IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14581-d1255440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative Evaluation of Carbon Reduction Policy Based on the Background of Global Climate Change

Author

Listed:
  • Junyan Meng

    (School of Sociology, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)

  • Wei Xu

    (School of Sociology, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)

Abstract

High-quality carbon reduction policies play a crucial role in tackling global climate change and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. China, as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has committed to peaking its carbon emission by 2030. This study focuses on the evaluation of 12 carbon reduction policies implemented by the Chinese government. A quantitative evaluation index system for carbon reduction policies was designed. Next, the policy modeling consistency (PMC) index method was utilized to assess the quality of these policies. The findings are as follows: Firstly, the average PMC index value of the 12 carbon reduction policies is 6.75, indicating a good performance overall. Secondly, the carbon reduction policies established by the Chinese government are generally effective; among the twelve policies analyzed, one policy received a perfect evaluation grade, four policies were graded as excellent, six policies were graded as good, and one policy received a bad evaluation grade. Thirdly, the indicators Z 3 , Z 4 , Z 5 , and Z 9 in the evaluation index system for carbon reduction policies scored relatively low, suggesting that there are some deficiencies in terms of policy timeliness, issuing institutions, policy tools, and policy evaluation within the 12 policies. Fourthly, this study presents a PMC curved surface diagram to visually illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the carbon reduction policies. Finally, based on the research findings, recommendations are provided to enhance the quality of carbon reduction policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Junyan Meng & Wei Xu, 2023. "Quantitative Evaluation of Carbon Reduction Policy Based on the Background of Global Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-14, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14581-:d:1255440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14581/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14581/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    2. Graeme Reed & Nicolas D. Brunet & Deborah McGregor & Curtis Scurr & Tonio Sadik & Jamie Lavigne & Sheri Longboat, 2022. "Toward Indigenous visions of nature-based solutions: an exploration into Canadian federal climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 514-533, April.
    3. Daniel Moran & Richard Wood & Edgar Hertwich & Kim Mattson & Joao F. D. Rodriguez & Karin Schanes & John Barrett, 2020. "Quantifying the potential for consumer-oriented policy to reduce European and foreign carbon emissions," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(S1), pages 28-38, April.
    4. Lebunu Hewage Udara Willhelm Abeydeera & Jayantha Wadu Mesthrige & Tharushi Imalka Samarasinghalage, 2019. "Global Research on Carbon Emissions: A Scientometric Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-25, July.
    5. Guilisse La Fortune Nkoua Nkuika & Xia Yiqun, 2022. "Quantitative Evaluation and Optimization Path of Advanced Manufacturing Development Policy Based on the PMC–AE Index Model," International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    7. Mohammad Ershadul Karim & Ridoan Karim & Md. Toriqul Islam & Firdaus Muhammad-Sukki & Nurul Aini Bani & Mohd Nabil Muhtazaruddin, 2019. "Renewable Energy for Sustainable Growth and Development: An Evaluation of Law and Policy of Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-30, October.
    8. Sharif, Arshian & Raza, Syed Ali & Ozturk, Ilhan & Afshan, Sahar, 2019. "The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: A global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 685-691.
    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. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    2. Jean-Marc Blazy & Julie Subervie & Jacky Paul & François Causeret & Loic Guinde & Sarah Moulla & Alban Thomas & Jorge Sierra, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes promoting compost use to sequester carbon in soils in Guadeloupe," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02748634, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    3. Alexandre Sauquet, 2021. "Ex-post analysis of the crop diversification policy ofthe CAP Greening in France," Working Papers hal-03455548, HAL.
    4. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    5. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    6. Janusch, Nicholas & Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J., 2017. "Behavioral Insights for Agri-Environmental Program and Policy Design," 2018 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 5-7, 2018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 266299, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Pavel Ciaian & Federica Di Marcantonio & Liesbeth Colen & Kjersti Nes & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & François J. Dessart & Luisa Menapace & Carlo Russo & Annarita Colamatteo & Negin Fathinejad & Maria Anna , 2020. "Economic analyses of differences in composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the Single Market," JRC Research Reports JRC120297, Joint Research Centre.
    8. Marianne Lefebvre & Jesus Barreiro‐Hurlé & Ciaran Blanchflower & Liesbeth Colen & Laure Kuhfuss & Jens Rommel & Tanja Šumrada & Fabian Thomas & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Can Economic Experiments Contribute to a More Effective CAP?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 42-49, December.
    9. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    10. Spiegel, Alisa & Severini, Simone & Britz, Wolfgang & Coletta, Attilio, 2020. "Step-by-step development of a model simulating returns on farm from investments: the example of hazelnut plantation in Italy: The example of hazelnut plantation in Italy," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(1), April.
    11. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    12. Gruner, Sven & Lehberger, Mira & Hirschauer, Norbert & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2022. "How (un)informative are experiments with students for other social groups? A study of agricultural students and farmers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(03), January.
    13. Johanna Jauernig & Stephan Brosig & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Profession and residency matter: Farmers' preferences for farmland price regulation in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 816-834, September.
    14. Aravindakshan, Sreejith & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Speelman, Stijn & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Tittonell, Pablo & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2021. "Quantifying farmers' preferences for cropping systems intensification: A choice experiment approach applied in coastal Bangladesh's risk prone farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    15. Jens Rommel & Julian Sagebiel & Marieke Cornelia Baaken & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Douadia Bougherara & Luigi Cembalo & Marija Cerjak & Tajana Čop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & María Espinosa‐Goded & Julia Höh, 2023. "Farmers' risk preferences in 11 European farming systems: A multi‐country replication of Bocquého et al. ()," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1374-1399, September.
    16. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    17. Daniele Curzi & Sylvain Chabé‐Ferret & Salvatore Di Falco & Laure Kuhfuss & Marianne Lefebvre & Alan Matthews, 2022. "Using Experiments to Design and Evaluate the CAP: Insights from an Expert Panel," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(2), pages 28-34, August.
    18. Eunji Choi & Jonghoon Park & Seongwoo Lee, 2020. "The Effect of the Comprehensive Rural Village Development Program on Farm Income in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-23, August.
    19. Javier Castaño & Maria Blanco & Pilar Martinez, 2019. "Reviewing Counterfactual Analyses to Assess Impacts of EU Rural Development Programmes: What Lessons Can Be Learned from the 2007–2013 Ex-Post Evaluations?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, February.
    20. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14581-:d:1255440. 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.