Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The European Union (EU) green taxonomy: codifying sustainability to provide certainty to the markets

  • Review
  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims at making the potential implications of the ‘Green’ Taxonomy implementation emerge. The EU (European Union) regulatory framework on sustainability-related issues and the regulatory action in the area of non-financial or ESG (environmental, social and governance) reporting have highlighted the need for more academic contributions. There could, indeed, be a risk of oversimplification of an issue that cannot be solved without considering its practical implications on the stakeholders affected. Hence, failing to think these through might result in tragic consequences from a societal standpoint, despite being outstanding from an environmental one. This critical analysis, thus, investigates a few crucial points pertaining to the EU ‘Green’ Taxonomy—as the latest classification system for environmentally sustainable economic activities proposed by the EU—with the aim of providing academics and policymakers with a balanced report between theory and practice. By means of archival data, content analysis and bibliometric techniques, and implementing the steps of the systematic literature network analysis (SLNA) protocol which were deemed pertinent for the purposes of our study, we conducted a documentary review regarding the EU Taxonomy. Based on this critical analysis, we were able to outline (a) the rationale of Regulation (EU) 2020/852, (b) its structure, (c) its ability to improve corporate environmental performance and (d) the role played by specific nuclear and gas energy activities for a climate-neutral future. Every economic choice implies a cultural choice, and economics—unlike natural sciences—is essentially based on decisions, which can be influenced. The study, thus, concludes with proposals for future research and potential improvements of EU frameworks in order to support an efficient achievement of the Green Deal objectives and the 2030 Agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request. In any case, they are openly available since data derived from public domain resources have been employed to carry out this study.

Notes

  1. Take the air pollution and harmful emissions predominantly produced in China and Far East Asia, which are higher than those of the largest industrialised countries put together, and with Beijing alone responsible in 2019 for 27% of global emissions of harmful gases as an example.

  2. In this study, we assume—due to the fact that the EU ‘Green’ Taxonomy effects in the medium/long term are still to be measured—that the EU Regulation in analysis represents one of the strategic tools adopted by the European Union as part of its holistic approach to sustainable development. As countries and regions all around the globe began to develop, industrialisation and economic growth led also to environmental degradation (Huppes & Mansanobu, 2007). Hence, an eco-efficiency approach (see also the concept of ‘sustainable degrowth’) started to take root in recent times as one of the most effective levers to promote a transformation from unsustainable development to one which was, on the contrary, sustainable (Yadong, 2013). In this regard, the EU ‘Green’ Taxonomy is deemed to be a potentially effective tool; yet, its positive effects are still to be verified.

  3. This visual representation is drawn upon the keyword network analysis (KNA) intuition (see Comoli et al., 2023) for which documentary results gather through other bibliographic techniques could be improved by using the authors’ keywords network of a collection of articles extracted using the systematic literature review (SLR) protocol. The fundamental notion underlying the so-called co-occurrence analysis is that the authors’ keywords should serve as a proxy for the substance of the selected documents. In order to do so, VOSviewer software is typically used to map the topical keywords by dividing them into discrete clusters. In this study, VOSviewer was only run so to identify these clusters based on the associated keywords both on the academic paper sample (41) and on the professional documents (16). Subsequently, the depiction itself (i.e. Figure 4) has been created through a common visualisation tool. This framework, as it was determined, allowed for a topical presentation, in clusters, of the most relevant open issues pertaining to the wider research area under investigation.

  4. Recital 7 states that: ‘Given the systemic nature of global environmental challenges, there is a need for a systemic and forward-looking approach to environmental sustainability that addresses growing negative trends, such as climate change, the loss of biodiversity, the global overconsumption of resources, food scarcity, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, the deterioration of the fresh water system, and land system change as well as the appearance of new threats, such as hazardous chemicals and their combined effects’. Moreover, Recital 10 states: ‘In view of the scale of the challenge and the costs associated with inaction or delayed action, the financial system should be gradually adapted in order to support the sustainable functioning of the economy. To that end, sustainable finance needs to become mainstream and consideration needs to be given to the sustainability impact of financial products and services’.

  5. The delegated act in analysis, made public as a draft in December 2021, indeed provides for ‘clear and strict conditions under which certain nuclear and gas activities may be added as transitional activities to those already provided for in the first delegated act on climate mitigation and adaptation’.

  6. Concerns, in this regard, are essentially fomented by a wary demand–supply imbalance. On the one hand, electricity demand has grown beyond expectations and its supply has remained at inadequate levels whereas, on the other, the electricity price formation mechanism (at least in Europe) appears to be characterised by higher marginal costs (Careri et al., 2022; Esposito et al., 2022). It is common knowledge, in economics, that electricity prices are formed on a trading platform, where demand and supply curves are mathematically constructed. This is built on ordering the production costs of all the plants that come into operation to meet hourly electricity demand per day, and consequent daily demand per year (Stagnaro, 2021). The price that is, thus, assigned to the wholesale electricity corresponds to the generation costs of the last plant that was necessary to meet demand at that time, and all other plants, bearing lower average generation costs, would be remunerated at that price: this policy rule was essentially established in order to incentivise investment. Yet the more time passes, the more it is worth investigating whether maintaining such a pricing system still makes sense in the current panorama, and based on the available technologies, or whether it would not be better, for instance, to adopt a system that remunerates energy for the actual cost of each plant.

Abbreviations

CAPEX:

Capital expenditure

CSRD:

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive

EC:

European Commission

EIA:

Environmental Impact Assessment

ESG:

Environment, Social and Corporate Governance

EPRS:

European Parliamentary Research Service

EU:

European Union

GIFT:

Green investment financial tool

GRI:

Global reporting initiative

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

NFRD:

Non-financial reporting disclosure

NRRP:

National recovery and resilience plan

OPEX:

Operating expenditure

REOCo:

Real estate owned company

RRF:

Recovery and resilience facility

SDG:

Sustainable development goal

SLNA:

Systematic literature network analysis

TEG:

Technical expert group

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  • Ala, A., Mahmoudi, A., Mirjalili, S., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2023). Evaluating the performance of various algorithms for wind energy optimization: A hybrid decision-making model. Expert Systems with Applications, 221, 119731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alessi, L., Cojoianu, T., Hoepner, A. & Michelon, G. (2022). Accounting for the EU Green Taxonomy. Special Issue of Accounting Forum and European Commission – Call for Papers.

  • Alessi, L., & Battiston, S. (2022). Two sides of the same coin: Green Taxonomy alignment versus transition risk in financial portfolios. International Review of Financial Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alessi, L., Ossola, E., & Panzica, R. (2021). What greenium matters in the stock market? The role of greenhouse gas emissions and environmental disclosures. Journal of Financial Stability., 54, 100869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascui, F., & Lovell, H. (2011). As frames collide: Making sense of carbon accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal., 24(8), 978–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awuah, K., & Abdulai, R. (2022). Urban land and development management in a challenged developing World: An overview of new reflections. Land. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becchetti, L., Cordella, M., & Morone, P. (2022). Measuring investments progress in ecological transition: The green investment financial tool (GIFT) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production., 357, 131915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozza, A., Campi, C., Garelli, S., Ugazio, E., & Battaglia, L. (2022). Current regulatory and market frameworks in green cosmetics: The role of certification. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, 30, 100851.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brabec, J., & Machac, J. (2021). EU Taxonomy and the principle of proportionality: Will increased costs of borrowing lead to more derogations from emission limits? Waste Forum, 4, 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Careri, F., Efthimiadis, T., & Masera, M. (2022). 2020–2022: Pivotal years for European energy infrastructure. Energies, 15(6), 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, J. G. (2010). EU Legislation and national regulation: Uncertain steps towards a European public policy. Public Administration, 88(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cojoianu, T. F., Clark, G. L., Hoepner, A. G. F., Veneri, P., & Wójcik, D. (2020). Entrepreneurs for a low carbon World: How environmental knowledge and policy shape the creation and financing of green start-ups. Research Policy., 49(6), 103988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colicchia, C., & Strozzi, F. (2012). supply chain risk management: A new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comoli, M., Tettamanzi, P., & Murgolo, M. (2023). Accounting for ‘ESG’under Disruptions: A Systematic Literature Network Analysis. Sustainability, 15(8), 6633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, S., Gasevi C., Siemens, G., & Joksimovic, S. (2014). Current state and future trends: a citation network analysis of the learning analytics field. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (231–240). New York: Association For Computing Machinery.

  • De Wolf, C., Cordella, M., Dodd, N., Byers, B., & Donatello, S. (2022). Whole life cycle environmental impact assessment of buildings: Developing software tool and database support for the EU framework Level(s). Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 188, 16642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte (2021). The Clock is Ticking to Disclose the First EU Taxonomy Reports. In association with Greenomy. Available online.

  • Deloitte (2022). ESG Real Estate Insights 2022 – EU Taxonomy: Towards Alignment. Available online.

  • Dorendorf, B. (2020). EU Taxonomy on sustainable economic activities – preliminary assessment of the implications for corporate energy efficiency investments. ECEEE Industrial Summer Study Proceedings.

  • Dumrose, M., Rink, S., & Exkert, J. (2022). Disaggregating confusion? The EU Taxonomy and its relation to ESG Rating. Finance Research Letters, 48, 102928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dusík, J., & Bond, A. (2022). Environmental assessments and sustainable finance frameworks: Will the EU taxonomy change the mindset over the contribution of EIA to sustainable development? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal., 40(2), 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EBA, EIOPA & ESMA – ESAs (2020). ESG Disclosures: Draft Regulatory Technical Standards with Regard to the Content, Methodologies and Presentation of Disclosures pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/2088.

  • Edenhofer, O., Klein, C., Lessmann, K., & Wilkens, M. (2022). Financing the transformation: A proposal for a credit scheme to finance the Paris agreement. Climate Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2075820e

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermakova, E. P. (2021). ESG-banking in Russia and the European union: concept and problems of legal regulation. Gosudarstvo I Pravo., 7, 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, L., Mastromatteo, G., & Molocchi, A. (2021). Extending ‘environment-risk weighted assets’: EU taxonomy and banking supervision. JoUrnal of Sustainable Finance and Investment., 11(3), 214–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, L., Mastromatteo, G., Molocchi, A., Brambilla, P. C., Carvalho, M. L., Girardi, P., Marmiroli, B., & Mela, G. (2022). Green mortgages, EU taxonomy and environment risk weighted assets: A key link for the transition. Sustainability., 14(3), 1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etemadi, N., Borbon-Galvez, Y., Strozzi, F., & Etemadi, T. (2021). Supply Chain Disruption Risk Management with Blockchain: a Dynamic Literature Review. Information. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU TEG on Sustainable Finance (2020). Taxonomy: Final report on the technical expert group (TEG) on sustainable finance. Available online.

  • European Commission (2020). Non-Financial Reporting Disclosure. Available online.

  • European Commission (2021). What is the EU taxonomy and how will it work in practice? Available online.

  • European parliamentary research service (2022). EU taxonomy: Delegated acts on climate, and nuclear and gas. Briefing, EPRS and European Parliament.

  • Faccia, A., Manni, F., & Capitanio, F. (2021). Mandatory ESG reporting and Xbrl taxonomies combination: ESG ratings and income statement, a sustainable value-added disclosure. Sustainability., 13(16), 8876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fermeglia, M. (2022). Recent developments in EU environmental policy and legislation. Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law., 19(12), 129–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, D., Panella, K., Serafeim, G. & Zochowski, R. (2020). Accounting for Organizational Employment Impact. Working Paper – Harvard Business School Paper Series.

  • Freiberg, D., Park, D. G., Serafeim, G. & Zochowski, R. (2021). Corporate environmental impact: Measurement, data and information. Working Paper – Harvard Business School Paper Series.

  • Gibon, T., Popescu, I.-S., Hitaj, C., Petucco, C., & Benetto, E. (2020). Shades of green: Life cycle assessment of renewable energy projects financed through green bonds. Environmental Research Letters., 15(10), 104045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, C., Tsitsianis, N., Lehman, G., Andersson, T., & Malamatenios, J. (2018). Accounting for decarbonisation and reducing vapital at risk in the S&P500. Accounting Forum, 42(1), 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendiani, S., Mahmoudi, A., & Liao, H. (2020). A multi-stage multi-criteria hierarchical decision-making approach for sustainable supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing, 94, 106456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. (2022). Response to: Environmental Assessments and Sustainable Finance Frameworks: Will the EU Taxonomy Change the Mindset over the Contribution of EIA to Sustainable Development? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40(2), 110–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huppes, G., & Mansanobu, I. (2007). Quantified eco-efficiency: An introduction with applications, 22. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jakob, M., Ostermeyer, Y., Nägeli, C. & Hofer, C. (2022). Overcome data gaps to benchmark building stocks against climate targets related to the EU Taxonomy and other decarbonisation initiatives. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

  • Khudyakova, L. S. (2019). Launching a sustainable financial system in the European Union. World Economy and International Relations., 63(7), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khudyakova, L. S., & Urumov, T. R. (2021). ‘Green’ Finance in BRICS Countries. World Economy and International Relations., 65(9), 79–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubín, A., Králík, T. & Vašíček, J. (2022). Impacts of EU taxonomy implementation on the energy sector. In Proceedings of the 11th International Scientific Symposium on Electrical Power Engineering, 2022.

  • Lee, S., & Zhou, Y. (2022). The outlook for sustainable development goals in business and management: A systematic literature review and keyword cluster analysis. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liesen, A., Hoepner, A. G. F., Patten, D. M., & Figge, F. (2015). Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal., 28(7), 1047–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production., 16(17), 1838–1846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucarelli, C., Mazzoli, C., Rancan, M., & Severini, S. (2020). Classification of sustainable activities: EU taxonomy and scientific literature. Sustainability., 12(16), 6460.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi, A., Deng, X., Javed, S., & Zhang, N. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in megaprojects: Grey ordinal priority approach. Business Strategy and the Environment., 30(1), 318–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi, A., Sadeghi, M., & Naeni, L. (2023). Blockchain and supply chain finance for sustainable construction industry: Ensemble ranking using ordinal priority approach. Operations Management Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-023-00374-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcacci, A. (2023). Global finance and the anthropocene: regulatory shifts and prospective effects. European Business Law Review. https://doi.org/10.54648/EULR2023033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerison, J., Fan, M., & Birkin, F. (2019). The prospects for environmental accounting and accountability in China. Accounting Forum, 43(3), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mebratu, D. (1998). Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environment Impact Assessment Review, 18, 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., Rodrigue, M., & Trevisan, E. (2020). The marketization of a social movement: Activists, shareholders and CSR disclosure. Accounting, Organizations & Society., 80, 101074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirovalev, M. (2019). Russia, Ukraine escalate ‘gas war’ as Europe draws ‘map of fear’. Economy – Fossil Fuels, Al Jazeera.

  • Norgård, J. (2013). Happy Degrowth through more Amateur Economy. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noruzi, A. (2005). Google scholar: The new generation of citation indexes. International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 55(4), 170–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacces, A. M. (2021). Will the EU taxonomy regulation foster sustainable corporate governance? Sustainability, 13(21), 12316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palma, M., Lourenco, I. C. & Branco, M. C. (2021). Web-Based Sustainability Reporting by Family Companies: the Role of the Richest European Families. Accounting Forum.

  • Paulson, S. (1981). On the Basis of Legal Validity – Hans Kelsen. Amercian Journal of Jurisprudence, 26(1), 178–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PwC (2022). EU Newsletter – Sustainability Reporting. March, 2022. Available online.

  • Sadeghi, M., Mahmoudi, A., Deng, X., & Luo, X. (2023). Prioritizing requirements for implementing blockchain technology in construction supply chain based on circular economy: Fuzzy ordinal priority approach. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 20(5), 4991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safari, M., & Areeb, A. (2020). A qualitative analysis of gri principles for defining sustainability report quality: An Australian case from the preparers’ perspective. Accounting Forum, 44(4), 344–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, A. (1998). Sustainability, sustainable development and forest resources. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 5(3), 164–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, F., & Stede, J. (2021). The EU sustainable finance taxonomy and its contribution to climate neutrality. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.2006129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serafeim, G. & Trinh, K. (2020). A Framework for Product Impact-Weighted Accounts. Working Paper – Harvard Business School Paper Series.

  • Simpson, S. N. Y., Aboagye-Otchere, F., & Ahadzie, R. (2022). Assurance of environmental, social and governance disclosures in a developing country: Perspectives of regulators and quasi-regulators. Accounting Forum, 46(2), 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siri, M., & Zhu, S. (2019). Will the EU Commission successfully integrate Sustainability Risks and factors in the Investor Protection Regime? A Research Agenda. Sustainability., 11(22), 6292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slootweg, R. (2022). Response to Dusík and Bond. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal., 40(2), 99–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stagnaro, C. (2021). Caro Energia, Scenario Attuale e Prospettive Future. Istituto Bruno Leoni – Idee per il Libero Mercato, Available online.

  • Stagnaro, C. & Verde, S. (2022). La Sindrome Europea della ‘TassoNONmia’. Aspenia – Rivista Energia, Available online.

  • Strozzi, F., Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., & Noè, C. (2017). Literature review on the ‘smart factory’ concept using bibliometric tools. International Journal of Production Research, 55(22), 6572–6591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tettamanzi, P., Venturini, G., Gotti Tedeschi, R. & Murgolo, M. (2022b). La Tassonomia delle ‘Attività Ecosostenibili’ nell’Unione Europea. MementoPiù – Giuffrè Editore.

  • Tettamanzi, P., Minutiello, V., & Murgolo, M. (2023). Accounting education and digitalization: A new perspective after the pandemic. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 100847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tettamanzi, P., Venturini, G., & Murgolo, M. (2022a). Sustainability and financial accounting: A critical review on the ESG dynamics. Environmental Science and Pollution Research., 29, 16758–16761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trippel, E. (2020). How green is green enough? The changing landscape of financing a sustainable European economy. ERA Forum, 21(2), 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usmani, M., Davidson, J., & Napier, C. J. (2020). The production of stand-alone sustainability reports: Visual impression management, legitimacy and ‘functional stupidity.’ Accounting Forum, 44(4), 315–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadong, Y. (2013). Eco-efficiency trends in China, 1978–2010: Decoupling environmental pressure from economic growth. Ecological Indicators, 24, 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2015). Analysis and visualization of citation networks. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services, 7(1), 1–207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two experts for their comments and precious suggestions, one of whom is a specialist in energy engineering.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, LIUC – Cattaneo University, Varese, Italy

    Patrizia Tettamanzi & Michael Murgolo

  2. European Company Law Firm, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo Gotti Tedeschi

Authors
  1. Patrizia Tettamanzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Gotti Tedeschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Murgolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Murgolo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tettamanzi, P., Gotti Tedeschi, R. & Murgolo, M. The European Union (EU) green taxonomy: codifying sustainability to provide certainty to the markets. Environ Dev Sustain (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03798-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03798-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation