DOI: 10.21440/0536-1028-2019-6-98-107

Ivanov A. N., Logvinenko O. A., Ignatieva M. N. Economic evaluation of environmental implications in subsoil use. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Gornyi zhurnal = News of the Higher Institutions. Mining Journal. 2019; 6: 98–107 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21440/0536-1028-2019-6-98-107

Relevance. Due to the deteriorating environmental situation, the significance of ecological factor increases
when substantiating the variants of nature management and subsoil use; it requires further evaluation
of economic damage caused by both of them. The evaluation of the economic damage caused by the human
impact on the environment is based on the economic evaluation of natural resources state during the
formation of environmental implications. The relevance of the research on the natural resources and
ecosystem services economic evaluation procedure improvement is proven as a matter of the national
natural capital importance.
Research aim is to improve cost estimation tools for natural resources and ecosystem services.
Methodology includes generalization and analysis of the notions of eecosystem services and their
Research results. The preservation of natural capital, when implementing weak sustainability concept,
means that the used natural capital is replaced by the physical one (man-made); in case of strong
sustainability concept implementation, minimum substitution is allowed for. These conditions require
wider economic methods of governmental control in natural management, such as a wider use of economic
evaluation and economic damage. It is necessary to specify the structure of natural capital and draw up
the scheme of natural resources (natural assets) utilization in order to improve the procedure of evaluation.
The present research schematically outlines the procedure of environmental products and services flow
formation, which characterize the utilization of natural assets, i.e. natural resources and ecosystem
services. Definitions of ecosystem services have been analysed, and their difference from ecosystem
functions has been proven as soon as economic evaluation of ecosystem services requires their accurate
definition. Particular classifications of ecosystem services have been generalized and analysed.
The reasonability has been proven to single out a resource function along with ecosystem functions taking
into account that it is often associated with abiotic elements of ecosystems. An author’s variant of ecosystem
services list is proposed, which excludes provisioning services as they are ascribed to the category of
resource services. As far as the regulating services are concerned, the following types are distinguished:
flows regulation, physical environment regulation, and biotic environment regulation. Supporting services
are ascribed to a separate category which is not subject to further economic evaluation. Cultural services
include: spiritual, scientific and educational, and therapeutic. Economic evaluation methods covers both
traditional practical methods applied in nature management and new methods which are often associated
with sociological surveys and questionnaires. Basic conditions for economic evaluation have been

Key words: natural capital; natural resources; ecosystem services; functions; classifications; economic
evaluation; methods.



1. Logvinenko O. A., Strovskii V. E. Natural resources considered as a part of the national wealth. Izvestiya
Uralskogo Gosudarstvennogo Gornogo Universiteta = News of the Ural State Mining University. 2019;
2: 126–133. (In Russ.)
2. Yu H., Wang Y., Li X., Sun M., Du A. Measuring ecological capital: State of the art, trends, and
challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 219: 833–845. DOI.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100927
3. Costanza R., Daly H. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology.
1992; 6: 37–46.
4. Glazyrina I. P. Natural capital in the economics of transition. Moscow: NIA-Priroda, REFIA Publishing;
2001. (In Russ.)
5. Pearce David. Economics, equity and sustainable development. Futures. 1988; 20(6): 598–605.
6. Levallois Clement. Can de-grow be considered a policy option? A historical note on Nicholas Georgescu-
Roegen and the club of Rome. Ecological Economics. 2010; 69(11); 2271–2278.
7. Pakhomova N. V., Rikhter K. K. Economics of nature management and ecological management. St.
Petersburg: SPBGU Publishing; 1999. (In Russ.)
8. Droste N., Bartkowski B. Ecosystem Service valuation for national accounting: a reply to obst, hein and
edens. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2018; 71 (1): 205–215. DOI.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0146-3
9. Tishkov A. A. (ed.) Economics of biodiversity conservation: reference book. Moscow: Institute of
Natural Resource Economics and Environmental Policy Publishing; 2002. (In Russ.)
10. Project “Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”. The recognition of environmental economics.
The synthesis of TEEB approaches, conclusions and recommendations. Moscow; 2010. (In Russ.)
11. Fomenko G. A., Fomenko M. A., Loshadkin K. A., Mikhailova A. V. Cost estimation of natural
resources, facilities and ecosystem services in biodiversity conservation control: regional research
experience. Yaroslavl: Kadastr Publishing; 2002. (In Russ.)
12. Ecosystem services in Russia. Vol. 1. The services of terrestrial ecosystems. National report analogue.
Moscow; 2015. (In Russ.)
13. Strovskii V. E., Komarova O. G., Logvinenko O. A. Special characteristics of sustainable development
models. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Gornyi zhurnal = News of the Higher Institutions.
Mining Journal. 2019; 4: 89–97. DOI: 10.21440/0536-1028-2019-4-89-97.
14. Ruijs A., van Egmond P. Natural capital in practice. Ecosystem Services. 2017; 25: 106–116.
DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.025
15. Ignatieva M. N. The formation of the territorial natural potential. Izvestiya Uralskogo Gosudarstvennogo
Gornogo Universiteta = News of the Ural State Mining University. 2014; 4: 51–56. (In Russ.)
16. Alkamo D. et al. Ecosystems and well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Washington. Covelo. London: Island Press, 2005. 268 p.
17. Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: potential and prospects of Northern Eurasia counties.
Project ТЕЕВ – Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: the prospects for Russia and CIS countries
participation: conference proceedings. Moscow: Tsentr okhrany dikoi prirody Publishing; 2010. (In Russ.)
18. R. Costanza, R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farberk, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem,
R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, Paul Sutton and M. von Belt. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature. 1997; 387(6630): 253–260.
19. Larkova M. S. Improving the methods of economic evaluation for ecosystem services: PhD (Economics)
Dissertation. Moscow: 2015. (In Russ.)
20. Litvinova A. A., Ignatieva M. N., Koroteev G. D. Identification of the services provided by specially
protected natural reservations. Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniia = Advances in Current Natural
Sciences. 2016; 6: 164–168. (In Russ.)
21. Kunitsyn L. F., Mukhina L. I. Some general issues of technology evaluation for natural complexes at
land development. Izvestiia AN SSSR = Proceedings of AS USSR. Ser. Geography. 1969; 1: 38–49.
(In Russ.)
22. Girusov E. V. (ed.) Ecology and economics of natural management. Moscow: IuNITI-DANA
Publishing; 2007. (In Russ.)
23. Dvoretskii L. M. Analysis of natural resources economic evaluation methods by the example of urban
land evaluation. Ekonomika prirodopolzovaniia = Environmental Economics. 2004; 4: 84–94.
(In Russ.)
24. Balashenko V. V., Ignatieva M. N., Loginov V. G. Natural resources potential of northern regions:
consistent features of comprehensive assessment. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Region. 2015;
4: 84–94. (In Russ.)
25. Bobylev S. N., Tishkov A. A. (eds.) Economic evaluation of biodiversity. Moscow: 1999. (In Russ.)
26. Medvedeva O. E. Economic evaluation of biodiversity. Theory and practice of evaluation. Moscow:
Dialog-MSU Publishing; 1998. (In Russ.)
27. Perelet R. A. Testing international approaches to natural resources cost estimation. In: Towards the
sustainable development of Russia. Moscow: 1997; 2(6): 20–22. (In Russ.)
28. Teoh S. H. S., Symes W. S., Sun H., Pienkowski T., Carrasco L. R. A global meta-analysis of the
economic values of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;
649: 1293–1298. DOI.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.422
29. Sutton P. C., Duncan S. L., Anderson S. J. Valuing our national parks: an ecological economics
perspective. Land. 2019; 8(4): 54. DOI.org/10.3390/land8040054
Received 17 June 2019



This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



счетчик посещений