IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i22p4490-d286961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dynamics of Changes and Spatial Differences in the Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance in Poland: Current State

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Senetra

    (Institute of Geography and Land Management, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Prawocheńskiego Str. 15, 10-720 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Pawlewicz

    (Institute of Geography and Land Management, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Prawocheńskiego Str. 15, 10-720 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Adam Pawlewicz

    (Department of Agrotechnology, Agricultural Production Management and Agribusiness, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego Str. 8, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

Abstract

Socioeconomic development and consumption are among the key drivers of environmental degradation. Legal measures and the appropriate funding are required to effectively protect the natural environment. The aim of this study was to analyze the dynamics of changes and spatial differences in the measures undertaken to protect and improve the quality of the environment. A set of indicators for evaluating environmental performance was developed and tested on Poland as an example. The relevant data are publicly available in statistical databases. Proposed indicators can be modified for use in other countries by incorporating country-specific characteristics. The environmental protection activities implemented in Polish voivodeships at the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 4 level (counties) in three financial frameworks (2004–2006, 2007–2013 and 2014–2017) were analyzed against the base year (2003). A total of 27 variables divided into four categories were analyzed: (1) water and wastewater management and water conservation, (2) waste management and protection of the Earth’s surface, (3) air pollution and climate control, (4) nature conservation and promotion of pro-environmental behaviors. A Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance (SIEEP) was developed based on the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method. Based on the arithmetic mean and standard deviation, the analyzed counties were divided into four typological classes reflecting the values of the SIEEP. The research showed that the implementation of environmental protection measures financed from public funds minimizes the negative impact of human activities on the environment. Positive changes in the values of the analyzed variables and a steady increase in the number of counties with high values of the SIEEP testify to the above.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Senetra & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Adam Pawlewicz, 2019. "The Dynamics of Changes and Spatial Differences in the Synthetic Indicator for Evaluating Environmental Performance in Poland: Current State," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-23, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:22:p:4490-:d:286961
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/22/4490/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/22/4490/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manli Wang & Haiqing Fang & Ghose Bishwajit & Yuanxi Xiang & Hang Fu & Zhanchun Feng, 2015. "Evaluation of Rural Primary Health Care in Western China: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Lin Ding & Zhenfeng Shao & Hanchao Zhang & Cong Xu & Dewen Wu, 2016. "A Comprehensive Evaluation of Urban Sustainable Development in China Based on the TOPSIS-Entropy Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Tu, Zhengge & Hu, Tianyang & Shen, Renjun, 2019. "Evaluating public participation impact on environmental protection and ecological efficiency in China: Evidence from PITI disclosure," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 111-123.
    4. Bockstaller, C. & Girardin, P., 2003. "How to validate environmental indicators," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 639-653, May.
    5. David Gadenne & Jessica Kennedy & Catherine McKeiver, 2009. "An Empirical Study of Environmental Awareness and Practices in SMEs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 45-63, January.
    6. Barbara Fura & Qingfang Wang, 2017. "The level of socioeconomic development of EU countries and the state of ISO 14001 certification," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 103-119, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu Gan & Tao Xu & NengRui Xu & JiLv Xu & Dan Qiao, 2021. "How Environmental Awareness and Knowledge Affect Urban Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Rubber Plantation Ecological Restoration Programs: Evidence from Hainan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Wang, Mengmeng & Zhou, Tao, 2022. "Understanding the dynamic relationship between smart city implementation and urban sustainability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    3. Adam Pawlewicz & Katarzyna Pawlewicz, 2023. "The Risk of Agricultural Land Abandonment as a Socioeconomic Challenge for the Development of Agriculture in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Adam Senetra & Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj & Dovilė Krupickaitė, 2020. "Differences in the Environmental, Social and Economic Development of Polish–Lithuanian Trans-Border Regions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 1015-1038, February.
    5. Ivana Mijatovic & Milica Maricic & Ana Horvat, 2019. "The Factors Affecting the Environmental Practices of Companies: The Case of Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, October.
    6. Hazem Ali & Ting Chen & Yunhong Hao, 2021. "Sustainable Manufacturing Practices, Competitive Capabilities, and Sustainable Performance: Moderating Role of Environmental Regulations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Pin Li & Jinsuo Zhang, 2019. "Is China’s Energy Supply Sustainable? New Research Model Based on the Exponential Smoothing and GM(1,1) Methods," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-30, January.
    8. Fermín Sánchez-Carracedo & Jordi Segalas & Gorka Bueno & Pere Busquets & Joan Climent & Victor G. Galofré & Boris Lazzarini & David Lopez & Carme Martín & Rafael Miñano & Estíbaliz Sáez de Cámara & Bá, 2021. "Tools for Embedding and Assessing Sustainable Development Goals in Engineering Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-30, November.
    9. Zhiqiang Liu & Ji Li & Hong Zhu & Zhenyao Cai & Luning Wang, 2014. "Chinese firms’ sustainable development—The role of future orientation, environmental commitment, and employee training," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 195-213, March.
    10. Qunxi Gong & Min Chen & Xianli Zhao & Zhigeng Ji, 2019. "Sustainable Urban Development System Measurement Based on Dissipative Structure Theory, the Grey Entropy Method and Coupling Theory: A Case Study in Chengdu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Zhiwei Yan & Xuerong Peng & Seoki Lee & Leibao Zhang, 2023. "How do multiple cognitions shape corporate proactive environmental strategies? The joint effects of environmental awareness and entrepreneurial orientation," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 1592-1617, September.
    12. Spaeter, Sandrine & Verchère, Alban, 2004. "Aléa moral et politiques d’audit optimales dans le cadre de la pollution d’origine agricole de l’eau," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 71.
    13. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    14. Oscar Reicher & Verónica Delgado & José-Luis Arumi, 2021. "Use of Indicators in Strategic Environmental Assessments of Urban-Planning Instruments: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Gözde Özdemir Uçgun & Muhammed Talha Narcı, 2022. "The Role of Demographic Factors in Tourists’ Sustainability Consciousness, Sustainable Tourism Awareness and Purchasing Behavior," Journal of Tourismology, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 8(2), pages 215-237, December.
    16. Shamsheer Haq & Ismet Boz, 2020. "Measuring environmental, economic, and social sustainability index of tea farms in Rize Province, Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2545-2567, March.
    17. Meiling Zhang & Stephen Nazieh & Teddy Nkrumah & Xingyu Wang, 2021. "Simulating Grassland Carbon Dynamics in Gansu for the Past Fifty (50) Years (1968–2018) Using the Century Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-20, August.
    18. Weiwei Li & Pingtao Yi & Danning Zhang, 2018. "Sustainability Evaluation of Cities in Northeastern China Using Dynamic TOPSIS-Entropy Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    19. Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Oomen, Gerard J.M. & Rossing, Walter A.H., 2012. "Multi-objective optimization and design of farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 63-77.
    20. Adriana Luciano & Federica Pascale & Francesco Polverino & Alison Pooley, 2020. "Measuring Age-Friendly Housing: A Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-35, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:22:p:4490-:d:286961. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.