ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ СОСТАВЛЯЮЩАЯ РЕГИОНАЛЬНОЙ СОЦИО-ЭКОЛОГО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ: ПОДХОД К ОЦЕНКЕ УСТОЙЧИВОСТИ | Опубликовать статью ВАК, elibrary (НЭБ)

Кузнецова Ю.А.

Кандидат экономических наук, научный сотрудник сектора «Экономическая безопасность», Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение науки Институт социально-экономических исследований Уфимского научного центра Российской академии наук

ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ СОСТАВЛЯЮЩАЯ РЕГИОНАЛЬНОЙ СОЦИО-ЭКОЛОГО-ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЙ СИСТЕМЫ: ПОДХОД К ОЦЕНКЕ УСТОЙЧИВОСТИ

Аннотация

В статье обоснована важность повышения значимости учета экологической составляющей при оценке устойчивости региональной социо-эколого-экономической системы. Предложен подход к оценке устойчивости экологической составляющей региона.

Ключевые слова: социо-эколого-экономическая система, экологическая составляющая, устойчивое развитие.

Kuznetsova Y.A.

Ph.D. in Economics, research scientist of the  “Economic Security” division, Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution Institute for Socioeconomic Studies of Ufa, Scientific Center of the  Russian Academy of Sciences, the city of Ufa 

ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OF THE REGIONAL SOCIO-ECO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM: THE METHOD OF STABILITY ASSESSMENT

Abstract

The importance of raising the significance of the ecological component in the stability assessment of the regional socio-eco-economic system is grounded in the article. A method of the assessment of the ecological quality of the region is suggested.

Keywords: socio-eco-economic system, ecological quality, sustainable development.

In recent years the issue on support of sustainable development in a rapidly changing internal and external environment is especially sensitive the Russian regions. The dynamic transformation of economical, social, informational, legal, ecological and other spaces, constituting this environment, determined the search and implementation of new forms and schemes of their integration to achieve the effective development of the regional socio-eco-economic system in general. In spite of the trinity of this stable notion it must be admitted that by now the ecological component is not taken into consideration adequately at the formation of the system control mechanisms. Though, according to many scientists and experts, the ecological component is the significative element of the regions effective development under current management conditions. It is pointed out, namely, by I. P. Nuzhyn, emphasizing the necessity of  ecosystem approach application in socio-economic development management of the region^[2]; Y.V. Ryumina, outlining the  transition of the ecological component from the external environment to the internal environment assessment parameters^[3]; V.V. Dyachenko, claiming that the region management scheme depends on the peculiarities of each area^[4]; O.P. Syromyatnikova, outlining that regional economic competitive growth is possible through the integration of the concerns of economic development and environmental security^[5]; V.N. Burkov, Y.V. Gratsyansky, D.A. Novikov, distinguishing the eco-economic systems management schemes and dividing them into enterprise and region schemes^[6].

The investigation of ecosystems management methods and schemes, which are most often considered complete with the economical ones, highlights that actually they are all confined to indicative approach management or to result-based management. At this only estimated figures vary. For example, A.Y. Davankov, N.Y. Korotina make the case for the indicative approach use as its capabilities are already implemented in the actual stable socio-economic development modeling and forecast practice^[7].

In this regard we should assent to the opinion of A.F. Rogachyov, who states that the basis for eco-economical systems effective management should include the immense data flow regulation, environmental condition continuous recording, as the result of various adverse factors influence in the particular area. At this the current information significance for management decision making increases^[8]. Actually, today we can see the underestimation of regional specificity (especially the specificity of municipalities functioning), the lack of deep analysis of the dynamics of individual factors change, significant for the environmental component of the proposed governance arrangements. Especially, in spite of the relevance of the regions sustainable development issues, there is no estimation of the ecological component stability under the influence of the factors of external and internal environment and mechanisms to maintain it.

Grounding the necessity of raising the significance of the assessment of the environmental component stability in the regional socio-eco-economic system, it should be emphasized that there exist a lot of circumstances impeding the process:

– in the official statistical reporting there are no indicators of so-called satellite accounts, allowing to analyze the impact of the environmental processes on the economics;

– the environmental activity efficiency of the region (municipal district) is defined by the current environmental activities of individual enterprises;

– the management of the regional development ecological component has no complexity, as it affects the individual components of the ecology and environmental defense;

– the environmental component is considered indirectly in the programs of socio-economic development of the regions;

– there is no clear organizational structure of ecological-economic systems management;

– the information on the activities of enterprises in the field of ecology and environmental protection is frequently not available for a wide range of parties concerned.

In our view, the control mechanisms (as well as the specific activities) of the eco-economic system in the region as for the the environmental component should be developed, depending on its type according to the stability quality. At that, we understand the ability of ecology as component of regional socio-eco-economic system to affect in three ways as the environmental component of stability in the region:

to prevent the occurrence of adverse effects of external and internal environment;

to withstand the adverse factors to limit the damaging impact on the region as a whole and on its individual objects;

to provide the restoration of the “affected” object as a result of its exposure to adverse factors.

In this regard we suggest to distinguish the following types of environmental component stability in the regional socio-eco-economic system (hereinafter referred to as the ecosystem) (Table 1).

Table 1 – the typology of the ecosystem of the regional socio-eco-economic system according to the stability quality

Ecosystem type	Stability quality data
Highly stable ecosystem	Over the past seven years an improvement of all the “ecological” parameters (water, earth, air) has been observable. The ecosystem has a high level of development of the adverse impact prevention system. The system demonstrated the high quality of restoration in case of its exposure to adverse factors.
Stable ecosystem	Over the past five years an improvement of all the “ecological” parameters has been observable, but one of them has unstable dynamics. The system is actively developing in part of adverse impacts prevention. The system demonstrated the average quality of restoration in case of its exposure to adverse factors.
Unstable ecosystem	Over the past five years an unstable dynamics of change of all the “environmental” parameters has been observable. The development of the adverse impacts prevention system is episodic. The system demonstrated the poor quality of restoration in case of its exposure to adverse factors.
Extremely unstable ecosystem	Over the past three years a steady deterioration of all the “ecological” parameters has been observable. The prevention and restoration system has an extremely poor quality.

 

It is suggested to assess the ecological component changes dynamics according to the following procedure (Picture 1).

Picture 1 – the procedure of the assessment of the dynamics of changes of the environmental component of the regional socio-eco-economic system

* – the unit of measure of the present indicator is presented in the historical statistical reporting as mln. cubic meters. To convert mln. cubic meters in tons you should multiply its volume by its density and divide by 1000.

The calculation of the combined value of the ecological state of the Volga Federal District regions allowed to obtain the following results (Table 2).

Table 2 – the results of the calculation of the combined value of the ecological state of the Volga Federal District regions for 2001-2011.

	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Republic of Bashkor-tostan	8,90	9,31	9,20	10,02	9,66	10,61	10,31	9,78	9,26	13,02	9,06
Republic of Marij El	1,76	1,80	1,82	2,22	2,14	2,73	3,07	2,45	2,46	3,39	4,60
Republic of Mordovia	7,95	7,65	8,56	8,20	7,31	7,87	7,86	6,84	6,08	8,44	11,11
Republic of Tatarstan	3,16	3,31	3,44	2,48	3,59	3,87	4,31	3,93	3,41	4,59	6,00
Udmurt Republic	2,62	2,77	3,14	3,37	2,82	3,17	2,64	2,67	2,25	3,00	7,41
Chuvash Republic	7,64	7,22	7,26	7,03	4,22	4,54	4,19	3,80	3,48	4,21	5,11
Perm region	7,67	7,23	7,80	8,25	6,24	7,08	5,94	5,36	5,00	6,32	7,98
Kirov Region	2,45	2,44	2,39	2,34	2,27	2,27	2,12	1,87	1,63	2,57	3,69
Nizhni Novgorod Region	5,20	5,57	5,54	5,24	4,58	5,41	4,77	4,36	3,36	5,24	6,84
Orenburg Region	18,40	17,94	18,53	18,49	17,96	23,11	23,75	34,82	22,10	27,52	31,25
Penza Region	3,63	4,46	4,51	4,57	4,31	4,32	4,19	3,65	3,18	4,58	5,62
Samara Region	5,84	6,06	5,98	6,35	5,98	7,37	7,46	7,21	5,89	8,86	12,42
Saratov Region	2,70	2,78	2,77	2,76	3,31	3,12	2,71	2,57	2,02	2,02	1,91
Ulyanovsk Region	1,56	1,41	1,38	1,32	1,12	1,19	1,24	1,24	1,14	1,47	2,16

It has been found that most of the regions are of the type of regions with unstable ecosystem. It has been determined that the existing system of adverse effects prevention is episodic, does not meet the modern requirements applicable to the Environmental Management System in the context of the individual components of the ecological state of the environment. An additional point is that due consideration of the specific development of each region is not carried out.

[1] The investigation was carried with financial support from the  Russian Humanities Research Foundation (project №13-12-02013-р_Урал_а) “The Areas Sustainable Development in Postindustrial Economy Conditions: Assessment and Management»)

[2] Nuzhyna I.P., Yudahina O.B. The Regional Eco-Economic System Conceptual Model. Tomsk State University Newsletter. 2008. №1 (2). P. 54-67. P. 54

[3] Ryumina Y.V., Tarasenko F.P. Eco-Economic Interconnections Analysis. Moscow.: Nauka, 2000. 158 p.

[4] Nature Management Base: Environmental, Economic and Legal Aspects: Educational Aid. Edited by. V.V. Dyachenko.  Rostov-on-Don: Feniks, 2006. – 544 p.

[5] Syromyatnikiva O.P. Local Eco-Economical Systems Regional Management Scheme Improvement. Economics and Eco-Management. 2011. №2. P. 244

[6] Burkov V.N., Gratsyansky Y.V.,  Dzyubko S.I., Schepkin A.V.  Security Management Models and Mechanisms – Moscow: Sinteg, 2001.  – 160 p.; Burkov V.N.,  Schepkin A.V.  Economical Safety Mechanisms Modeling.  Emergency Security Issues. 2000. № 6. P. 55 – 68; Novikov D.A.  Economical Risk Control Schemes in Multicomponent Systems. Proceedings of the 3^rd International Conference  «Emergency Control Issues». – Moscow.:  Institute of Control Sciences of RAS, 1995. P. 37 – 38; Novikov D.A.  Economical Risk Control Schemes in Technical and Organizational Systems. Proceedings of the 5^th  International Research and Application Conference «Automated Design Systems  Development and Application Experience», L’vov: LNTU, 1999. P. 44 – 48.

[7] Davankov A.Y., Korotina N.Y. Peculiarities of the Indicator Approach to the Assessment of Eco-Economic Systems Stable Development and Management. Chelyabinsk State University Newsletter. 2010. №26. P. 48-52.

[8] Rogachyov A.F., Skiter N.N., Pleschenko T.V. Decision Support System Development for the Eco-Economic Systems Parameters Grounding. Nizhnevolzhsk Agro-University Complex Newsletter: Science and  Higher Vocational Education. 2012. №2. P. 238-242.