27Received 27.04.2024. Revised 26.06.2024. Accepted 28.08.2024.
Acknowledgments. This study has been supported by a grant of the Russian Science Foundation. Project no. 23-18-01065 “Economic Potentials of Russian Mineral Industry towards Global Energy Transition amid Geopolitical Tension”.
Abstract. It is widely recognised that public interest in environmental issues is a driver of low-carbon economic development, owing to the fact that the degree of community concern about environmental quality is tightly associated with the implementation of green initiatives by business and government. In its turn, public support for environmental protection is a function of socio-economic, cultural, historical and political conditions. Russia is an economy that has managed to increase its prosperity and qualitatively transform institutions over the past two decades. The country’s economic growth has been accompanied by environmental degradation, especially at the regional level. More importantly, social and economic upswing in Russia was associated with greater involvement of the population in environmental protection issues. There has been a steady increase in the share of the population who prefer environmental protection to economic growth, and the proportion of Russians who are convinced that human activity has a significant impact on the environment has considerably grown. However, at the current stage of development, sociological surveys indicate a significant decrease in the interest of Russian citizens in environmental issues. Escalating geopolitical uncertainty and macroeconomic turbulence may contribute to the fact. This study aims to identify the determinants of the Russian population’s attitudes towards environmental issues over the period of 1995–2023, with a special focus on the role of geopolitical tensions. The results obtained by means of the sophisticated econometric techniques – Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) and Non-Linear Autoregressive Distributed Lag (NARDL) – indicate that income level, education, as well as the spread of information and telecommunication technologies (ICT) stimulate the involvement of Russian citizens in environmental issues, while geopolitical tensions reduce the share of the population that prioritises environmental protection. At the same time, the study sheds light on the fact that maintaining the interest of the Russian population towards environmental issues is most relevant in the context of high geopolitical risks, as environmental degradation is most likely to be observed during this period.
Keywords: environment, environmental issues, environmentalism, geopolitical tensions, Russian Federation
REFERENCES
1. Mostafa M. Wealth, Post-Materialism and Consumers’ Pro-Environmental Intentions: a Multilevel Analysis across 25 Nations. Sustainable Development, 2013, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 385-399. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.517
2. Inglehart R., Welzel K. Modernisation, Cultural Change and Democracy: the Sequence of Human Development. Moscow, Novoe izdatel’stvo, 2011. 464 p. (In Russ.)
3. Loubser J. Understanding the Role of Post-Materialism in the Trade-Off between Economic Growth and the Environment in BRICS Countries. CSSR Working Paper, 2018, no. 424. 37 p. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329678089_Understanding_the_role_of_post-materialism_in_the_trade-off_between_economic_growth_and_the_environment_in_BRICS_countries_Understanding_the_role_of_post-materialism_in_the_trade-off_between_economic_m (accessed 20.04.2024).
4. Martinez-Alier J. The Environment as a Luxury Good or “Too Poor to Be Green”? Ecological Economics, 1995, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1-10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)00062-Z
5. Franzen A., Vogl D. Acquiescence and the Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: a Comparison of the ISSP, WVS, and EVS. Social Science Quarterly, 2012, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 637-659. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00903.x
6. Martini K., Tiezzi S. Is the Environment a Luxury? An Empirical Investigation Using Revealed Preferences and Household Production. Resource and Energy Economics, 2014, vol. 37, pp. 147-167. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2013.11.014
7. Derevyanchenko A., Anan’eva A. Problems of Ecological Culture Formation among Student-Age Population in Modern Russia. Nauchnye trudy Moskovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, 2019, no. 6, pp. 5-12. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.17805/trudy.2019.6.1
8. Ivanova L. Ecological Ñulture in Russian Society as a Condition for the Formation of Eco-Consciousness and Behaviour of the Younger Generation. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2019, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 189-201. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2019.1.61.11
9. Chernovich E., Polyakova V., Fursov K. Innovative Behaviour of the Population. Monitoring. National Research University Higher School of Economics. Information Bulletin, 2015, no. 2, pp. 1-4. (In Russ.) Available at: https://issek.hse.ru/data/2015/09/25/1074029049/Ýêîïðàêòèêè-ðîññèÿí.pdf (accessed 07.02.2024).
10. Caldara D., Iacoviello M. Measuring Geopolitical Risk. American Economic Review, 2022, vol. 112, no. 4, pp. 1194-1225. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823
11. Chu L.K., Dogan B., Abakah E., Ghosh S., Albeni M. Impact of Economic Policy Uncertainty, Geopolitical Risk, and Economic Complexity on Carbon Emissions and Ecological Footprint: an Investigation of the E7 Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2023, vol. 30, pp. 34406-34427. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24682-2
12. Ding T., Li H., Tan R., Zhao X. How Does Geopolitical Risk Affect Carbon Emissions?: an Empirical Study from the Perspective of Mineral Resources Extraction in OECD Countries. Resources Policy, 2023, vol. 85, part B, art. 103983. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103983
13. Jiang Y., Sharif A., Anwar A., Cong P., Lelchumanan B., Yen V., Vinh N. Does Green Growth in E‑7 Countries Depend on Economic Policy Uncertainty, Institutional Quality, and Renewable Energy? Evidence from Quantile-Based Regression. Geoscience Frontiers, 2023, vol. 14, no. 6, art. 101652. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101652
14. Owjimehr S., Meybodi M., Jamshidi N. Can Geopolitical Risk Improve Energy Efficiency in European Countries? Energy Strategy Reviews, 2023, vol. 49, art. 101145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101145
15. Anser M., Syed Q., Apergis N. Does Geopolitical Risk Escalate CO2 Emissions? Evidence from the BRICS Countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, vol. 28, pp. 1-11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14032-z
16. Khan A., Sun C., Xu Z., Liu Y. Geopolitical Risk, Economic Uncertainty, and Militarization: Significant Agents of Energy Consumption and Environmental Quality. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2023, vol. 102, art. 107166. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107166
17. Bildirici M. Impact of Militarization and Economic Growth on Biofuels Consumption and CO2 Emissions: The Evidence from Brazil, China, and US. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 2018, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1121-1131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12720
18. Wang G., Gu X., Shen X., Uktamov K., Ageli M. A Dual Risk Perspective of China’s Resources Market: Geopolitical Risk and Political Risk. Resources Policy, 2023, vol. 82, art. 103528. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103528
19. Appiah-Otoo I., Chen X. Russian-Ukrainian War Degrades the Total Environment. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 2023, vol. 16, art. 32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-023-00354-8
20. Dhifaoui Z., Ncibi K., Gasmi F., Alqarni A. The Nexus between Climate Change and Geopolitical Risk Index in Saudi Arabia Based on the Fourier-Domain Transfer Entropy Spectrum Method. Sustainability, 2023, vol. 15, no. 18, art. 13579. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813579
21. Acheampong A., Opoku E., Aluko O. The Roadmap to Net-Zero Emission: Do Geopolitical Risk and Energy Transition Matter? Journal of Public Affairs, 2023, vol. 23, no. 4, art. e2882. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/PA.2882
22. Alsagr N., van Hemmen S. The Impact of Financial Development and Geopolitical Risk on Renewable Energy Consumption: Evidence from Emerging Markets. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, vol. 28, pp. 25906-25919. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12447-2
23. Rasoulinezhad E., Taghizadeh-Hesary F., Sung J., Panthamit N. Geopolitical Risk and Energy Transition in Russia: Evidence from ARDL Bounds Testing Method. Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, no. 7, art. 2689. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072689
24. Conroy S., Emerson T. A Tale of Trade-Offs: the Impact of Macroeconomic Factors on Environmental Concern. Journal of Environmental Management, 2014, vol. 145, pp. 88-93. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.033
25. Shao S., Tian Z., Fan M. Do the Rich Have Stronger Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection? New Evidence from a Survey in China. World Development, 2018, vol. 105, pp. 83-94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.12.033
26. Meyer A. Do Economic Conditions Affect Climate Change Beliefs and Support for Climate Action? Evidence from the US in the Wake of the Great Recession. Economic Inquiry, 2022, vol. 60, pp. 64-86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13036
27. Kenny J. Environmental Protection Preferences under Strain: an Analysis of the Impact of Changing Individual Perceptions of Economic and Financial Conditions on Environmental Public Opinion during Economic Crisis. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 2018, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 105-124. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2017.1395884
28. Kenny J. Economic Conditions and Support for the Prioritisation of Environmental Protection during the Great Recession. Environmental Politics, 2020, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 937-958. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1680074
29. Lou X., Lin Y., Li L. Predicting Priority of Environmental Protection over Economic Growth Using Macroeconomic and Individual-Level Predictors: Evidence from Machine Learning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2022, vol. 82, art. 101843. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101843
30. Luengo-Valderrey M.-J., Emmanuel-Martínez E., Rivera-Revilla R., Vicente-Molina A. Ecological Behavior in Times of Crisis and Economic Well-Being through a Comparative Longitudinal Study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, vol. 359, art. 131965. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131965
31. Cotta B., Memoli V. Do Environmental Preferences in Wealthy Nations Persist in Times of Crisis? The European Environmental Attitudes (2008–2017). Italian Political Science Review, 2020, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1-16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/ipo.2019.3
32. Fairbrother M. Environmental Attitudes and the Politics of Distrust. Sociology Compass, 2017, vol. 11, no. 5, art. e12482. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12482
33. Torgler B., García-Valiñas M. The Determinants of Individuals’ Attitudes towards Preventing Environmental Damage. Ecological Economics, 2007, vol. 63, no. 2-3, pp. 536-552. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.013
34. Combes J.-L., Hamit-Haggar M., Schwartz S. A Multilevel Analysis of the Determinants of Willingness to Pay to Prevent Environmental Pollution across Countries. The Social Science Journal, 2018, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 284-299. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2018.02.001
35. Alshurideh Ì., Al Kurdi B., Shaltoni A., Ghuff S. Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour in the Context of Emerging Economies. International Journal of Sustainable Society, 2019, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 257-277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSOC.2019.10026275
36. Xiao C., McCright A. Explaining Gender Differences in Concern about Environmental Problems in the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 2012, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1067-1084. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.651191
37. Elert N., Lundin E. Gender and Climate Action. Population and Environment, 2022, vol. 43, pp. 470-499. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-022-00397-x
38. Ivanova A., Agissova F., Sautkina E. Pro-Environmental Behavior in Russia: Adaptation of the Recurrent Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (Brick et al., 2017) and the Relationship with Environmental Concern. Psychological Studies, 2020, vol. 13, no. 70, ðð. 1-19. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v13i70.199
39. Aleksandrova E.S. The Relationship between Pro-Environmental Behavior and Personal Values of the Individual: Gender Aspect. Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 2021, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 13-19. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0861-2021-4-13-20
40. Awan A., Abbasi K., Rej S., Bandyopadhyay A., Lv K. The Impact of Renewable Energy, Internet Use and Foreign Direct Investment on Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Method of Moments Quantile Analysis. Renewable Energy, 2022, vol. 189, pp. 454-466. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.017
41. Ermolaeva P., Ermolaeva Y., Kuznestsova I., Basheva O., Korunova V. Environmental Issues in Russian Cities: Towards the Understanding of Regional and National Mass Media Discourse. Russian Journal of Communication, 2020, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 48-65. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19409419.2020.1729464
42. Pesaran M.H., Pesaran B. Working with Microfit 4.0: Interactive Econometric Analysis. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995. 536 p.
43. Shin Y., Yu B., Greenwood-Nimmo M. Modelling Asymmetric Cointegration and Dynamic Multipliers in a Nonlinear ARDL Framework. Sickles R., Horrace W., eds. Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt. New York, NY, Springer, 2014, pp. 281-314. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9
44. Pesaran M.H., Shin Y., Smith R. Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2001, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 289-326. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
45. Freymeyer R., Johnson B. A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Factors Influencing Environmental Actions. Sociological Spectrum, 2010, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 184-195. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170903496075
46. Geger S., Geger A. Factors of Environmental Activism. St. Petersburg Sociology Today, 2018, no. 10, pp. 65-77. (In Russ.) Available at: https://pitersociology.ru/ru/node/536 (accessed 20.04.2024).
47. Vasilyeva R., Rozhina E., Voitenkov V. The Influence of Geopolitical Tensions on Economic Activity in Russia. Regionalistica, 2023, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 24-45. (In Russ.) Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.14530/reg.2023.5.24
SOURCES
1. Ecology of Russia: Getting Worse Every Year. VCIOM, 29.06.2010. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/ekologiya-v-rossii-s-kazhdym-godom-vse-khuzhe (accessed 15.01.2024).
2. Environmental Situation in Russia: Monitoring. VCIOM, 05.04.2018. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/ekologicheskaya-situacziya-v-rossii-monitoring-2 (accessed 15.01.2024).
3. The Russians Named the Main Environmental Problems of the Country. RBC, 06.02.2019. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.rbc.ru/politics/06/02/2019/5c59b1709a79478082250bcb?from=copy (accessed 15.01.2024).
4. Cumulative CO2 Emissions. Our World in Data, 2020. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?tab=table&country (accessed 12.01.2024).
5. Where Does the Threat to Peace Come from? VCIOM, 23.03.2023. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/otkuda-iskhodit-ugroza-miru-1 (accessed 15.01.2024).
6. Regions and Local Authorities Should Be Responsible for the Environment in Russia. VCIOM, 29.07.2005. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/za-ekologiyu-v-rossii-dolzhny-otvechat-regiony-i-mestnye-vlasti (accessed 15.01.2024).
7. Environmental Situation in Russia: Monitoring. VCIOM, 06.02.2019. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/ekologicheskaya-situacziya-v-rossii-monitoring (accessed 15.01.2024).
8. Environmental Situation in Russia: Monitoring. VCIOM, 09.03.2023. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/ehkologicheskaja-situacija-v-rossii-monitoring-20230309 (accessed 15.01.2024).
9. Online Data Analysis. World Value Survey. Available at: https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp (accessed 20.12.2023).
10. Eco-Activism: Involvement, Motivation, Potential. VCIOM, 06.06.2023. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/ehkoaktivizm-vovlechennost-motivacija-potencial (accessed 15.01.2024).
11. World Bank Open Data. World Bank Group. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed 20.12.2023).
12. Education Plays a Key Role in Solving Environmental Problems. +1 RBC, 26.11.2020. (In Russ.) Available at: https://plus-one.rbc.ru/society/obrazovanie-pomogaet-povysit-uroven-ekologicheskoy-osoznannosti (accessed 08.02.2024).
13. Environmental Agenda: Ten Months before the State Duma Elections. VCIOM, 30.11.2020. (In Russ.) Available at: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reports/analiticheskii-doklad/ehkologicheskaja-povestka-za-desjat-mesjacev-do-vyborov-v-gosdumu (accessed 07.02.2024).
No comments