Risk of Environmental Management in Countries of European Union
https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2021-18-3-46-63
Abstract
An assessment of the risk of environmental management for the countries of the European Union was carried out on the basis of two main criteria — natural hazard and protection from natural disasters. Natural hazard consists of natural processes of various origins — lithospheric, hydrospheric, atmospheric and biospheric, which are considered dangerous within the entire state according to official data, as well as protection from natural disasters and disasters at the state level. The last criterion is calculated on the basis of a number of socio-economic and environmental indicators for the EU countries: gross domestic product, the share of the working-age population and the population living below the poverty line, telecommunications and transport coefficients, life expectancy and literacy of the population, child mortality, and the intensity of environmental problems. The relationship between the level of economic development and the level of risk of environmental management in individual EU countries has not been established. So, highly developed countries fall into all risk categories: Italy. Austria and Germany — high risk, France, Netherlands and Belgium — medium risk, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark — low risk. Conversely, underdeveloped countries are also present in all categories: Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania — high risk, Latvia. Lithuania — medium risk, Estonia — low risk. Therefore, when assessing the risk of environmental management, its subsequent analysis and management of natural and natural-man-made emergencies, one should not rely only on indicators of the level of economic development in countries, for example, GDP, as well as on environmental standards established, albeit at the international level, such as MPC, MPI of harmful substances in soils, plants, water bodies, atmospheric air, etc. Taking into account direct indicators and damage from past events in assessing the risk of natural resource use also suffers from a number of drawbacks. A differentiated approach is required.
About the Author
Sergey B. Kuzmin
Institute of Geography mem. V.B. Sotchava, Siberian Branch of the RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ulan-Batorskaya str., 1, Irkutsk, 664033
References
1. Arpad G. Danube macroregion on the map of the European Union // Contemporary Europe, 2011. No. 2. P. 54—61 (In Russ).
2. Byzov A.P., Efremov S.V., Lukina D.V., Pelekh M.T. Socio-economic aspects of acceptable risk // Bulletin of the St. Petersburg Institute of the State Fire Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, 2019. No. 2. P. 166—173 (In Russ.)]
3. Vitchak E.L., Grushitsin A.S., Danilina M.V. et al. Elaboration of economic model for emergency situation // Moni toring. Science and Technology, 2020. No. 1. P. 99—102 (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.25714/MNT.2020.43.012]
4. Vlasova O.S. Dangerous natural processes. Volgograd: VolgGASU Publishing House, 2015. 104 p. (In Russ.)
5. Gorodnova N.V. State risk management. Ekaterinburg: Publishing house of the Ural Federal University, 2016. 108 p. (In Russ.)
6. Knaub R.V., Ignatieva A.V. The development of complex regional systems under the influence of disasters of various genesis // Geopolitics and Exogeodynamics of Regions, 2020. Vol. 6(16). No. 2. P. 127—136 (In Russ.)]
7. Kosov Yu., Gribanova G. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: Challenges and Perspectives of International Cooperation, Baltijskij region, Vol. 8, no. 2, p. 48—66 (In Russ.) doi: 10.5922/2074-9848-2016-2-3]
8. Kuzmin S.B. Evaluation of Economic Activity Risk under Conditionof Disasters along the Worls Countries// Izvestiya RAN. Geographical Series, 2007. No. 4. P. 86—96 (In Russ.)]
9. Kuzmin S.B. Hazardous geomorphological processes and the risk of environmental management. Novosibirsk: Publishing house «GEO», 2009. 195 p. (In Russ.)]
10. Kuzmin S.B. World assessments of the risk of environmental management // Problems of Modern Science and Education, 2015. No. 10 (40). P. 120—125 (In Russ.)]
11. Kuzmin S.B. Comparative Nature Management Risk Assessment in the Russian Federation Districts. Issues of Risk Analysis. Vol. 17. 2020. № 5. P. 48—71 (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2020-17-5-48-71]
12. Malneva I.V. Natural catastrophes, connected with hazardous geological processes, and their prediction // Life of the Earth, 2017. Vol. 39. No. 1. P. 12—25 (In Russ.)]
13. Mongush B.S. The gist and content of the notion of environment and economic risk / Economics and Business: Theory and Practice, 2017. No. 11. P. 140—143 (In Russ.)]
14. Osipov V.I. Natural disasters: analysis of development and ways to minimize consequences // Analysis, forecast and management of natural risks in the modern world. Ed. V.I. Osipov. Moscow: Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, 2015. P. 7—24 (In Russ.)]
15. Khodakov V.E., Sokolova N.A. Natural and climatic factors and socioeconomic systems. Moscow: NITs INFRA-M Press, 2016. 604 p. (In Russ.)]
16. Khorev A.I., Grigorieva V.V. The Comparative Analysis of the Level of Economic Security of the States // Development and Security, 2019. No. 2. P. 46—59 (In Russ.)]
17. Shekhovtsev O.A. The role of the state in the management of catastrophic natural risks // Socio-economic aspects of managerial decision-making. Ed. S.M. Lyashenko. Moscow: Publishing house of the Academy of civil fire protection, 2018. P. 66—72 (In Russ.)]
18. Antoniano‐Villalobos I., Borgonovo E., Siriwardena S. Which parameters are important? Differential importance under uncertainty // Risk Analysis, 2018. Vol. 38. Issue 11. P. 2459—2477. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13125
19. Barrios, Candelaria & Flores, Esther & Martínez, M. (2019). Club convergence in innovation activity across European regions. Papers in Regional Science. 98. DOI: 10.1111/pirs.12429.
20. Berz G. & Kron W. & Loster T. & Rauch E. & Schime tschek J. & Schmieder J. & Siebert A. & Smolka A. & Wirtz A. (2001). World Map of Natural Hazards — A Global View of the Distribution and Intensity of Signi ficant Exposures. Natural Hazards. 23. 443—465. DOI: 10.1023/A:1011193724026
21. Capello R., Cerisola S. Competitiveness through integra tion in the European Union Strategy for Alpine Region // European Planning Studies, 2019. Vol. 27. Issue 5. P. 1013—1034.
22. Chapman S., Miliciani V. Pan-European convergence path: the role of innovation, specialization and socio-economic factors // Growth and Change, 2017. Vol. 48. Issue 1. P. 61—90.
23. Halkos, George & Zisiadou, Argyro. (2019). Examining the Natural Environmental Hazards Over the Last Century. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change. 3. DOI: 10.1007/s41885-018-0037-2
24. Johnson L.A., Olshansky R.B. After Great Disasters: An InDepth Analysis of How Six Countries Managed Community Recovery. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Press, 2017. 376 p.
25. Keller E.A., DeVecchio D.E. Natural hazards: Earth’s processes as hazards, disasters, and catastrophes. Redwood City: Benjamin Cummings Publishers, 2019. 664 p.
26. Marelli Enrico & Parisi Maria Laura & Signorelli Marcello. (2019). Economic convergence in the EU and Eurozone. Journal of Economic Studies. 46. 1332—1344. DOI: 10.1108/JES-03-2019-0139
27. Milne J. Earthquakes and Other Earth Movements. NewYork: Nova Science Publishers, 2020. 380 p.
28. Padbury S. Emergency Management: An Overview and Issues for Congress. New-York: Nova Science Publishers, 2018. 222 p.
29. Pimentel J., Dutra Th., Ribeiro R.S. et al. Risk assessment and hazard mapping technique in projects for strengthening national strategy of integrated natural disaster risk management // International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering, 2020. Vol. 13. No 1. P. 35—47.
30. Rohan P., Kironmala C., Chandra D.S. Spatial variation of multi-hazard susceptibility across India // Disaster Advances, 2020. Vol. 13. No 4. P. 59—71.
31. Romero D. Natural Disasters: Risk Assessment, Management Strategies and Challenges. New-York: Nova Science Publishers, 2016. 271 p.
32. Walsh B., Hallegatte S. Measuring natural risks in the Philippines: socioeconomic resilience and wellbeing losses // Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 2020. Vol. 4. P. 249—293.
33. Ward P.J., Blauhut V., Bloemendaal N. et al. Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale // Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 2020. Vol. 20. No 4. P. 1069—1096. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-403
Review
For citations:
Kuzmin S.B. Risk of Environmental Management in Countries of European Union. Issues of Risk Analysis. 2021;18(3):46-63. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32686/1812-5220-2021-18-3-46-63
Views:
544
Email this article 