Document Type : SPECIAL ISSUE


1 Department of Economics, Ternopil National Economic University, Ternopil, Ukraine

2 Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland


The study attempts to assess the impact of the educational level of the country’s population, the level of science and technology development on the general environmental environment. The aim of this article is to assess the impact of educational level and level of science development on individual elements that reflect the state of the environment. To receive the obtained results is being used the package of statistical programs STATISTICA. The intense connection between educational level and aggregated evaluation of Environment Performance Index has been established. The significant correlation was found between the education index and the ecological conditions in countries with a very high, medium and low level of Human Development Index. The significant correlation between the processes of implementation of educational and science public policy and a set of environment’s criteria was found. The obtained models have been proved that for underdeveloped countries investment in education and science has a more significant impact on the ecological situation than in highly developed countries. Finally, this study concluded that public policy in the area of science and education, aimed at improving the ecological situation in the country, should be differentiated depending on the level of country development. 


Al-Tuwaijri, S.; Christensen, T.; Hughes, K.E., (2004). The Relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: a simultaneous equations approach. Accounting Organizations Soc., 29(5-6): 447-471 (25 pages).

Analytical Document, (2018). Ecological portrait of Ukrainian citizen: comparative analysis with EU and recommendations (41 pages).

Arrow, K.; Bolin, B.; Costanza, R.; Dasgupta, P.; Folke, C.; Holling, C.S.; Jansson, B.; Levin, S.; Mäler, K.; Perrings, C.; Pimentel, D., (1996).Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Environ. Develop. Econ., 1: 104-110 (7 pages).

Bazylevich, V.D., (2010). The ecological imperative of economic education in the context of globalization challenges. Herald of NAS of Ukraine, 8: 15-19 (5 pages).

Bonnett, M., (2003).Retrieving nature: education for a post-humanist age. J. Phil. Educ., 37(4): 549-730 (182 pages).

Bonnett, M., (2013). Sustainable development, environmental education, and the significance of being in place. The Curriculum J., 24(2): 250-271 (22 pages).

Callan, S.J.; Thomas, J.M., (2000). Environmental economics and management: theory, policy, and applications. London: The Dryden Press (708 pages).

Church, D., (1992). The economy vs. the environment: is there a conflict? Chamber of Commerce Training Program Presentation.

Crist, E., (2018). Abundant earth: toward an ecological civilization. University of Chicago Press (288 pages).

Dasgupta, P.; Mäler, K.-G., (2000). Net national product, wealth, and social well-being. Environ. Dev. Econ., 5(1): 69-93 (7 pages).

Dluhopolskyi, O.; Koziuk, V.; Ivashuk, Y.; Klapkiv, Y., (2019). Environmental welfare: quality of policy vs. society’s values. Probl. Sustainable Dev., 14(1): 19-28 (10 pages).

Environmental Performance Index (2018). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).

Guo, L.; Ma, H. (2008). Conflict between developing economic and protecting environment. J. Sustainable Dev., Vol. 1(3): 91-97 (7 pages).

Halafyan, А.А., (2008). STATISTICA 6. Statistical data analysis. М.: Binom-Press (520 pages).

Human Development Report (2018). Human development for everyone.

Klare, M.T., (2009). Rising powers, shrinking planet: new geopolitics of energy. New York: Henry Holt and Company (340 pages).

Khan M.I.; Chang Yen-Chiang, (2018). Environmental challenges and current practices in China – a thorough analysis. Sustainability, 10(2547) (20 pages).

Kopnina, H.; Meijers, F., (2014). Education for sustainable development (ESD): exploring theoretical and practical challenges. Int. J. Sustainability Higher Educ., 15(2): 188-207 (20 pages).

Kopnina, H., (2018). Teaching sustainable development goals in the Netherlands: a critical approach. Environ. Edu. Res., 24: 1268-1283 (16 pages).

Koziuk, V.; Dluhopolskyi, O.; Hayda, Y.; Shymanska O., (2018). Typology of welfare states: quality criteria for governance and ecology. Probl. Perspec. Manage., 16(4): 235-245 (11 pages).

Kozlovskyi, S.; Khadzhynov, I.; Vlasenko, I.; Marynchak, L., (2017). Managing the sustainability of the economic system as the basis of investment development in Ukraine. Invest. Manage. Financ. Innov., 14(4): 50-59 (10 pages).

Nielsen, L., (2011). Classifications of countries based on their level of development: how it is done and how it could be done. IMF Work. Paper, 11(31).

On the Main Principles, (2011). Strategy of the National Environmental Policy of Ukraine for the Period until 2020: Law of Ukraine.

Pannell, C. (2008). China's economic and political penetration in Africa. Euras. Geog. Econ., 49(6): 706-730 (25 pages).

Povitkina, M. (2018). Necessary but not sustainable? The limits of democracy in achieving environmental sustainability. Sweden: University of Gothenburg (100 pages).

Rees, W., (2010). Thinking “resilience”. The post carbon reader: managing the 21st century’s sustainability crises. Watershed Media (544 pages).

Spannring, R., (2017). Animals in environmental education research. Environ. Edu. Research, Vol. 23(1): 63-74 (12 pages).

The World Bank (2018). Indicators.

Unerman, J.; Bebbington, J.; O’Dwyer, B. (2014). Sustainability accounting and accountability. Abbingdon: Routledge (362 pages).

van den Bergh, J.C.; Janssen, M.A., (2004). Economics of industrial ecology: materials, structural change and spatial scales. The MIT Press (388 pages).

Washington, H., (2017). Positive steps to a steady state economy. CASSE NSW (444 pages).

Wiesmeth, H., (2012). Environmental economics. Theory and policy equilibrium with contributions. Berlin: Heidelberg.

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.