V. G. Loginov, V. V. Balashenko / News of the Ural State Mining University. 2019. Issue 1(53), pp. 156-161

Nowadays, the urgency of transition to sustainable development is the most important goal of humanity and individual countries as well. Although, the methodology and methodological tools for measuring this process are still in their infancy.
The purpose of the study is to summarize and analyze the existing methodological support for evaluating the level of balance and to identify the most reliable methodological tools recommended for use in modern conditions.
Results. during the study, three groups of researchers were distinguished. They differ in the specifics of their methodological approaches to establishing the degree of balance. The first group unites authors who consider the balance of development from the standpoint of the balance of interests of generations and the tasks to be solved, who are focused, on the one hand, on the social-economic development of territories, and on the other hand, on nature conservation. The absence of any recommendations concerning formation of valuation tools allows us to state their impracticality. The second group includes researchers who recommend methodological tools for estimating sustainability from the standpoint of balance of the goals for economic, environmental and social subsystems by comparing the economic effect and economic damage caused by social and environmental consequences. The third group of researchers is the most numerous. They recommend to establish the degree of balance based on a comparison of local potentials. In most cases, the use of the system of indicators while establishing the degree of sustainability based on their grouping are recommended to evaluate potentials balance. Less commonly, researchers turn to integral indicators. There are few studies of balance based on comparison of production and natural potential using the energy approach. The identification of advantages and disadvantages of the considered methodological
approaches made it possible to recommend the latter to be the most reliable among them.
Application of results: The determined shortcomings and benefits of methodological recommendations for estimating sustainability of natural resource use can be taken into consideration when identifying the level of balance while planning and organizing economic activity, including environmental management at the federal and regional levels.

Keywords: natural resource use, sustainability, interests, goals, potentials, comparison, sustainable development, methodological approaches, evaluation.

REFERENCES

 1. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Axelsson R., Khoroshev A., Pedroli B., Tysiachniouk M., Zabubenin E. 2019, Model forests in Russia as landscape approach: Demonstration projects or initiatives for learning towards sustainable forest management? Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 101, pp. 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.005
2. Rossinskaya M. V., Tatuev A. A., Rokotyanskaya V. V., Khukhlaev D. D., Valenteychik D. V. 2017, Environmental and economic security management. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 11, issue 4, pp. 678–691.
3. Sergienko O. I. 2004, Ekologicheskoye prirodopol’zovaniye [Environmental management]. Rostov-on-Don, 320 p.
4. Ignatieva M. N. 2018, The notion of balance in the natural resource management. News of the Higher Institutions. Mining Journal, no. 6, pp. 85–92.
5. Weißhuhn P. 2019, Indexing the vulnerability of biotopes to landscape changes. Ecological Indicators, vol. 102, pp. 316–327.
6. Kasimov N. Ya., Mazurov Yu. L., Tukanov V. S. 2004, Concept of sustainable development: Russia’s perspective. Vestnik RAN [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences], vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 28–36. (In Russ.)
7. Polishchuk O. N. 2016, Belgorod region on the path of noospheric development. Problemy regional’noy ekologii [Regional Environmental Issues], no. 3, pp. 157–161. (In Russ.)
8. Butyaev V. I. 2002, Sbalansirovannoye prirodopol’zovaniye v Kaspiyskom regione: problemy i perspektivy [Sustainable natural resource use in the Caspian region: problems and prospects], PhD thesis, 154 p.
9. Kozakov E. M., Pakhomov V. P., Ignatieva M.N. 1992, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoye obosnovaniye osvoyeniya mineral’nykh resursov [Social-economic substantiation of the development of mineral resources]. Ekaterinburg, 112 p.
10. 2015, Razvitiye sistemnosti v osvoyenii prirodnogo potentsiala severnykh maloizuchennykh territori [Mastering consistency in the development of natural potential of the northern poorly known territories], ed. by A. I. Tatarkin. Ekaterinburg, 317 p.
11. Malikh O. E., Konovalova M. E., Kuzmina O. Y., Michailov A. M. 2018, The problem of energy saving and its solution in the conditions of formation of a new model of economic development In: Ashmarina S., Mesquita A., Vochozka M. (eds.). Digital Transformation of the Economy: Challenges, Trends and New Opportunities. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 908, pp. 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11367-4_7
12. Selwood K. E., Cunningham S. C., Mac Nally, R. 2019, Beyond refuges: Identifying temporally dynamic havens to support ecological resistance and resilience to climatic disturbances. Biological Conservation, vol. 233, pp. 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12305
13. Ignat’eva M. N., Litvinova A. А. 2015, Ecologization of the social-economic approach to the development of natural resources. Izvestiya vuzov. Gornyy zhurnal [News of the Higher Institutions. Mining Journal], no. 3, pp. 57–64. (In Russ.)
14. 2011, Ustoychivoye razvitiye: metodologiya i metodicheskiye izmereniya [Sustainable development: methodology and methodical measurements], ed. by S. N. Bobylev. Moscow, 358 p.
15. Polyanskaya I. G. Yurak V. V. 2018, Balance of nature management in the region: evaluation by the method of dynamic normal. Ekonomika regiona [Economy of the region], no. 3, pp. 851–869. (In Russ.)