The deterioration of the environmental performance index that compares hazard management across cities and countries
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ee.17(1).2026.09
-
Article InfoVolume 17 2026, Issue #1, pp. 109-127
- 8 Views
-
1 Downloads
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.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)Q56, C43, Q51, R11, Q53
-
References26
-
Tables7
-
Figures7
-
- 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
-
- Albert, J. S., Destouni, G., Duke-Sylvester, S. M., Magurran, A. E., Oberdorff, T., Reis, R. E., Winemiller, K. O., & Ripple, W. J. (2021). Scientists’ warning to humanity on the freshwater biodiversity crisis. Ambio, 50(1), 85-94.
- Aminzadeh, S. C. (2007). A moral imperative: The human rights implications of climate change. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 30(2), 231-265.
- Balme, R., & Ye, Q. (2014). Multi‐level governance and the environment: Intergovernmental relations and innovation in environmental policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(3), 147-154.
- Botta, E., & Koźluk, T. (2014). Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: A composite index approach (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1177). Paris: OECD Publishing.
- Coalition for Urban Transitions. (2019). Climate emergency, urban opportunity: How national government can secure economic prosperity and avert climate catastrophe by transforming cities.
- Dasgupta, P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. London: HM Treasury.
- Eisenack, K., & Roggero, M. (2022). Many roads to Paris: Explaining urban climate action in 885 European cities. Global Environmental Change, 72, Article 102439.
- Gadrey, J., & Jany-Catrice, F. (2016). Les nouveaux indicateurs de richesse [The new wealth indicators] (4th ed.). La Découverte. (In French).
- Gong, W., & Lyu, H. (2017). Sustainable city indexing: Towards the creation of an assessment framework for inclusive and sustainable urban-industrial development (Issue Paper No. 2). United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), BRIDGE for Cities.
- Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indices Research, 141, 61-94.
- Hannah, L. (2008). Protected areas and climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134(1), 201-212.
- Larson, W., Liu, F., & Yezer, A. (2012). Energy footprint of the city: Effects of urban land use and transportation policies. Journal of Urban Economics, 72(2-3), 147-159.
- Liu, S., Fan, F., & Zhang, J. (2019). Are small cities more environmentally friendly? An empirical study from China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5).
- Martin, D., Tomida, M., & Meacham, B. (2016). Environmental impact of fire. Fire Science Reviews, 5, Article 5.
- Matsumoto, T., Allain-Dupré, D., Crook, J., & Robert, A. (2019). An integrated approach to the Paris climate agreement: The role of regions and cities (Working Papers No. 2019/13). Paris: OECD Regional Development.
- NEC. (2019). Net Environmental Contribution 1.0 Handbook. All Frameworks.
- OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indices: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD. (2021). Transport strategies for net-zero systems by design. Paris: OECD Publishing.
- OECD. (2022). The OECD Metropolitan Database. OECD Database.
- OECD. (2023). OECD Green Growth Indices. OECD Database.
- OECD. (n.d.). OECD Climate and Environment regional statistic. OECD Database.
- Ribeiro, T. L. (2023). Institutional outcome at the subnational level – Climate commitment as a new measurement. Earth System Governance, 16, Article 100176.
- Shi, L., Han, L., Yang, F., & Gao, L. (2019). The evolution of sustainable development theory: Types, goals, and research prospects. Sustainability, 11(24).
- Von Uexkull, N., & Buhaug, H. (2021). Security implications of climate change: A decade of scientific progress. Journal of Peace Research, 58(1), 3-17.
- Wang, H., Zhou, J., Tang, Y., Liu, Z., Kang, A., & Chen, B. (2021). Flood economic assessment of structural measure based on integrated flood risk management: A case study in Beijing. Journal of Environmental Management, 280, Article 111701.
- Wolf, M. J., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., Sherbinin, A. D., & Wendling, Z. A. (2022). 2022 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) results. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.


