Scholarly record
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRISES IN THE URAL FEDERAL DISTRICT
Abstract
The objective of the study is to provide an overview of the impact of recent economic crises and shocks since 2008 on environmental impact, environmental quality and environmental policy in six federal subjects of the Ural Federal District, which is one of the most industrialized and urbanized regions of Russia. These federal subjects differ in sectoral structure of regional economies and the level of Gross Regional Product (GRP). The quantitative analysis undertaken by the study is based on annual dataset which contains data from 2005 onwards for the following indicators: GRP, air pollutant emissions from stationary sources, intensity of use of freshwater resources, wastewater discharge without treatment, industrial and municipal waste generation, urban air quality, environmental investments, and environmental operational expenditures. All regional economies of the Ural Federal District were deeply affected by the world economic and financial crisis: in 2009 GRP per capita in six federal subjects fell by 3.7-14.1%. This economic crisis has evidently affected the environment in the region. The impacts of economic downturn have been both positive and negative. The recession has reduced the use of natural resources and eased other burdens on the environment, but many environmental policy processes have slowed. The recession in economy was very short and in year 2010 regional economies started to recover. But in 2012 they encountered, as Russia in whole, a second round of recession which is still not over. The second macroeconomic shock affected sub-national economies differently. It is possible to identify regional economies in the Ural Federal District where the impact of the second crisis has been low or moderately low. Regional environmental dimensions also demonstrated different resilience. So the guiding research questions were: Which are the main changes caused by crisis, in terms of the regional environmental variables, listed above? Have the inequalities in the state of environment and environmental safety increased or decreased and which are the regions that win/lost the most? To study the existence of decoupling effect, changes in environmental impact, environmental quality and environmental policy are compared with the rate of the real GRP growth.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References5
Martin, R., Sunley, P. On the notion of regional economic resilience: conceptualization and explanation. Journal of Economic Geography, 2015, vol. 15, pp. 1-42. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbu015.
Lapuh L. Measuring the impact of the recession on Slovenian statistical regions and their ability to recover. Acta geographica Slovenica, 2016, vol. 56 (no 2), pp. 247-266.
ESPON ECR2 Final Report “Economic Crisis: Resilience of Regions”. ESPON & Cardiff University, 2014, 110 p.
Foster K. A case study approach to understanding regional resilience. Working Paper 2007-08. Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 2007, 45 p.
The State Report on the State of Environment and Environmental Protection in the Russian Federation for the year 2015. – Moscow. – Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation. – 2016. – 619 p.
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
