.

Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:37.

Belluco S, Gallocchio F, Losasso C, Ricci A. State of art of nanotechnology applications in the meat chain: a qualitative synthesis. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;3:1084–96.

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45–45.

Schirmer J, Berry H, O’Brien L. Healthier land, healthier farmers: considering the potential of natural resource management as a place-focused farmer health intervention. Health Place. 2013;24:97–109.

Haddaway N, McConville J, Piniewski M. How is the term ‘ecotechnology’ used in the research literature? A systematic review with thematic synthesis. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol. 2018;18:247–61.

Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, vol. 11. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1988.

Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:209–15.

Garside R, Britten N, Stein K. The experience of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. J Adv Nurs. 2008;63:550–62.

Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:133–55.

Head L, Gibson C, Gill N, Carr C, Waitt G. A meta-ethnography to synthesise household cultural research for climate change response. Local Environ. 2016;21:1467–81.

Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Riley R. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.

Eaves Y. A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35:654–63.

Kearney M. Ready-to-wear: discovering grounded formal theory. Res Nurs Health. 1998;21:179–86.

Hannes K, Lockwood M, editors. Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.

Kangasniemi M, Kallio H, Pietilä A-M. Towards environmentally responsible nursing: a critical interpretive synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70:1465–78.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review: a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34.

McLain R, Lawry S, Ojanen M. Fisheries’ property regimes and environmental outcomes: a realist synthesis review. World Dev. 2018;102:213–27.

Nilsson D, Baxter G, Butler JRA, McAlpine CA. How do community-based conservation programs in developing countries change human behaviour? A realist synthesis. Biol Conserv. 2016;200:93–103.

Booth A. Chapter 15: qualitative evidence synthesis. In: Facey K, Ploug Hansen H, Single A, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 187–99.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C. Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20:365–71.

Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7(3):375–422.

Carroll C, Booth A. Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(2):149–54.

Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Sandy O, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.

Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES RepOrting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):7.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.

France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EAS, Jepson RG, Maxwell M, Roberts RJ, Turley RL, Booth A, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:25.

Haddaway NR, Macura B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat Clim Change. 2018;8:444–7.

Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P. Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual Quant. 2013;47:659–76.

Jimenez E, Waddington H, Goel N, Prost A, Pullin AS, White H, Lahiri S, Narain A. Mixing and matching: using qualitative methods to improve quantitative impact evaluations (IEs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of development outcomes. J Dev Effect. 2018;10:400–21.

Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Res Sch. 2006;13:29.

Heath G, Brownson R, Kruger J, Miles R, Powell K, Ramsey L. Task Force on Community Preventive Services: the effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Activity Health. 2006;3:S55–76.

Oya C, Schaefer F, Skalidou D, McCosker C, Langer L. Effects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2017;3:346. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.3 .

Whear R, Thompson Coon J, Bethel A, Abbott R, Stein K, Garside R. What is the impact of using outdoor spaces such as gardens on the physical and mental well-being of those with dementia? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. J Post-Acute Long-Term Care Med. 2014;15:697–705.

Pullin AS, Bangpan M, Dalrymple S, Dickson K, Haddaway NR, Healey JR, Hauari H, Hockley N, Jones JPG, Knight T, et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ Evid. 2013;2(1):19.

Westgate MJ, Haddaway NR, Cheng SH, McIntosh EJ, Marshall C, Lindenmayer DB. Software support for environmental evidence synthesis. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2(4):588–90.

Garside R. A comparison of methods for the systematic review of qualitative research: two examples using meta-ethnography and meta-study. Doctoral dissertation. Exeter: Universities of Exeter and Plymouth; 2008.

Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Lorenc T. A synthesis of research addressing children’s, young people’s and parents’ views of walking and cycling for transport. In. London, UK: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006.

Benoot C, Hannes K, Bilsen J. The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: a worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:21.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the BONUS Secretariat for covering article processing fees. BM thanks to Mistra Council for Evidence-based Environmental Management (EviEM) and BONUS RETURN for allocated time to draft this manuscript. RG is partially supported by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

Article processing fees were covered by BONUS RETURN. BONUS RETURN project is supported by BONUS (Art 185), funded jointly by the EU and Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research FORMAS, Sweden’s innovation agency VINNOVA, Academy of Finland and National Centre for Research and Development in Poland.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Environment Institute, 87D Linnégatan, 10451, Stockholm, Sweden

Biljana Macura

Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51006, Tartu, Estonia

Monika Suškevičs

European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, UK

Ruth Garside

Social Research Methodology Group, Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Karin Hannes

EPPI-Centre, Department of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK

Rebecca Rees

School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Södertörn University, 14189, Huddinge, Sweden

Romina Rodela

Laboratory of Geo-Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

BM and MS developed the framework for and edited the end version of this paper. All authors (BM, MS, RG, KH, R. Rees and R. Rodela) wrote substantial pieces of the manuscript. RG, KH, R. Rees and R. Rodela commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biljana Macura .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Macura, B., Suškevičs, M., Garside, R. et al. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence for environmental policy and management: an overview of different methodological options. Environ Evid 8 , 24 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0168-0

Download citation

Received : 23 November 2018

Accepted : 28 May 2019

Published : 13 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0168-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical interpretative synthesis
• Mixed methods reviews
• Qualitative evidence synthesis

Environmental Evidence

ISSN: 2047-2382

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Environmental Policy Design and Implementation: Toward a Sustainable Society

2022, Sustainability

Related Papers

Sustainability

Aysin Dedekorkut , Julie Davidson

For a generation, governments around the world have been committed to sustainable development as a policy goal. This has been supported by an array of new policies ranging from international agreements, to national strategies, environmental laws at many levels of government, regional programs, and local plans. Despite these efforts, decades of scientific monitoring indicate that the world is no closer to environmental sustainability and in many respects the situation is getting worse. This paper argues that a significant contributing factor to this situation is policy implementation failure. A systematic review of the literature reveals that the failure to achieve the intended outcomes of environmental policies is due to economic, political and communication factors. Conflict between the objectives of environmental policies and those focused on economic development, a lack of incentives to implement environmental policies, and a failure to communicate objectives to key stakeholders are all key factors that contribute to the inability to attain environmental sustainability.

Ecological …

Paula Antunes

Nathan J Bennett

Governance is one of the most important factors for ensuring effective environmental management and conservation actions. Yet, there is still a relative paucity of comprehensive and practicable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation, design, and analysis of systems of environmental governance. This conceptual review and synthesis article seeks to addresses this problem through resituating the broad body of governance literature into a practical framework for environmental governance. Our framework builds on a rich history of governance scholarship to propose that environmental governance has four general aims or objectives – to be effective, to be equitable, to be responsive, and to be robust. Each of these four objectives need to be considered simultaneously across the institutional, structural, and procedural elements of environmental governance. Through a review of the literature, we developed a set of attributes for each of these objectives and relate these to the overall capacity, functioning, and performance of environmental governance. Our aim is to provide a practical and adaptable framework that can be applied to the design, evaluation, and analysis of environmental governance in different social and political contexts, to diverse environmental problems and modes of governance, and at a range of scales.

Anja (HJ) Holtzhausen

The dilemma of sustainability is that it is difficult to enforce, and in general its enforcement is perceived to be accompanied with a reduced quality of lifestyle and profit. The majority of people agree that sustainability is important, hence the development of a number of policies and protocols that advocate a reduction in the exploitation of natural resources. The huge problem faced by these initiatives is that it is not sufficiently enforced and that the main initiators for the environment, the United Nations (UN), are seen to be insufficiently empowered to use coercion. This paper discusses existing policies such as the Maastricht Treaty, The Brundtland report, The Kyoto Protocol and Agenda 21, to examine strategies to improve the earth’s environment. The influence of major agencies that assist with sustainability such as the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The World Energy Council and Major Financial institutions are discussed briefly. The enforcement of environmental issues remains a complex concern that is best achieved through participation and co-operation rather than coercion. The difficulties in enforcing environmental policies are discussed, as are ways of overcoming possible pitfalls. Keywords: social issues, environmental policies. 1 Introduction Sustainable development is a complex concept that aims to reconcile two apparent contradictory processes: economic development and environmental protection (Baker [1]). Policies that promote sustainable development will make

Arend Kolhoff

1 Senior advisor for the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment on developing EIA systems in low income countries, [email protected] 2 Coordinating policy advisor, Inspectorate for Environment, Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, The Netherlands, henk.ruessink@minvrom. This paper is written on a personal basis. SUMMARY Environmental impact assessment (EIA) and Environmental compliance and enforcement (ECE) share the same long term objective of protection of the environmental quality. To become more effective in achieving this shared goal, it is suggested that the communities of EIA and ECE practitioners could better work together. This paper proposes an agenda for a common approach.

Carlos Danitos

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Ralf C Buckley

Organizational Dynamics

Adriana Buhovac

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Sylvia Almeida

Journal of Advanced Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

Fadwa Chalfoun

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Richard Cowell , Andrew Flynn

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education

Hens Runhaar , Carel Dieperink

Public Integrity

Alison Miller , Steven Cohen

Policy Making and Implementation: Studies from Papua New Guinea

John Duguman

Chemical & Engineering News

Timothy Muzondo

Marcel Dekker eBooks

Brent S Steel

Carel Dieperink

Brigid Freeman

SSRN Electronic Journal

Cary Coglianese

Building Research & Information

Ellen Van M Bueren

Lawrence E Susskind

Weerakoon A Wijewardena

The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies

Bashir Malam

Hege Hofstad

Paul van Seters

Romeo Santos

Journal of Cleaner Production

Kenneth Hughey

Jan Jacob Boersema

Kilian Gericke

Stephen Pritchard

karlheinz spitz

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Gen Z, Millennials Stand Out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement With Issue
• 2. Climate, energy and environmental policy

Table of Contents

• 1. Climate engagement and activism
• 3. Local impact of climate change, environmental problems
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology
• Appendix: Detailed charts and tables

A majority of Americans consider climate change a priority today so that future generations can have a sustainable planet, and this view is held across generations.

Looking to the future, the public is closely divided on what it will take to address climate change: While about half say it’s likely major lifestyle changes in the U.S. will be needed to deal with climate change impacts, almost as many say it’s more likely new developments in technology will address most of the problems cause by climate change.

On policy, majorities prioritize the use of renewable energy and back the expanded use of specific sources like wind and solar. Americans offer more support than opposition to a range of policies aimed at reducing the effects of climate change, including key climate-related aspects of President Joe Biden’s recent infrastructure proposal. Still, Americans do not back a complete break with carbon: A majority says oil and gas should still be part of the energy mix in the U.S., and about half oppose phasing out gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

Overall, 64% of U.S. adults say reducing the effects of climate change needs to be “a top priority to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations, even if that means fewer resources for addressing other important problems today.” By contrast, 34% say that reducing the effects of climate change needs to be “a lower priority, with so many other important problems facing Americans today, even if that means more climate problems for future generations.”

There are stark partisan differences over this sentiment. Nearly nine-in-ten Democrats (87%) say efforts to reduce the effects of climate change need to be prioritized today to ensure a sustainable planet. By contrast, 61% of Republicans say that efforts to reduce the effects of climate change need to be a lower priority, with so many other important problems facing Americans today. (Democrats and Republicans include those who lean to each party.)

Asked to look to the future 50 years from now, 51% of Americans say it’s more likely that major changes to everyday life in the U.S. will be needed to address the problems caused by global climate change. By contrast, 46% say it’s more likely that new technology will be able to address most of the problems caused by global climate change.

Most Democrats (69%) expect that in 50 years major lifestyle changes in the U.S. will be needed to address the problems caused by climate change. By contrast, among Republicans, two-thirds (66%) say it’s likelier that new technology will be able to address most climate change problems in the U.S. Among Republicans, this view is widely held (81%) among the majority who do not see climate change as an important personal concern; Republicans who express greater personal concern about climate change are more likely to say major changes to everyday life in the future will be needed to address problems caused by climate change.

Overall, majorities across generations believe that climate change should be a top priority today to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations. Generational divisions are more prominent among Republicans than Democrats, however.

Among Republicans, about half of Gen Zers (49%) and Millennials (48%) give top priority to reducing the effect of climate change today, even if that means fewer resources to deal with other important problems. By contrast, majorities of Gen X (61%) and Baby Boomer and older Republicans (71%) say reducing the effects of climate change needs to a lower priority today, given the other problems Americans are facing.

Generational differences among Democrats on this question are modest, with clear majorities giving priority to dealing with climate change today.

Majority of Americans prioritize developing alternative energy sources, but only a third would phase out all fossil fuels

Burning fossil fuels for electricity and in cars and trucks are among the primary sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Americans broadly favor increasing the use of renewable energy sources, but a majority reject the idea of phasing out fossil fuel energy sources completely. And Americans are about evenly divided on the idea of phasing out the production of new gasoline cars and trucks by 2035.

There are familiar partisan divisions over nearly every aspect of energy policy, particularly when it comes to fossil fuels. Political divides have widened over the past year as Republican support for alternative energy sources – including wind and solar power – has fallen while support for expanding offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing and coal mining has ticked up.

Within both parties, Gen Zers and Millennials are more supportive of proposals to move away from fossil fuels than their older counterparts.

A majority of Americans (71%) continue to say that the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy, while a much smaller share (27%) prioritizes expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

The share of Republicans who prioritize developing alternative energy sources over expanding the production of fossil fuels has fallen 18 percentage points in the past year. As a result, Republicans are now closely divided between these two energy priorities. Democrats remain near consensus levels in their support for prioritizing development of alternative energy levels.

Among Republicans, there are significant generational differences in support for increasing the development of renewable energy sources. Majorities of Gen Z (63%) and Millennial (62%) Republicans prioritize increased development of renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Smaller shares of Gen X Republicans (50%) and just 33% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans prioritize this approach over the expanding of fossil fuel development. For more details, including longer-term trends over time, see the Appendix .

Republicans and Democrats also differ over the best way to encourage reliance on renewable energy sources. Most Democrats (81%) continue to see a need for government regulations to increase reliance on renewable energy. On the other hand, two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say the private marketplace alone will be enough. See the Appendix for details.

In keeping with support for prioritizing the development of renewable energy, most Americans favor expanding solar panel farms (84%) and wind turbine farms (77%). By contrast, majorities oppose more coal mining (61%), more hydraulic fracturing (56%) and more offshore oil and gas drilling (55%).

Americans are divided over expanding nuclear power: 50% favor more nuclear power plants, while 47% are opposed.

Republican support for expanding solar power is down 11 points in the last year (from 84% to 73%), and support for wind power has fallen 13 points (from 75% to 62%). Democrats’ widely held support for increasing both energy sources remains largely unchanged.

In addition, there has been an increase since 2020 in the shares of Republicans who support expanding hydraulic fracturing of natural gas (up 10 points), offshore oil and gas drilling (up 6 points) and coal mining (up 6 points). See the Appendix for details.

Even so, younger Republicans remain less likely than their older counterparts to support expanding fossil fuel sources, consistent with past Center surveys.

For instance, 79% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans support more offshore oil and gas drilling, while roughly half (48%) of Gen Z Republicans say the same (a difference of 31 points). There are similar divides over hydraulic fracturing, the primary extraction technique for natural gas (74% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans favor vs. 44% of Gen Z Republicans).

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support using a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources, younger adults more inclined to phase out fossil fuels completely

While a large share of U.S. adults would prioritize alternative energy development over expanding the use of fossil fuels, most adults are not inclined to give up reliance on fossil fuels altogether.

The survey finds 64% of Americans say they support ongoing use of oil, coal and natural gas as well as renewable energy sources, while a third (33%) say the country should phase out the use of fossil fuels completely.

There are sharp differences of opinion about this issue by party. Most Republicans (86%) say that the U.S. should rely on a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Democrats are about evenly divided, with 47% in favor of using a mix of sources and 50% calling for a phase out of fossil fuels. About two-thirds of liberal Democrats (65%) support phasing out fossil fuels but fewer moderate and conservative Democrats say the same (39%).

There are also generational divisions on this issue, with younger generations more likely to support giving up fossil fuel use over time. In fact, majorities of Democratic Gen Zers (60%) and Millennials (57%) support phasing out fossil fuel use completely.

Americans are closely divided over phasing out gas-powered vehicles; Democrats, younger adults are more receptive to the idea

Climate advocates point to electric vehicles as a way to cut down on carbon emissions and reduce climate change. Americans are about equally divided on the idea of phasing out production of gasoline cars and trucks by 2035. A little under half (47%) say they would favor such a proposal, while 51% are opposed.

As with other proposals on climate and energy issues, partisans express opposing viewpoints. About two-thirds of Democrats (68%) support phasing out gasoline cars by 2035, while 76% of Republicans oppose this.

Most U.S. adults oppose oil drilling in ANWR but are more divided over Keystone XL decision

The issue of whether or not to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been a controversy in energy policy. Overall, most Americans (70%) oppose the idea, while 27% are in favor.

Nearly all Democrats (89%) say they oppose allowing oil and gas drilling in the ANWR. Republicans are about evenly divided, with half in favor of allowing this and 48% opposed.

One of Biden’s  first actions as president  was revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would have carried oil from Canada into the U.S.

About half of Americans (49%) say canceling the pipeline was the right decision, while 45% say it was the wrong decision.

Most Democrats (78%) say it was the right decision, while most Republicans (80%) say otherwise. See details in the  Appendix .

But there are also generational dynamics in views about gasoline-powered vehicles, with younger adults more supportive than older adults of phasing out gas cars and trucks. Narrow majorities of Gen Zers (56%) and Millennials (57%) support such a proposal, compared with 38% of Baby Boomer and older Americans. This pattern holds within both parties, though sizable partisan divides remain across all generations. See the Appendix for a look at how these generational and partisan divides compare across measures.

The public is broadly familiar with electric vehicles: About nine-in-ten have heard either a lot (30%) or a little (62%) about them. When it comes to first-hand experience, 7% of adults say they currently have an electric or hybrid vehicle; 93% say they do not.

People who say they have heard a lot about electric vehicles are closely divided over the idea of phasing out gas-powered cars and trucks by a margin of 52% in favor to 48% opposed. Not surprisingly, those who currently own an electric or hybrid vehicle are largely in favor of this idea (68% vs. 31% opposed).

Broad public support for a number of policies to address climate change, including some proposed in Biden infrastructure plan

In late March, the Biden administration announced a $2 trillion infrastructure plan with several elements they argue would help reduce the effects of climate change. The new Center survey finds majorities of Americans support a number of proposals to address global climate change, including three specific elements in Biden’s infrastructure plan.

There are sharp partisan divisions over many of these proposals, as expected. In addition, there are concerns, particularly among Democrats, that Biden’s policy proposals will not go far enough in efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.

Majorities of U.S. adults support a range of approaches to address climate change

The new Center survey finds majorities back three specific elements of Biden’s infrastructure plan. More than seven-in-ten Americans (74%) favor a proposed requirement for power companies to use more energy from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, to reduce carbon emissions. A smaller majority – 62% – favors federal spending to build a network of electric vehicle charging stations across the country in order to increase the use of electric cars and trucks.

And 63% of Americans support the idea of raising corporate taxes to pay for more energy efficient buildings and improved roads and bridges, a key funding mechanism in Biden’s infrastructure proposal.

Biden has closely tied his climate-focused infrastructure proposals with economic and job growth. Half of U.S. adults think that the Biden administration’s plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure in ways that are aimed at reducing the effects of climate change will help the economy. Three-in-ten think this will hurt the economy, and 18% say it will make no difference.

Americans continue to broadly support a number of longer-standing proposals to reduce the effects of climate change. Nine-in-ten Americans favor planting additional trees to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. About eight-in-ten (81%) favor providing a tax credit for businesses that develop technology that can capture and store carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere. Both of these ideas were part of a set of policies supported by congressional Republicans last year .

Large majorities of Americans also favor tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions (76%), taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce (70%) and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks (70%).

54% of Democrats think Biden administration’s climate policies will not go far enough

Three months into the Biden administration, there is no clear consensus over the administration’s approach on climate change. About four-in-ten Americans (41%) think the Biden administration’s policies to reduce the effects of climate change will not go far enough. Roughly three-in-ten (29%) think the Biden administration will go too far, and a similar share (28%) say the administration’s approach will be about right.

Republicans and Democrats have far different expectations for the Biden’s administration policies on climate change. A narrow majority of Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party (54%) –including 63% of liberal Democrats – think the administration’s policies will not go far enough to reduce the effects of climate change.

In contrast, six-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Biden administration’s policies will go too far, including 74% of conservative Republicans.

There are some generational differences in views on this this issue among Republicans, in line with differences over the importance of addressing climate change. About as many Gen Z Republicans say Biden’s climate policies will not go far enough (35%) as say the policies will go too far (38%). By comparison, a 72% majority of Republicans in the Baby Boomer or older generations think the Biden administration will go too far on climate change.

When it comes to views about proposals aimed at reducing climate change, however, there are few differences of opinion across generations among either party. Yet large differences remain between Republicans and Democrats overall.

Democrats’ views about five proposals aimed at reducing the effects of climate change are uniformly positive. Roughly 85% to 95% of Democrats support each.

Republicans and Republican leaners are most supportive of proposals to absorb carbon emissions by planting large numbers of trees (88%), followed by a proposal to provide a corporate tax credit for carbon-capture technology (73%). A majority of the GOP (58%) favor tougher restrictions on carbon emissions from power plants. About half of Republicans favor taxing corporate carbon emissions (50%) or tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks (49%).

There are no divisions within the GOP by generation across these issues, though ideological divides are often sharp. For example, 65% of moderate and liberal Republicans favor tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, compared with 40% of conservative Republicans.

Republicans and Democrats are also deeply divided over climate-focused proposals in the Biden administration’s infrastructure plan.

Large majorities of Democrats favor requiring power companies to use more energy from renewable sources (92%), raising corporate taxes to pay for energy efficient buildings and improved roads (84%) and building a network of electric vehicle charging stations across the country (82%).

About half of Republicans (52%) support requiring power companies to use more energy from renewable sources. There is less support for federal spending to build a nationwide network of electric vehicle charging stations (38%). An equal share of Republicans (38%) support the idea of raising taxes on corporations to pay for more energy efficient buildings and better roads, although more moderates and liberals in the GOP (59%) than conservatives (27%) support this idea.

There is comparatively more support for these proposals among younger Republicans, particularly for federal spending to build electric vehicle charging stations and requirements for power plants to use more renewable sources.

Republicans and Democrats at odds over economic impact of Biden’s infrastructure plan

Democrats are largely optimistic that the Biden administration’s plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure in ways aimed at reducing the effects of climate change will help the economy. About eight-in-ten Democrats (78%) say this.

Among Republicans, a majority (59%) thinks this proposed plan will hurt the economy, while only about two-in-ten (18%) say it will help. Conservative Republicans (71%) are especially inclined to say the climate-focused infrastructure proposal will hurt the economy.

Generational differences are largely modest but occur in both parties. Baby Boomer Republicans are the most pessimistic about the plan’s economic impact, while Boomer Democrats are the most optimistic that the plan will help the economy.

What are important considerations to Americans in climate proposals?

When it comes to proposals to reduce the effects of global climate change, protecting the environment for future generations and increasing jobs and economic growth are the top considerations Americans would like to see in policy proposals.

Asked to think about what is important to them in proposals to reduce the effects of climate change, 64% of the public says protecting the quality of the environment for future generations is a very important consideration to them personally; 28% say it’s somewhat important to them and just 6% say it’s not too or not at all important to them.

A majority (60%) also says that increasing job and economic growth is a very important consideration to them personally when it comes to proposals to reduce the effects of climate change.

About half (52%) say keeping consumer costs low is a very important consideration to them personally in climate proposals. Making sure proposals help lower-income communities is seen as a very important consideration by 45% of the public.

About a third (34%) say getting to net-zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible is a very important consideration to them personally. Joe Biden has set a goal for the U.S. to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Limiting the burden of regulations on businesses is seen as a very important climate policy consideration by 24% of the public – the lowest share who say this across the six items asked in the survey. However, majorities view all six factors, including limiting the regulatory burden on businesses, as at least somewhat important considerations in climate proposals.

Partisans have differing priorities when it comes to climate change proposals. Among Republicans, increasing job and economic growth (65% very important) and keeping consumer costs low (61%) are their top considerations. Among Democrats, protecting the quality of the environment for future generations is their clear top consideration (79% very important), followed by making sure proposals help lower-income communities (59%) and increasing job and economic growth (58%). About half of Democrats (51%) say getting to net-zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible is very important to them.

Public sees actions from businesses, ordinary Americans as insufficient on climate change

Americans see a range of actors as falling short in efforts to help reduce the effects of global climate change. The public is broadly critical of the lack of action from large businesses and the energy industry – but also views elected officials, as well as ordinary Americans, as failing to do their part.

Nearly seven-in-ten adults (69%) say large businesses and corporations are doing too little to help reduce the effects of global climate change, while just 21% say they are doing about the right amount and very few (8%) say they are doing too much to address climate change. Similarly, a majority of the public (62%) says the energy industry is doing too little to help reduce the effects of global climate change.

The public also extends criticism on climate inaction to Americans themselves and the officials they vote into elected office. Overall, 66% say ordinary Americans are doing too little to help reduce the effects of climate change, and 60% say this about their state’s elected officials. A separate question that asks about the actions of the federal government across a range of environmental areas finds that 59% say the federal government is doing too little on climate change.

Americans are less critical of their own individual actions in helping to address climate change: Roughly half (48%) believe they, themselves, are doing about the right amount to help reduce the effects of climate change. Still, almost as many (47%) say they are doing too little to help.

When it comes to the role of environmental advocacy organizations, 48% say they are doing about the right amount to help reduce the effects of climate change, compared with 29% who say they are doing too little and 22% who say they are doing too much.

There are stark partisan differences in views of the role groups and individuals are playing to help reduce the effects of climate change. Large majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say large businesses (85%), ordinary Americans (82%), the energy industry (80%) and their state elected officials (79%) are doing too little to help reduce climate change impacts. By contrast, about half of Republicans and Republican leaners or fewer say these actors are doing too little to address climate change. Republicans are much more likely to say most of these groups are doing about the right amount than to say they are doing too much to address climate change.

Generational differences in views are most pronounced on this question within the GOP. In general, Gen Z and Millennial Republicans are more likely than older Republicans to say groups and individuals are doing too little to help reduce the effects of climate change. For instance, 57% of Gen Z and 59% of Millennial Republicans say large businesses are doing too little to help address climate change, compared with 50% of Gen X Republicans and 43% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans.

A 54% majority of U.S. adults see climate scientists’ role on policy as too limited, though some have doubts about scientists’ understanding

As the Biden administration, Congress and state and local governments debate how best to address climate change, 54% of Americans think climate scientists have too little influence on policy debates about climate change. Smaller shares say climate scientists have about the right amount (22%) or too much (22%) influence on climate policy.

At the same time, Americans appear to have reservations about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding. Only about two-in-ten Americans (18%) say climate scientists understand “very well” the best ways to address climate change. Another 42% say climate scientists understand ways to address climate change “fairly well”; 38% say they understand this not too or not at all well.

Public views of climate scientists’ understanding are more positive, if still generally skeptical, on the fundamentals of whether climate change is occurring (37% say scientists understand this very well) and what causes climate change (28%).

Americans’ overall views about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding of what is happening to the Earth’s climate are similar to 2016, the last time Pew Research Center asked these questions.

In keeping with the wide political divisions over climate policy issues, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to rate climate scientists’ understanding highly. And these partisan divides have widened since 2016. For example, Democrats are 43 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say climate scientists understand very well whether or not climate change is occurring. This gap was 25 points in 2016. See the Appendix for details.

Similarly, far larger shares of Democrats than Republicans believe climate scientists have too little say in climate debates (77% vs. 27%).

Younger generations are especially likely to think climate scientists have too little say on climate policy debates. However, these generational dynamics occur only within the GOP.

Millennial (38%) and Gen Z (41%) Republicans are more likely than Baby Boomers and older generations of Republicans (18%) to think climate scientists have too little influence on related policy debates. About half of older Republicans (53%) say climate scientists have too much influence in these debates.

Roughly three-quarters to eight-in-ten Democrats across younger and older generations think climate scientists have too little say in climate policy debates.

Majority of Americans continue to say federal government is doing too little to protect key aspects of the environment

When it comes to environmental protection, a majority of Americans continue to see a role for stricter environmental regulations and majorities view the federal government as doing too little across most areas of environmental concern asked about in the survey, such as protecting air quality.

Gen Z and Millennials offer the broadest support for environmental regulations and for more government action to protect specific aspects of the environment.

Partisan gaps over government action to protect the environment remain very large and differences over the value of stricter environmental regulations have widened since last asked in September 2019 during the administration of Donald Trump.

There are generational and partisan differences over value of environmental regulations

Overall, 56% of Americans say that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost, compared with a smaller share (41%) who say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.

On balance Gen Z and Millennials are both much more likely to  stricter environmental laws as worth the cost than to say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy (by 59% to 33% and 63% to 35%, respectively). Gen X and Boomer and older adults also see stricter environmental laws as worth the cost, though by narrower margins.

A large majority of Democrats (81%) believe that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost. By contrast, 71% of Republicans say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. Republicans have become much more likely to take a critical view of stricter environmental regulations since September 2019, when 55% said they hurt the economy and cost too many jobs. (For more details on this change over time, see the Appendix ).

Generational differences in views occur primarily within the GOP and not among Democrats. Among Republicans, Gen Z (35%) and Millennials (34%) are more likely than Baby Boomer and older adults (20%) to say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost, though larger shares across cohorts say these regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. Roughly eight-in-ten Democrats across generations say that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost.

Far more Americans say government is doing too little, rather than too much, on key areas of environmental protection

Consistent with Center surveys over the past few years, majorities of U.S. adults support more government action to address a range of environmental concerns, including air and water quality as well as climate change.

Overall, 63% say the federal government is doing too little to protect the water quality of lakes, rivers and streams. Majorities also say the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change (59%), protect air quality (59%) and protect animals and their habitats (57%). About half (51%) say the federal government is doing too little to protect open lands in national parks and nature preserves. Across all five items, small shares of the public believe the government is doing too much to address any one of these environmental issues.

There are wide differences in views on these issues by political party, with Democrats much more likely than Republicans to think that government efforts in these areas are insufficient.

While still the predominant viewpoint, the shares of Democrats who say the government is doing too little across these five areas are 6 to 10 percentage points lower than they were in May of 2020, before Joe Biden took office. Republicans’ views on these questions have been largely steady, although the share of Republicans who believe the federal government is doing too little to address climate change is down 5 percentage points, from 35% in May 2020 to 30% today.

Partisan groups remain far apart when it comes to assessment of government action on climate change: 83% of Democrats and Democratic leaners think the government’s efforts are insufficient, vs. 30% of Republicans and GOP leaners, a difference of 53 percentage points. Conservative Republicans stand out on this from their fellow partisans with a moderate or liberal ideology: 19% say the federal government is doing too little to address climate change compared with 49% of moderate or liberal Republicans.

Gen Zers and Millennials are more likely than older Americans to say the government is doing too little to address specific areas of environmental concern, though these divides are driven primarily by differences by generation within the GOP.

About two-thirds of Gen Zers (66%) and Millennials (65%) say the federal government is doing too little to protect air quality, compared with 58% of Gen X and 52% of Baby Boomer and older adults.

Similarly, 68% of Gen Zers and 66% of Millennials say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change versus 57% of Gen X and 52% of Baby Boomer and older adults.

Among Republicans, Gen Zers and Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomer and older adults to say the federal government is doing too little to address all five of these areas of environmental concern. Majorities of Democrats across generations say the government is doing too little to address these environmental issues.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Baby Boomers
• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Generation X
• Generation Z
• Generations, Age & Politics
• Millennials
• Politics Online
• Silent Generation
• Social Media & the News

Majority of Americans support more nuclear power in the country

Americans’ extreme weather policy views and personal experiences, u.s. adults under 30 have different foreign policy priorities than older adults, about 3 in 10 americans would seriously consider buying an electric vehicle, how americans view national, local and personal energy choices, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 89

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Environmental Policy Research Paper Topics

This page is designed to provide students with a comprehensive list of environmental policy research paper topics , expert advice on how to select the most suitable topic, and guidelines on how to write an impactful research paper on environmental policy. Additionally, the page introduces iResearchNet’s professional writing services, which can assist students in crafting custom research papers on any environmental policy topic. The services offered by iResearchNet are characterized by their high quality, in-depth research, custom formatting, and timely delivery, among other features.

100 Environmental Policy Research Paper Topics

The field of environmental policy is vast and diverse, offering a multitude of topics for research. This section provides a comprehensive list of environmental policy research paper topics, divided into ten categories with ten topics in each. These topics span a wide range of issues, from policy analysis and international environmental policy to the role of environmental policy in various sectors.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Policy Analysis

• The effectiveness of the Clean Air Act in urban areas.
• The impact of the Endangered Species Act on biodiversity conservation.
• The role of the Environmental Protection Agency in enforcing environmental laws.
• The influence of the Kyoto Protocol on global greenhouse gas emissions.
• The effectiveness of the Paris Agreement in mitigating climate change.
• The role of policy in promoting renewable energy adoption.
• The impact of environmental policy on industrial pollution.
• The role of policy in managing water resources.
• The effectiveness of policy in controlling deforestation.
• The impact of environmental policy on sustainable agriculture.

 International Environmental Policy

• The role of the United Nations in shaping global environmental policy.
• The impact of international treaties on national environmental policies.
• The role of international law in protecting the global commons.
• The effectiveness of international cooperation in addressing climate change.
• The role of trade agreements in promoting environmental sustainability.
• The impact of international policy on biodiversity conservation.
• The role of the World Bank in promoting sustainable development.
• The influence of international policy on national renewable energy adoption.
• The effectiveness of international policy in controlling marine pollution.
• The impact of international policy on global deforestation.

Environmental Policy and Economics

• The role of environmental policy in shaping economic development.
• The impact of environmental regulations on business operations.
• The influence of economic incentives on environmental protection.
• The effectiveness of market-based environmental policies.
• The role of environmental policy in promoting green jobs.
• The impact of environmental taxes on pollution levels.
• The role of economic analysis in environmental policy-making.
• The influence of environmental policy on consumer behavior.
• The effectiveness of economic instruments in promoting renewable energy.
• The impact of environmental policy on economic inequality.

Environmental Policy and Politics

• The role of political institutions in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of political ideology on environmental policy-making.
• The influence of public opinion on environmental policy.
• The effectiveness of political activism in promoting environmental protection.
• The role of political parties in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of lobbying on environmental policy-making.
• The role of political leadership in promoting environmental sustainability.
• The influence of electoral politics on environmental policy.
• The effectiveness of political campaigns in promoting environmental awareness.
• The impact of political conflict on environmental policy implementation.

Environmental Policy and Law

• The role of legal institutions in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of environmental laws on pollution levels.
• The influence of legal precedents on environmental policy-making.
• The effectiveness of environmental litigation in promoting environmental protection.
• The role of legal sanctions in enforcing environmental laws.
• The impact of legal rights on environmental policy-making.
• The role of the judiciary in interpreting environmental laws.
• The influence of constitutional law on environmental policy.
• The effectiveness of legal instruments in promoting environmental justice.
• The impact of legal reforms on environmental policy implementation.

Environmental Policy and Society

• The role of social movements in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of societal values on environmental policy-making.
• The influence of social norms on environmental behavior.
• The effectiveness of social marketing in promoting environmental protection.
• The role of societal institutions in enforcing environmental norms.
• The impact of social inequality on environmental policy outcomes.
• The role of social science research in informing environmental policy.
• The influence of societal change on environmental policy evolution.
• The effectiveness of social policies in promoting environmental justice.
• The impact of social media on environmental policy debates.

Environmental Policy and Technology

• The role of technological innovation in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of environmental policy on technological development.
• The influence of technology diffusion on environmental outcomes.
• The effectiveness of technology policy in promoting environmental sustainability.
• The role of technology assessment in environmental policy-making.
• The impact of information technology on environmental awareness.
• The role of technology transfer in international environmental policy.
• The influence of emerging technologies on environmental policy challenges.
• The effectiveness of technology standards in reducing environmental impacts.
• The impact of technology-driven changes on environmental policy needs.

Environmental Policy and Education

• The role of environmental education in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of environmental policy on education systems.
• The influence of educational attainment on environmental attitudes.
• The effectiveness of education policy in promoting environmental literacy.
• The role of schools in fostering environmental citizenship.
• The impact of environmental curriculum on student outcomes.
• The role of higher education in advancing environmental research.
• The influence of educational resources on environmental awareness.
• The effectiveness of environmental education programs in changing behavior.
• The impact of education reform on environmental learning opportunities.

Environmental Policy and Health

• The role of health considerations in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of environmental policy on public health outcomes.
• The influence of health research on environmental risk assessment.
• The effectiveness of health policy in addressing environmental health risks.
• The role of health impact assessments in environmental policy-making.
• The impact of environmental exposures on health disparities.
• The role of health agencies in enforcing environmental regulations.
• The influence of health advocacy on environmental policy debates.
• The effectiveness of health-based standards in controlling environmental hazards.
• The impact of health care practices on environmental sustainability.

Environmental Policy and the Future

• The role of future scenarios in shaping environmental policy.
• The impact of environmental policy on future generations.
• The influence of future-oriented thinking on environmental decision-making.
• The effectiveness of policy measures in addressing future environmental risks.
• The role of foresight methods in environmental policy planning.
• The impact of future technological changes on environmental policy needs.
• The role of future studies in informing environmental policy debates.
• The influence of future uncertainties on environmental policy strategies.
• The effectiveness of future-proofing measures in environmental policy design.
• The impact of future climate changes on environmental policy responses.

In conclusion, the field of environmental policy offers a wealth of research topics that can cater to various interests and academic requirements. Whether you’re interested in policy analysis, international environmental policy, environmental economics, or any other aspect of environmental policy, there’s a topic for you. Remember, the key to a successful research paper is choosing a topic that not only interests you but also aligns with your academic and career goals.

Environmental Policy Research Guide

In today’s world, environmental issues have become a pressing concern, requiring urgent attention and action. As our planet faces complex challenges such as climate change, pollution, deforestation, and resource depletion, it has become crucial to understand the role of environmental policy in addressing these issues. Environmental policy plays a pivotal role in shaping regulations, laws, and initiatives aimed at preserving and protecting our natural environment.

This page serves as a valuable resource for students studying environmental science and engaging in research paper writing. Here, we delve into the realm of environmental policy research and provide a comprehensive guide to help students explore this fascinating field. By delving into the various aspects of environmental policy research, students can gain a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between policy decisions and environmental outcomes.

The primary objective of this page is to equip students with the necessary knowledge and tools to embark on their own environmental policy research journey. By delving into diverse environmental policy research paper topics and providing expert advice on topic selection, we aim to inspire students to explore the multifaceted world of environmental policy and contribute meaningfully to the field.

As students, you have the power to influence the future of environmental policy through your research and insights. By examining the intersection of environmental science and policy, you can contribute to the development of effective strategies and solutions that promote sustainability, conservation, and equitable environmental outcomes.

Throughout this page, we will explore a comprehensive list of environmental policy research paper topics, spanning various categories and addressing critical issues in environmental governance. Additionally, we will provide expert advice on how to choose suitable research topics within the realm of environmental policy. Furthermore, we will guide you through the process of writing an impactful environmental policy research paper, offering essential tips to enhance your writing and research skills.

Moreover, we understand the challenges that students face when it comes to meeting academic deadlines and the need for high-quality, well-researched papers. To address these needs, we introduce our writing services, where you can order a custom environmental policy research paper on any topic of your choice. Our team of expert degree-holding writers is dedicated to providing you with top-quality, customized solutions tailored to your specific requirements. With our in-depth research, adherence to custom formatting styles, and flexible pricing options, we strive to make your experience seamless and successful.

By combining your passion for environmental science with our expertise in research and writing, together, we can make a meaningful impact in the field of environmental policy. So, whether you are just beginning your research journey or seeking assistance with your environmental policy research paper, we are here to support you every step of the way.

Choosing an Environmental Policy Topic

Choosing the right research topic is a critical step in the process of writing an impactful environmental policy research paper. With a plethora of issues and areas to explore within the realm of environmental policy, it can be challenging to narrow down your focus and select a topic that is both relevant and engaging. To assist you in this endeavor, we have compiled expert advice and 10 essential tips to guide you in choosing environmental policy research paper topics that are meaningful, well-defined, and aligned with your interests and academic goals.

• Identify your passion and interests : Start by reflecting on your personal interests within the field of environmental policy. What aspects of environmental governance intrigue you the most? By choosing a topic that resonates with your passion, you will be more motivated and engaged throughout the research and writing process.
• Stay updated with current issues : Environmental policy is a rapidly evolving field, with new challenges and developments emerging constantly. Stay informed about current environmental issues, policy debates, and emerging trends to identify timely and relevant environmental policy research paper topics that contribute to ongoing discussions and address pressing concerns.
• Consider the scope and depth of the topic : Assess the scope and depth of the topic you wish to explore. Is it broad enough to provide a comprehensive analysis, or does it require further refinement to ensure a focused and manageable research paper? Strike a balance between a topic that is sufficiently narrow to allow in-depth analysis and one that is broad enough to provide substantial content.
• Conduct a preliminary literature review : Before finalizing your research topic, conduct a preliminary literature review to familiarize yourself with existing scholarship and research gaps in the field of environmental policy. This will help you identify areas that have been extensively studied and areas that require further exploration, providing valuable insights for topic selection.
• Consider the policy context : Environmental policy is shaped by various social, political, economic, and cultural factors. When selecting a research topic, consider the policy context within which it operates. Analyze the stakeholders, policy frameworks, and implementation challenges associated with your chosen topic to ensure its relevance and significance.
• Engage in interdisciplinary perspectives : Environmental policy research often requires an interdisciplinary approach. Consider incorporating perspectives from other disciplines such as economics, sociology, law, or public health to enrich your analysis and provide a holistic understanding of the environmental policy issue you are investigating.
• Seek inspiration from real-world case studies : Real-world case studies provide valuable insights and practical implications for environmental policy research. Look for successful or failed policy interventions, case studies of environmental conflicts, or instances where policy measures have made a substantial impact. These examples can serve as a source of inspiration and provide a solid foundation for your research.
• Evaluate the feasibility of data collection : Before finalizing your research topic, consider the availability of data and the feasibility of data collection. Determine if the necessary data sources, such as government reports, surveys, or existing datasets, are accessible for your chosen topic. Adequate data availability is essential for conducting rigorous and evidence-based research.
• Consider the social and environmental justice dimensions : Environmental policy intersects with social and environmental justice issues. Explore environmental policy research paper topics that address issues of equity, inclusivity, and the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Consider how your research can contribute to advancing social and environmental justice within the realm of environmental policy.
• Seek guidance from mentors and experts : Engage in discussions with your mentors, professors, and experts in the field of environmental policy. Seek their guidance and input during the topic selection process. They can provide valuable insights, suggest relevant literature, and help you refine your research topic to ensure its academic rigor and contribution to the field.

By following these expert tips, you will be able to choose an environmental policy research paper topic that aligns with your interests, contributes to the existing body of knowledge, and addresses critical environmental challenges. Remember, the topic you choose is the foundation of your research, and investing time and effort in selecting the right one will set the stage for a successful and impactful research paper.

How to Write an Environmental Policy Research Paper

Writing an environmental policy research paper requires careful planning, critical analysis, and effective communication of ideas. To assist you in navigating the process and producing a high-quality research paper, we have compiled ten essential tips that will guide you from the initial stages of research to the final writing and presentation of your findings. Follow these steps to ensure that your environmental policy research paper is well-structured, thoroughly researched, and effectively communicated.

• Define your research question : Start by clearly defining your research question or objective. This will serve as the guiding principle throughout your research and help maintain focus and clarity in your paper. Ensure that your research question is specific, relevant, and aligned with the broader objectives of environmental policy research.
• Conduct a comprehensive literature review : Before diving into your own research, conduct a thorough literature review to familiarize yourself with existing scholarship on the topic. Identify key theories, concepts, and empirical studies that have shaped the understanding of environmental policy in your chosen area. This will help you situate your research within the existing body of knowledge and identify research gaps.
• Develop a coherent research methodology : Based on your research question, identify and employ appropriate research methods and data collection techniques. Consider whether your research requires qualitative or quantitative approaches, primary or secondary data, surveys, interviews, or case studies. Justify your chosen methodology and ensure that it aligns with the research question and objectives.
• Collect and analyze data : Collect data in accordance with your research methodology and analyze it using appropriate analytical tools and techniques. Ensure that you maintain a systematic approach to data collection, organization, and analysis to ensure the reliability and validity of your findings. Use data visualization techniques to present your results effectively.
• Use theoretical frameworks and conceptual models : Incorporate relevant theoretical frameworks and conceptual models into your research paper to provide a theoretical foundation for your analysis. These frameworks will help you analyze and interpret your findings in the context of existing theories and concepts in environmental policy.
• Consider policy implications : Environmental policy research aims to inform policy-making and contribute to the development of effective environmental policies. Analyze the policy implications of your findings and provide recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders. Consider the feasibility and practicality of your recommendations within the political and institutional context.
• Structure your paper effectively : Follow a clear and logical structure for your research paper. Include sections such as an introduction, literature review, research methodology, findings and analysis, discussion, conclusion, and references. Use headings and subheadings to organize your content and facilitate readability.
• Write in a clear and concise manner : Communicate your ideas in a clear and concise manner, using language that is accessible to your target audience. Avoid jargon and technical terms unless necessary, and provide clear explanations for complex concepts. Use proper grammar, punctuation, and citation style to maintain academic integrity.
• Support your arguments with evidence : Ensure that your arguments are supported by robust evidence and relevant examples. Cite credible sources such as academic journals, government reports, and reputable organizations to strengthen the validity of your claims. Include both primary and secondary sources to provide a well-rounded perspective.
• Revise, edit, and proofread : Take the time to revise, edit, and proofread your research paper to ensure clarity, coherence, and accuracy. Check for consistency in formatting, citations, and references. Read your paper multiple times, and consider seeking feedback from peers or mentors to identify areas for improvement.

By following these tips, you will be able to produce an environmental policy research paper that is well-researched, well-structured, and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field. Remember to allocate sufficient time for each stage of the research process, seek guidance from your professors or mentors, and maintain a disciplined approach to your work.

Custom Research Paper Writing Services

When it comes to tackling a complex and important topic like environmental policy, it’s understandable that you may seek assistance in crafting a well-researched and insightful research paper. At iResearchNet, we offer custom writing services tailored to meet the unique needs of students studying environmental science. Our team of expert writers, with advanced degrees in environmental science and related fields, is committed to delivering high-quality, customized research papers that adhere to academic standards and address the specific requirements of your assignment. Here are 13 features that set our writing services apart:

• Expert degree-holding writers : Our team consists of experienced writers with advanced degrees in environmental science and related disciplines. They have the expertise and knowledge to tackle complex environmental policy topics with precision.
• Custom written works : We understand the importance of originality and tailor each research paper to meet your specific requirements. Our writers start from scratch and create unique, plagiarism-free content for every order.
• In-depth research : Our writers are skilled researchers who are adept at conducting comprehensive literature reviews and gathering relevant data to support your environmental policy research.
• Custom formatting : We follow the required citation styles and formatting guidelines to ensure that your research paper meets the academic standards and is properly formatted.
• Top quality : We are committed to delivering high-quality research papers that demonstrate critical thinking, analytical skills, and a deep understanding of environmental policy issues.
• Customized solutions : We understand that each research paper is unique, and we tailor our approach to meet your specific research objectives and requirements. Our writers work closely with you to ensure that your paper reflects your ideas and perspective.
• Flexible pricing : We offer competitive and flexible pricing options to accommodate the budgetary constraints of students. We strive to provide affordable services without compromising on quality.
• Short deadlines : We understand that deadlines can be tight, and we are equipped to handle urgent orders. Our writers work efficiently to deliver quality research papers even within short timeframes.
• Timely delivery : We prioritize timely delivery and understand the importance of submitting your research paper on time. You can rely on us to meet your deadlines without compromising the quality of your paper.
• 24/7 support : Our customer support team is available round the clock to assist you with any queries or concerns you may have. We are dedicated to providing a seamless and responsive support system throughout the writing process.
• Absolute privacy : We prioritize the confidentiality of our clients. Your personal information and order details are kept strictly confidential, and we have robust measures in place to ensure data security.
• Easy order tracking : Our user-friendly platform allows you to track the progress of your order and communicate directly with your assigned writer. You can stay updated on the status of your research paper at every stage.
• Money back guarantee : We are committed to your satisfaction. If, for any reason, you are not fully satisfied with the final research paper, we offer a money-back guarantee to ensure your peace of mind.

By choosing iResearchNet for your custom environmental policy research paper, you can be confident that you are working with a trusted and reliable service provider. Our dedicated team of writers and support staff is committed to delivering a research paper that meets your academic requirements and exceeds your expectations. Place your order today and let us assist you in achieving your academic goals.

Order Your Custom Research Paper Today

Are you ready to elevate your environmental policy research to new heights? Look no further than iResearchNet, your trusted partner in custom research papers. Our team of expert writers, specialized in environmental science and policy, is here to provide you with the support and expertise you need to excel in your academic journey.

With our writing services, ordering a custom environmental policy research paper is quick, easy, and hassle-free. Experience the benefits of working with expert writers, receiving custom-written works, enjoying in-depth research, and ensuring proper formatting according to your preferred citation style. Our flexible pricing options, short deadlines, and commitment to timely delivery ensure that you can meet your academic requirements without compromising quality.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Re-examination of the relationship between industrial agglomeration and haze pollution: from the perspective of the spatial moderating effect of environmental regulation, 1. introduction, 2. literature review, 3. mechanistic analysis and research hypothesis, 3.1. the spatiotemporal scale cumulative optimization mechanism of industrial agglomeration on haze pollution, 3.2. the competitive promotion and screening mechanism of environmental regulation on haze pollution, 3.3. the spatial moderating mechanism of environmental regulation on industrial agglomeration and haze pollution, 4. model setup and variable selection, 4.1. dynamic spatial panel model, 4.2. dynamic spatial moderating effect model, 4.3. selection of variables, 5. empirical results and analysis, 5.1. estimation results of the dynamic spatial panel model, 5.2. robustness test, 6. examination of spatial moderating effect mechanism, 7. conclusions and policy recommendations, 8. discussion, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Song, D.; Chen, L.; Wang, B. How Environmental Trading Achieve the Synergistic Effects of Pollution and Carbon Reduction: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence. J. Quant. Technol. Econ. 2024 , 41 , 171–192. [ Google Scholar ]
• He, L.; Lv, J.; He, P.; Hu, Q.; Liu, W. Analysis of Synergistic Benefits between Carbon Emissions and Air Pollution Based on Remote Sensing Observations: A Case Study of the Central Henan Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 4919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chuai, X.; Gao, R.; Li, J.; Zhao, R.; Lu, Y. Temporal-spatial changes of PM2.5 emissions and concentrations across China and regional inequity analysis. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2021 , 30 , 2693–2702. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shao, S.; Li, X.; Cao, J.; Yang, L. China’s Economic Policy Choices for Governing Smog Pollution: Based on Spatial Spillover Effects. Econ. Res. J. 2016 , 51 , 73–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, C.; Lin, T.; Xu, Z.; Chen, Y. Impacts of Foreign Direct Investment and Industrial Structure Transformation on Haze Pollution across China. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 5439. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ma, Z.; Xiao, H. The Research on A Spatial Differentiation of Influence Factors of Regional PM2.5 in China: The Empirical Analysis Based on Geographically Weighted Regression Model. J. Shanxi Univ. Financ. Econ. 2017 , 39 , 14–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yuan, B.; Ren, S.; Chen, X. Can environmental regulation promote the coordinated development of economy and environment in China’s manufacturing industry? —A panel data analysis of 28 sub-sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 149 , 11–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kyriakopoulou, E.; Xepapadeas, A. Atmospheric pollution in rapidly growing industrial cities: Spatial policies and land use patterns. J. Econ. Geogr. 2017 , 17 , 607–634. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, D.; Shi, M. Multiple environmental policies and pollution haven hypothesis: Evidence from China’s polluting industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2017 , 141 , 295–304. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, C.; Lu, Y.; Guo, L.; Yu, T. The Intensity of Environmental Regulation and Technological Progress of Production. Econ. Res. J. 2011 , 46 , 113–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, X.; Lai, X.; Zhang, F. Research on green innovation effect of industrial agglomeration from perspective of environmental regulation: Evidence in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 288 , 125583. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, X.; Zuo, L.; Hu, L.; Wang, C.; Sheng, S. Industrial agglomeration, environmental regulation, and carbon emissions reduction under the carbon neutrality goal: Threshold effects based on stages of industrialization in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2024 , 434 , 140064. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Y.; Wang, N.; Xie, R. Exploring the role of heterogeneous environmental regulations in industrial agglomeration: A fresh evidence from China. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 10902. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berliant, M.; Peng, S.K.; Wang, P. Taxing pollution: Agglomeration and welfare consequences. Econ. Theory 2014 , 55 , 665–704. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hong, Y.; Lyu, X.; Chen, Y.; Li, W. Industrial agglomeration externalities, local governments’ competition and environmental pollution: Evidence from Chinese prefecture-level cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 277 , 123455. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andersson, M.; Lööf, H. Agglomeration and productivity: Evidence from firm-level data. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2011 , 46 , 601–620. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, F.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, J. Does industrial agglomeration and environmental pollution have a spatial spillover effect?: Taking panel data of resource-based cities in China as an example. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023 , 30 , 76829–76841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hao, Y.; Song, J.; Shen, Z. Does industrial agglomeration affect the regional environment? Evidence from Chinese cities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 , 29 , 7811–7826. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, K.; Dou, J. Agglomeration and Pollution: Empirical Analysis Based on the 287 Cities of China. J. Financ. Res. 2015 , 12 , 32–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang, W.; Yang, M.; Li, X. Interactive effects of agglomeration and urban haze pollution. Urban Probl. 2017 , 83–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ye, Y.; Ye, S.; Yu, H. Can Industrial Collaborative Agglomeration Reduce Haze Pollution? City-Level Empirical Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 1566. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Eslami Giski, S.; Salimifar, M.; Esifi, A. The Effect of Industrial Agglomeration on Pollution Agglomeration: Spatial Econometric Approach. Plan. Budg. 2022 , 27 , 155–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dai, P.; Lin, Y. Should There Be Industrial Agglomeration in Sustainable Cities? A Perspective Based on Haze Pollution. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 6609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, R.; Guo, X.; Wang, J.; Yang, A. Threshold effect of industrial agglomeration on haze pollution: Taking 73 PM2.5 key monitoring cities in China as an example. Sci. Technol. Manag. Res. 2018 , 38 , 123–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Y.; Wang, T.; Zhang, H. Non-linear impact and spillover effects of industrial agglomeration on haze and ecological efficiency. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022 , 42 , 6656–6669. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan, X.; Yu, W.; Wu, S. The Impact of the Dynamics of Agglomeration Externalities on Air Pollution: Evidence from Urban Panel Data in China. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, C.; Li, G. Does environmental regulation reduce China’s haze pollution? An empirical analysis based on panel quantile regression. PLoS ONE 2020 , 15 , e0240723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sadat, S.A.; Hoex, B.; Pearce, J.M. A review of the effects of haze on solar photovoltaic performance. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2022 , 167 , 112796. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albulescu, C.T.; Artene, A.E.; Luminosu, C.T.; Tămășilă, M. CO 2 emissions, renewable energy, and environmental regulations in the EU countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020 , 27 , 33615–33635. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, S.; Zhang, Z.; Gan, Y. Spatio-temporal Effect of Environmental Regulations on Haze Pollution from the Perspective of Implicit Economy. Econ. Geogr. 2022 , 42 , 178–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, S. Environmental regulation, shadow economy, and haze pollution—Dynamic semiparametric analysis. Econ. Perspect. 2016 , 11 , 33–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuang, C.; Yu, W.; Yin, Y.; Han, D.; Li, S.; Kuang, J. Heterogeneity environmental regulation and provincial haze pollution in China: An empirical study based on threshold model. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023 , 25 , 14715–14732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Z.; He, G.; Jiang, S. The impact of environmental regulation and industrial agglomeration on air pollution: On the spatial spillover perspective. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024 , 21 , 2585–2604. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blackman, A.; Kildegaard, A. Clean technological change in developing-country industrial clusters: Mexican leather tanning. Environ. Econ. Pol. Stud. 2010 , 12 , 115–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C.; Sun, Y.; Lan, Q.; Jiang, F. Impacts of industrial agglomeration on pollution and ecological efficiency: A spatial econometric analysis based on a big panel dataset of China’s 259 cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 258 , 120721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Artha, B.; Asri, C.P.; Sari, N.P.; Zahra, K.A. Industrial Agglomeration: Suatu Studi Literatur. J. Rekayasa Ind. JRI 2022 , 4 , 13–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Bai, X. Research on the Time and Space Differences in the Measurement of the Level of China’s Enterprise Vitality. Soft Sci. 2022 , 36 , 91–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deng, H.; Zhi, C. Haze control, household registration system reform, and urban labor productivity. CJPRE 2024 , 34 , 138–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neves, S.A.; Marques, A.C.; Patrício, M. Determinants of CO 2 emissions in European Union countries: Does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution? Econ. Anal. Policy 2020 , 68 , 114–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Qin, B.; Yu, R.; Ge, L. The impact of environmental regulation on the industrial structure transformation of resource-based cities. China Environ. Sci. 2021 , 41 , 3427–3440. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernandez-Escobedo, R.; Eguía-Peña, B.; Aldaz-Odriozola, L. Economic agglomeration in the age of Industry 4.0: Developing a digital industrial cluster as a new policy tool for the digital world. Compet. Rev. 2024 , 34 , 538–558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheng, X. Traffic development, spatial-time spillover, and haze pollution. J. Cent. Univ. Financ. Econ. 2022 , 96–105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, J.; Lan, H.; Zhao, C.; Zhou, J. Haze Pollution Levels, Spatial Spillover Influence, and Impacts of the Digital Economy: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 9076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Ma, R.; Wang, J. Impact of Economic Agglomeration on Pollution of Smog Based on Spatial Econometric Model: The Case Study of Yangtze River Delta. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2019 , 28 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Colmer, J.; Hardman, I.; Shimshack, J.; Voorheis, J. Disparities in PM2. 5 air pollution in the United States. Science 2020 , 369 , 575–578. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shao, S.; Zhang, K.; Dou, J. Comparisons on the Income Measurements in Chinese Household Survey Data. J. Manag. World 2019 , 35 , 36–60+226. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guan, H.; Wu, Z. Local Environmental Regulation and Green Total Factor Productivity: Is Technological Progress or Technical Efficiency Change. Econ. Probl. 2020 , 2 , 118–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, X.; He, C.; Li, Q.; Mao, X. Influence of local government competition and environmental regulations on Chinese urban air quality. CPREE 2018 , 28 , 103–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elhorst, J.P. Specification and estimation of spatial panel data models. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2003 , 26 , 244–268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Wang, X.; Li, Z. Re-Examination of the Relationship between Industrial Agglomeration and Haze Pollution: From the Perspective of the Spatial Moderating Effect of Environmental Regulation. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177807

Wang X, Li Z. Re-Examination of the Relationship between Industrial Agglomeration and Haze Pollution: From the Perspective of the Spatial Moderating Effect of Environmental Regulation. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177807

Wang, Xiaolin, and Zhenyang Li. 2024. "Re-Examination of the Relationship between Industrial Agglomeration and Haze Pollution: From the Perspective of the Spatial Moderating Effect of Environmental Regulation" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177807

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• All health topics »
• Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
• Reproductive health
• Air pollution
• Mental health

Publications

• Initiatives
• Health security and AMR
• NCDs and ageing
• Climate change
• Reaching the unreached

• News releases
• Feature stories
• Photo stories
• Commentaries
• Photo library
• Press contact

People of the Western Pacific

• Dzud in Mongolia
• Mpox outbreak
• Seasonal influenza
• Avian influenza
• Pacific islands
• Emergency medical teams
• The Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN)
• Preparedness
• Health Data Platform >>
• How we work
• Where we work
• Our programmes
• Country support
• Pacific technical support

Regional Director

• Regional Committee
• Collaborating Centers
• Regional health initiatives

WHO announces highest level of alert for mpox

Advice, data and research

Parliamentarians call for strengthening health workforce in the Asia Pacific

WHO country office representatives attend leadership programme on tobacco control

WHO supports Kiribati to employ a One Health approach to advancing food safety

The Western Pacific Region is home to almost 1.9 billion people across 37 countries and areas .

Who is working with governments and partners across the western pacific to make this the healthiest and safest region..

Dr Saia Ma’u Piukala

For the future

A five year vision for delivering better health in the Western Pacific Region

Regional priorities 2020-25

In line with the regional vision "For the Future", four priorities must be addressed to reach our goal of making the Western Pacific the safest and healthiest region.

Featured activities

Eliminating measles and rubella

Building climate-resilient health systems

Advancing health through gender, equity, human rights

Addressing drug-resistant TB

Malaysia – WHO Country Cooperation Strategy 2024–2028

The Country Cooperation Strategy (CCS) is WHO’s strategic framework to guide the Organization’s work in and with a country. It responds to...

History as a partner in public health: a report of the foresight think tank on the history of pandemics

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Data, Strategy and Innovation group of the WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific collaborated with eight...

Asia Pacific Health Security Action Framework

Public health emergencies, including pandemics, highlight the need for health systems and services that are prepared, resilient and ready to respond to...

A review of health-care waste management policies in the Western Pacific Region: key findings from selected...

Health-care waste management is a critical aspect of health-care systems, crucial for public health and environmental sustainability. This report provides...

10th Global Conference of the Alliance for Healthy Cities

Call for nominations: Healthy Cities Awards 2024