Identifying the effect of decoupling in major economic sectors of the Komi Republic

Identifying the effect of decoupling in major economic sectors of the Komi Republic

Автор: Fomina Valentina F.

Журнал: Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast @volnc-esc-en

Рубрика: Environmental economics

Статья в выпуске: 1 т.15, 2022 года.

Бесплатный доступ

The concept of decoupling is currently recognized as a strategic basis for moving toward an environmentally sustainable economy. This fact is confirmed by a review of publications discussing the possibility of achieving an imperative distinction between economic activity, welfare, and resource utilization. In this regard, the relevance of the problem of ensuring sustainable eco-economic development of the region is increasing, which determined the purpose of the work - to obtain the evidence base proving the actual achievement of decoupling in basic industries (extractive, manufacturing, energy). In order to assess the relationship between economic activity and environmental impact at the industry level, we adapted the Tapio decoupling model known as the Decoupling Diamond, which includes eight decoupling states depending on economic growth rate, resource consumption or environmental impact and the value of the elasticity coefficient representing the growth ratio of these indicators. Determining the state of decoupling in each industry includes calculating the rate of change in gross value added (in comparable prices) and environmental indicators: water abstraction, dirty discharge, air pollutant emissions, production waste generation for the period 2010-2019. The results obtained indicate that the rates of change in gross value added, consumption of natural resources, and the negative impact on the environment are related, separated, or negatively divided. For all of the industries under consideration we have revealed a weak negative decoupling on the dirty discharge, for the energy industry - a weak decoupling on the production waste generation. We have identified a downward trend in current and investment environmental costs in the extractive and manufacturing industries, as well as an increase in the proportion of payments for negative environmental impact (NEI) and a decline in innovation activity. The results of the study indicate the need to improve the economic performance of basic industries and strengthen their environmental protection activities; subsequently, the results may be in demand for regulation of eco-economic relations.

Еще

Decoupling model, industries, economic growth rates, environmental impact, environmental costs, komi republic

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/147237310

IDR: 147237310

Список литературы Identifying the effect of decoupling in major economic sectors of the Komi Republic

  • Akulov A.O. (2014). Regional environmental impacts of coal industry and development prospects according to a decoupling model. Region: ekonomika i sotsiologiya= Region: Economics and Sociology, 1(81), 272–288 (in Russian).
  • Bleischwitz R. (2010). International economics and economic policy. Relevance, measurement, empirical trends, innovation, resource policies. Special issue on “The International Economics of Resources and Resource Policy” (Springer Publisher), 7(2–3), 227–244. DOI: 10.1007/s10368-010-0170-z
  • Bobylev S.N., Mikhailova S.M., Kiryushin A.P. et. al. (2019). Zelenaya ekonomika i tseli ustoichivogo razvitiya dlya Rossii [Green Economy and the Sustainable Development Goals for Russia]. Moscow: MSU Faculty of Economics.
  • Bringezu S., Ramaswami A., Schandl H., O’Brien M. et al. (2017). Аssessing global resource use: A systems approach to resource efficiency and pollution reduction. In: A Report of the International Resource Panel. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: https://www.resourcepanel.org/ reports/assessing-global-resource-use.pdf (accessed: May 12, 2020).
  • Eisenmenger N. et al. (2020). The sustainable development goals prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: A critical refection on the SDGs from a socio ecological perspective. Sustainability Science, 15, 1101–1110. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x
  • Finel N., Tapio P. (2012) Decoupling transport CO2 from GDP, Finland futures research center. University of Turku, 11–12. Available at: https://www.utupub.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/147511eBook_2012-1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed: April 12, 2021).
  • Haberl H. et al. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: Synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
  • Hertwich E., Lifset R., Pauliuk S., Heeren N. (2020). Resource efficiency and climate change: Material efficiency strategies for a low-carbon future. In: A report of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: https://www.resourcepanel.
  • Jackson T. (2017). Protsvetanie bez rosta: Osnovy ekonomiki budushchego [Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow]. Moscow: Ast-Press.
  • Kozhevnikov S.A., Lebedeva M.A. (2019). Problems of transition to green economy in the region (Based on materials of the European North of Russia). Problemy razvitiya territorii=Problems of Territory’s Development, 4(102), 72–88. DOI: 10.15838/ptd.2019.4.102.4 (in Russian).
  • Krausmann F. et al. (2017). Material flow accounting: Measuring global material use for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 647–675. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060726.
  • Oberle B., Bringezu S., Hatfield-Dodds S., Hellweg S., Schandl H., Clement J. et al. (2019). Global resources outlook 2019: Natural resources for the future we want. In: Report of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook (accessed: May 10, 2020).
  • Parrique T. et al. (2019). Decoupling debunked – Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau.
  • Shkiperova G.T. (2014). Analysis and modeling of relationship between economic growth and environmental quality (The case of the Republic of Karelia). Ekonomicheskii analiz: teoriya i praktika=Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, 43(394), 41–49 (in Russian).
  • Stocker A., Gerold S., Hinterberger F. et al. (2015). Тhe interaction of resource and labour productivity. A scoping study. Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/growth_jobs_social/pdf/studies/Scientific%20background%20Resource%20labour%20productivity.pdf (accessed: May 12, 2021).
  • Tapio P. (2005). Towards a theory of decoupling: Degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport Policy, 12(2), 137–151. Available at: doi.10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.001
  • Tret’yakova E.A. (2019). Environmental intensity of economic growth in the Baltic Sea region. Baltiiskii region=The Baltic Region, 11(1), 14–28. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2019-1-2 (in Russian).
  • Vadén Т. et al. (2020). Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 236–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016
  • Vehmas J, Kaivo-oja J, Luukkanen J. (2003). Global Trends of Linking Environmental Stress and Economic Growth. Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre, Available at: https://www.utupub.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/147391/Tutu_2003-7.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed: May 12, 2021).
  • Ward J.D. et al. (2016). Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLoS ONE, 11(10): e0164733. Available at: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733
  • Wiedenhofer D. et al. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: Bibliometric and conceptual mapping. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6). Available at: doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8429
  • Wiedmann T., Lenzen M. et al. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11, 3107. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-16941-yе
  • Yashalova N.N. (2014). Analysis of the decoupling effect in ecological and economic activity of a region. Regional’naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika=Regional Economics: Theory and Practice, 39, 55–61 (in Russian).
  • Zabelina I.A. (2019). Decoupling in environmental and economic development of regions-participants of cross-border cooperation. Ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz=Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 12(1), 241–255. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2019.1.61.15 (in Russian).
  • Wiedenhofer D. et al. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: Bibliometric and conceptual mapping. Environmental Research Letters, 15 (6). Available at: doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8429
  • Wiedmann T., Lenzen M. et al. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11, 3107. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-16941-ye
Еще
Статья научная
QR-код для установки приложения SciUp Наведите камеру и скачайте бесплатное приложение SciUp