The heterogeneous paths to improve eco-environmental quality in China: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis

Shihao  Cao

doi:10.54097/ymrk2h27

Authors

Shihao Cao

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/ymrk2h27

Keywords:

Eco-environmental quality; Environmental policy instruments; Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA); Heterogeneous paths.

Abstract

A good eco-environment is a fundamental public good and the most inclusive form of well-being. Scientifically designing an effective environmental policy instrument system to improve eco-environmental quality is a common concern of the government and academia. Based on data from 31 provinces in China, this paper explores practical approaches to improve eco-environmental quality from the perspective of regional endowment heterogeneity. First, GIS is used to measure changes in eco-environmental quality from 2015 to 2020, and then the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis is used to assess the configuration influence of environmental policy instruments. The results show that no single environmental policy instrument can constitute a necessary condition for improving eco-environmental quality; There are six paths to improve eco-environmental quality in the four regions of China. Different regional endowments lead to different eco-environmental quality improvement approaches, and the rights transaction of ecological resources is the most common environmental policy instrument. This study provides a reference for designing heterogeneous and effective systems of environmental policy instruments to improve eco-environmental quality in different regions.

References

Wang, C. J., Zhao C. R., 2016. The Assessment of Urban Eco-environment in Watershed Scale. Proc. Environ. Sci. 36, 169-175.

Grout, P. A., Stevens, M., 2003. The assessment: financing and managing public services. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy 19(2), 215-234.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., 1995. Studying public policy: policy cycle and policy subsystem. Oxford University Press, New York.

Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., Vedung, E., 2003. Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. Routledge, London.

McDonnell, L. M., Elmore, R. F., 1987. Getting the job done: alternative policy instruments. Educ. Evaluation Policy Anal. 9(2), 133-152.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., Perl, A., 2009. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Luo, M., Zhu, X. Z., 2014. Quantitative research on Chinese low-carbon policy texts from the perspective of policy instruments. J. Intel. 33(4),12-16 (In Chinese).

Meuer, J., Rupietta, C., Backes-Gellner, U., 2015. Layers of coexisting innovation systems. Res. Policy, 44(4), 888-910.

Zhu, Y., Chen, H. H., 2020. Did the transfer payment in key eco-functional areas improve the eco-environment? based on PSM. South China J. Econ. 38(10), 125-140 (In Chinese).

Yang, W. P., Zhao, J. K., 2018. Is government environmental information disclosure conducive to improvement of ecological environment quality? Bus. Manage. J. 40(8), 5-22 (In Chinese).

Postula, M., Radecka-Moroz, K., 2020. Fiscal policy instruments in environmental protection. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.84, 206435.

Rio, P. D., Howlett, M., 2013. Beyond the “Tinbergen rule” in policy design: matching tools and goals in policy portfolios. Ann. Rev. Policy Design 1(1), 1-16.

Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R., 2012. Governing with Multiple Policy Instruments? In Jordan, A., Adelle, C. (Eds.), Environmental Policymaking in the European Union. Earthscan, London.

Nissinen, A., Heiskanen, E., Perrels, A., Berghäll, E., Liesimaa, V., Mattinen, M. K., 2015. Combinations of policy instruments to decrease the climate impacts of housing, passenger transport, and food in Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 455-466.

Jiang, L., Liu, Y., Wu, S., Yang, C., 2021. Analyzing ecological environment change and associated driving factors in China based on NDVI time series data. Ecol. Indic. 129, 107933.

Qin, M., Sun, M. X., Li, J., 2021. Impact of environmental regulation policy on ecological efficiency in four major urban agglomerations in eastern China. Ecol. Indic. 130, 108002.

Du, X. J., Huang, Z. H., 2017. Ecological and environmental effects of land use change in rapid urbanization: The case of Hangzhou, China. Ecol. Indic. 81, 243-251.

Coase, R. H., 1974. The Lighthouse in Economics. J. Law Econ. 17(2), 357-376.

Pigou, A. C., 1920. The economics of welfare. Macmillan and Co, London.

Cao, H. J., Qi, Y., Chen, J W., Shao, S., Lin, S. X., 2021. Incentive and coordination: Ecological fiscal transfers’ effects on eco-environmental quality. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 87,106518.

Hu, X. P., Liang, Y. L., 2015. Policy options for controlling haze based on the inspiration of Pigouvian tax and pollution rights. Sci. Technol. Manage. Res. (8), 220-226.

Chu, Z. P., Bian, C., Yang, J., 2022. How can public participation improve environmental governance in China? A policy simulation approach with multi-player evolutionary game. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.95, 16782.

Xie, R. H., Yuan, Y. J., Huang, J. J., 2017. Different types of environmental regulations and heterogeneous influence on “green” productivity: evidence from China. Ecol. Econ. 132, 104–112.

Eliason, S. R., Stryker, R., 2009. Goodness-of-fit tests and descriptive measures in fuzzy-set analysis. Social Meth. Res. 38(1), 102-146.

Bell, R. G., Filatotchev, I., Aguilera, R. V., 2014. Corporate governance and investors’ perceptions of foreign IPO value: An institutional perspective. Acad. Manage. J. 57(1), 301-320.

Ragin, C. C., 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rihoux, B., Ragin, C. C., 2009. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Fiss, P. C., 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32(4), 1180-1198.

Lei, S., Meng, X. J., Hou, C. F., Ye, L. F., Deng, H. D., Chai, Y. Y., Han, Y. W., 2022. Ecological products value realization mechanism and effectiveness evaluation in the Yangtze River Basin. J. Environ. Eng. Technol. (12), 399-407 (In Chinese)

Garcia-Castro, R., Francoeur, C., 2016. When more is not better: complementarities, costs, and contingencies in stakeholder management. Strateg. Manage. J. 37(2), 406-424.

Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Aguilera, R. V., 2018. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strateg. Organ. 16(4), 482-495.

Schneider, C. Q., Wagemann, C., 2012. Set⁃theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schneider, C. Q., Wagemann, C., 2013. Doing justice to logical remainders in QCA: Moving beyond the standard analysis. Polit. Res. Quart. 66(1), 211-220.

Coduras, A., Clemente, J., Ruiz, J., 2016. A novel application of fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to GEM data. J. Bus. Res. 69(4), 1265-1270.

Wang, R. J., Wu J. Z., 2019. How is environmental protection interview effective? China Popul. Resour. Environ. 29(12):103-111 (In Chinese).