globalization (Roberts and Grimes 2002; Wallerstein 1974; York et al. 2003;
Hoffmann 2004).
By categorizing countries into hierarchically ranked groups of economic and
political power, the theory overcomes the simple scheme of assigning the whole
accountability for an action to the executing actor alone, Political Economy can be
criticized for. By acknowledging international power relations, it decouples the
accountability for environmentally harmful behaviour from the pure economic
performance and demands a closer look on possible dependencies from which this
behaviour may emanate. In this view, the core countries are not only accountable for
their homemade environmental problems but also for international contributions
causing disasters by exploiting resources far away.
Human Ecology contributes to the analysis of the environmental impact of human
behaviour by reminding us that processes are always embedded into an environmental frame and hence, both are related to each other. Across countries there are
different environmental settings, e.g. different climate zones, which may affect the
way of economic evolvement as well as its impact on nature (see York et al. 2003).
This is consistent to our assumption, that there are several possible ratios of
responsibility for a current condition of an environment to accountability for current
and further economic behaviour.
Adeola (1998) shows that the pursuit of a sustainable environment is not bound to
a post-material condition and it is no unique feature of industrial or post-industrial
societies. Hence, a sustainable environment is no distinctive luxury good—but it still
has to be paid for. Because each country has a precise standing in the globalized
economic system it is equipped with a mostly unique set of instruments for economic
actions—and therefore with more or less limitations to execute them in an ecologically efficient way.
Clearly, the economic power at national and international scales on a globalized
market is one of the most important variables influencing the human impact on the
natural environment which itself is influenced by more or less strong measures
depending on national and international political findings and legal solutions.
Since we do not see mono-directional constraints established by economies,
politics or other kinds of social agreements, we here propose an alternative theory
on environmental behaviour and success of biodiversity conservation measures:
Theory on Accountability.
We assume that the richest countries in the world most probably have the greatest
power to protect their environment and to spend money for nature conservation
measures in other parts of the world. However, the same measure may be much
cheaper in less developed regions than in areas of the richest countries. Furthermore,
private persons and NGOs spend a lot of money to protect certain landscapes,
ecosystems and species voluntarily. The so-called developing countries partially
have much larger and better protected nature reserves than certain economically
powerful countries.
Thus, we see a lot of work to do for most countries in the world independent of
the question if these are rich or poor.
204
T. Gaens et al.
Hoffmann 2004).
By categorizing countries into hierarchically ranked groups of economic and
political power, the theory overcomes the simple scheme of assigning the whole
accountability for an action to the executing actor alone, Political Economy can be
criticized for. By acknowledging international power relations, it decouples the
accountability for environmentally harmful behaviour from the pure economic
performance and demands a closer look on possible dependencies from which this
behaviour may emanate. In this view, the core countries are not only accountable for
their homemade environmental problems but also for international contributions
causing disasters by exploiting resources far away.
Human Ecology contributes to the analysis of the environmental impact of human
behaviour by reminding us that processes are always embedded into an environmental frame and hence, both are related to each other. Across countries there are
different environmental settings, e.g. different climate zones, which may affect the
way of economic evolvement as well as its impact on nature (see York et al. 2003).
This is consistent to our assumption, that there are several possible ratios of
responsibility for a current condition of an environment to accountability for current
and further economic behaviour.
Adeola (1998) shows that the pursuit of a sustainable environment is not bound to
a post-material condition and it is no unique feature of industrial or post-industrial
societies. Hence, a sustainable environment is no distinctive luxury good—but it still
has to be paid for. Because each country has a precise standing in the globalized
economic system it is equipped with a mostly unique set of instruments for economic
actions—and therefore with more or less limitations to execute them in an ecologically efficient way.
Clearly, the economic power at national and international scales on a globalized
market is one of the most important variables influencing the human impact on the
natural environment which itself is influenced by more or less strong measures
depending on national and international political findings and legal solutions.
Since we do not see mono-directional constraints established by economies,
politics or other kinds of social agreements, we here propose an alternative theory
on environmental behaviour and success of biodiversity conservation measures:
Theory on Accountability.
We assume that the richest countries in the world most probably have the greatest
power to protect their environment and to spend money for nature conservation
measures in other parts of the world. However, the same measure may be much
cheaper in less developed regions than in areas of the richest countries. Furthermore,
private persons and NGOs spend a lot of money to protect certain landscapes,
ecosystems and species voluntarily. The so-called developing countries partially
have much larger and better protected nature reserves than certain economically
powerful countries.
Thus, we see a lot of work to do for most countries in the world independent of
the question if these are rich or poor.
204
T. Gaens et al.