IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2354-d503671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance-Influencing Factors and Improvement Paths of Third-Party Governance Service Regarding Environmental Pollution—An Empirical Study of the SEM Based on Shanghai Data

Author

Listed:
  • Liping Cao

    (Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Shanghai 200020, China)

  • Fenqi Zhou

    (Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Shanghai 200020, China)

  • Yuan Zhu

    (China Executive Leadership Academy Pudong, Shanghai 201204, China)

Abstract

By employing ecological economics involving performance-influencing factors and third-party governance services that have the aim of reducing environmental pollution, a theoretical framework which includes object, subject, process that measures the performance of such services is analyzed on the basis of the idea of sustainability science (2.0). The research hypotheses regarding the relationships among service performance, multi-stakeholder subjects’ satisfaction, and the effect of process management are put forward; then, a three-dimensional performance measurement model, which includes performance, stakeholders, and the process of providing third-party governance services for addressing environmental pollution, is constructed based on the pressure–state–response (PSR) driving force model. At the same time, based on empirical data of the Shanghai municipality, the structural equation model (SEM) is used to empirically test the nine proposed research hypotheses. The empirical test results show that, except for the research hypotheses in regard to regulating variables and controlling variables, all of the research hypotheses passed the test. It means the direct performance, single subjective satisfaction, process management effects are performance-influencing factors. However, the stakeholders’ cooperation satisfaction partially influences the performance of third-party governance services regarding environmental pollution. Finally, through theoretical and empirical research, this paper proposes countermeasures and suggestions for improving the performance of third-party governance services regarding environmental pollution in Shanghai focusing on two aspects: one is the market governance mechanism innovation, and the other is regulations and standards innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Liping Cao & Fenqi Zhou & Yuan Zhu, 2021. "Performance-Influencing Factors and Improvement Paths of Third-Party Governance Service Regarding Environmental Pollution—An Empirical Study of the SEM Based on Shanghai Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2354-:d:503671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2354/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2354/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Djukic, Malisa & Jovanoski, Iljcho & Ivanovic, Olja Munitlak & Lazic, Milena & Bodroza, Dusko, 2016. "Cost-benefit analysis of an infrastructure project and a cost-reflective tariff: A case study for investment in wastewater treatment plant in Serbia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1419-1425.
    2. Foran, Barney & Lenzen, Manfred & Dey, Christopher & Bilek, Marcela, 2005. "Integrating sustainable chain management with triple bottom line accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 143-157, January.
    3. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    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. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    2. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Surun, Clément & Drechsler, Martin, 2018. "Effectiveness of Tradable Permits for the Conservation of Metacommunities With Two Competing Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 189-196.
    4. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Bardsley, Annette M., 2014. "Organising for socio-ecological resilience: The roles of the mountain farmer cooperative Genossenschaft Gran Alpin in Graubünden, Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 11-21.
    6. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    9. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    10. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    11. Tan Li & Qingguo Zhang & Ying Zhang, 2018. "Modelling a Compensation Standard for a Regional Forest Ecosystem: A Case Study in Yanqing District, Beijing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    13. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    14. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    15. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah & Lurie, Susan & Duncan, Sally, 2014. "Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-64.
    16. Sylvie Démurger & Haiyuan Wan, 2012. "Payments for ecological restoration and internal migration in China: the sloping land conversion program in Ningxia," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, December.
    17. Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
    18. Shinichi Kitano, 2021. "Estimation of Determinants of Farmland Abandonment and Its Data Problems," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Herche, Wesley, 2017. "Solar energy strategies in the U.S. utility market," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 590-595.
    20. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.

    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:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2354-:d:503671. 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.