Relationship between environmental performance indices and blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies: Evidence from countries in Europe and America

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2025.100214

Abstract

Abstract:

As the world grapples with increasing environmental challenges, innovative technologies are essential for promoting sustainability and accountability. This study examined the impact of environmental performance indices (EPIs) on the growth and investment trends of blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies in 15 countries (Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States) from Europe and America during 2010-2022. This study used the negative binomial regression model to assess the relationship between EPIs and blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies based on the data from the CrunchBase and EarthData. Results indicated that in ecosystem vitality, national terrestrial biome protection efforts were negatively correlated the formation of blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies, while global terrestrial biome protection efforts and marine protected areas had a positive impact on the formation of these companies and the number of funding rounds. In environmental health, PM_2.5 exposure had a positive impact on the number of funding rounds. Conversely, pollutants such as sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and ocean plastics deterred the formation of blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies and reduced the number of funding rounds. In climate change performance, adjusted emission growth rate for carbon dioxide (CO₂), adjusted emission growth rate for F-gases, and adjusted emission growth rate for black carbon had a significantly positive impact on the formation of blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies. Conversely, adjusted emission growth rate for Nitrous Oxide (N₂O) and projected greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 negatively affected the formation of these companies. These findings highlight the dual role of EPIs as driving factors and barriers in the development and investment of blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies in countries from Europe and America.

Key words: Blockchain technology, Environmental performance indices, Blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies, Negative binomial regression model, Europe, America

Hussain Mohi-ud-Din QADRI, Hassnian ALI, Atta UL MUSTAFA. Relationship between environmental performance indices and blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies: Evidence from countries in Europe and America[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2025, 6(2): 100214.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Description of variables."

Variable		Category	Sub-category	Unit	Transformation
Dependent variable	Blockchain technology	-	Formation of blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies	-	None
			Number of funding rounds	-	None
			Number of lead investors	Persons	None
Independent variable	Ecosystem vitality	Biodiversity and habitat	National terrestrial biome protection efforts	%	None
			Global terrestrial biome protection efforts	%	None
			Marine protected areas	%	None
			Protected area representativeness index	-	None
			Biodiversity habitat index	-	None
			Species protection index	%	None
			Species habitat index	%	None
		Ecosystem services	Tree cover loss	%	Logarithmic transformation
			Grassland loss	%	Logarithmic transformation
			Wetland loss	%	Logarithmic transformation
		Fishery	Fish stock status	%	Logarithmic transformation
			Marine trophic index	-	Logarithmic transformation
			Fish caught by trawling	%	Logarithmic transformation
		Acidification	Adjusted emission growth rate for sulfur dioxide (SO₂)	mg/m³	Logarithmic transformation
		Acidification	Adjusted emission growth rate for nitric oxide (NO)	mg/m³	Logarithmic transformation
		Agriculture	Sustainable pesticide use	-	None
		Agriculture	Sustainable nitrogen (N) management index	-	None
		Water resources	Wastewater treatment	%	None
	Environmental health	Air quality	PM_2.5 exposure	mg/m³	Logarithmic transformation
			Household solid fuels	Age-standardized DALYs/10⁵ persons	Logarithmic transformation
			Ozone exposure	Age-standardized DALYs/10⁵ persons	Logarithmic transformation
			Oxynitride (NOx) exposure	mg/m³	Logarithmic transformation
			SO₂ exposure	mg/m³	Logarithmic transformation
			Carbon monoxide (CO) exposure	mg/m³	Logarithmic transformation
			Volatile organic compound exposure	mg/m³	Logarithmic transformation
		Sanitation and drinking water	Unsafe sanitation	Age-standardized DALYs/10⁵ persons	Logarithmic transformation
		Sanitation and drinking water	Unsafe drinking water	Age-standardized DALYs/10⁵ persons	Logarithmic transformation
		Heavy metals	Plumbum (Pb) exposure	Age-standardized DALYs/10⁵ persons	Logarithmic transformation
		Waste management	Controlled solid waste	%	None
			Recycling	%	None
			Ocean plastics	10⁶ t	Logarithmic transformation
	Climate change performance	-	Adjusted emission growth rate for carbon dioxide (CO₂)	%	None
			Adjusted emission growth rate for CH₄	%	None
			Adjusted emission growth rate for F-gases	%	None
			Adjusted emission growth rate for Nitrous Oxide (N₂O)	%	None
			Adjusted emission growth rate for black carbon	%	None
			Projected greenhouse gas emissions in 2050	Gg CO₂-equivalent	Logarithmic transformation
			Growth rate in CO₂ emissions from land cover	%	None
			Greenhouse gas intensity growth rate	%	None
			Greenhouse gas emissions per capita	Gg CO₂-equivalent	Logarithmic transformation

Table 1

Fig. 1.

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

References 65

[1]	Al Aina, R., Faisal, R., 2024. Evaluating the role of sustainable leadership and technology integration in enhancing the environmental and social responsibility of the UAE banking sector. Archives of Business Research. 12(3), 17-39.
[2]	Alhasan, H., Hamdan, A., 2023. Blockchain technology and environmental sustainability. In: El Khoury, R., Nasrallah, N., (eds.). Emerging Trends and Innovation in Business and Finance. Singapore: Springer, 735-745.
[3]	Ali, H.S., Jia, F.Y., Lou, Z.Y., et al., 2023. Effect of blockchain technology initiatives on firms’ market value. Financ. Innov. 9, 48, doi: 10.1186/s40854-023-00456-8.
[4]	Ardillah, K., 2019. The impact of environmental performance and financing decisions to sustainable financial development. In:Proceedings of the 3^rd Asia Pacific Management Research Conference (APMRC 2019). Seattle: Atlantis Press, 134-140.
[5]	Arshad, A., Shahzad, F., Ur Rehman, I., et al., 2023. A systematic literature review of blockchain technology and environmental sustainability: Status quo and future research. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 88, 1602-1622.
[6]	Athanasoglou, S., Węziak-Białowolska, D., Saisana, M., 2014. Environmental Performance Index 2014 JRC Analysis and Recommendations. [2024-07-10]. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89939/lbna26623enn.pdf.
[7]	Bădîrcea, R., Doran, N.M., Manta, A., et al., 2022. Linking financial development to environmental performance index—the case of Romania. Ekon. Istraz. 36(2), 2142635, doi: 10.1080/1331677x.2022.2142635.
[8]	Bager, S.L., Singh, C., Persson, U.M., 2022. Blockchain is not a silver bullet for agro-food supply chain sustainability: Insights from a coffee case study. Curr. Res. Environmental Sustainability. 4, 100163, doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100163.
[9]	Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17(1), 3-10.
[10]	Chakrabartty, S.N., 2018. Better composite environmental performance index. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review. 19(2), 139-152.
[11]	Corrêa Tavares, E., de Souza Meirelles, F., Tavares, E.C., et al., 2021. Blockchain in the Amazon: Creating public value and promoting sustainability. Inf. Technol. Dev. 27(3), 579-598.
[12]	Dalle, J.M., Den Besten, M., Menon, C., 2017. Using Crunchbase for Economic and Managerial Research. [2024-07-10]. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:techno:v:105:y:2021:i:c:s0166497220300833.
[13]	de Souza Cunha, F.A.F., de Oliveira, E.M., Orsato, R.J., et al., 2020. Can sustainable investments outperform traditional benchmarks? Evidence from global stock markets. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29(2), 682-697.
[14]	Dutta, S., Chakraborty, S., 2024. Lightweight blockchain approach to reduce double-spend and 51% attacks on Proof-of-Work. Intell. Data Anal. 28(5), 1309-1319.
[15]	El-Basyouny, K., Sayed, T., 2006. Comparison of two negative binomial regression techniques in developing accident prediction models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 1950(1), 9-16.
[16]	Faisal, M.N., Sabir, L.B., AlNaimi, M.S., et al., 2024. Critical role of coopetition among supply chains for blockchain adoption: Review of reviews and mixed-method analysis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. 25, 117-136.
[17]	Färe Grosskopf, S., Hernández-Sancho, F.R., 2004. Environmental performance: An index number approach. Resour. Energy Econ. 26(4), 343-352.
[18]	Ferrati, F., Muffatto, M., 2020. Using crunchbase for research in entrepreneurship:Data content and structure. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management Studies. Aveiro: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, 342-351.
[19]	Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management:A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-276.
[20]	Gardner, W., Mulvey, E.P., Shaw, E.C., 1995. Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychol. Bull. 118(3), 392-404. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.392 pmid: 7501743
[21]	Hsu, A., Zomer, A., 2016. The Environmental Performance Index. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[22]	Jo, H., Kim, H., Park, K., 2015. Corporate environmental responsibility and firm performance in the financial services sector. J. Bus. Ethics. 131, 257-284.
[23]	Kanmani, A.P., Obringer, R., Rachunok, B.A., et al., 2020. Assessing global environmental sustainability via an unsupervised clustering framework. Sustainability. 12(2), 563, doi: 10.3390/su12020563.
[24]	Kölbel, J.F., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F., et al., 2020. Can sustainable investing save the world? Reviewing the mechanisms of investor impact. Organ. Environ. 33, 554-574.
[25]	Kortelainen, M., 2008. Dynamic environmental performance analysis. Ecol. Econ. 64(4), 701-715.
[26]	Lee, J., Khan, V.M., 2022. Blockchain and energy commodity markets: Legal issues and impact on sustainability. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business. 15(6), 462-484.
[27]	Li, N.N., Gu, Z.J., Albasher, G., et al., 2023. Nexus of financial management, blockchain, and natural resources: Comparing the impact on environmental sustainability and resource productivity. Resour. Policy. 83, 103730, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103730.
[28]	Liang, Y.X.E., Yuan, S.T.D., 2016. Predicting investor funding behavior using crunchbase social network features. Internet Res. 26(1), 74-100.
[29]	Liu, H.B., Davidson, R.A., Rosowsky, D.V., et al., 2005. Negative binomial regression of electric power outages in hurricanes. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 11(4), 258-267.
[30]	Marti, L., Puertas, R., 2020. Assessment of sustainability using a synthetic index. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 84, 106375, doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106375.
[31]	Misra, N., Gupta, S., Sidhu, K.S., et al., 2023. Role of blockchain technology integration for green bonds issuance with sustainability aspect. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication. 11(6), 134-142.
[32]	Morse, S., 2019. Relating environmental performance of nation states to income and income inequality. Sustain. Dev. 26(1), 99-115.
[33]	O’Hara, R.B., Kotze, D.J., 2010. Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1(2), 118-122.
[34]	Parmentola, A., Petrillo, A., Tutore, I., et al., 2022. Is blockchain able to enhance environmental sustainability? A systematic review and research agenda from the perspective of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31(1), 194-217.
[35]	Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R., 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, 969-970.
[36]	Piza, E.L., 2012. Using Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models to Measure the Influence of Risk on Crime Incident Counts. [2024-07-10]. https://www.rutgerscps.org/uploads/2/7/3/7/27370595/countregressionmodels.pdf.
[37]	Popkova, E.G., Bogoviz, A.V., Lobova, S.V., et al., 2023. Blockchain, sustainability and clean energy transition. Global Transitions. 5, 64-78.
[38]	Proença, A.S., Dias, T.R., Correia, M.P., 2024. Blockchain Based Residential Smart Rent. [2024-07-10]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05737.
[39]	Rana, R.L., Giungato, P., Tarabella, A., et al., 2019. Blockchain applications and sustainability issues. Amfiteatru Econ. 21(13), 861-870.
[40]	Riedel, T., Velamuri, V.K., 2024. Addressing challenges: Adopting blockchain in the pharmaceutical industry for enhanced sustainability. Sustainability. 16(8), 3102, doi: 10.3390/su16083102.
[41]	Rohov, H., Prykhodko, S., Kolodiziev, O., et al., 2021. Factors of national environmental performance in sustainability management aspect. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 19(3), 70-84.
[42]	Ronaghi, M.H., Mosakhani, M., 2022. The effects of blockchain technology adoption on business ethics and social sustainability: Evidence from the Middle East. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 24, 6834-6859.
[43]	Rukhiran, M., Boonsong, S., Netinant, P., 2024. Sustainable optimizing performance and energy efficiency in proof of work blockchain: A multilinear regression approach. Sustainability. 16(4), 1519, doi: 10.3390/su16041519.
[44]	Saisana, M., Andrea, S., 2010. Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of the Environmental Performance Index. [2024-07-10]. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC56990/reqno_jrc56990_saisana_saltelli_2010epi_eur.pdf%5B1%5D.pdf.
[45]	Santoso, A.I., Zarlis, M., Mawengkang, H., 2024. Analysis of the role of blockchain technology in recording motor vehicle ownership data. Journal of Informatics and Telecommunication Engineering. 7(2), 397-408.
[46]	Sarker, M., Ali, S., Paul, S., et al., 2021. Measuring sustainability performance using an integrated model. Measurement. 184, 109931, doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.109931.
[47]	Schneider, S., 2019. The impacts of digital technologies on innovating for sustainability. In: Bocken, N., Ritala, P., Albareda, L., (eds.). Innovation for Sustainability. Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business in Association with Future Earth. Palgrave Macmillan. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 415-433.
[48]	Singh, S.K., Pan, Y., Park, J.H., 2022. Blockchain-enabled secure framework for energy-efficient smart parking in sustainable city environment. Sustain. Cities Soc. 76, 103364, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103364.
[49]	Srebotnjak, T., 2014. Development of the Environmental Performance Index. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[50]	Stratopoulos, T.C., 2018. Blockchain Technology Adoption. SSRN Electron. J. 14, 701-738.
[51]	Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20(3), 571-610.
[52]	Sun, H.P., Mohsin, M., Alharthi, M., et al., 2020. Measuring environmental sustainability performance of South Asia. J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119519, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119519.
[53]	Tawiah, V., Zakari, A., Li, G., et al., 2022. Blockchain technology and environmental efficiency: Evidence from US-listed firms. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 31(8), 3757-3768.
[54]	Te, Y.F., Wieland, M., Frey, M., et al., 2023. Making it into a successful series a funding: An analysis of crunchbase and linkedin data. The Journal of Finance and Data Science. 9, 100099, doi: 10.1016/j.jfds.2023.100099.
[55]	Teh, D., Khan, T., Corbitt, B., et al., 2020. Sustainability strategy and blockchain-enabled life cycle assessment: A focus on materials industry. Environment Systems and Decisions. 40, 605-622.
[56]	Tornatzky, L., Fleischer, M., 1990. The processes of technological innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 16, 45-46.
[57]	Ver Hoef, J.M., Boveng, P.L., 2007. Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: How should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology. 88(11), 2766-2772. pmid: 18051645
[58]	Wang, Q., Su, M., 2020. Integrating blockchain technology into the energy sector—from theory of blockchain to research and application of energy blockchain. Comput. Sci. Rev. 37, 100275, doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2020.100275.
[59]	Wang, Z.Q., Bai, Y., 2023. Enhancing supply chain resilience through government subsidies and blockchain adoption: Ensuring sustainability and preventing disruptions. Manag. Decis. Econ. 44(7), 3979-3996.
[60]	Wells Calkins, P., Balikov, S.G., 1994. Measuring Environmental Performance. In:Proceedings of 1994 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. San Francisco: IEEE.
[61]	Witulski, N., Dias, J.G., 2020. The Sustainable Society Index: Its reliability and validity. Ecol. Indic. 114, 106190, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106190.
[62]	Yadav, P.L., Han, S.H., Rho, J.J., 2016. Impact of environmental performance on firm value for sustainable investment: Evidence from large us firms. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 25(6), 402-420.
[63]	Yang, S.P., Berdine, G., 2015. The negative binomial regression. Southwest Respiratory and Critical Care Chronicles. 3(10), 50-54.
[64]	Żbikowski, K., Antosiuk, P., 2021. A machine learning, bias-free approach for predicting business success using Crunchbase data. Inf. Process. Manage. 58(4), 102555, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102555.
[65]	ZiYa, A., Guo, X.C., 2023. Exploring the synergy of blockchain technology and low-carbon innovation for enterprise sustainability for unlocking a sustainable energy. Front. Energy Res. 11, 1273267, doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2023.1273267.

Category	Sub-category	Biodiversity and habitat	Ecosystem services	Fishery	Acidification	Agriculture	Water resources
Biodiversity and habitat	National terrestrial biome protection efforts	-0.523^**
	National terrestrial biome protection efforts	(0.069)
	Global terrestrial biome protection efforts	0.601^**
	Global terrestrial biome protection efforts	(0.084)
	Marine protected areas	0.020^**
	Marine protected areas	(0.005)
	Protected area representativeness index	-0.001
	Protected area representativeness index	(0.009)
	Biodiversity habitat index	-0.005
	Biodiversity habitat index	(0.014)
	Species protection index	-0.027^**
	Species protection index	(0.006)
	Species habitat index	-0.005
	Species habitat index	(0.013)
Ecosystem services	Tree cover loss		-0.008
	Tree cover loss		(0.026)
	Grassland loss		-0.039^**
	Grassland loss		(0.008)
	Wetland loss		-0.008
	Wetland loss		(0.009)
Fishery	Fish stock status			0.009
	Fish stock status			(0.011)
	Marine trophic index			-0.019^**
	Marine trophic index			(0.009)
	Fish caught by trawling			0.117^**
	Fish caught by trawling			(0.045)
Acidification	Adjusted emission growth rate for SO₂				-0.064
	Adjusted emission growth rate for SO₂				(0.080)
	Adjusted emission growth rate for NO				0.095^**
	Adjusted emission growth rate for NO				(0.035)
Agriculture	Sustainable pesticide use					-0.015
	Sustainable pesticide use					(0.009)
	Sustainable N management index					0.067^**
	Sustainable N management index					(0.014)
Water resources	Wastewater treatment						-0.026^**
Water resources	Wastewater treatment						(0.008)
Constant		-6.954^**	3.442^**	-0.400	-2.507	-2.962^**	2.399^**
Constant		(2.285)	(0.797)	(0.361)	(6.583)	(0.728)	(0.658)
lnalpha		-0.165	1.116^**	1.223^**	1.290^**	1.119^**	1.262^**
lnalpha		(0.278)	(0.167)	(0.166)	(0.163)	(0.173)	(0.165)
Observations		195	195	195	195	195	195
AIC		500.051	568.975	582.076	585.861	572.436	582.397

Category	Sub-category	Biodiversity and habitat	Ecosystem services	Fishery	Acidification	Agriculture	Water resources
Biodiversity and habitat	National terrestrial biome protection efforts	-0.743^**
	National terrestrial biome protection efforts	(0.134)
	Global terrestrial biome protection efforts	0.865^**
	Global terrestrial biome protection efforts	(0.162)
	Marine protected areas	0.038^**
	Marine protected areas	(0.009)
	Protected area representativeness index	0.034^**
	Protected area representativeness index	(0.016)
	Biodiversity habitat index	0.009
	Biodiversity habitat index	(0.020)
	Species protection index	-0.051^**
	Species protection index	(0.010)
	Species habitat index	0.006
	Species habitat index	(0.022)
Ecosystem services	Tree cover loss		-0.016
	Tree cover loss		(0.043)
	Grassland loss		-0.045^**
	Grassland loss		(0.012)
	Wetland loss		-0.020
	Wetland loss		(0.017)
Fishery	Fish stock status			0.019
	Fish stock status			(0.026)
	Marine trophic index			-0.017
	Marine trophic index			(0.013)
	Fish caught by trawling			0.124
	Fish caught by trawling			(0.090)
Acidification	Adjusted emission growth rate for SO₂				-0.221^*
	Adjusted emission growth rate for SO₂				(0.121)
	Adjusted emission growth rate for NO				0.162^**
	Adjusted emission growth rate for NO				(0.063)
Agriculture	Sustainable pesticide use					-0.031^*
	Sustainable pesticide use					(0.017)
	Sustainable N management index					0.073^**
	Sustainable N management index					(0.023)
Water resources	Wastewater treatment						-0.020^*
Water resources	Wastewater treatment						(0.012)
Constant		-14.411^**	4.712^**	-0.565	6.581	-2.423^**	2.163^**
Constant		(3.996)	(1.437)	(0.551)	(8.711)	(1.082)	(1.002)
lnalpha		1.194^**	2.108^**	2.185^**	2.204^**	2.157^**	2.256^**
lnalpha		(0.224)	(0.182)	(0.181)	(0.180)	(0.182)	(0.179)
Observations		195	195	195	195	195	195
AIC		448.210	497.015	503.611	502.246	499.718	504.469

Category	Sub-category	Biodiversity and habitat	Ecosystem services	Fishery	Acidification	Agriculture	Water resources
Biodiversity and habitat	National terrestrial biome protection efforts	-0.551^**
	National terrestrial biome protection efforts	(0.125)
	Global terrestrial biome protection efforts	0.635^**
	Global terrestrial biome protection efforts	(0.150)
	Marine protected areas	0.034^**
	Marine protected areas	(0.009)
	Protected area representativeness index	0.004
	Protected area representativeness index	(0.019)
	Biodiversity habitat index	0.027
	Biodiversity habitat index	(0.031)
	Species protection index	-0.028^**
	Species protection index	(0.011)
	Species habitat index	0.017
	Species habitat index	(0.026)
Ecosystem services	Tree cover loss		-0.083^*
	Tree cover loss		(0.043)
	Grassland loss		-0.042^**
	Grassland loss		(0.013)
	Wetland loss		-0.031^*
	Wetland loss		(0.018)
Fishery	Fish stock status			0.033
	Fish stock status			(0.023)
	Marine trophic index			-0.037^**
	Marine trophic index			(0.016)
	Fish caught by trawling			0.110
	Fish caught by trawling			(0.084)
Acidification	Adjusted emission growth rate for SO₂				0.026
	Adjusted emission growth rate for SO₂				(0.199)
	Adjusted emission growth rate for NO				0.177^**
	Adjusted emission growth rate for NO				(0.069)
Agriculture	Sustainable pesticide use					-0.009
	Sustainable pesticide use					(0.019)
	Sustainable N management index					0.064^**
	Sustainable N management index					(0.024)
Water resources	Wastewater treatment						-0.020
Water resources	Wastewater treatment						(0.014)
Constant		-12.025^**	5.925^**	-0.460	-19.522	-2.808^**	2.197^*
Constant		(4.776)	(1.652)	(0.599)	(18.942)	(1.252)	(1.144)
lnalpha		1.821^**	2.371^**	2.402^**	2.444^**	2.444^**	2.531^**
lnalpha		(0.221)	(0.191)	(0.192)	(0.189)	(0.191)	(0.188)
Observations		195	195	195	195	195	195
AIC		441.067	461.606	464.727	464.460	465.547	468.623

Category	Sub-category	Air quality	Sanitation and drinking water	Heavy metals	Waste management
Air quality	PM_2.5 exposure	0.033^**
	PM_2.5 exposure	(0.015)
	Household solid fuels	0.029
	Household solid fuels	(0.020)
	Ozone exposure	-0.032^**
	Ozone exposure	(0.016)
	NOx exposure	-0.076
	NOx exposure	(0.054)
	SO₂ exposure	-0.060^**
	SO₂ exposure	(0.018)
	CO exposure	0.057^*
	CO exposure	(0.033)
	Volatile organic compound exposure	-0.004
	Volatile organic compound exposure	(0.012)
Sanitation and drinking water	Unsafe sanitation		-0.165^**
	Unsafe sanitation		(0.024)
	Unsafe drinking water		0.139^**
	Unsafe drinking water		(0.023)
Heavy metal	Pb exposure			-0.027^*
Heavy metal	Pb exposure			(0.016)
Waste management	Controlled solid waste				-0.005
	Controlled solid waste				(0.050)
	Recycling				-0.015
	Recycling				(0.011)
	Ocean plastics				-0.053^**
	Ocean plastics				(0.012)
Constant		-2.059	2.836^**	2.628^**	2.214
Constant		(1.529)	(1.160)	(1.296)	(4.826)
lnalpha		0.677^**	0.607^**	1.345^**	0.943^**
lnalpha		(0.203)	(0.221)	(0.161)	(0.180)
Observations		195	195	195	195
AIC		548.731	541.845	589.318	558.890

Category	Sub-category	Air quality	Sanitation and drinking water	Heavy metals	Waste management
Air quality	PM_2.5 exposure	0.049^*
	PM_2.5 exposure	(0.027)
	Household solid fuels	0.027
	Household solid fuels	(0.036)
	Ozone exposure	-0.037
	Ozone exposure	(0.023)
	NOx exposure	-0.172
	NOx exposure	(0.107)
	SO₂ exposure	-0.063^**
	SO₂ exposure	(0.030)
	CO exposure	0.081
	CO exposure	(0.053)
	Volatile organic compound exposure	-0.005
	Volatile organic compound exposure	(0.021)
Sanitation and drinking water	Unsafe sanitation		-0.215^**
	Unsafe sanitation		(0.043)
	Unsafe drinking water		0.215^**
	Unsafe drinking water		(0.040)
Heavy metal	Pb exposure			-0.023
Heavy metal	Pb exposure			(0.025)
Waste management	Controlled solid waste				0.021
	Controlled solid waste				(0.082)
	Recycling				-0.010
	Recycling				(0.017)
	Ocean plastics				-0.066^**
	Ocean plastics				(0.020)
Constant		-2.391	0.516	2.502	0.020
Constant		(2.316)	(1.938)	(2.070)	(7.893)
lalpha		1.767^**	1.757^**	2.285^**	1.985^**
lalpha		(0.199)	(0.200)	(0.178)	(0.190)
Observations		195	195	195	195
AIC		484.534	473.646	506.354	490.878