Empirical evidence on whether and how e-government development affects environmental performance remains scarce. This study aims to examine the relationship between e-government development and environmental performance, and explore its mechanism of action. Using panel data from 30 provinces in China (2007–2022), it has been confirmed that e-government development can promote environmental performance. Regulatory enforcement and citizen participation both play partial mediating roles, and the effect size decreases under mediation. This study deepens our understanding of the relationship between e-government development and environmental performance, and provides policy recommendations for promoting the digital transformation of environmental governance.
Points for practitioners
e-Government development can significantly improve environmental performance. The key transmission mechanism is improvement of regulatory enforcement and increased citizen participation. The government is recommended to focus on developing intelligent modules for environmental regulation to reduce enforcement costs while improving the citizen participation function to maximize the synergies of digital governance.
AdasMSmithMRMarxL (1998) Does technology drive history?: the dilemma of technological determinism (review). Journal of Asian Studies39(2): 520–521.
2.
AhnMJBretschneiderS (2011) Politics of e-government: e-government and the political control of bureaucracy. Public Administration Review71(3): 414–424.
3.
AllenBAJuilletLPaquetG, et al. (2002) e-Governance & government online in Canada: partnerships, people & prospects. Government Information Quarterly18(2): 93–104.
4.
Andrew and Whitmore (2012) A statistical analysis of the construction of the United Nations e-government development index. Government Information Quarterly29(1): 68–75.
5.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator−mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
6.
BernauerTKoubiV (2018) Political accountability and environmental policy outcomes. Global Environmental Politics18(3): 1–21.
7.
BertotJCJaegerPTGrimesJM (2010) Using lets to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly21(3): 264–271.
8.
BuntaineMGreenstoneMHeG, et al. (2024) Does the squeaky wheel get more grease? The direct and indirect effects of citizen participation on environmental governance in China. American Economic Review114(3): 615–644.
9.
CordellaATempiniN (2015) e-Government and organizational change: reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly32(3): 279–286.
EstyDCPorterME (2005) National environmental performance measurement and determinants. Yale Journal of International Law30(1): 93–120.
12.
FanJPanYZhangL (2022) e-Government and governance performance. Public Administration Review82(3): 456–470.
13.
FanYX (2019) Information disclosure, environmental regulation and environmental governance performance: empirical evidence from Chinese cities. Ecological Economy36(4): 193–199. [In Chinese.]
14.
FountainJE (2001) Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
15.
GoronCBolsoverGPoweDN, et al. (2020) Engagement or control? The impact of the Chinese environmental protection bureaus’ burgeoning online presence in local environmental governance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management63(1): 87–108.
16.
HaoYWuYWangL (2024) Resource allocation efficiency in the digital era: the role of e-government. Resources, Conservation and Recycling192: 106–118.
17.
HeGWangQZhangL (2020) Institutional innovation in China’s environmental policy design: a case study of carbon trading pilots. Environmental Policy and Governance30(4): 195–208.
18.
HeGZBoasIMolAPJ, et al. (2017) E-participation for environmental sustainability in transitional urban China. Sustainability Science12(2): 187–202.
19.
HsuAYeoZYWeinfurterA (2019) Emerging digital environmental governance in China: the case of black and smelly waters in China. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management63(1): 14–31.
20.
HuangJCuiJDongF (2024) Impact of e-governments on carbon emission reduction targets: evidence from global 51 countries. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy26(7): 1–21.
21.
JaegerPT (2003) The endless wire: e-government as a global phenomenon. Government Information Quarterly20(4): 323–331.
22.
KelloggWAMathurA (2003) Environmental justice and information technologies: overcoming the information access paradox in urban communities. Public Administration Review63(5): 573–585.
23.
KrishnanSTeoTSLimVK (2013) Examining the relationships among e-government maturity, corruption, economic prosperity and environmental degradation: a cross-country analysis. Information and Management50(8): 638–649.
24.
KyeongKRaHParkJ, et al. (2023) How does the government interact with citizens within an electronic governance system? Selective government responsiveness. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(4): 1079–1096.
25.
LeeJ (2010) 10 Year retrospect on stage models of e-government: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly27(3): 220–230.
26.
LiCChenXYuanCX (2025) Does digital government reduce carbon emissions? Empirical evidence from global sources. Journal of Environmental Management380: 125081.
27.
LiHLuJ (2024) Driving effect of digital government policy on synergy in corporate pollution reduction, carbon reduction, and green expansion. Journal of Environmental Management369: 122301.
28.
LiQXiaoZ (2019) Heterogeneous environmental regulation tools and corporate green innovation incentives: evidence from green patents of listed companies. Economic Research Journal55(9): 192–208. [In Chinese.]
29.
LiWWangLLiY, et al. (2020) A blockchain-based emissions trading system for the road transport sector: policy design and evaluation. Climate Policy20(2): 1–16.
30.
LiaoXCXiaEL (2015) Why is China attractive for FDI? Based on environmental regulation and corrupt perspective. Journal of World Economic Studies251(1): 112–119+129. [In Chinese.]
31.
LimJHTangSY (2008) Urban e-government initiatives and environmental decision performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(1): 109–138.
32.
LinCSunYJ (2019) The relationship between fiscal decentralization and China's environmental governance performance—empirical test based on provincial panel data. Reform of Economic System 37(2): 150–155. [In Chinese.]
33.
LinYHuangRYaoX (2021) Air pollution and environmental information disclosure: an empirical study based on heavy polluting industries. Journal of Cleaner Production278: 124313.
34.
Luna-ReyesLFGil-GarciaJRCruzCB (2007) Collaborative digital government in Mexico: some lessons from federal web-based interorganizational information integration. Government Information Quarterly24(4): 808–826.
35.
MacLeanDTitahR (2022) A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of e-government: a public value perspective. Public Administration Review82(1): 23–38.
36.
MahmoodMWeerakkodyVChenW (2019) The role of information and communications technology in the transformation of government and citizen trust. International Review of Administrative Sciences85(1): 002085231881679.
37.
MaisseuAVossJ-P (2014) Composite indicators for environmental policy integration: a critical review. Environmental Science & Policy42: 160–171.
38.
PanTTFanB (2024) How does policy attention affect e-government performance? The role of resource allocation and public–private collaboration. International Review of Administrative Sciences90(2): 369–384.
39.
PayneRA (1995) Freedom and the environment. Journal of Democracy6(3): 41–55.
40.
Peiró-PalominoJPicazo-TadeoAJ (2019) Is social capital green? cultural features and environmental performance in the European Union. Environmental and Resource Economics72(3): 795–822.
41.
PengYSLinSS (2009) National culture, economic development, population growth and environmental performance: the mediating role of education. Journal of Business Ethics90(2): 203–219.
42.
RaheemITiwariABalsalobre-lorenteD (2020) The role of ICT and financial development on CO2 emissions and economic growth. Environmental Science and Pollution Research27(2): 1912–1922.
43.
ReddickCG (2005) Citizen interaction with e-government: from the streets to servers?Government Information Quarterly22(1): 38–57.
44.
ReuvenyLR (2010) Democracy and environmental degradation. International Studies Quarterly50(4): 935–956.
45.
RoyoSSoniaAYAcereteB (2014) E-participation and environmental protection: are local governments really committed?Public Administration Review74(1): 87–98.
46.
SilalPSahaD (2021) Impact of national e-participation levels on inclusive human development and environmental performance: the mediating role of corruption control. Government Information Quarterly38(4): 10615.
47.
SilalPSharmaYK (2024) e-Government and economic governance for global environmental performance: an exploration of sustainability typologies and transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change206: 123563.
48.
United Nations and American Society for Public Administration (2002) Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. New York, NY: United Nations Publications.
49.
WangXZhongX (2022) How does central vertical regulation affect corporate environmental performance? Quasi-natural experiment based on ambient air quality standard. Industrial Economic Research21(6): 29–42. [In Chinese.]
50.
YangKFRhoSY (2007) e-Government for better performance: promises, realities, and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration30(11): 1197–1217.
51.
YildizM (2007) e-Government research: reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly24(3): 646–665.
52.
ZhangHWeiXP (2014) Green paradox or forced emission reduction: the double effect of environmental regulation on carbon emissions. China Population, Resources and Environment24(9): 21–29. [In Chinese.]
53.
ZhangSM (2021) Ecology and environment informatization in China:30 years development and expectation. Environmental Protection49(2): 37–44. [In Chinese.]
54.
ZhangT (2018) A study on the effect of public participation in environmental governance from the perspective of new media: an empirical analysis based on Chinese provincial panel data. Chinese Public Administration34(9): 79–85. [In Chinese.]
55.
ZiołoMNiedzielskiPKuzionko-OchrymiukE, et al. (2022) e-Government development in European countries: socio-economic and environmental aspects. Energies15(23): 8870.
56.
ZouridisBS (2010) From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review62(2): 174–184.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
