Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is an independent, not for profit policy studies institute, a green think tank and a leading centre for the analysis and development of environmental policy in Europe and beyond. It has a strong reputation among national and European policy-makers and non-governmental organisations.[citation needed] The Institute is based in Brussels with a branch office in London and a network of partners in other countries, which are particularly strong in the member states of the EU. These include universities, environmental and professional associations in a range of sectors, research institutes and consultancies. IEEP brings a non-partisan analytical perspective to policy questions, engaging in both pressing short-term questions and long-term strategic studies.
This report synthesises NaturaConnect’s scientific findings and practical guidance for planning and implementing a coherent, connected and resilient Trans-European Nature Network (TEN-N).
Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to offer considerable potential in higher education by offering personalized learning experiences and fostering deeper student engagement. However, whether the AI’s impact reflects historical patterns of technology integration in education, which may be modest and determined by the multiple education or research “functions”, or whether the techno-scientific breakthrough signifies a deeper transformation in higher education. This article explores the complexities of AI in education, separating promotional narratives from reality. It examines the role of AI in reshaping knowledge and learning, while warning against the loss of critical approaches. AI’s potential to transform education remains largely unrealized. Current applications reinforce existing inequalities and fail to deliver complete personalization. However, the picture is complicated, as AI’s impact on creative teaching, foreign language learning, and research-intensive disciplines is notable. AI represents a significant step towards blurring the boundaries between formal and informal education, and the wide “distribution” of both learning and knowledge (in symbiosis with other digital technologies). AI’s influence is growing, but its full potential in education has yet to be realized, and there’s no guarantee that it will be realized to the extent of techno prophetic hopes.
This factsheet series describes the available sources of funding for the Trans-European Nature Network (TEN-N) and characterises their relevance to the costs involved in setting up the network. Each factsheet outlines the relative strengths and limitations of each source of funding or finance in relation to protected areas and connectivity projects. The review looks at both public funding through EU sources and private finance options.Public funding opportunities are available for ecological connectivity, but lack of post-project funding as well as protected area under-resourcing are key challenges. EU funds are often still underdelivering on funding for biodiversity and there are bottlenecks to access to some EU funding opportunities. The suggestions for private finance instruments vary from proven mechanisms such as the “user pays-principle" applied to protected areas, to conceptual instruments in initial stages of development such as resilience bonds. Even though private finance is still in its early stages, it has the potential to considerably scale-up the finance available for nature in Europe. Land management tools, such as strategic and targeted use of conservation easements, land banks, habitat banks, and legal compensation obligations, can be used to repurpose land for nature goals, including the creation of ecological corridors. These tools are being increasingly used for ecological connectivity, but the current small-scale and fragmented initiatives should increase.
Since the early 1990s, increasing political polarisation is among the greatest determinants of individual-level environmental and climate change attitudes in the United States. But several patterns remain unclear: are historical patterns of polarisation largely symmetrical (equal) or is rather asymmetrical (where one set of partisans shifts more than others)? How have polarisation patterns have changed over time? How generalizable are polarization patterns across different environmental and climate change attitudes? We harmonised four unique sets of historical, pooled cross-sectional survey data from the past 50 years to investigate shifts across seven distinct measures of citizen environmental and climate change attitudes. We find that contemporary attitudes are polarised symmetrically, with Democrats (higher) and Republicans (lower) attitudes are equidistant from the median. But the historical trends in polarisation differ by attitudes and beliefs. In particular, we find evidence of two distinct historical patterns of asymmetric polarisation within environmental and climate change attitudes: first, with Republicans becoming less pro-environmental, beginning in the early 1990s, and second, a more recent greening of Democratic environmental attitudes since the mid-2010s. Notably, recent increases in pro-environmental attitudes within Democrats is a potentially optimistic finding, providing opportunities towards overcoming decades-long inertia in climate action. These findings provide a foundation for further research avenues into the factors shaping increased pro-environmental attitudes within Democrats.
