I. A. Zabelina, Yu. V. Kolotovkina / News of the Ural State Mining University. 2019. Issue 1(53), pp. 149-155

The relevance of the study is due to the need to transition to a “green” economy, the idea of which is widely debated in the scientific environmental and economics literature. Nowadays, the level of negative environmental impact in many natural-resources regions of Russia significantly exceeds the average level within the country. This situation is typical of some areas of the East of the Russian Federation with a historically established raw material speciality of economy. The increase in the extraction and processing of natural resources in the designated areas (within the framework of implementation of joint Russian-Chinese projects) may contribute to strengthening of the environmental discomfort of the local population.
The purpose of the study is to estimate the socio-ecological and economic development of municipalities of one of the border regions – Zabaykalsky Krai in the context of “green” economy using two quantitative factors characterizing the social and economic aspects of development: average annual wages fund per capita (determines the well-being of households); the volume of shipped goods of own production, performed work and services using one’s own resources (determines the results of economic activities of enterprises). The key environmental and economic indicators used in this paper are eco-intensity indicators for the economic systems of municipal districts.
The results of the study show that residents of many municipalities of the Zabaykalsky Krai live in conditions of increased anthropogenic stress. At the same time, indicators characterizing the level of socio-economic development are significantly lower than the regional average one. It is shown that the situation worsens in some municipal districts of the Zabaykalsky Krai according to the ratio of the considered socio-ecological-economic indicators for the considered time interval (2011–2016).

Keywords: “green” economy, emissions of pollutants from stationary sources, eco-intensity, ecological-economic zones, municipal districts.

This work was carried out as part of the Basic Research Program
of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (XI.174.1).

REFERENCES

1. Pyzhev A. I., Syrtsova E. A., Pyzheva Yu. I., Zander E. V. 2015, Sustainable development of Krasnoyarsk Krai: new estimates. Journal of Siberian Federal University, Series Humanities, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 2590–2595.
2. Shang Y., Si Y., Zeng G. 2015, Black or green? Economic growth patterns in China under Low Carbon Economy Targets. Journal of Resources and Ecology, no. 6 (5), pp. 310–317. https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2015.05.004
3. Wursthorn S., Poganietz W.-R., Schebek L. 2011, Economic-environmental monitoring indicators for European countries: A disaggregated sector-based approach formonitoring eco-effi ciency. Ecological Economics, vol. 70, issue 3, pp. 487–496. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.033
4. Bobylev S.N., Solovyova S.V., Sitkina K.S. 2013, Indicators of sustainable development of the Ural region. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of the region], no. 2, pp. 10–17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17059/2013-2-1
5. Ryumina E. V. 2013, Environmentally adjusted GDP: spheres of use and problems of assessment. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of the region], no. 4, pp. 107–115. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17059/2013-4-10
6. 2005, Ekologicheskiye indikatory kachestva rosta regional’noy ekonomiki [Environmental indicators of the quality of growth of the regional economy], ed. by I. P. Glazyrina, I. M. Potravny. Мoscow, 306 p.
7. Clarke M., Islam S. 2005, Diminishing and negative welfare returns of economic growth: an index of sustainable economic welfare (ISEW) for Thailand. Ecological Economics, no. 54, pp. 81–93.
8. Antonova N. E., Lomakina N. V. 2018, Natural resource sectors of the Far East: new factors of development. Ekonomicheskiye i sotsial’nyye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz [Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast], vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 43–56. (In Russ.) https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.003
9. Glazyrina I. P., Kalgina I. S., Lavlinsky S. M. 2012, Problems of development of the mineral resource base of Eastern Russia and the prospects for modernization of the regional economy in the context of cooperation with the PRC. Region: ekonomika i sotsiologiya [Region: Economics and Sociology], no. 4 (76), pp. 202–220. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2018.1.55.3
10. Zabelina I. A., Klevakina E. А. 2013, Cross-border cooperation and its impact on the quality of economic growth (using the Zabaykalsky Krai as an example). EKO [ECO], no. 5 (467), pp. 108–123. (In Russ.)
11. Lomakina N. V. 2014, Industrial development of the Russian Far East and Northeast China: goals, results and opportunities for cooperation. EKO [ECO], no. 6 (480), pp. 25–39. (In Russ.)
12. Victor P. The Kenneth E. 2015, Boulding Memorial Award 2014: Ecological economics: A personal journey. Ecological Economics. Vol. 109, pp. 93–100. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.009
13. Glazyrina I. P., Zabelina I. A. 2018, Spatial Heterogeneity of Russia in the Light of the Concept of a Green Economy: The Social Context. Geography and Natural Resources, vol. 39 (2), pp. 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1875372818020026
14. Glazyrina I. P., Faleichik L. M., Yakovleva K. A. 2015, Socioeconomic effectiveness and “green” growth of regional forest use. Geography and Natural Resources, vol. 36 (4), pp. 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1875372815040022
15. De Haan M. 2004, Accounting for goods and bads. Voorburg: Statistics Netherlands, 216 р. Open Access