4.7 Article

Is gender inequality an essential driver in explaining environmental degradation? Some empirical answers from the CO2 emissions in European Union countries

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Volume 90, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106619

Keywords

Energy consumption; Environmental degradation; Environmental problem; European Union; Gender inequality; CO2 emissions

Funding

  1. FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, I.P. [UIDB/05037/2020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The empirical investigation on fourteen countries from the European Union reveals that gender pay gap and energy consumption contribute to CO2 emissions, while economic growth, globalization, and urbanization do not exacerbate environmental issues. This research will provide insights for policymakers and governments to address gender inequality and mitigate environmental degradation simultaneously, sparking new discussions in the literature.
The effect of gender inequality on environmental degradation was examined for panel data of fourteen countries from the European Union (EU) from 1991 to 2016. The Quantile via Moments (QvM) and Fixed effects models were used to perform the empirical investigation. The results from the QvM and the Fixed effects models support that the gender gap pay and energy consumption increase the CO2 emissions in the EU. However, the economic growth, globalisation and urbanisation deepening do not increase the environmental problem. This empirical investigation will contribute to the literature, policymakers, and governments. It will help develop more initiatives to reduces gender inequality at the same time it mitigates the environmental degradation in the EU countries. Finally, the empirical finds of this investigation will open a new topic of investigation in the literature about the relationship between environmental degradation and gender inequality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available