330 Wirtschaft
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (8)
- Report (2)
- Article (1)
Language
- English (11) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (11) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (11)
Keywords
- Biodiversity (1)
- CuveWaters (1)
- Demographic change (1)
- Driver (1)
- Human population dynamics (1)
- IWRM (1)
- Mali (1)
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (1)
- Namibia (1)
- Senegal (1)
Institute
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (11) (remove)
Demographic change is supposed to be the most important indirect driver for changing biodiversity. In this article, a systematic review of 148 studies was conducted to examine the scientific evidence for this relationship and to identify potential gaps in research. We explored the spatial distribution of studies, the categories addressed with respect to biodiversity and demographic change, and the ways in which their relationships were conceptualised (spatially and temporally) and valued. The majority of studies were carried out in Africa, Europe and North America. Our analysis confirms the trend that demographic phenomena were mostly found to negatively influence biodiversity. However, a considerable number of studies also point towards impacts that were context dependent, either positive or negative under certain circumstances. In addition to that we identified significant gaps in research. In particular, there is a lack of addressing (1) other demographic aspects such as population decline, age structure or gender differences, (2) spatial variability of, e.g. human population growth, (3) long-term effects of demographic processes, and (4) the context dependency (e.g. regulations/law enforcement, type of human activities, and choice of scale or proxy). We conclude there is evidence that the relationship between biodiversity and demographic change is much more complex than expected and so far represented in research. Thus, we call for a social–ecological biodiversity research that particularly focusses on the functional relation between biodiversity and human activities, namely the different types, context, and interdependent dynamics (spatial and temporal) of this complex relation.
Bank regulators have the discretion to discipline banks by executing enforcement actions to ensure that banks correct deficiencies regarding safe and sound banking principles. We
highlight the trade-offs regarding the execution of enforcement actions for financial stability. Following this we provide an overview of the differences in the legal framework governing supervisors’ execution of enforcement actions in the Banking Union and the United States. After discussing work on the effect of enforcement action on bank behaviour and the real economy, we present data on the evolution of enforcement actions
and monetary penalties by U.S. regulators. We conclude by noting the importance of supervisors to levy efficient monetary penalties and stressing that a division of competences among different regulators should not lead to a loss of efficiency regarding
the execution of enforcement actions.
The anthropocene – the epoch of humankind – is currently a topic of great interest. What consequences does the idea of humanity as a geological force have for the undertaken path of sustainable development? What new questions are arising for sustainability science? Diagnosing contemporary society from an anthropocene perspective could change the relationship between natural and social sciences, as well as between society and science: science will be needed even more as a critical authority and must be organized to an even greater extent in a transdisciplinary manner. New forms of social participation in the process of producing scientifically legitimated knowledge are indispensable.∗
More than ten years ago the Dutch chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen coined the term “Anthropocene” to describe the period during which humans have begun to significantly influence biological, geological and atmospheric processes, thus becoming a relevant geological force on planet Earth (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000, Crutzen 2002). In the earth sciences the anthropocene represents nothing less than a transition to a new epoch and is therefore being discussed intensively. Until 2016 data have been collected by geologists from the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) to provide evidence that might help answer the question whether a turning point has been reached in the history of the Earth (Zalasiewicz et al. 2011). A decision will be made as to whether and when a new epoch in Earth history has begun.
The significance and consequences outside the geoscientific discourse of identifying an “epoch of humans” (Zalasiewicz 2013) has, so far, only been understood to a small extent. Yet this change of perspective is one of the most important in the last 100 hundred years, for it means society and nature have become so closely intertwined that they can no longer be studied independently of each other. Natural spheres and societal spheres have merged into one large system (Guillaume 2015, Becker und Jahn 2006). A well-founded acceptance of the concept of the anthropocene, however, has been lacking, especially where transitions to a sustainable development are being researched. It remains unclear whether the concept of the Anthropocene will lead to a new fundamental understanding of the relationships between nature and society and, if so, what opportunities this new understanding might open for shaping these relationships in a more sustainable manner. And lastly, and equally importantly, it is still unclear whether science’s role and responsibilities will change in the course of developing visions of the future. With this article we hope to stimulate further discussions of these issues.
Science is under pressure. In times when it is a matter of nothing less that a transformation toward sustainable development, society and politics are demanding not just reliable knowledge but above all useful knowledge. In order to be able to produce such knowledge science must change its structures and ways of working. A renewed understanding of critique can provide guidance to the process of change that must be actively shaped by science itself.* The “Great Transformation” in the direction of sustainable development is a global challenge for society (WBGU2011). All involved have stressed that this transformation, if it succeeds, will lead to profound changes in all parts of society (see PIK 2007). This applies to science as well, which after all is a part of society (WBGU2011, pp. 341 f.). For in view of an unprecedented social-ecological crisis science is coming increasingly under pressure to provide knowledge that is not only methodically reliable but also useful for dealing with the challenges ahead. It is obvious this pressure can strike at the very core of the scientific project: Any orientation toward nonscientific criteria with respect to what is to count as relevant knowledge threatens to undermine the reflexive and cooperative search for “true knowledge.”
In this situation we believe it to be crucial that science does not allow itself to become a plaything of calls for change, but rather that it itself shapes its own response to the new historical challenges. In the following, we argue that a renewed understanding of critique should be the starting point for such an endeavor.1 We will illustrate what a renewed understanding of critique might look like by posing nine theses.2 We see these theses as a contribution to the ongoing discourse on sustainability science or research for sustainable development.
This assessment concept paper provides a methodological approach for the formative assessment and summative assessment of GIZ’s International Water Stewardship Programme (IWaSP) and its component partnerships. IWaSP promotes partnerships between the private sector (corporations and SMEs), the public sector and the society to tackle shared water risks and to manage water equitably to meet competing demands. This evaluative assessment concept describes the generic approach of the assessment, the cycle for the assessment of partnerships, the country coordination and the programme.
The overall goal of the assessment is to provide evidence for taxpayers in the donor countries and for citizens in the partnership countries. It also aims to examine the relevance of the programme’s approach, its underlying assumptions, and the heterogeneity of stakeholders and their specific interests. Since the assessment is also formative feedback to GIZ and IWaSP stakeholders, it aims to guide the future implementation of the partnerships and the programme.
The assessment is guided by several generic principles: assessing for learning (formative assessment); assessment of learning (summative assessment); iteration; structuring complex problems; unblocking results; and conformity with other assessment criteria set out by the OECD the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and GIZ’s Capacity Works success factors (GTZ 2010).
These generic criteria are adapted to the three levels of the IWaSP structure. First, the assessment cycle for partnerships includes the validation of stakeholders (mapping), the analysis of secondary literature, face-to-face interviews and a process for feeding back the findings. Generic tools are provided to guide the assessment, such as a list of key documents and an interview guide. Partnerships will undergo a baseline, interim assessment and final assessment. As progress varies across individual IWaSP partnerships, the steps taken by each partnership to assess shared water risks, prioritise and agree interventions, are expected to differ slightly. In response to these differences the sequencing and content of the assessment may need to be adapted for the different partnerships.
Second, the country-level assessment considers issues such as the coordination of partnerships within a country, scoping strategies, and interaction between partnership and the programme. Information gathered during the partnership assessment feeds into the country-level assessment.
Third, the assessment cycle for the programme involves a document and monitoring plan analysis, reflection on the different perspectives of the programme staff, country staff and external stakeholders.
The final section is concerned with reporting. Several annexes are provided relating to the organisation and preparation of the assessment, including question guidelines and analysis procedures.
Increasing bike traffic in many European countries is a sign of a shift in planning paradigms towards more sustainable mobility cultures. It is also the result of 20 to 30 years of evolution and refinement in the training of urban and transport planners. Capacity development is therefore key when it comes to changing mobility cultures. Nevertheless, the day-to-day work of transport planners still focuses mostly on motorised traffic and the tasks of creating a smooth traffic flow, improving accessibility, and maintaining infrastructure. Cycling plays only a minor role, with efforts often still concentrated on the building of cycle lanes. The broader strategic goal of how to make urban mobility culture more sustainable – and within this the need to focus on cycling as an everyday mode of transport – is often neglected. Direct regulation is not possible when it comes to mobility cultures. Instead they represent a community-wide (communication) process that calls for a new planning paradigm: Besides the political will to establish a sustainable urban mobility culture, emphasis must also be placed on skills and training for urban and transport planners.
Debates about climate-induced migratory movements – and their possible links to instability and conflict – along with the discussion on migration flows across the Mediterranean Sea frequently highlight the West African Sahel as a region of concern. However, findings from recent empirical research on Sahelian regions in Mali and Senegal suggest no evidence for increasing population movements towards Europe as a direct result of environmental stress and climate change. It is the patterns of migration that are changing and not so much the volume. A closer look at the social-ecological conditions of migration in the Sahel allows for an alternative characterization of the problem dynamics. It reveals a rich and comprehensive picture of mobility and the importance of climate and environment in this respect, and identifies starting points for policy options.
Rain- and floodwater harvesting (RFWH) technologies and water reuse are ideal and generalpurpose technologies to improve water security and to contribute to climate adaptation – in particular for semi-arid regions. These technologies are part of a multi-resources mix within an integrated water resources management (IWRM). They create capacities to buffer water fluctuations and alleviate water scarcity. In this way, they reduce the pressure on existing resources, and can stimulate local economies. However, in order to be sustainable, these technologies need to be adapted to the local context – through suitable design, adapted operation requirements, and a back-up by training users and operators accordingly.
The impacts of climate and environmental changes on migration have gained increasing attention in recent years. Yet the role and significance of the climate as an influencing factor for migratory processes is still poorly understood. Case studies are required which consider the specific historical, socio-cultural and environmental context. The micle project examined the interactions between climate change, land degradation and migration in selected regions in the Sahelian countries Mali and Senegal.