Ensuring regional resilience and sustainable business development in the face of high climatic, environmental and social risks
We create knowledge and effective solutions that open up new opportunities to create safe and sustainable society
1. Why?
1.1. Human well-being improvement and the cumulative benefits of accelerated economic growth have been impressive over the past century. However, this growth and prosperity were based on wasting the benefits of the natural systems that are the foundation of life on Earth and therefore of these economic development [1].
A distinctive feature of modern time is the recognition of the growing ecological footprint of humankind [2] and the transformation of the biosphere into the anthroposphere [3].
1.2. The most dangerous threat is the decline in biodiversity and the growth of risks to human health at a faster rate than at any time in human history. This occurs in all regions at the level of genes, species and habitats [4]. By 2016, 559 of the 6,190 domesticated mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct, and at least 1,000 more are endangered. On average, about 25% of animal and plant species are endangered (i.e., about 1 million species), and many of them may disappear within several decades [5]. Global indicators of the health and distribution of ecosystems indicate a decrease of 47% on average from the estimated baselines, with many continuing to decline by at least 4% over a decade[6]. In total, 75% of the land surface is undergoing significant changes, 66% of the world's oceans are under increasing cumulative impact, and over 85% of wetlands have already been lost. Land degradation due to human activities affects well-being of at least 3.2 billion people, and the losses from it, expressed in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, account for more than 10% of the annual global gross product[7].
1.3. At the end of the 20th century, the futility of the usual technocratic administrative environmental regulation of anthropogenic impact on the natural environment became obvious. [8]. Countries and peoples are constantly dealing with the social consequences of environmental management, with the emergence and dying of resource monocities and settlements. Every inhabitant of the Earth is facing increasing uncertainties and risks - climatic, environmental, sanitary, etc. They accelerate and complicate other trends of modern development, such as the compression of space (location and communication), the acceleration of urbanization and the growth of geopolitical contradictions. An additional imbalance is brought about by the rapid transition to a new technological order, the massive introduction of a number of globally significant critical technologies [9], unpredictability of their joint impact on people's lives, the speed and trends of social processes. All this exacerbates the obvious nonlinearity of development processes.
1.4. Humanity has entered a period of increasing instability or bifurcation [10], when there is a radical change in existing structures, culture and social systems and institutions. This process is uneven, and the transition to the new economy that has already begun has exacerbated the problem of the multidirectional socioculturally determined institutional changes. In the near future, the face of the global picture of the world will undergo significant changes, and it is important that the new development scenario becomes favorable for people's lives.
Figure 1. Dried, covered with saxaul, bottom of the Aral Sea.
1.5. Almost 30 years ago, we realized the need to find and develop effective approaches and mechanisms to ensure the sustainability of regional and business development. The trigger for this was both our own production practice and the experience of environmental management, which clearly showed that many undoubtedly positive efforts and even selfless activities did not give long-term socially significant results. Then, as well as today, people talk about love for nature and future generations, and at the same time destroy the natural basis of present and future life with their technocratic and reductionist actions. Today, despite high environmental and climatic risks and uncertainties and even the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a lack of systemic action and global cooperation.
2. How?
2.1 The way out of this situation cannot be simple and it cannot be replaced with technical measures for the protection of nature, subsidies to the poor, and humanitarian aid. The systemic and interconnected nature of the ongoing changes radically affects the vision of the very process of human self-development. The idea of an empty world with unlimited possibilities for resource expansion is being replaced by an understanding of its fullness and limitations.
Figure 2. Welfare in a full and empty world
Source: Daly H. Economics in a full world // Scientific American. 2005. September. Р. 100-107.
2.2 In a full world, Human-Dominated Ecosystems (HDE) prevail, where Human is an integral and active component (Figure 2). Thus, Human is not an external subject transforming Nature, but as the most important component of the system itself. It not only consumes but also produces ecosystem services. This is connected in many ways with the subject-object ideas of Schelling, according to which Nature and Man are in a dualistic unity and self-development. This implies the need for a dramatic change in the very way of decision-making, limiting the range of choice to scientific environmental knowledge and people's values.
Human-Dominated Ecosystems (HDE)
According to the theory of Living Systems, a Human-Dominated Ecosystem is a constantly evolving living organism that passes through a phase transition (bifurcation point) from time to time before a new stage of dynamic stability. The basis of the systemic concept of Life was laid by A. Bogdanov, L. von Bertalanffy, I. Prigozhin, U. Maturana and F. Varela, F. Capra, N.N. Moiseev, V.S. Stepin and others. It focuses on the complexity of "systemic" views; also, new key concepts have been developed: self-organization, social networks and systemic understanding of development, etc. The systemic approach does not consider a person as a creature that has accidentally been excluded from the surrounding nature and even has become its enemy. In other words, “everything is connected with everything,” and Human is an integral and sometimes the most important element of a living system.
Sources:
1. Daly H. Economics in a full world // Scientific American. 2005. September. Р. 100-107.
2. Capra F., Luisi P.L. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
2.3 Human-Dominated Ecosystems are very diverse, which is determined by natural-geographical conditions, the type and intensity of human activities. The most common are urban and rural Human-Dominated Ecosystems. In their nonlinear cyclical development, environemental, economic, social and cultural components are intertwined in a complex way. Similar patterns are typical for the business environment. It is no coincidence that the understanding that it is the health of nature that ensures economic prosperity and well-being is becoming increasingly widespread among responsible entrepreneurs and property owners.
2.4. In an increasingly complex, full world, the role of consciousness with its ethical and value concepts and needs is growing. Meanwhile, the efforts of modern civilization are not aimed at the ability to live in peace with nature. The mechanistic ideas about the complex system of relations "society-nature" are particularly dangerous, as they consider nature as a set of consumed natural resources and inanimate objects.
The Earth Charter is an ethical framework for sustainable development
The Earth Charter as an ethical framework for sustainable development calls for the transformation of consciousness into action for the prosperity of the Earth. To the greatest extent, this document includes the fundamental principles of creating a just, sustainable and peaceful global community in the 21st century. The Earth Charter seeks to awaken a new sense of interdependence and universal responsibility for the prosperity of people and all living communities in every person. It is the foundation for ethical justification of integral corporate social and environmental responsibility plans, as well as relevent companies' missions and professional codes of conduct.
UNESCO Resolutions 2003 (32C/17) and 2019 (40C/20) recognized the Earth Charter as an ethical framework for sustainable development, demanding Member States to use the Earth Charter in Education for Sustainable Development, especially as part of the SDG until 2030.
The Earth Charter has been officially recognized and supported by over 4,800 organizations worldwide. To date, the Initiative is supported by many business leaders, global movement leaders, including the UN Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI). Today, the Earth Charter is rightfully regarded as the basic moral and ethical platform in business dialogue with representatives of civil society and other stakeholders. For example, today businesses are actively using the Earth Charter for successful reporting within the GRI and other similar activities.
2.5 In a full world, the category of responsibility becomes basic, because a person takes responsibility not only for the present, but also for future generations.
Homo responsibilis (Responsible human)
Homo responsibilis takes care of future generations, since he is able (within certain limits) to integrate the individual goals of economic activity with the moral values inherent in society, he considers environmental norms, traditions and customs (which develop in specific territories, with their natural and socio-cultural characteristics ) as flexible and generally followed rules, making human behavior more predictable. It is this model, which combines the economic and value aspects of behavior, based on the theories and models of neoinstitutionalism and socioeconomics, that makes it possible to study the motivations of the activities of individuals and their local communities on a sustainable basis.
Environmental ethics, according to H. Jonas, should become a “future-oriented ethics” (Zukunftethik): today we need “foresight of forecasts, breadth of responsibility (to all future humanity) and depth of ideas (all future human essence), and ... serious mastery of the power of technology ... ”(Jonas, 2004). The "imperative of responsibility" corresponding to new types of human actions and addressed to new types of agents of action, according to Jonas, reads: "Act so that the consequences of your actions are compatible with the strength of human existence" [Jonas, p.11] [11]. Therefore, it is advisable to use homo responsibilis model for environmental management (proposed by the author in 2004)[12].
There is a behavioral concept of "economic man", there are concepts of psychological and geographical determination, there is an explanation by external factors such as God, historical necessity, in social science many reasons have been shown and investigated that force people to act in a certain way (including Maslow's concept, in which an attempt was made to grope for a hierarchy of motivation for human activity). Each of these concepts is based on a certain amount of facts and historical experience. But they do not give an answer on how to manage environmental activities in the face of increasing climatic uncertainties and natural vulnerabilities, since they are all based on limited experience.
The operation of such a mechanism makes it possible to understand the modern theory of games, which reflects a certain system of values of homo responsibilis, where ethics is the correction and compensation for the failure of the market, religion is the correction and compensation for the failure of ethics. In other words, when the economy fails, ethics comes into play, and when ethics fails, religion comes into play. These traits are not antagonistic and can be synthesized using ethical economy methodology. According to this approach, science, ethics and religion form a system of transcendences, transitions into something else and a repetition (iteration) of compensations. Transcendences of the self-interest of a homo responsibilis appear one after another, a higher level makes up for the shortcomings and gaps of a lower level.
Kozlowski P. Principles of Ethical Economy. - Saint Petersburg: Econ. school, 1999 .-- 344 p. - (Ethical Economy: Research on Ethics, Culture and Philosophy of Economy. Issue 7) [in Russian].
Values and moral constraints are no longer considered as secondary to the priorities of economic effectiveness, ideas about moral incentives to ensure sustainability are expanding - from local communities to humanity as a whole. It is responsibility that helps a human to make decisions in situations of high uncertainty, when there is very little information, and the cost of a mistake is extremely high. As a value, responsibility motivates decision-makers of countries and regions, the owners of companies and corporations to constantly assess their actions from the standpoint of the acceptability of risks.
3. What do we do?
3.1. Our interdisciplinary scientific research and practical developments on fundamental and applied problems of sustainable development, rational use of natural resources and environmental protection are currently being implemented in many regions of Russia and the world. The broadly understood geographic platform is based on approaches from behavioral geography, neo-institutionalism, socioeconomics, and ethical economics. This puts emphasis on unique regional characteristics. Using the genius loci category, myths and symbols, we strive to understand each territory with its settlements, production facilities, infrastructure, as a unique anthropo-natural system. And on this basis, for each Place, generate exactly those solutions that are most applicable and successful in the long term.
Genius loci in regional planning and design
The category of Genius Loci is a fundamental category of culture, used by Plato, who gave it the same features as the genius of man. Genius loci ensures the habitability of this Place. Constantly interpreted in the Place, it is manifested and fixed in culture: the local culture represents, on the one hand, models of spiritual interpretations, and, on the other hand, social norms ("morals and customs", in the words of Herodotus). Emphasizing the socio-cultural nature of the category of place, A. Levintov (1994) notes that the "genius loci", whether it id a city or an area is not just a generating factor, it is a region-forming or city-forming factor, that is, a factor in the creating the image, a certain spiritual projection of the Place.
In order for people to want to live and plan their future in a particular place, it must have a special, exclusive image that is positively perceived by people. Human's assimilation of the geographic environment is the process of the emergence of Places with their own name, characterized by a thin network of socio-cultural, economic and political ties. Only by discovering the reality and resilience of the Place and perceiving the world and nature through their connection with a particular place, a person can acquire a goal-oriented ethical motivation for the environmental activities.
In this context, objects of natural and cultural heritage as elements of the cultural landscape acquire a unifying, activity-related significance. They not only contribute to the preservation of the historical images of Places, but can both increase and decrease the attractiveness of territories, both for human habitation and for external innovations. The very formulation of the task of preserving such objects, as a rule, unites people (even those belonging to different social groups) in the context of purposeful and rational activities to develop the territory on a sustainable basis.
Especially the importance of natural and cultural heritage objects increases in the course of positive marketing of territories[29], when each Place (with its inherent geographical features) acts as a market entity, presenting itself to consumers - other market entities (both external to the territory and internal). Only a stable innovation and investment activity of "consumers of the territory" can ensure its sustainable growth.
Socio-cultural vector of development. Genios Loci makes it possible to identify a not always obvious, but significant socio-culturally determined vector of development, in accordance with which individuals, identifying themselves with a specific Place, evaluate economic, managerial and other actions. Such a vector can be called the sociocultural core (dominant) of the development of the territory and is important for sustainable ecosystem design. Any actions that do not correspond to it risk being left without support: their goals will not be convincing to most people. In this case, ethnos and ethics will resist changes, perceiving them as a challenge and violence against a moral decision. The role of the socio-cultural core of the development of territories is especially great at the moments of transformation of institutional territorial matrices, when, in conditions of a decrease in the effectiveness of formal norms and rules, tendencies of disorganization are growing, the gap between the authorities and society is growing, and the consolidation of the activities of individuals becomes especially necessary.
It should be noted that traditions and images of the past themselves can unite people without being, however, a sociocultural core (dominant) of development. They can conserve dying social relations that hinder the development of development, limit the innovations necessary for sustainable growth. Moreover, the traditions and images of the past can be used by various political forces as the basis of social conservatism. Therefore, the socio-cultural core (dominant) of the development of a territory should be called only such a vector of development, in accordance with which individuals not only identify themselves with a specific Place, evaluate economic, managerial and other actions, but also orient local communities into the future, towards sustainable growth, and not only remind of the past. Only by relying on such a socio-cultural core of development can effective mechanisms of environmental management be developed that are understandable and perceived by people, and therefore do not cause rejection during implementation.
Sustainable development symbols. The genius of the Place is always present in the symbols (or a set of symbols) with which the inhabitants associate or associate their life. The symbol is considered in the form of a certain socially fixed and transmitted from generation to generation sign, causing the same social reaction, which allows us to consider it as an effective coordinating mechanism of social interaction. It is through reading the symbols that denoted and filled the system of vital activity that the study of the spiritual development of space presupposes deciphering the cultural code embedded in such a system. The interpretation of symbols makes it possible to identify the role program of cultural carriers within the study area.
In the sustainable ecosystem design we develop, symbols are seen as essential elements. Symbols have already become an integral part of many environmental projects, especially those for the success of which the consolidated support of the population is required. Thus, the Rhine rescue program received the symbolic name "Salmon 2000". This name united people around the task of returning salmon to the Rhine, accepted by the majority of the population. During the implementation of the program, dams were removed, environmental standards unpleasant for many were tightened, and expensive measures were taken.
In societies with strong religious traditions, conservation symbols tend to have a religious meaning. For example, in the Philippines in the mid-1990s, attempts were made to involve the local population in planting trees, for which environmental information was widely disseminated. However, the effect was found to be quite insignificant. Only after the action was given a symbolic, ritual meaning - the seedlings were consecrated in Buddhist temples and distributed there to people for planting as religious symbols - was it possible to achieve conservation success: in 1996 alone, more than 40,000 trees were planted (Lin, 1999 ).
It should be emphasized that many existing spiritual centers are organically inscribed in the environment and carry the symbolic meaning of the unity of Spirit and Nature, creating unique socio-cultural pillars of development. So, for example, the religious tradition connects the emergence of the Holy Vvedensky Tolgsky Monastery near Yaroslavl with the miraculous appearance of the icon of the Mother of God on a coniferous tree to the Archbishop of Rostov Tryphon. This event not only determined the location of the monastery, but also forever connected the monastery with this Place, giving Tolga a symbolic meaning, uniting the Monastery with a cedar grove into a single socio-cultural dominant of development.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Tolgsky Monastery had a cedar garden with ponds, the planting time of which, according to legend, dates back to the last quarter of the 16th century. There were 166 Siberian cedars in an alley in two rows, one of them in a special chapel extension housed the Tolga Icon of the Mother of God. Until now, it is believed among believers that touch to these trees brings healing from diseases. After the actual destruction of the monastery in the middle of the 20th century, today there are about 20 cedars left and, despite the efforts of the nuns and specialists, the process of their death was only slightly slowed down; new trees planted. The loss of the cedar grove (if allowed) will change the symbolic meaning of the monastery, leading to the loss of its spiritual and ecological support.
The idea of saving the cedar grove as a spiritual and ecological symbol was the basis for the Tolgsky Ecoregion project, which, among other important measures, involves giving the territory around the Svyato-Vvedensky Tolgsky Monastery a special conservation status. It was the idea of saving the sacred grove (as a symbol of the unity of spirit and nature) that became a unifying goal for a wide variety of social groups, predetermined the readiness to intensify environmental activities and sponsorship, and initiated positive institutional changes. The given example shows that symbols may well be considered as formal environmental institutions, the use of which is advisable in environmental policy and management.
Mythologized images of Places do not always play a formalized, but, nevertheless, a significant role in sustainable development. Such images serve as a means of social organization (with the corresponding myths: order, freedom, justice, historical heritage, bright future, true path, historical recognition, state power). The power of myth is parallel to rational forms of power, approaches and competes with them and often penetrates them. The problem of the impact of mythologized images on the sustainable development of territories requires an independent deep research. However, we can already say that myths can significantly affect the innovative attractiveness of territories, making them more attractive for people's lives and business development, as well as intensify the inflow of investments, including in the environmental sphere. It is no coincidence that mythologized images of Places are increasingly used to develop brands for regions and places, advertise goods and services, and environmental management issues are beginning to be closely intertwined with the marketing of territories. This is due to the fact that marketing technologies for promoting a brand of goods, branding as a specific mechanism of competition are increasingly used in investment policy.
2. Levintov A.E. From district to region: on the way to economic geography. Izv. RAS. Ser. geogr. 1994. No. 6. P. 120–130. [In Russian]
3. Lin, Wo Ling (1999) Long-Ya-Men Re-identified: A Historical Geography Study of the Two Important Junctions in the Ancient Nanhai Sea Routes, (in Chinese) Singapore: South Sea Society
3.2 We apply the concepts of "sustainable development of human-dominated ecosystems", "creating ecosystem servicesflows", use new indicators to analyze the ongoing processes, "throw a new network of measurements on the region". Using these tools we help to see the problems in a new way, understand the prospects for the development of the region and business, opportunities to attract investment and build a sustainable infrastructure. Through our own innovative developments, we help businesses, local authorities, communities to increase their sustainability and competitiveness in a rapidly changing world.
"Gray" and natural ("green") infrastructure
Infrastructure systems shape the backbone of every society, providing basic services - energy, water, waste management, transport and telecommunications. Infrastructure can also have harmful social and environmental impacts and increase vulnerability to natural disasters. Infrastructure investment is at an all-time high worldwide, and an ever-increasing number of decisions are now being made to anchor development models for future generations. While most of these investments are motivated by the desire to increase economic productivity and employment, Scott Thacker et al. (2019) found that infrastructure directly or indirectly affects the achievement of all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including 72% of the targets.
Environmental issues are not always taken into account in the design, planning and construction of infrastructure facilities, thereby developing the so-called "gray" infrastructure, defined as human-engineered solutions using non-living, non-self-sustaining systems, usually consisting of concrete and steel structures designed to provide the required function) ... Until recently, much of the management of natural risks (eg floods) involved such engineering measures of “hard” design of “gray” infrastructure. For example, the construction of embankments, dams and canals for flood control.
Natural (or "green") infrastructure (NI) is a planned or managed (often designed) anthropo-natural system designed to meet specific needs. In addition to providing the required function, NI can provide more ecosystem services, various co-benefits, compared to traditional gray infrastructure. Also, recently, the concepts of “ecosystem adaptation”, “environmental disaster risk reduction” or “green infrastructure”, etc. have become a good alternative or addition to the traditional gray approaches. The infrastructure concept draws attention to new synergies between technology, culture and materiality.
Natural, or “green,” infrastructure projects rely on services produced by ecosystems, often using natural landscapes to minimize flood damage, purify and store water, and reduce urban storm runoff. Natural infrastructure can be seen as an active form of nature that is probably focused on the most important of these benefits. Natural infrastructure includes an active management component to deliver (or conserve) key benefits such as climate resilience, clean water and biodiversity. For example, a managed wetland can include regulating water levels, removing plant growth, and increasing the ability of wetlands to provide cleaner water, carbon storage, and habitat for various species. Wetland management can also enhance the effects of reducing flood damage or provide water during a drought.
Sources:
1. Scott Thacker, Daniel Adshead, Marianne Fay, Stéphane Hallegatte, Mark Harvey, Hendrik Meller, Nicholas O’Regan, Julie Rozenberg, Graham Watkins & Jim W. Hall. Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nature Sustainability volume 2, pages324–331(2019)
2. WBCSD. The business case for natural infrastructure. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2015). ISBN 978-2-940521-60-9. www.wbcsd.org
3.3.Our experience, unique databases and pioneering products enable our clients to:
create sustainable business models;
make decisions that increase their resilience;
manage climatic and environmental risks;
choose effective options for environmental management;
find a balance between environmental, economic and social interests;
choose and implement the most sustainable options for infrastructural development;
make effective reporting.
Resilience
Resilience* is defined as the ability to go through a risk situation, overcome it, but not forget the experience and use it as a source of life strengthening and learning**. This concept is applicable to any systems - from business to regions of any scale.
This view of reality is most clearly manifested in the territories of climatic disasters (the Aral Sea region, etc.), where the situation is either close to a systemic phase transition, or the anthropo-natural system, having made such a transition, is in search of a new level of stability***. And the acquisition of vitality depends not so much on the technical capabilities of mankind as on the ability of reason to master new strategic meanings of preserving, restoring and even creating new anthropo-natural systems.
Nonlinear dynamic complex systems never reach a long-term stable state of equilibrium, but adaptive Holling cycles pass after disturbance events ****. Human influence is not only limited, but the very point of influence is “blurred”, since the system is in constant motion. Purposefulness and purposefulness are inherent in living systems (Bertalanffy L., 1962; Mesarovich M. D, 1969, etc.).
*The term has its origins in physics and was first used by Thomas Young in 1807 (Yunes & Szymanski, 2001). Young described vitality as the resilience of materials that, even after being exposed to a certain amount of stress, returned to their original state without causing harm. The term later came to be used in medicine and in the 1950s also began to be used in the field of psychology (Rosana Angst Pasqualotto, Suzane Schmidlin Löhr, Tania Stoltz. Skinner and Vygotsky’s Understanding of Resilience in the School Environment. Creative Education, 2015, 6, 1841-1851 Published Online October 2015 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/cehttp://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.617188).
**Assis, S. G., Pesce, R. P., & Avanci, J. Q. (2006). Resiliência: Enfatizando a proteção dos adolescentes. [Resilience: Emphasizing the Protection of Adolescents]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
****Gunderson L. H., Holling C. S. (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Edited with L. Gunderson, (editors) Washington, DC: Island Press; Holling C.S. 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprises and global change. In Sustainable development of the biosphere (eds Clark W. C., Munn R. E.), pp. 292–317 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Figure 3. Problem solving strategies
Source: Silvio O.Funtowicz Jerome R.Ravetz. Science for the post-normal age. Futures Volume 25, Issue 7, September 1993, Pages 739-755.
Such requirements are now imposed on both responsible business [13], and on the local authorities. It is resilience that has become a key factor in attracting innovation and investment in development. Along with a business reputation and financial stability, the creation of favorable social conditions and a comfortable environment for life are at the forefront. Objects of natural and cultural heritage, as elements of the cultural landscape, acquire a unifying, activity-related significance.
3.4. Methodologically, our approach is based on the synthesis of two paradigms - normative and classical scientific with additions of elements of post-normal science, in relation to situations of high uncertainties and risks (Figure 3). Particular attention is focused on the value, target component. It is recognized that both “expert” and “non-professional” local knowledge are extremely important to enrich the understanding of the current situation and possible improvements, to foresee the future state of the system. The narrative theory of beliefs is used, which reveals a deep value, socio-culturally conditioned awareness and understanding of possibilities and meanings.
3.5. Our work is based on:
the need to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ru/sustainable-development-goals/), ethical provisions of the Earth Charter [14]. (https://earthcharter.org/), homo responsibilis model adapted for our needs [15]. Without these ideas, it is impossible to consider the issues of ensuring the quality of life, the creation of new sustainable ways of doing business, relevant tools for spatial development, mechanisms for creating conditions for sustainable innovation and investment, new high-quality jobs, the creation of sustainable infrastructure (linear, green, water), as well as arrangement of public and industrial spaces;
the conceptual approaches of the "green" economy [16] (https://www.unenvironment.org/ru/temy/zelenaya-ekonomika), expanded and supplemented with the concept of the "blue" economy (https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org). The "green" production system focuses on eliminating of waste and conservation of resources in a closed cycle and involves creating new structures and supply chains, production technologies and transport delivery systems, as well as the creation and consumption of goods and services with positive environmental and climatic characteristics (in the value chains);
the combination of a market-based economic development, cutting-edge technology inspired by nature (Figure 4), and nature-based solutions (NbS)[17], which are defined by the IUCN as actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that effectively and address social challenges while ensuring human well-being and biodiversity conservation.
<
Figure 4а. A hydroponic facility in the Muynak district of the Republic of Karakalpakstan of Uzbekistan creates new opportunities for the development of livestock farming in dry lands
Figure 4b. The drip irrigation system of an intensive garden in the Kegeyli district of the Republic of Karakalpakstan of Uzbekistan allows you to grow fruits with less water consumption and reduces land salinity
3.6. Nature-based solutions use natural processes and ecosystem services for functional purposes such as reducing flood risk or improving water quality. These interventions can be completely “green” (i.e., consisting only of ecosystem elements) or “hybrid” (i.e., the construction of human-dominated ecosystems including a combination of ecosystem elements and complex engineering structures).
Nature-based Solutions (NbS)
In 2020, IUCN adopted the Global Standard for Nature-based solutions, which for the first time in the world created a benchmark for assessing such solutions in response to global challenges. The new IUCN Global Standard will help governments, businesses and civil society ensure that nature-based solutions are effective and maximize their potential in addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and other social issues around the world. The IUCN Global NbS Standard is non-obligatory and is intended not only to guide the user through development and implementation, but also to continually improve the sustainability of the intervention and help prepare for unforeseen circumstances. The standard offers a consistent approach that is able to cope with and adapt to a wide range of individual circumstances and contexts to provide results that are environmentally sound, socially equitable and economically viable.
This standard was developed as the world is struggling to contain and stop the spread of COVID-19. Attention is now being drawn to the economic recovery after the pandemic. Natural solutions offer a unique opportunity to invest in social well-being and a vibrant economy without having to go back to the mistakes of the past.
Source: IUCN (2020). Guidance for using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of Nature-based Solutions. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. ISBN: 978-2-8317-2061-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.09.en
3.7. Resilient communities, strong and sustainable social institutions, thriving natural ecosystems, and a stable climate are at the core of business success, financial markets, and the well-being of communities and individuals [18]. This context creates the idea of an effective mechanism for solving environmental and social problems in the preparation and implementation of development projects, called “Safeguard Policies” [19]. Based on this approach we are developing a methodology for sustainable environmentally and socially oriented regional design, or sustainable ecosystem design (SED) [20], as a special type of design thinking and thought activity, which implements in practice the principles of sustainable development of human-dominated ecosystems.
Engineering way of thinking
In general, ecosystem design is an independent type of attitude towards reality, the essence of which is to study the possibilities, methods and means of "reorganizing" a certain fragment of reality in order to bring it into line with a "certain idea", an ideal. In Russia, O.I. Genisaretsky, G.P. Shchedrovitsky, V.L. Glazychev and others developed the philosophical and methodological foundations of project thinking as an activity. Considering these rather complex issues, we use the approaches of the systems-thinking methodology, developed and formulated by the methodological group under the leadership of G.P. Shchedrovitsky. Ecosystem design is a completely special direction of design thinking, its meaning lies in an ethically oriented, goal-oriented, systematic approach to the design of spatial development. Each element and relationship is considered not only from the point of view of benefits and beauty (construction and architectural and planning solutions), but also from the point of view of the process of long-term functioning in interaction with the natural environment, compliance with the goals of sustainable development.
The subject of ecosystem design is the systems of practical activity that can be identified, described and turned into the subject of goal-rational transformations. The design thinking required for this differs from natural science in its pronounced problem orientation, which is associated with the need to see priority "red dots" in the application of efforts to reduce environmental risks and, in the future, improve the quality of ecosystem services as an object of impact - be it a socio-cultural situation, an engineering complex or any other focus of transformative influence. This means a significant shift in perception, a shift (by no means a substitution - author) of accents from natural science to goal-oriented systemic thinking - from parts to the whole, from objects to relationships, from content to patterns.
Source: G.P. Shchedrovitsky Selected Works. - Moscow: School of cultural policy, 1995. - 800 p.[In Russian] Fomenko G.A. Regional design and ecosystem services. Regional ecology problems. 2020. No. 1. pp. 60-73. [In Russian] https://ntc-rik.ru/knowledge/library/science-articles/articles/6755/
SED focuses on the design and implementation of engineering, spatial planning and institutional arrangements so that they are environmentally sound and socially and economically viable at the same time. SED can be considered as a hierarchical structure of spatial system solutions for the implementation of sustainable development goals. This aspect makes it possible to obtain more reliable information material for analyzing costs and benefits, choosing the best option for design solutions, preventing potential conflicts as a result of design changes.
SED is focused on meeting the inalienable needs of people and protecting the natural habitat, supporting ecological integrity. This implies increased emphasis on ecosystem regeneration [21], nature-based solutions and recycling; interdisciplinary synthesis and its organizational support; creating sustainable water, green and linear infrastructure, etc. The main priority of SED is the preservation, restoration of disturbed and the creation of new sustainable anthropo-natural systems in the interests of present and future generations of people.
Figure 5. Mapped justification for the location of production facilities (search for the best design solution based on health risk management)
3.8. Institutional design, in our opinion, is an integral part of SED, since any interference in the development of territories or business violates the balance of the existing institutional systems, the balance of interest groups relative to development resources. No project decision will be successful in the long run if it is not accepted by stakeholders as useful and fair, all the more if it comes into conflict with the prevailing set of cultural patterns of behavior and actions.
3.9 Institutional design is a goal-oriented change of the institutional system as a set of formal and informal institutions.
Formal and informal environmental institutions
Based on the definition of institutions by D. North (1997, p. 16) [22], we define environmental institutions as the “rules of the game” in society, or human-created limiting frameworks that organize relationships between people taking into account environmental requirements. Such institutions (formal and informal) [23] emerged as a behavioral reaction of people and their communities to real or imagined threats to their safety. They limit and regulate the use of natural resources, thereby reducing the risks of negative environmental consequences of economic activities, making territorial development more environmentally friendly. These institutions are products of collective action; it is they that reduce uncertainty by structuring everyday life or, in other words, determine or limit the set of alternatives that each individual has in relations with the natural environment, and also reduce the likelihood of destructive behavior and the resulting conflicts.
Informal environmental institutions include customs, traditions, religious norms and rules. They are formed as a by-product of the historically established interaction of many people pursuing their own interests. The content of informal rules defies precise description, as well as the role they play in the development of any community. However, it is they that largely determine the range of choice of decisions made. As part of culture, informal conservation institutions are not acquired biologically: each generation reproduces them and passes them on to the next. As a result, there is a socio-cultural regulation of human behavior in relation to the environment.
Formal conservation institutions differ from informal ones by a higher level of complexity. Such institutions are deliberately established and maintained. These include state laws, departmental regulations, decrees, etc., as well as acts of local government, corporate normative, technical and instructive documents - a wide range of prescriptive regulatory standards, instructions, regulations, etc. Formal institutions, as opposed to informal ones, can change in a revolutionary way. At present, more than 40 formal environmental institutions, which are present in the institutional matrices of most countries of the world, can, with certain assumptions, be called unified.
It is important that the condition for the successful application of such institutions is to ensure their "direct action", so they are not adapted, but are selected a priori. This selection depends on the geographical conditions of the territories. In the process of importing unified environmental institutions into territorial institutional matrices, they are “completed” by socioculturally determined institutions, the set and application of which are always specific and geographically concretized. This is what constitutes the basis of the regionalization of the institutional space and determines its dynamics.
Fomenko G.A., Fomenko M.A. Environmental institutions: study and management of natural resources. Environmental management in the regional development of modern Russia. Moscow: Media-Press, 2014. pp.131-154.https://ntc-rik.ru/knowledge/library/science-articles/articles/200/
In each specific case, it solves a difficult task - so that the project solution, as a reasonable and balanced combination of engineering, technological, organizational and other measures, has sufficient legal and regulatory support and corresponds to the ideas of stakeholders, minimizing the possibility of social conflicts. Therefore, the process of institutional design itself is focused on determining and ensuring the sufficiency of the regulatory norms and rules that have developed in the territory from the point of view of the implementation of the project's goals and the long-term sustainability of its results. It is required to identify the socio-cultural factors on which the effectiveness of the planned design decisions (territorial, production, etc.) depends and to determine the range within which stakeholders will perceive future changes as acceptable. In other words, in order for the project solution to be successful, it is required to ensure a balance between the “unified” (uniform on a global and national scale) and “specific” (unique for a specific territory, business structure) through a special adjustment of the institutional system.
Socio-cultural adjustment of institutional systems
Institutionally, the main trend towards economic globalization and the expansion of the influence of universal institutions, which seemed unshakable at the end of the 20th century, faced the growing role of geographical factors, figuratively called by R. Kaplan the "revenge" of geography [24] and cultural opposition, which can also be called the "revenge" of cultures , since culture “is an intergenerational transfer of norms, values and ideas” (North, 2010, p. 81.) [25], and the sustainability of cultural heritage gives rise to the “rut effect”, which is interpreted by D. North as “a way by which institutions and beliefs formed in the past affect current decisions ... ”(Ibid .: 39). Therefore, for each territory, a socio-cultural "setting" of institutional systems is needed, for understanding the features of which it is advisable to study the evolution of historically established territorial institutional systems with their characteristic environmental institutions, as well as to identify a socio-culturally determined corridor of possible institutional changes.
When solving the problems of socio-cultural adjustment of universal institutions of spatial development used in most countries of the world, it is useful to apply the methodology of institutional and evolutionary economic geography, which recognizes the limited rationality and dependence on the context of decision-making by real managers of resources. For sustainable development, a long research horizon is relevant, since, as F. Braudel wrote, “... the geographical consideration of long-term periods leads us to an understanding of the longest processes that history knows” [Braudel, p. 117] [26]. Institutional and evolutionary methodology has evolved as part of a wider cultural shift in economic and social geography since the 1990s. These approaches are effective as a theoretical basis for the development of concepts and development strategies in the field of regional spatial planning and ecosystem design. They made it possible to focus on the evolution of formal and informal institutions in order to understand the possible socio-culturally determined corridor of institutional changes in the management of social and environmental activities.
3.10. The modern vision of sustainable development of territories and business presupposes a qualitatively different information and analytical support of decision-making processes and procedures, assessment of their effectiveness. In the modern world with its complex interconnection of financial, economic, social and natural flows of income (capital), decision-makers, primarily heads of firms, territorial authorities, not realizing their real influence and their dependence on these flows, by their actions involuntarily increase the risk of loss of resilience [27]. Understanding this in theory, they nevertheless do not have effective tools for identifying and assessing (in physical and value terms) changes in aggregate wealth (business and territory) as a result of certain decisions they make.
Components of Sustainability Capital of a Region
The value of sustainability capital includes: anthropogenic, natural, social and human and can be expressed in qualitative, quantitative or monetary terms.
Anthropogenic (physical) capital ia human-made means of production - machines, buildings, industrial infrastructure, which participate in the production process, but are not materialized in the manufactured product (R.A. Perelet. Systemic management of the transition to sustainable development, 2009).
Natural capital in terms of the theory of economic growth is considered as a set of natural resources that can be used in the production process. Any natural asset that creates a flow of ecosystem services with economic value (value) is natural capital (Glossary of Sustainable Development Terms, http://www.ustoichivo.ru/dictionary.html).
Social capital is a concept introduced by P. Bourdieu (Bourdieu Pierre) in 1983 to denote social ties that can act as a resource for obtaining benefits. The most common measures of social capital in interregional studies are values (trust, respect for others, willingness to help, tolerance, charity, volunteering, development of non-profit organizations, etc.). The general approach to the choice of indicators is based on a narrower, economic definition of social capital as a set of common norms and values that allow society to solve the problem of providing a public good. It is the ability of society to create a public good that is at the heart of environmental protection and presupposes the ability to make quick and effective changes in the interests of sustainable development, which, in fact, should be guided by the needs not only of today, but also of the future.
Human capital is a set of knowledge, skills, and abilities that are used to meet the diverse needs of a person and society as a whole. The term was first used by Theodore Schultz, his successor Gary Becker developed this idea, substantiating the effectiveness of investments in human capital and formulating an economic approach to human behavior. (Shultz T. Human Capital in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. - N.Y. 1968, vol. 6; Becker, Gary S. Human Capital. - N.Y .: Columbia University Press, 1964).
Without such assessments of the full economic value, when the whole range of ecosystem services provided by anthropo-natural systems is taken into account, it is impossible to qualitatively substantiate the effectiveness of social and environmental investments, investments in the innovative development of territory and business, and, in a broader sense, to increase the sustainability of anthropo-natural systems.
Role of Ecosystem Services in Ecosystem Design
In Ecosystem Design (ED), the concept of ecosystem services is central because human health and well-being are directly dependent on the services provided by ecosystems, both directly and indirectly. The ES concept plays a leading role in solving many unresolved issues of spatial development, for example, when deciding where to restore ecosystems and how much to invest in green infrastructure. The success of these solutions depends on the availability of specific spatial information describing ecosystems and the flows of services they provide.
Ecosystem services are not only the result of the collection or extraction of any products from ecosystems, but are the result of the general functioning of an ecosystem (for example, "services" for cleaning and filtering air by trees, as a result of which the renewal of clean atmospheric air is ensured), and also its individual parts (for example, the physical condition of mountain landscapes, providing beautiful views). They represent an important component of the planet's total economic value and allow the formalization and measurement of links between ecosystems and their beneficiaries (users). Thus, the term “services” is used in this context from the standpoint of a comprehensive approach, covering a wide variety of elements and ways people receive different benefits (benefits) from ecosystems.
The real flow of ES depends on the ecosystem's ability to provide services and the demand for it. The interpretation of this interaction will vary depending on the type of service (eg provisioning versus regulation). The provision of ecosystem services is sustainable when their flow does not increase pressures or impair the ability of ecosystems to self-develop. EI flow regulation is an activity performed to reduce anthropogenic pressure or to artificially support the vitality of ecosystems, as well as increase their productivity.
The use of the ES concept makes it possible to significantly expand the range of ecosystem design tasks, such as: (1) protecting or preserving residual ecosystems, (2) providing links between surviving green areas to reduce fragmentation of anthropo-altered ecosystems, (3) restoring degraded ecosystems, (4) conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in human-dominated ecosystems, (5) reduction of human-dominated ecosystems vulnerability in the face of climate imbalances.
3.11. Capital theory expands the scope of traditional concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and allows decision-makers and stakeholders to maximize the usefulness of their decisions in the context of a systematic understanding of the processes of formation of aggregate wealth. Conclusions within the framework of strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments of economic activity projects acquire a completely new meaning, it becomes possible to correctly assess the amount of damage and determine the necessary compensation measures, justify the costs of preserving biodiversity and habitats, maintaining and managing specially protected natural areas. The UN standard for environmental-economic accounting (SEEA- System of Environmental-Economic Accounting)[28], as well as national standards, became the regulatory framework and unifying platform for the new measurement system.
Figure 7. The economic value of ecosystem and abiotic services of the Novokuznetsk municipal district of the Kemerovo region.
3.12. In the applied aspect, solving various problems of increasing the sustainability of human-dominated ecosystems in a full world, aimed at solving both narrow, special, and complex tasks, we concentrate efforts on the following main areas:
defining goals and priorities for sustainable development of territories, communities, business structures with attention to the value concepts of stakeholders as carriers of knowledge about the dominant system of values and views;
comprehensive optimization of territorial infrastructure - green, blue, linear, etc.;
high-quality adjustment of the institutional environment in order to prevent and reduce the intensity of conflicts of interest arising from the implementation of design decisions;
creation of a new information foundation based on sustainable development indicators (sustainability capital, ESG, etc.), risk assessment (health, environmental, climatic and environmental, business, etc.), on local knowledge, practices, identity, beliefs, worldview etc.
Figure 8. Presentation by G. A. Fomenko, Doctor of Science in Geography, within the Russian Federation delegation, at the 5th OECD / UNECE Joint Seminar on the Implementation of the SEEA with the report "Development of the SEEA and Ecosystem Accounts in the Russian Federation: Prospects, Opportunities and Challenges" (February, 2020). Presentation: https://unece.org/statistics/events/joint-oecdunece-seminar-implementation-seea
creating development strategies for regions, business strategies, climate strategies, etc., as well as regulatory legal documents, standards, recommendations, etc.;
support of the European "green deal" and others, strategic environmental assessment (SEA), environmental impact assessment (EIA), calculation of the amount of environmental damage and determination of compensation measures;
development of projects and plans for sustainable infrastructure development (road, water, green, etc.);
selection of technologies, development of institutional and infrastructural measures to reduce the risks for resilience of areas of climatic disasters. Specific measures for climate adaptation of households and farms, business;
development and justification of projects for the conservation, restoration and creation of new ecosystems and the ecosystem services;
selection and implementation of mechanisms to prevent and reduce the intensity of socio-cultural conflicts due to access to development resources;
justification, support, assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of investments and international technical assistance projects in accordance with the Equator Principles;
implementation of a risk-based approach to environmental safety management. Assessment and management of health, environmental, climatic risks, risks of loss of ecosystem services;
development of reports for businesses and regions, for submission to national and international rating systems - GRI, TCFD, CDP. Preparation of state and regional reports on the state and protection of the environment, corporate integrated reports on sustainable development, etc.;
project support for exported and imported climate and nature-saving technologies;
development of macroeconomic indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency of strategies, plans and projects, including the value of natural assets and flows of use, ecosystem services, etc. in accordance with SPEO and EEE standards;
environmental design, environmental engineering documentation, etc.
3.14. The foundation of our work (group of companies Institute for Sustainable Innovations) is a systematic approach to solving the problems of increasing the sustainability of regions and business development in the face of increasing uncertainties and risks. The research results are implemented within Bachelor and Master programs in Yaroslavl State Technical University - "Water use and environmental management on a sustainable basis", "Infrastructure support of territorial development" and "Spatial design, urban zoning and territory planning". We have implemented more than 200 different projects, each of which is supported by a team of high-level specialists. Our main clients: business, banks and investment organizations, international technical support organizations, local and regional governments, national governments, scientific and public organizations.
4. Our team
Our team, which today includes G.A. Fomenko, D.Sc. in Geograhy; M.A. Fomenko, Ph.D. in Geograhy; K.A. Loshadkin, Ph.D. in Geograhy; A.V. Mikhailova, Ph.D. in Geograhy; O.V. Ladygina, Ph.D. in Technical Sciencies, A.E. Borodkin, Ph.D. in Geograhy, and others, since the beginning of its formation in the 90s of the 20th century, inspired by the ideas of the Brundtland Commission [29], is aimed at implementing the ideas of sustainable development in a variety of form - from in-depth research to specific consulting and project results. We offer solutions to government authorities, the private sector and local communities that increase their resilience in the face of growing uncertainties and risks. For more details, see the Information Center of the Research and Production Association "Institute for Sustainable Innovations".
Doctor of Science in Geography, Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, member of the Scientific and Technical Council of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, Expert for international projects in the UNDP database.
