Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comprehensive Environmental Assessment Index of Ecological Footprint
Univ Kurdistan Hewler, Sch Management & Econ, Dept Business & Management, 30 Meter Ave, Erbil, Kurdistan Regio, Iraq..
Iran Univ Sci & Technol, Student Ind Engn, Tehran, Iran..
Bu Ali Sina Univ, Fac Econ & Social Sci, Hamadan, Hamadan, Iran..
Jönköping University, Jönköping International Business School, JIBS, Economics. Jönköping University, Jönköping International Business School, JIBS, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Spatial Economics (CEnSE).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7902-4683
2023 (English)In: Environmental Management, ISSN 0364-152X, E-ISSN 1432-1009, Vol. 71, p. 465-482Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Sustainable development
Sustainable Development
Abstract [en]

This paper aims to contribute to the growing body of research literature on assessing environmental efficiency by introducing a new key performance indicator (KPIs) in more complete and dependable aspects of ecological footprint indices. For this purpose, the DEA model considering three inputs (energy consumption, labor force, and capital stock), one desirable output (GDP), and different undesirable outputs (CO2 emissions, ecological footprint indicators) are applied to 27 OECD countries from 2000 to 2017. According to the results, Norway, Luxemburg, and United Kingdom are the most environmentally efficient countries in terms of environmental efficiency and ecological footprint efficiency. On the other hand, the lowest environmental and ecological footprint efficiencies were in countries like Lithuania, Slovak, Czech, Estonia, and the USA. In addition, these nations fare poorly regarding their carbon footprint and farmland efficiency. In further detail, Lithuania, South Korea, Portugal, and Spain have a critical status in fishing ground efficiency, while the forest area efficiency is very acute in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Czech.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2023. Vol. 71, p. 465-482
Keywords [en]
Environmental Performance, Ecological footprint, KPI, DEA, OECD Countries
National Category
Environmental Management Economics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-59017DOI: 10.1007/s00267-022-01747-zISI: 000884961500001PubMedID: 36396858Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85142152324Local ID: HOA;intsam;845125OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-59017DiVA, id: diva2:1715387
Available from: 2022-12-01 Created: 2022-12-01 Last updated: 2025-02-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Heshmati, Almas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Heshmati, Almas
By organisation
JIBS, EconomicsJIBS, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Spatial Economics (CEnSE)
In the same journal
Environmental Management
Environmental ManagementEconomics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 157 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf