The deterioration of the environmental performance index that compares hazard management across cities and countries

  • 8 Views
  • 1 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Abstract
Government entities play a critical role in designing and implementing effective mitigation and adaptation strategies to address climate change. At the same time, cities are key actors in applying local environmental policies. This paper evaluates and compares the environmental performance of urban areas and countries to identify the most effective level of governance. To achieve this, an innovative quantitative index is computed: the Deterioration of Environmental Performance Index (DEPI). This composite index offers valuable insights into the sustainability of territorial development strategies. The DEPI’s annual evolution is examined for ten OECD countries and their respective urban areas over the period 2001–2020. Statistical analysis reveals that, in most cases, national-level environmental management outperforms urban areas. Specifically, all countries with non-ambiguous results exhibit lower DEPI scores (indicating better performance) than their corresponding urban areas, except for New Zealand. The results for Belgium, South Korea, and the United States of America are inconclusive. These findings highlight the vulnerability of cities to climate-related risks. In summary, national governments seem to demonstrate greater effectiveness than cities in managing five key environmental challenges: air pollution, river flooding, coastal flooding, wildfires, and heatwaves.

Acknowledgment
We thank Federica Daniele from the OECD for her valuable comments and remarks.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Evolution of DEPI for each country over the period (2001–2020)
    • Figure 2. DEPI by territorial level (2001–2020)
    • Figure 3. Overall average DEPI by territorial level (2001–2020)
    • Figure 4. Alternative DEPIs by territorial level (2001–2020)
    • Figure 5. Weighted DEPI by territorial level and country (2001–2020)
    • Figure 6. 10-years return period on flood risk’s DEPI by territorial level and country (2001–2020)
    • Figure 7. 100-years return period on flood risk’s DEPI by territorial level and country (2001–2020)
    • Table 1. Variables included in the applied composite index according to territorial level
    • Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the global DEPI results
    • Table 3. Continent-level paired t-test
    • Table 4. Country-level paired t-test
    • Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the unweighted and weighted DEPI results
    • Table 6. Descriptive statistics for DEPI results with different return period on flood risk
    • Table 7. Evaluation of technical and political aspects of DEPI
    • Conceptualization
      Elise Callerisa, Romain Gaté
    • Data curation
      Elise Callerisa
    • Formal Analysis
      Elise Callerisa, Romain Gaté
    • Funding acquisition
      Elise Callerisa
    • Investigation
      Elise Callerisa, Romain Gaté
    • Methodology
      Elise Callerisa
    • Software
      Elise Callerisa
    • Visualization
      Elise Callerisa
    • Writing – original draft
      Elise Callerisa
    • Writing – review & editing
      Elise Callerisa, Romain Gaté
    • Project administration
      Romain Gaté
    • Resources
      Romain Gaté
    • Supervision
      Romain Gaté
    • Validation
      Romain Gaté