Misplaced Pages

Environmental Performance Index: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:25, 25 November 2021 editRlink2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users309,868 editsm →References: archive link repair, may include: archive.* -> archive.today, and http->https for ghostarchive.org and archive.orgTag: AWB← Previous edit Revision as of 09:45, 20 December 2021 edit undoSimLibrarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users125,544 edits rm italics from quote, grammar and style fixes, URL updatesTag: Visual editNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
|url=http://dualcitizeninc.com/GGEI-2016.pdf}}</ref> provide an integrated measure of the environmental, social and economic dynamics of national economies. The GGEI utilizes EPI data for the environmental dimension of the index while also providing a performance assessment of efficiency sectors (e.g. transport, buildings, energy), investment, green innovation and national leadership around climate change. |url=http://dualcitizeninc.com/GGEI-2016.pdf}}</ref> provide an integrated measure of the environmental, social and economic dynamics of national economies. The GGEI utilizes EPI data for the environmental dimension of the index while also providing a performance assessment of efficiency sectors (e.g. transport, buildings, energy), investment, green innovation and national leadership around climate change.


The Environmental Performance Index for the year 2020, rank 180 countries. The top 5 countries are ], ], ], ] and ].<ref>{{cite web |title=2020 EPI Results |url=https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/epi |website=Environmental Performance Index |access-date=22 November 2020}}</ref> The Environmental Performance Index for the year 2020 ranks 180 countries. The top five countries are ], ], ], ] and ].<ref>{{cite web |title=2020 EPI Results |url=https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2020/component/epi |website=Environmental Performance Index |access-date=22 November 2020}}</ref>


== Methodology == == Methodology ==
Line 55: Line 55:
|- |-
|rowspan="5" |] (30%) |rowspan="5" |] (30%)
|{{CO2}} ] (Total) (50%) |{{CO2}} ] (Total) (50%)
|- |-
|{{CO2}} Emissions (Power) (20%) |{{CO2}} Emissions (Power) (20%)
|- |-
|] (20%) |] (20%)
Line 78: Line 78:


=== 2018 variables === === 2018 variables ===
Are largely similar to those from 2016, but have changed in details and some weights. The variables in 2018 are largely similar to those from 2016, but have changed in details and some weights.
Notably environmental Health is now weighted at 40% and Ecosystem Vitality at 60%.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/figure_1_1.jpg|title=EPI 2018 variables}}</ref> Notably environmental Health is now weighted at 40% and ecosystem vitality at 60%.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/figure_1_1.jpg|title=EPI 2018 variables}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-left" {| class="wikitable" style="margin-left"
|- |-
Line 247: Line 247:
The methodology for the EPI has been criticized for its arbitrary choice of metrics which could introduce bias, and its poor performance as an indicator for environmental sustainability.<ref name="prudue1"> {{cite journal |last1=Kanmani |first1=Aiyshwariya |last2=Obringer |first2=Renee |last3=Rachunok |first3=Benjamin |last4=Nateghi |first4=Roshanak |title=Assessing Global Environmental Sustainability Via an Unsupervised Clustering Framework |journal= Sustainability|date=11 January 2020 |volume=12 |issue=2 |page=563 |doi=10.3390/su12020563 |url=https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/fund/4 |access-date=15 May 2021|doi-access=free }}</ref> Additional criticisms center on the EPI's lack of specific policy suggestions, and the index's weighting biases against data deficient countries that has led to the overlooking of ecological progress in developing countries. Below is a quote from the abstract: The methodology for the EPI has been criticized for its arbitrary choice of metrics which could introduce bias, and its poor performance as an indicator for environmental sustainability.<ref name="prudue1"> {{cite journal |last1=Kanmani |first1=Aiyshwariya |last2=Obringer |first2=Renee |last3=Rachunok |first3=Benjamin |last4=Nateghi |first4=Roshanak |title=Assessing Global Environmental Sustainability Via an Unsupervised Clustering Framework |journal= Sustainability|date=11 January 2020 |volume=12 |issue=2 |page=563 |doi=10.3390/su12020563 |url=https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/fund/4 |access-date=15 May 2021|doi-access=free }}</ref> Additional criticisms center on the EPI's lack of specific policy suggestions, and the index's weighting biases against data deficient countries that has led to the overlooking of ecological progress in developing countries. Below is a quote from the abstract:


::''Jordan spent 2001–2006 in a node represented by lower life expectancy due to particulate matter emissions (PME), but, from 2007 to 2010, the country shifted to a node with a lower PME magnitude—indicating a positive shift in overall environmental sustainability. By following the EPI ranking, the policymakers in Jordan may have assumed that their decisions between 2006 and 2008 led to a deterioration in environmental sustainability, when, in fact, the inconsistent nature of the weighting process involved in the EPI rankings is a likely cause...''<ref name="prudue1" /> ::Jordan spent 2001–2006 in a node represented by lower life expectancy due to particulate matter emissions (PME), but, from 2007 to 2010, the country shifted to a node with a lower PME magnitude—indicating a positive shift in overall environmental sustainability. By following the EPI ranking, the policymakers in Jordan may have assumed that their decisions between 2006 and 2008 led to a deterioration in environmental sustainability, when, in fact, the inconsistent nature of the weighting process involved in the EPI rankings is a likely cause...<ref name="prudue1" />


==See also== ==See also==
Line 262: Line 262:


==External links== ==External links==
* – EPI – A collaboration between ] and ] Universities * – EPI – A collaboration between ] and ] Universities
* – YCELP – Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy * – YCELP – Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy
* *


{{Quality of life country lists}} {{Quality of life country lists}}

Revision as of 09:45, 20 December 2021

Climate Index
Countries by Environmental Performance Index (2020)

The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is a method of quantifying and numerically marking the environmental performance of a state's policies. This index was developed from the Pilot Environmental Performance Index, first published in 2002, and designed to supplement the environmental targets set forth in the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

The EPI was preceded by the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI), published between 1999 and 2005. Both indices were developed by Yale University (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy) and Columbia University (Center for International Earth Science Information Network) in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The ESI was developed to evaluate environmental sustainability relative to the paths of other countries. Due to a shift in focus by the teams developing the ESI, the EPI uses outcome-oriented indicators, then working as a benchmark index that can be more easily used by policy makers, environmental scientists, advocates and the general public. Other leading indices like the Global Green Economy Index (GGEI) provide an integrated measure of the environmental, social and economic dynamics of national economies. The GGEI utilizes EPI data for the environmental dimension of the index while also providing a performance assessment of efficiency sectors (e.g. transport, buildings, energy), investment, green innovation and national leadership around climate change.

The Environmental Performance Index for the year 2020 ranks 180 countries. The top five countries are Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, United Kingdom and France.

Methodology

EPI calculation variables change often as can be seen below. This should be taken into account when observing country performance through several reports, as it can lead to score and ranking changes founded just on methodology modification.

2020 variables

Objective Issue Category Indicator
Environmental health (40%) Air quality (33%) Air pollution - Household Solid Fuels (40%)
Air pollution - Average Exposure to PM2.5 (30%)
Air pollution - PM2.5 Exceedance (30%)
Water Quality (30%) Unsafe Sanitation (50%)
Drinking Water Quality (50%)
Heavy metals (5%) Lead Exposure (100%)
Ecosystem vitality (60%) Biodiversity and habitat (25%) Marine Protected Areas (20%)
Biome Protection (Global) (20%)
Biome Protection (National) (20%)
Species Protection Index (20%)
Representativeness Index (10%)
Species Habitat Index (10%)
Forests (10%) Three Cover Loss (100%)
Fisheries (10%) Fish Stock Status (50%)
Regional Marine Trophic Index (50%)
Climate and energy (30%) CO2 Emissions (Total) (50%)
CO2 Emissions (Power) (20%)
Methane Emissions (20%)
N2O Emissions (5%)
Black Carbon Emissions (5%)
Air Pollution (10%) S2O Emissions (50%)
NOX Emissions (50%)
Water resources (25%) Wastewater treatment (100%)
Agriculture (10%) Sustainable Nitrogen management (100%)

2018 variables

The variables in 2018 are largely similar to those from 2016, but have changed in details and some weights. Notably environmental Health is now weighted at 40% and ecosystem vitality at 60%.

Objective Issue Category Indicator
Environmental health (40%) Health Impacts (33%) Environmental Risk Exposure (100%)
Air quality (33%) Household Air Quality (30%)
Air pollution - Average Exposure to PM2.5 (30%)
Air pollution - PM2.5 Exceedance (30%)
Air pollution - Average Exposure to NO2 (10%)
Water and sanitation (33%) Unsafe Sanitation (50%)
Drinking Water Quality (50%)
Ecosystem vitality (60%) Water resources (25%) Wastewater treatment (100%)
Agriculture (10%) Nitrogen use efficiency (75%)
Nitrogen balance (25%)
Forests (10%) Change in forest cover (100%)
Fisheries (5%) Fish stocks (100%)
Biodiversity and habitat (25%) Terrestrial Protected Areas (National Biome Weights) (20%)
Terrestrial protected areas (Global Biome Weights) (20%)
Marine protected areas (20%)
Species protection (National) (20%)
Species protection (Global) (20%)
Climate and energy (25%) Trend in carbon intensity (75%)
Trend in CO2 emissions per kWh (25%)

EPI scores

2020

The Environmental Performance Index for the year 2020 ranks 180 countries.

Top 30 countries and score

  1.  Denmark 82.5
  2.  Luxembourg 82.3
  3.   Switzerland 81.5
  4.  United Kingdom 81.3
  5.  France 80
  6.  Austria 79.6
  7.  Finland 78.9
  8.  Sweden 78.7
  9.  Norway 77.7
  10.  Germany 77.2
  11.  Netherlands 75.3
  12.  Japan 75.1
  13.  Australia 74.9
  14.  Spain 74.3
  15.  Belgium 73.3
  16.  Ireland 72.8
  17.  Iceland 72.3
  18.  Slovenia 72
  19.  New Zealand 71.3
  20.  Canada 71
  21.  Czech Republic 71
  22.  Italy 71
  23.  Malta 70.7
  24.  United States of America 69.3
  25.  Greece 69.1
  26.  Slovakia 68.3
  27.  Portugal 67
  28.  South Korea 66.5
  29.  Israel 65.8
  30.  Estonia 65.3
  31.  Cyprus 64.8
  32.  Romania 64.7

2018

Rank Country EPI score Environmental
Health

(40% weight)

Ecosystem
Vitality

(60% weight)

1   Switzerland 87.42 93.57 83.32
2  France 83.95 95.71 76.11
3  Denmark 81.60 98.20 70.53
4  Malta 80.90 93.80 72.30
5  Sweden 80.51 94.41 71.24
6  United Kingdom 79.89 96.03 69.13
7  Luxembourg 79.12 95.07 68.48
8  Austria 78.97 86.38 74.03
9  Ireland 78.77 95.92 67.34
10  Finland 78.64 99.35 64.83
11  Iceland 78.57 98.41 65.34
12  Spain 78.39 94.21 67.85
13  Germany 78.37 88.68 71.50
14  Norway 77.49 97.86 63.91
15  Belgium 77.38 89.37 69.39
16  Italy 76.96 85.88 71.02
17  New Zealand 75.96 95.96 62.63
18  Netherlands 75.46 92.26 64.25
19  Israel 75.01 94.14 62.25
20  Japan 74.69 92.99 62.48
21  Australia 74.12 97.95 58.23
22  Greece 73.60 91.03 61.98
23  Taiwan 72.84 69.85 74.83
24  Cyprus 72.60 87.96 62.37
25  Canada 72.18 97.51 55.29
26  Portugal 71.91 90.47 59.53
27  United States of America 71.19 93.91 56.04
28  Slovakia 70.60 63.87 75.08
29  Lithuania 69.33 72.57 67.18
30  Bulgaria 67.85 69.60 66.68

EPI report archive

Below is a list of links to the official archive of past reports

Criticisms

The methodology for the EPI has been criticized for its arbitrary choice of metrics which could introduce bias, and its poor performance as an indicator for environmental sustainability. Additional criticisms center on the EPI's lack of specific policy suggestions, and the index's weighting biases against data deficient countries that has led to the overlooking of ecological progress in developing countries. Below is a quote from the abstract:

Jordan spent 2001–2006 in a node represented by lower life expectancy due to particulate matter emissions (PME), but, from 2007 to 2010, the country shifted to a node with a lower PME magnitude—indicating a positive shift in overall environmental sustainability. By following the EPI ranking, the policymakers in Jordan may have assumed that their decisions between 2006 and 2008 led to a deterioration in environmental sustainability, when, in fact, the inconsistent nature of the weighting process involved in the EPI rankings is a likely cause...

See also

References

  1. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, and Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University. "Environmental Performance Index". Retrieved 16 March 2008. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  2. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy / Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University. "2008 Environmental Performance Index Report" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2008. Retrieved 18 March 2008. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help) See Executive Summary, pp. 32-35 for a detailed comparison between the ESI 2005, the EPI 2006 and the EPI 2008.
  3. "2016 Global Green Economy Index (GGEI)" (PDF).
  4. "2020 EPI Results". Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved 22 November 2020.
  5. "EPI 2020 variables".
  6. "EPI 2018 variables".
  7. "2020 EPI Results". Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved 22 November 2020.
  8. ^ Kanmani, Aiyshwariya; Obringer, Renee; Rachunok, Benjamin; Nateghi, Roshanak (11 January 2020). "Assessing Global Environmental Sustainability Via an Unsupervised Clustering Framework". Sustainability. 12 (2): 563. doi:10.3390/su12020563. Retrieved 15 May 2021.

External links

Lists of countries by quality of life rankings
General
Economic
Environment
Health
Social/political
Categories:
Environmental Performance Index: Difference between revisions Add topic