Ukr. geogr. z. 2021, N2:50-57
Language of publication: 

O. Karasov - University of Tartu, Tartu;
I. Chervanyov - V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv.


The goal was to substantiate the concept of intangible nature use and review the methodological approaches to quantitative assessment of intangible natural resources. We reviewed a state-of-the-art body of knowledge in environmental protection and transformation of economic policy responding to the sustainable development goals. In this paper, we generalised a large research direction regarding relational values of nature – intangible nature use. This research direction has been increasingly recognised within the natural resources frameworks, as evident from the experience of intergovernmental (IPBES) and national initiatives, and a recent shift of global GDP’s structure towards intangible components. Such a research direction is fruitful in the context of reprioritisation of values of nature of industrial era towards informational industries to resolve the contradictions between the potentially endless economic growth (based on instrumental values of nature) and nature protection activities. For the first time, we demonstrate how the international academic community (using diverse terminology and methodological frameworks, and often indirectly), gradually constitutes a new research domain on intangible nature use. We also highlight the prospects for decision-making and implementation of sustainable development practises in Ukraine.

Key words: 
intangible nature use, sustainable development, quantitative assessment of intangible natural resources, economic growth

1. McPhearson T., Raymond C., Gulsrud N., Albert C., Coles N., Fagerholm N/, Nagatsu M., Olafsson A.S., Soininen N., Vierikko K/ (2021). Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability, 1, 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x
2. Purvis B., Mao Y., Robinson D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14, 681-695 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
3. Rudenko L.G., Lisovskyi S., Maruniak E (2020) Dilemmas of regional development in Ukraine. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 3, 36-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2020.03.036]
4. Bagrov N., Rudenko L., Chervanev I. (2012). "New" geography in ukrainian reality: mission and development trends. Geography, environment, sustainability , 5, 18-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2012-5-2-18-35
5. Angelstam P., Grodzynskyi M., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Khoroshev A., Kruhlov I., Naumov V. (2013). Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: Landscape concepts and Europe as Laboratory. Ambio, 42, 129-145 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0368-0
6. Nijhuis S., van Lammeren R., van der Hoeven F (eds). (2011). Exploring the visual landscape. Research in Urbanism Series. Vol. 2. Amsterdam, 336 p.
7. Bruley E., Locatelli B., Lavorel S. (2021). Nature's contributions to people: coproducing quality of life from multifunctional landscapes. Ecology and Society, 26 (1), 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12031-260112
8. OECD Tourism Trends and Policies (2020). Paris, 387p https://doi.org/10.1787/6b47b985-en.
9. De Soto H. (2000) The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. 288 p.
10. Dyba V.M. (2017). Accounting and analysis of intangible assets in the context of institutional change: theory and methodology. Manuscript. Thesis for a degree of doctor of economical sciences. Kyiv, 34 p. [In Ukrainian]. [Диба В.М. Облік та аналіз нематеріальних активів в умовах інституційних змін: теорія і методологія: автореф. дис... д-ра. екон. наук. Київ, 2017. 34 с.]
11. Tarasenko S.V. (2011). Ecological and economic principles of regional development based on the formation of intangible assets. Manuscript. Thesis for a degree of candidate of economical sciences in speciality 08.00.06. Sumy, 21 p. [In Ukrainian]. [Тарасенко С.Еколого-економічні засади регіонального розвитку на основі формування нематеріальних активів: автореф. … канд. екон. наук. 08.00.06. Суми, 2011. 21 с.]
12. Karasov O. (2020). Landscape metrics and cultural ecosystem services: an integrative resource-driven mapping approach for landscape harmony. A Thesis for applying for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Protection. Tartu, 187 p.
13. Schröter M., Başak E., Christie M., Church A., Keune H., Osipova E., Oteros-Rozas E., Sievers-Glotzbach S., van Oudenhoven A.P.E., Balvanera P., González D., Jacobs S., Molnár Z., Pascual U., Martín-López B. (2020). Indicators for relational values of nature's contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia. Ecosystems and People, 16, 50-69.
14. Chervanyov I.G., Karasov O.O. (2015).The intangible natural resources (INR) in the aspects of natural capital of new geography: some perspectives for Ukraine. Visnyk of V N Karazin Kharkiv National University, Series Geology. Geography. Ecology, 1157. Iss. 42, 106-110.
15. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2012). Rome, 134 p/
16. Stålhammar S., Thorén H. (2019). Three perspectives on relational values of nature. Sustainability Science. 14, 1201-1212 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00718-4
17. Klain SC, Olmsted P, Chan KMA, Satterfield T (2017) .Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLOS ONE 12:e0183962. URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183962 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183962
18. Espey J. (2019). Sustainable development will falter without data. Nature, 571 (7765), 299 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02139-w
19. Fritz S., Fonte C., See L. (2017) .The Role of Citizen Science in Earth Observation. Remote Sensing , 9 (4), 357. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/9/4/357/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9040357
20. Fücks R. (2013). Intelligent wachsen. Die grüne Revolution. Munchen, 371 p.
21. Price C (2017). Landscape Economics. London, 464 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-54873-9
22. TEEB (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Ed. by Pushpam Kumar. London and Washington, 422 p.
23. Potschin M.B., Haines-Young R.H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35 (5), 575-594.
24. Pascual U., Balvanera P., Díaz S., Pataki G., Roth E., Stenseke M., Watson R.T., Başak Dessane E., Islar M., Kelemen E., Maris V., Quaas M., Subramanian S.M., Wittmer H., Adlan A., Ahn S.E., Al-Hafedh Y.S., Amankwah E. Asah S.T., Berry P., Bilgin A., Breslow S..J, Bullock C., Cáceres D., Daly-Hassen H., Figueroa E., Golden C.D., Gómez-Baggethun E., González-Jiménez D., Houdet .J, Keune H., Kumar R., Ma K., May P.H., Mead A., O'Farrell P., Pandit R., Pengue W., Pichis-Madruga R. Popa F., Preston S., Pacheco-Balanza D., Saarikoski H., Strassburg B.B., van den Belt M., Verma M., Wickson F., Yagi N. (2017). Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26 - 27, 7 - 16.
25. Barton D.N., Obst C., Day B., Caparrós A., Dadvand P., Fenichel E., Havinga I., Hein L., McPhearson T., Randrup T. Z.G. (2019). Discussion paper 10: Recreation services from ecosystems. Paper submitted to the Expert Meeting on Advancing the Measurement of Ecosystem Services for Ecosystem Accounting. New York, 22-24 January 2019 and subsequently revised. Version of 25 March 2019, 55. URL: https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/discussion_paper_10_-_recreation_services_final_0.pd
26. Daniel T.C., Muhar A., Arnberger A., Aznar O., Boyd J.W., Chan K.M.A., Costanza R., Elmqvist T., Flint C.G., Gobster P.H., Grêt-Regamey A., Lave R., Muhar S., Penker M., Ribe R.G., Schauppenlehner T., Sikor T., Soloviy I., Spierenburg M., Taczanowska K,. Tam ., von der Dunk A. (2012) .Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109. 8812-9 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
27. Kirchhoff T. (2012). Pivotal cultural values of nature cannot be integrated into the ecosystem services framework. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (46), E3146. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212409109
28. Lothian A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44,177-198 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5
29. European Landscape Convention (2000). Council of Europe. Report and Convention. Florence, 7. URL: https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/the-european-landscape-convention
30. Forman R.T.T. (1995). Land mosaics : the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge, 632 p.
31. Waterton E (2019) More-than-representational landscapes. In: The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies, 91-101, London, 652 p.
32. Nowosad J., Stepinski T.F. (2019). Information theory as a consistent framework for quantification and classification of landscape patterns. Landscape Ecology, 34, 2091-2101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00830-x
33. Naveh Z., Lieberman A.S. (1984). Landscape ecology: theory and application. Springer-Verlag, New York, 341p.
34. Uuemaa E.,, Mander Ü., Marja R. (2013). Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review. Ecological Indicators, 28, 100-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2012.07.018
35. Karasov O., Külvik M., Burdun I. (2019). Deconstructing landscape pattern: applications of remote sensing to physiognomic landscape mapping. GeoJournal, 86, 529-555 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10058-6