ИНСТРУМЕНТЫ ПОЛИТИКИ ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО ПРОСВЕЩЕНИЯ: РАЗРАБОТКА И ОЦЕНКА ТАКСОНОМИИ
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52123/1994-2370-2025-1420Ключевые слова:
Политические инструменты, политическая таксономия, показатели оценки, политика экологического просвещения, КазахстанАннотация
Инструменты политики используются для того, чтобы вызвать социальные изменения и достичь конкретных политических целей. В контексте политики экологического просвещения они служат инструментами для эффективного решения вопросов экологического образования. Хотя существует множество политических таксономий для экологических проблем, таких как загрязнение воздуха или эко-образование, не существует всеобъемлющей таксономии, связанной с экологической осведомленностью, для контекста Казахстана. Поэтому, учитывая этот пробел в исследованиях, в данной статье предпринята попытка построить первую политическую таксономию, основанную на эко-сознании. Для этого анализируются 20 научных работ, посвященных экологическому просвещению, и 30 казахстанских экспертов-экологов приглашаются для тщательной оценки совместимости каждого инструмента политики в качестве инструмента повышения экологической осведомленности. Наконец, каждый ИП затем оценивается по девяти показателям оценки: от легитимности и прозрачности до справедливости и эффективности. Согласно результатам анализа эксперта, среди всех девяти показателей возглавили кампанию по информированию общественности и политику прямого государственного обеспечения. Здесь общенациональные публичные субботники по уборке и обучение эко-экспертов и эко-журналистов считались наиболее эффективными, хорошо проводимыми и социально-политически легитимными. Полученные результаты чрезвычайно ценны для местных разработчиков экологической политики, которые могли бы дополнительно уточнить и расширить таксономию.
Библиографические ссылки
1. Vedung, E., Rist, R. C., & Bemelmans-Videc, M. L. Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. // Transaction Publishers. - 1998. - Vol. 5. - pp. 1-280. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748.
2. Huppes, G., & Simonis, U. E. Environmental Policy Instruments. // Principles of Environmental Sciences. – 2009. - pp. 239-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9158-2_13.
3. Knill, C., Tosun, J., & Schulze, K. Measuring environmental policy change: Conceptual alternatives and research implications. // Institute for Advanced Studies. – 2011. - pp. 1-38. URL: https://irihs.ihs.ac.at/id/eprint/2092/1/pw_125.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
4. UNEP. Approach to Assessment of Policy Effectiveness – Global Environment Outlook (GEO-6): Healthy Planet, Healthy People Chapter 10. // UNEP. – 2019. pp. 1-292. URL: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/27663;jsessionid=AEBD5853AE98522E719160EAEF789424 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
5. Van Nispen, F. K. M. Policy instruments. // Department of Public Administration. – 2011. – pp. 1928-1933. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/33101 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
6. Acciai, C., & Capano, G. Climbing down the ladder: a meta-analysis of policy instruments applications. // IPPA International Workshops on Public Policy. – 2018. - pp. 26-28. URL: https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/5b2926cf8c098.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
7. Mickwitz, P. Environmental policy evaluation: Concepts and practice. // The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters. – 2006. - pp. 1-165. URL: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/250110612.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
8. Liang, Z., Zhang, M., Mao, Q., Yu, B., & Ma, B. Improvement of eco-efficiency in China: A comparison of mandatory and hybrid environmental policy instruments. // International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. – 2018. – Vol. 15. – No. 7. - pp. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph15071473.
9. Hamilton, K., Dixon, J., Xie, J., & Kunte, A. Five years after Rio: Innovations in environmental policy. // The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. – 1997. - pp. 1-64. URL: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/209081468739294734/pdf/multi-page.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
10. Böcher, M., & Töller, A. E. Instrument Selection and Instrument Change in Environmental Policy: A Theoretical Explanatory Framework. // PVS: German Political Science Quarterly. – 2007. - No. 39. - pp. 299-322. URL: https://www.pollux-fid.de/r/sw-685f5592eededbde (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
11. Coria, J., & Sterner, T. Natural resource management: Challenges and policy options. // Annual Review of Resource Economics. - 2011. - Vol. 3. - No. 1. - pp. 203-230. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-120131.
12. MENR. Ecological Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. // Online.zakon.kz. – 2025. URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=39768520 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
13. OECD. Policy Instruments for the Environment – Database 2017. // OECD. – 2017. - pp. 1-15. URL: https://www.oecd.org/environment/tools-evaluation/PINE_database_brochure.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
14. Partanen-Hertell, M., Harju-Autti, P., Kreft-Burman, K., & Pemberton, D. Raising environmental awareness in the Baltic Sea area. // The Finnish Environment Institute. – 1999. - pp. 1-109. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2002.000720.
15. Persson, A. Choosing environmental policy instruments: case studies of municipal waste policy in Sweden and England. // London School of Economics and Political Science. - 2007. - pp. 1-337. URL: https://etheses.lse.ac.uk/909/ (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
16. Bragadottir, H., von Utfall Danielsson, C., Magnusson, R., Seppänen, S., Stefansdotter, A., & Sunden, D. The Use of Economic Instruments: In Nordic Environmental Policy 2010-2013. // Nordic Council of Ministers. – 2014. - pp. 1-210. URL: https://copenhageneconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/The-Use-of-Economics-Instruments-in-Nordic-Environmental-Policy-2010-2013.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
17. Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K. H., & Robinson, J. G. Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. // Conservation Biology. – 2002. – Vol. 16. – No. 6. - pp. 1469-1479. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01232.x.
18. Ballard, H. L., Evans, E., Sturtevant, V. E., & Jakes, P. The Evolution of Smokey Bear: Environmental Education About Wildfire for Youth. // The Journal of Environmental Education. – 2012. – Vol. 43. – No. 4. - pp. 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2011.644352.
19. Nugumanova, L., Frey, M., Yemelina, N., & Yugay, S. Environmental problems and policies in Kazakhstan: Air pollution, waste and water. // Econstor. – 2017. - pp. 1-40. URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/162150/1/889804818.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
20. Soltys, D., & Orynbassarova, D. Delivering environmental education in Kazakhstan through civic action: second-wave values and governmental responses. // Environmental Values. – 2013. – Vol. 22. – No. 1. - pp. 101-122. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23460964
21. Tynybekov, S., & Roza, E. The right of the public to obtain ecological information in the Republic of Kazakhstan. // Studia Orientalne. – 2013. – Vol. 2. – No. 4. - pp. 167-182. https://doi.org/10.15804/so2013207.
22. Yerkinbayeva, L., Nurmukhankyzy, D., Kalymbek, B., Ozenbayeva, A., & Kalymbekova, Z. Digitalization of environmental information in the Republic of Kazakhstan: Issues of legal regulation. // Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism. – 2022. – Vol. 13. – No. 1 - pp. 115-27. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v13.1(57).10.
23. Zambrana-Tevar, N. Some transnational aspects of environmental disputes in Kazakhstan and its New Environmental Code. // Journal of Law. – 2022. – Vol. 3. – No. 99. - pp. 65-73. https://doi.org/10.26577/IRIJ.2022.v99.i3.06.
24. Litvishko, V., Akhmetova, A., Kodasheva, G., Zhussupova, A., Malikova, R., & Kuralova, A. Formation of ecological education of the population. // E3S Web of Conferences. – 2020. - pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015901009.
25. UNDP. Environment and Development Nexus in Kazakhstan. // UNDP. – 2004. - pp. 1-185. URL: https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/ncsa-documents/2147-22347.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
26. Uedraogo, A. Basic concepts of environmental journalism. // Journal of Journalism. – 2016. – Vol. 42. – No. 4. - pp. 230-234. URL: https://bulletin-journalism.kaznu.kz/index.php/1-journal/article/view/1006 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
27. Kumar, Y. Environmental Journalism as a tool for raising awareness about environmental problems in Kazakhstan. // 20th KIMEP International Research Conference. – 2023. - pp. 530-544. URL: https://www.kimep.kz/about/files/2024/10/KIRC-2023-Proceedings-Final-Aug-29.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
28. Kozlova, M., & Varavin, Y. Applicability of ‘green’ financing instruments in Kazakhstan while reforming ‘green’ clusters at the regional level. // 54th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development. – 2020. - pp. 351-359. URL: https://www.proquest.com/openview/350ff14c3ea67760c55ec77d6400d561/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2033472 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
29. Roshandel, A. T., Labafi, S., & Robati, M. Effects of social media on the environmental protection behaviour of the public (Case study: Protecting Zayandeh-rood river environment). // International Journal of Environmental Research. – 2016. – Vol. 10. – No. 2. - pp. 237-244. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijer.2016.57718.
30. Youth and Environment Europe. Discover Nature – Tools for Environmental Education. // YEENET EU. – 2011. – pp. 1-31. URL: https://yeenet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/YEE_DISCOVER_NATURE.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
31. Oz, E., & Esgunoglu, M. Taxes in the Prevention of Environmental Pollution Are a Means? or Aim? Alternative Methods. // Proceedings of the 17th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference. – 2017. – pp. 267-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46319-3_16.
32. Thorsen, B. J., Mavsar, R., Tyrväinen, L., Prokofieva, I., & Stenger, A. The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services. Volume II: Assessing cost of provision and designing economic instruments for ecosystem services. // European Forest Institute. – 2014. – pp. 1-88. URL: https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/504515 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
33. Monroe, M. C., Andrews, E., & Biedenweg, K. A framework for environmental education strategies. // Applied Environmental Education & Communication. – 2008. – Vol. 6. – No. (3-4). - pp. 205-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150801944416.
34. Moore, S. A. Social and economic influences on restructuring rural landscapes for biodiversity conservation: Remnant vegetation in the West Australian wheatbelt as a case study. // Conference on Restructuring Rural Landscapes in the WA Wheatbelt and Austria. – 2001. - pp. 1-24. URL: https://researchportal.murdoch.edu.au/esploro/outputs/conferencePaper/Social-and-economic-influences-on-restructuring/991005545288207891#file-0 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
35. Kumar, Y., & Makhmudova, G. Analysis of Kazakhstan’s New Environmental Code: Focus on environmental awareness aspects. // 19th KIMEP International Research Conference 8-9 April. – 2022. - pp. 450-467. URL: https://www.kimep.kz/about/files/2018/02/KIRC-2022-Proceedings-final-1.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
36. UNECE. Proposal for a capacity-building workshop for journalists at the Astana Ministerial Conference. // Economic Commission for Europe. – 2011. - pp. 1-4. URL: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/cep/CEP-ss_May2011/InformalDocs/AstanaWorkshopJournalists_IP.8.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
37. OSCE. OSCE Centre trains environmental journalists in Kazakhstan. // Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. – 2012. URL: https://www.osce.org/astana/93933 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
38. CAREC. Training on a Climate Change for Journalists of Central Asia was held in Almaty. // Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation Program. – 2018. URL: https://carececo.org/en/main/news/news/CAMP4ASB-media-training/ (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
39. Myssayeva, K. Environmental problems are not constrained by national borders. // Al-Farabi Kazakh National University. – 2018. URL: https://www.kaznu.kz/ru/18932/news/one/13524/ (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
40. Adamdar CA. Environmental Activists saved Kok-Zhailau. // Adamdar CA. – 2019. URL: https://adamdar.ca/en/post/environmental-activists-saved-kok-zhailau (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
41. CABAR. The status of media and the role of social media in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. // Central Asia Bureau for Analytical Reporting. – 2018. - pp. 1-58. URL: https://cabar.asia/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Status_of_media.pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
42. Green Salvation Ecological Society. What prevents compliance with the Aarhus Convention in Kazakhstan? // Green Salvation Ecological Society Organization. – 2021. URL: http://esgrs.org/?p=30712 (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
43. Kumenov, A. Kazakhstan: Almaty turning into a pedestrian haven in a concrete jungle. // Eurasianet. – 2023. URL: https://eurasianet.org/kazakhstan-almaty-turning-into-a-pedestrian-haven-in-a-concrete-jungle (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
44. UNDP. Fight plastic! // UNDP. – 2023a. URL: https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/stories/fight-plastic (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
45. UNDP. Pilot environmental school project make schoolchildren stewards of forests and the environment. // UNDP. – 2023b. URL: https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/stories/pilot-environmental-school-project-make-schoolchildren-stewards-forests-and-environment (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
46. UNDP. Environmental event to plan ash trees held in Almaty region. // UNDP. – 2023c. URL: https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/news/environmental-event-plan-ash-trees-held-almaty-region (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
47. UNDP. An upgraded tourist route in Katon-Karagay National Park opened with UNDP support. // UNDP. – 2023d. URL: https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/press-releases/upgraded-tourist-route-katon-karagay-national-park-opened-undp-support (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
48. UNDP. Tackling the vagaries of climate change – UNDP extends helping hand to local farmers. // UNDP. – 2023e. URL: https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/stories/tackling-vagaries-climate-change-undp-extends-helping-hand-local-farmers (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
49. Dudinova, E., & Talgat, S. Environmental Discourse in the Social Networks of Kazakhstan: The construction of an imperative. // Journal of Journalism. – 2020. – Vol. 56. – No. 2. - pp. 56-65. https://doi.org/10.26577/HJ.2020.v56.i2.05.
50. Sehring, J. Forests in the context of climate change in Kazakhstan. // CLINCA Program. – 2012. - pp. 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.22029/jlupub-5822.
51. UNDP. Reforestation in Kazakhstan – a prime solution for protecting nature. // UNDP. – 2022. URL: https://www.undp.org/kazakhstan/stories/reforestation-kazakhstan-prime-solution-protecting-nature (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
52. Semenyuk, O., & Kuc, S. Development of eco-architecture in Kazakhstan is gaining ground. // World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education. – 2019. – Vol. 17. – No. 3. - pp. 379-384. URL: http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/WTE&TE/Pages/Vol.17,%20No.3%20(2019)/28-Semenyuk-O(2).pdf (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
53. Kumar, Y. Local eco-activist’s perspectives on environmental awareness issues in Kazakhstan. // Kazakhstan Spectrum Journal KISI. – 2022. – Vol. 4. – No. 104. - pp. 54-82. https://doi.org/10.52536/2415-8216.2022-4.04.
54. Mogiluk, S. Justice out of sight – Alternative report on the implementation of the Aarhus Convention. // Arnika Organization. – 2017. - pp. 1-48. URL: https://arnika.org/en/publications/download/1188_32bc9f132b81b1be2e40b0f7ebbc5d8e (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
55. Arystanbek A. Nationwide Environmental Campaign Kicks Off in Kazakhstan. // The Astana Times. - 2021. URL: https://astanatimes.com/2021/04/nationwide-environmental-campaign-kicks-off-in-kazakhstan/ (accessed date: 18.06.2025).
56. Yessenamanova, M. S., Tlepbergenova, A. E., Yessenamanova, Z. S., & Gilmanov, E. R. Analysis of studying ecological education in Kazakhstan. // Journal of Physics: Conference Series. – 2020. – No. 1691. - pp. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1691/1/012036.
