Environmental Sustainability: A Study For its unfavourable Effects

INTRODUCTION

 A complex idea that has attracted a lot of attention recently, environmental sustainability refers to the prudent and moral relationship with the environment. It includes a variety of actions and plans that are intended to keep essential natural resources from being depleted or deteriorated while also guaranteeing the long-term maintenance of environmental quality for future generations. This comprehensive notion incorporates a diverse spectrum of methodologies, policies, and guiding principles that are meticulously designed to guarantee that both present and future generations can flourish and thrive within the ecological limits imposed by our planet. The prominence of this critical concept on the international stage can be traced back to the influential Brundtland Report published in 1987, which eloquently articulated the definition of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” thereby laying the groundwork for ongoing discussions surrounding sustainability [47].

Unquestionably, the growing levels of environmental degradation brought on by extensive industrialisation, fast urbanisation, and consumption patterns that are far from sustainable are the direct cause of environmental sustainability’s emergence as a pressing worldwide issue. Numerous harmful environmental problems have been brought on by these human activities, such as soil erosion, deforestation, a dramatic decline in biodiversity, global warming, the worrying lack of clean water supplies, and pollution of the air and aquatic ecosystems. Notably, a startling finding from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 was that over 60% of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth are either being used in an unsustainable way or are being seriously degraded. These urgent environmental difficulties highlight the complex relationships between environmental sustainability and more general societal problems by endangering not just ecological balance but also public health, economic stability, and social equality.

Ecological integrity, social equality, and economic viability are the three essential pillars around which environmental sustainability is built. Each of these pillars is vital to the development of a sustainable future. In order for natural ecosystems to continue to deliver vital services, including the provision of clean air, the upkeep of rich soil, the facilitation of pollination activities, and the control of climatic patterns, ecological integrity is crucial. Recognising that all people and communities should have an equal say in how their environments are managed, social equity also highlights the significance of equitable access to natural resources and the necessity of inclusive engagement in environmental decision-making processes. Economic viability, on the other hand, emphasises the development of sustainable farming methods, the promotion of cutting-edge green technology, and the expanded use of renewable energy sources in order to promote long-term economic growth without endangering the environment  [35]. A primary aim of environmental sustainability is the significant decrease of the ecological footprint, which is defined as how many natural resources are consumed concerning how many natural resources are regenerable at the current rate. In their 2022 findings, the Global Footprint Network revealed humans currently consume resources equivalent to 1.7 Earths, highlighting the shocking overshoot we are currently in. This urgent concern about environmental sustainability requires individuals to minimize waste, reduce carbon emissions, and protect key ecosystems and the unfolding impacts globally of climate change, highlighting the urgency of environmental sustainability. One of the largest and most urgent environmental sustainability challenges is climate change as this is a huge hurdle and requires immediate attention and collective action. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [14] has explicitly stated that the likelihood of exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is over 50% globally if greenhouse gas emissions are not curtailed. The repercussions of climate change are far-reaching, exacerbating extreme weather events, contributing to rising sea levels, and altering agricultural zones, with the most severe impacts disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations residing in developing nations. Consequently, the pursuit of sustainability necessitates the implementation of urgent mitigation and adaptation strategies, which are essential for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and promoting low-carbon lifestyles that align with the principles of environmental sustainability.

Furthermore, the successful integration of environmental sustainability into policy frameworks and governance structures is of paramount importance in the contemporary context. International agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord established in 2015 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—particularly Goal 13, which focuses on Climate Action, and Goal 15, which addresses Life on Land—serve to underscore the global commitment to safeguarding the environment and promoting sustainable practices. It is imperative that governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector engage in collaborative efforts to implement robust frameworks that encourage sustainable urban development, the conservation of biodiversity, and responsible consumption and production patterns, thereby fostering a more sustainable and equitable world for all [40].

Environmental sustainability provides not only a vital part of the health of our planet, but it also offers a wealth of opportunities that can encourage innovation and lead to real economic overhaul across various industries and sectors of society. When significant capital investment is made in renewable energy sources, particularly around technologies that include solar and wind energy, a good number of jobs are created and a country can reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuels that can fluctuate dramatically in the marketplace. Also, sustainable agricultural practices, like crop rotation, organic practices, and irrigation technologies that conserve water, are extraordinarily important to sustain soil health and guarantee food security for a growing population. Moreover, the establishment of circular economy practices which are focused on reuse, recycle and resource efficiency, continues to gain traction as a way to reduce environmental losses and encourage sustainable resource consumption and production, as highlighted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in their 2019 report. Lastly, it is very important to understand that education and public awareness are also a crucial facets of sustainability. Helping communities with environmental literacy is another step to have a clear understanding of how their create actions contribute to environmental purposes through their daily activities, and motivate them to take some environmentally friendly actions, like saving energy, reducing plastic use and supporting sustainably harvest products. Furthermore, with the addition of community-based environmental stewardship initiatives, on top of the important contributions of indigenous ecological knowledge, we can protect and sustain local ecosystems, as detailed in the seminal writing of Gadgil, Berkes, and Folke [7]. In conclusion, it is evident that environmental sustainability goes beyond environmental concerns and is complicated, multi-dimensional, and intersects with a range of issues related to humanity’s economic state, health, social justice, and development as a whole. Environmental sustainability requires a systemic shift that incorporates a sound scientific rationale, an ethical obligation to nature, and a desire for communities and nations to work together as a global community. While there are many serious challenges and hurdles to overcome to achieve environmental sustainability, it is a critical journey we must all undertake to create a sustainable and just world for all of the current inhabitants and future generations to pass on to their children.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to explorethe unfavourable effects of environmental sustainability.

METHODOLOGY

The proposed study is basically empirical in nature, based on secondary sources.  This study utilizes a descriptive and analytical research methodology, relying on the compilation, review, and synthesis of secondary information. The key components of the methodology include:

Data Sources: Information was gathered from a diverse range of credible Multilateral Organizational sources:

1. International and Multilateral Organizations: The International and Multilateral Organizations are Brundtland Commission / World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Footprint Network, International Energy Agency (IEA), International Labour Organization (ILO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), TerraChoice Environmental Marketing Inc., United Nations (UN), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), World Bank Group, and World Bank Publications.

• Academic Literature: To fulfill the objective of the study, different peer-reviewed journals, different published and unpublished relevant scholarly research articles, books, etc., on unfavourable effects of environmental sustainability are consulted. After consultation of the literatures, different issues on the topic are extracted and discussed accordingly.

• Qualitative Synthesis: Analysing policy documents, expert opinions, and findings from various research reports to understand the nuances, effectiveness, and limitations of interventions and the interconnectedness of challenges.

Data Analysis: The various materials gathered from the various sources are then processed, examined, validated, interpreted, arranged and analysed methodically under the relevant headings in order to hold the necessary presentation and conclusion to write up the article.

RESULT & DISCUSSION

This section details the findings on the major unfavourable effects of the environmentconfronting environmental sustainability, supported by available data. 

Environmental sustainability is essential for the planet and the well-being of future generations; however, its implementation may inadvertently result in unwanted consequences. First is the economic trade-off of moving away from fossil fuel and conventional agriculture industries, they may risk economic and employment disruption in vulnerable communities [21 & 22]. Another challenge is the high initial costs associated with investing in sustainable technology and infrastructure which deters adoption, particularly in developing regions without the leverage or capital needed [35]. There is also the problem of greenwashing, when actors are guilty of making sustainability claims above and beyond, or even making false claims to customers and stakeholders in a way that may undermine the meaningful environmental work that others are doing [4]. In addition, land-use conflicts stemming from utilising land for large-scale projects or conservation initiatives may, on occasion, displace indigenous populations and remove local farmers from their lands without their consent [14]. Finally, the extraction of minerals critical for renewable technologies results in environmental devastation and geopolitical risks that also raise questions about whether these renewable solutions are truly sustainable [45 & 46]. These challenges emphasize the need for careful planning, and equitable policies while environmental sustainability attempts to accomplish a healthier planet. While the positives of environmental sustainability vastly outweigh its negatives, there are some challenges or unexpected consequences that may occur as it is implemented. These are shown in diagram and discussed head wise below.

DISCUSSION ON UNFAVOURABLE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

1.  High Capital Costs

 (i) Impediment to the Adoption of Sustainable Technologies High capital costs for technologies such as solar panels, electric vehicles, and water treatment systems frequently impede individuals or companies’ ability and desire to adopt sustainable solutions (especially in developing countries or disadvantaged communities) [10]. These financial barriers inhibit the widespread transition to greener alternatives.

(ii) Effects on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) SMEs often are unable to finance the initial investments for sustainability upgrades due to limited capital and access to credit [25]. Consequently, SMEs often slow themselves down on their sustainability journeys and have a disadvantage in the marketplace.

 (iii) Potential Need for Subsidies and Financial Incentives To encourage adoption, governments and organizations frequently have to (or may want to) provide subsidies, grants, or tax incentives that will subsidize some of the initial cost of investments [15]. Subsidies, grants, and other financial incentives are a way of surmounting some of the cost barriers of sustainability transitions and can also help accelerate the live-testing and operationalization of green technologies.

 (iv) Long-Term Economic Benefits Contrasted with Upfront Costs In many instances, while upfront capital costs are high, many sustainable technologies or practices ultimately bring long-term savings, saved energy usage, lower maintenance costs, and reduced environmental impact, over the life-cycle of the technology [42]. It is important to recognize that there may be a considerable delay between initial costs and the realization of benefits, and many allocators of limited capital will alleviate concerns they have about lost money if there are not good financial plans in place.

(v) Benefits of Technological Development and Cost Erosion Over Time The costs of green technologies has been observed to lessen over time, as more research, development, and economies of scale increase the production or utilization/usage of sustainable technologies [10]. In short, this underscores that early investment by consumers – and innovation by producers – in sustainable technologies is an important mechanism to drive down capital costs.

2. Job Losses Related to Traditional Industries

(i) Economic Displacement from Fossil Fuel Decline The development of green and renewable energy is often a zero-sum game for jobs, which results in job losses in coal mining, oil extraction, and the entire fossil fuel sector. Workers in these sectors have the potential to become unemployed and have reduced income-generating opportunities, particularly in places that are heavily reliant on fossil fuel jobs for their local economies [11].

(ii) Troubling Situations for Workers in Agriculture and Manufacturing. Sustainability-focused changes in agriculture (e.g., abandoning chemical-intensive farming) as well as manufacturing (e.g., focusing on waste reduction, automating processes, streamlining processes) could potentially mean that a traditional worker may no longer possess the required skill set [24]. As a result, structural unemployment occurs and requires re-training of the workforce.

(iii) Regional Inequality and Social Inequality Job losses related to traditional industries often happen in rural areas and less developed areas, where there may not be viable employment alternatives. This can worsen economic inequality and social tensions [45 & 46]. prompting the need for social policies and to diversify the economy.

(iv) The Importance of Just Transition Policies Just transition policies aim to alleviate harm relational to economic dislocation, so going forward, “just transition” frameworks should promote retraining opportunities, social protection, and an investment in communities that are affected by the changes caused by the loss of an industry/sector. These structures need to account for the need to balance sustainability goals with sustainable social equity [39].

(v) Potential New Job Opportunities Although jobs will be lost, environmental sustainability can create new jobs in the renewable energy sector, as well as energy efficiency and green infrastructure jobs, which can potentially employ displaced workers with proper training and distance support [16].

3. Limited Access in Developing Regions

(i) Financial Barriers to Sustainable Technologies Financial challenges severely limit the ability of developing regions to access clean energy, modern sanitation, and build sustainable infrastructure. The inability to find affordable financing (including high upfront costs), will block widespread adoption of green technologies [34].

 (ii) Infrastructure Limitations (lack of infrastructure) Access to clean technologies can be limited as a result of relying on poor infrastructure that is often characterized by unreliable electricity supply, poor road conditions, and insufficient water supply systems. In some circumstances, users may have very little access or even no access to energy or water. As a result, it can be challenging to implement technologies that are sustainable and maintain these technologies [43].

(iii) Technological and Knowledge Gaps Developing regions typically lack the technical expertise and institutional and governance capacity to promote, deliver and sustain environmental goals that will lead to sustainability [36]. Knowledge transfer and capacity building will be an important element of all challenges faced high where there are significant barriers and gaps.

(iv) Social and Cultural Constraints Socio-cultural considerations such as low awareness of the impacts of climate change, traditional practices, a lack of openness to change, may also limit acceptance and the use of various sustainable technologies in the developing regions [9]. Therefore, community engagement at the grassroots level must consider the constraints noted above.

(v) Over-dependence on External Aid and Technology Transfer Most developing countries often rely on international aid, grants, and technology transfer to access and implement various solutions to provide sustainable systems for their communities. Solid and consistent support from a variety of sources (such as consistent stays in the region), particularly when these developing countries have civil unrest reflected at both a regional and local level, will be critical to success [21 & 22].

4. Technology-based Dependency

(i) Reliance on Outside Supply Chains Total reliance on imported technologies and equipment to build sustainable development or public service delivery systems, especially in the context of burdening supplied equipment and adaptations like solar panels, wind turbines, or even water treatment systems will open up countries to challenges regarding global supply chain disruptions and political tensions [45 & 46].

(ii) Limited Local Innovation Capacity In many cases, reliance on imported technologies undermines local innovation and development of technology, thereby constraining their ability to modify solutions to their specific environmental and socio-economic contexts [33].

(iii)  Cost Implications Technologies that are imported can also add to punctual costs such as tariffs, shipping and fluctuations in local currency. For developing countries, costs can rapidly accumulate, creating further financial burden and likely exclusion for those that are already marginalized in decision-making [23].

(iv)  Maintenance and Technical Capacity Although upfront imported technologies may expedite sustainable transitions, it can also create lifelong challenges related to maintenance and repair – especially in cases where local technicians do not have access to skills or spare parts, and further limit the potential longevity and effectiveness of sustainability solutions [37].

 (v) The possibility of Typhoon Technology Leapfrogging, as it is sometimes referred to can paradoxically be a positive aspect of reliance on new technologies, dependent on association with cleanness and efficiency. Assuming support, developing regions could potentially and rapidly leap this older and polluting technology thereby completing leaps of clean and more efficient technologies while mitigating sustainability transition timelines [10].

5.  Resource Scarcity for Green Technologies

The irony is that some green technologies (e.g. batteries for electric vehicles and wind turbines) rely on rare earth elements and minerals that are unsustainable to extract, potentially environmentally damaging and definitely affected by geopolitical considerations [45 & 46]. All which raises ethical implications and strike a sustainability transition without assessment or consideration of ethical standards for its externalities.

6. Land Use Conflicts

 (i) Displacement of Indigenous and Local Communities Large sustainability projects, including renewable energy installations, afforestation programs, and protected areas may displace Indigenous peoples and local communities, which may indefinitely disrupt people’s livelihoods, their cultural and social fabric [14].

(ii) Competing Land Use Priorities Each one of these issues could lead to more land use conflicts because the demands of agricultural production, urbanization, conservation or resource extraction, and infrastructure development all are requesting limited land area. Attempting to balance competing land use claims is important because poor identification of demands could result conflict and/or degradation [6].

(iii) Environmental Justice and Equity Conflicts Marginalized populations and people from indigenous communities are often impacted through land use for sustainability initiatives and can affect their environmental justice rights, as well as their right to equitably access and sustainably use natural resources [30]. Participatory decision-making may be necessary to alleviate potential conflicts.

 (iv) Policy and Governance Weaknesses Weak governance, lack of clear policy access, and poorly defined land tenure arrangements create potential land use conflict problems, lead to unsustainable development, and potentially mismanage the best use of land and the land resources [32]. It will be of value to strengthen legal frameworks and community rights and entitlements to land.

 (v) Sustainable Land Management Potential Contrary, mandatory land use planning, supported by participatory land management processes, can mitigate land use conflicts that contributed to mutually beneficial solutions with an appropriate balance of economic, environmental and social priorities that create coexistence potential across diverse land uses [27].

 7. Short-term Economic Growth Reduction

(i) Transition Costs from Conventional to Sustainable Industries Transitioning from fossil fuel-based and conventional manufacturing to green technology has a high cost in the short-term, – both in terms of monetary expense but also time in which a large part of the economy has to be redesigned. Transitioning to sustainable industries can also create short-term reductions in economic growth because of corresponding output reductions during the stakeholder’s restructuring in order to maximize output of sustainable opportunities [21 & 22].

(ii) Job Loss and Unemployment may occur in traditional sectors and/or industries before achieving the equivalent full-time employment in the green sector. Consequences of short-term unemployment may affect consumer behavior, consumption patterns, and the economy in general [11].

(iii) Higher Production Costs and Prices Using environmentally friendly materials and processes can raise production costs in the short term, which will be passed along as higher prices for consumers and a potential reduction in competitiveness in the global market [44].

 (iv) Time for Markets and Policy to Adjust Economic systems may take time to adjust to new regulations, carbon pricing and sustainability standards that may create tension for a short time in terms of investment and business activities [12]. (v) Long-term Gains versus Short-term Slow-down Although economic growth may initially slow, sustained sustainable development promotes stronger economies with better, far more predictable steady growth [35].

8.  Risks initiated by Greenwashing

 (i) Misinforming the Consumers, and Stakeholders Greenwashing misinforms the public and as well investors about the actual sustainability measures for products or companies by overstating or outright lying about their claims on environmental measures, or worse in some cases, circumstances, stripping people of their trust with respect to environmentally friendly initiatives [4].

 (ii) Undermining Real Sustainability Initiatives When organizations are engaged in greenwashing, they undermine the value of real environmentally positive efforts for organizations, and, they create confusion for consumers to find responsible businesses for the environment, and they also undermine sustainable progress in effort [41].

(iii) Regulatory and Legal Issues In addition to destroying their own reputations, providing ground work for regulators and legal liability has become unavoidable as Governments are mandated to supervise and protect citizens claims and defend their trust through transparency and disclosure provisions, resulting in products and services and reputational and financial liability for organizations that cling to their non-conscious businesses practices [17].

(iv) Reputational harm and Consumer backlash Organizations on the behalf of their green branding and green initiatives are at risk of reputational harm that then has consequence for consumers to have trust in these organizations, who will suffer – job losses and effects of materials losses due to stock prices loss of confidence with little to no value in the stock market; long term chances for potential brand value and profit on a consumer trust level [18].

(v) To mitigate the risks of greenwashing we need environmental standards, third-party verification, and increased transparency for compliance and consumer choice [31].

A STUDY IN KAMLE DISTRICT OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

While the work being done around environmental sustainability in Kamle District aims to enhance long-term ecological stability and socio-economic viability, there are some unintended negative impacts on the district as a consequence of these interventions. These outcomes include environmental pitfalls, health issues, and disruption to traditional ways of living.

1. Water Pollution and health implications: Kamle, District has seen an increase in water pollution levels because of the rapid pace of developmental projects in the region such as road work and increasingly chemical fertilizers. These pollutants have hurt both local aquatic ecosystems and the health of local people. One study reported high amounts of nitrates, phosphates, and bacterial contamination in local water bodies and also reported incidences of diarrhea, skin infections, and other water-borne disease [1].

 2. Disruption from Hydropower Projects: Large hydropower projects, such as the Lower Subansiri Hydroelectric Project (LSHEP), have set forth far-reaching detrimental environmental ramifications for the environment of Kamle and its communities. While these projects promoted added development potential and sustainability for the communities affected, these projects have resulted in significant biodiversity loss, intense sedimentation, and destabilization of riverine ecology which extends a considerable distance from the LSHEP. Further, they have disrupted traditional landholdings and already made resettling indigenous peoples from outside their traditional Triton immensely challenging, which has occurred on an unprecedented scale [3].

3. Deforestation & Soil Erosion from Shifting Cultivation: While jhum is culturally practiced, the impact of traditional methods of shifting cultivation is still active and significant degradation of forests and topsoil is still taking place. While efforts are being implemented to transition from shifting cultivation to sustainable Agroforestry, sustainability and implementation are poorly coordinated and lack good community engagement, and sustainable practices have resulted in the opposite ecological outcome in several parts of Kamle [29]. Theses traditional practices underpinning agriculture, are depleting and taking away soil fertility and or productivity for future generations.

4. Ecological strain brought on by tourism development: Intended to create economic development while preserving nature, sustainable tourism has, in some cases, contributed to environmental harm through poor infrastructure development. The introduction of roads, resorts, and trekking routes through and around Kamle has caused habitat loss, resulted in significant littering, and has led to cultural dilution. Local communities also reported stress due to the commodification of their culture with no equitable benefits shared amongst their community [48].

5. Climate change and public health hazards: Environmental changes that created pressure on the environment, such as degradation of forests, hydropower, and infrastructure development, have left Kamle vulnerable to climate-sensitive health risks. Research across Arunachal Pradesh has documented that environmental switch typically leads to increased incidence of malaria and other vector-borne diseases, respiratory problems from dust and biomass burning, and mental distress from environmental uncertainties [19 & 26]. 

Although environmental sustainability is still an important goal, the way sustainability was introduced in Kamle District has created several adverse health impacts, negative ecological changes, and socio-economic stressors. The results raise the question of whether community-based, ecologically sound, culturally-sensitive interventions introduce an alternative pathway that links conservation to community wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

 While environmental sustainability is paramount to preserving ecosystems and allowing us to live (and thrive), its practice can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. The change away from established sectors can cause disruptive transitions away from traditional jobs, industries and other economic sources of capacity or production. There may be no immediate way to generate substitutes for social and economic production capacity. Long-term economic transition requires a high level of cost, technical dependencies, and may not allow for equitable access at times [11, 21 & 22]. The interests of local people need to be considered, or there will be land use conflicts, or social injustices [14]. Additional risks like greenwashing can diminish the credibility and undermine the possibility for real change to be made towards sustainability goals [4]. To alleviate these challenges, we need to find a balance between our environmental goals and reducing social and economic impact, while ensuring equity and inclusion in the sustainability of management practices.

REFERENCES

1. Bini Kiron, S. B., & Goswami, G. (2022). Assessment of water quality parameters in Kamle District, Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environmental Monitoring, 1(1), 23–26.
2. Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Oxford University Press.
3. Datta, R. (2023). Sustainability issues of Lower Subansiri Hydroelectric Project and environmental health in Kamle District, Arunachal Pradesh. Scope Journal, 14(3), 769–773.
4. Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
5. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2019). Completing the picture: How the circular economy tackles climate change. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org
6. FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
7. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2/3), 151–156.
8. Global Footprint Network. (2022). Ecological footprint. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/
9. IEA. (2020). Africa energy outlook 2020. International Energy Agency.
10. IEA. (2021). World energy outlook 2021. International Energy Agency.
11. ILO. (2018). World employment and social outlook 2018: Greening with jobs. International Labour Organization.
12. IMF. (2020). Fiscal policies for Paris climate strategies—From principle to practice. International Monetary Fund.
13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Sixth assessment report. https://www.ipcc.ch
14. IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
15. IRENA. (2019). Renewable energy benefits: Measuring the economics. International Renewable Energy Agency.
16. IRENA. (2020). Renewable energy and jobs – Annual review 2020. International Renewable Energy Agency.
17. Lim, W. M., Radzol, A. R. M., Cheah, J.-H., & Wong, M. W. (2018). The impact of greenwashing on green brand equity, green satisfaction, and green trust: Consumer perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(2), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3927-3
18. Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332
19. Maiti, S., Dasgupta, P., & Bhowmik, S. (2017). An assessment of social vulnerability to climate change in Arunachal Pradesh. Journal of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, 6(2), 89–97.
20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press.
21. OECD. (2017a). Development co-operation report 2017: Data for development. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
22. OECD. (2017b). Investing in climate, investing in growth. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
23. OECD. (2018). Green growth and developing countries: A summary for policymakers. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
24. OECD. (2019). Employment impacts of green growth: Linking policies to skills and jobs. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
25. OECD. (2020). SMEs and green growth: The role of finance and innovation. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
26. Ramya, T. (2014). Population growth, environmental degradation, and human health: A perspective from Arunachal Pradesh. Global Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(2), 67–70.
27. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., … & Stringer, L. C. (2020). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
28. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., … & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
29. Roy, A. (2024). A multi-dimensional assessment of the SDGs in Northeast India (including Kamle District). ecoevoRxiv. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2R01F
30. Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: Climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275
31. TerraChoice. (2010). The sins of greenwashing: Home and family edition.
32. UNCCD. (2018). Global land outlook. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.
33. UNCTAD. (2019). Technology and innovation report 2019: Catching technological waves. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
34. UNDP. (2019). Human development report 2019: Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today. United Nations Development Programme.
35. UNEP. (2011). Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. United Nations Environment Programme.
36. UNEP. (2016). Global environment outlook: Regional assessments. United Nations Environment Programme.
37. UNEP. (2017). Global environment outlook: Regional assessments. United Nations Environment Programme.
38. UNFCCC. (2015). The Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement
39. UNFCCC. (2016). Just transition of the workforce, and the creation of decent work and quality jobs. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
40. United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sdgs.un.org
41. Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and greenwashing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4
42. World Bank. (2017). The cost of sustainable energy: An economic perspective. World Bank Group.
43. World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. World Bank Publications.
44. World Bank. (2019). The changing wealth of nations 2018: Building a sustainable future. World Bank Group.
45. World Bank. (2020a). Minerals for climate action: The mineral intensity of the clean energy transition. World Bank Group.
46. World Bank. (2020b). World development report 2020: Trading for development in the age of global value chains. World Bank Publications.
47. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future. Report presented to the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations Headquarters, New York, August 4, 1987.
48. Yfantidou, G., & Matarazzo, M. (2022). Review—efficacy of sustainable tourism in Arunachal Pradesh. International Journal of Research and Social Sciences, 12(6), 112–126.