HOME
Full Articles List
Search by Author
Title: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRISES IN THE URAL FEDERAL DISTRICT
BibTex 
Open this article in the author's DB |
|
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRISES IN THE URAL FEDERAL DISTRICT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1314-2704
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
English
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
conference
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017
|
|
|
|
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017, 29 June - 5 July, 2017
|
|
|
|
Proceedings Paper
|
|
|
|
STEF92 Technology
|
|
|
|
International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM
|
|
|
|
Bulgarian Acad Sci; Acad Sci Czech Republ; Latvian Acad Sci; Polish Acad Sci; Russian Acad Sci; Serbian Acad Sci & Arts; Slovak Acad Sci; Natl Acad Sci Ukraine; Natl Acad Sci Armenia; Sci Council Japan; World Acad Sci; European Acad Sci, Arts & Letters; Ac
|
|
|
|
309-316
|
|
|
|
29 June - 5 July, 2017
|
|
|
|
website
|
|
|
|
cdrom
|
|
|
|
4207
|
|
|
|
economic crisis; environmental impact; environmental quality; environmental policy
|
|
Download PDF