Suchergebnisse
Filter
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
Quality of institution and the FEG (forest, energy intensity, and globalization) -environment relationships in sub-Saharan Africa
The current share of sub-Saharan Africa in global carbon dioxide emissions is negligible compared to major contributors like Asia, Americas, and Europe. This trend is, however, likely to change given that both economic growth and rate of urbanization in the region are projected to be robust in the future. The current study contributes to the literature by examining both the direct and the indirect impacts of quality of institution on the environment. Specifically, we investigate whether the institutional setting in the region provides some sort of a complementary role in the environment-FEG relationships. We use the panel two-step system generalized method of moments (GMM) technique to deal with the simultaneity problem. Data consists of 43 sub-Saharan African countries. The result shows that energy inefficiency compromises environmental standards. However, the quality of the institutional setting helps moderate this negative consequences; countries with good institutions show greater prospects than countries with poor institutions. On the other hand, globalization of the region and increased forest size generate positive environmental outcomes in the region. Their impacts are, however, independent of the quality of institution. Afforestation programs, promotion of other clean energy types, and investment in energy efficiency, basic city infrastructure, and regulatory and institutional structures, are desirable policies to pursue to safeguard the environment.
BASE
Setting the scene
Biodiversity loss can degrade ecosystems and impactthe ability of ecosystems to contribute to people. The last 20 years of ecosystem service research has increased society's interest in fighting the consequences of ecosystem degradation. During the last decades, attitudes towards conservation have been shaped in many ways. According to Mace (2014), "nature for itself" was a key principle during 1960s–1970s supporting concepts such as protected and wilderness areas. Human pressures on nature during the 1980s and early 1990s resulted in extinctions, habitat loss, and pollution, which made it urgent to act for"nature despite of people". That period was followed by a "nature for people" period, in which biodiversity challenges were mainstreamed via concepts such as ecosystem approach, ecosystem services and economic values. The latest paradigm, which was developed by Mace (2014) is called "people and nature". Key concepts in conservation circles include environmental change, resilience, adaptability and socio-ecological systems. Several assessments of the state and trends of biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services have been carried out via various initiatives, such as Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005), followed by the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) assessments and the Aichi biodiversity targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In Europe, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) has generated a lot of new knowledge on the quantification of ecosystem services and use of this information in decision-making. Today, more and more open data is available through research infrastructures, for example, remote sensing data through the Copernicus programme of the European Union and European Space Agency. Naturebased solutions and green and blue infrastructure are becoming popular in landscape planning and highlight different aspects of the socio-ecological (synon. coupled human-environment) systems and their sustainable management. The most significant attempt to highlight the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services globally, has been the establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES has launched a series of thematic and geographical assessments. The European and Central Asian regional assessment has been ongoing parallel to this Nordic IPBES-like assessment that has focused on coastal ecosystems and their services. This assessment covers the Nordic countries, i.e. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, and autonomous areas such as Åland, Faroe Islands and Greenland, which are a unique "biocultural" piece of Earth with unique nature values and well-established societies.
BASE