96
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.67.07.9
How to Cite:
Shults, S., Yanovych, A., Prytula, K., Ozarko, K., & Bilyk, I. (2023). Resource productivity in an economy of regions: analysis of
foreign experience. Amazonia Investiga, 12(67), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.67.07.9
Resource productivity in an economy of regions: analysis of foreign
experience
Продуктивність ресурсів економіки регіонів: аналіз зарубіжного досвіду
Received: May 27, 2023 Accepted: July 19, 2023
Written by:
Svitlana Shults1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5603-5603
Arsenii Yanovych2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9039-2735
Khrystyna Prytula3
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3846-2393
Kateryna Ozarko4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-0686
Iryna Bilyk5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2513-078X
Abstract
The objective of writing the article is to research
existing foreign experience in the field of resource
productivity, methods of its assessment in
developed countries, in particular in the European
Union and Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development members, and the possibility of
implementing such experience in Ukraine. The
article highlights the main methodical approaches
to measuring resource productivity in the countries
of the European Union and the OECD. The
dynamics of resource productivity in comparison
with GDP and DMC in the EU in 2000-2021 were
studied. The productivity of resources in the EU in
2021 was analysed in terms of member states, and
countries were grouped according to the level of the
specified indicator. According to the methodology
used in the EU and OECD, the calculation and
analysis of resource productivity in Ukraine and the
L’viv region in 2017-2020 was carried out.
Keywords: consumption of material resources,
productivity, resources, sustainable development.
1 Doctor of Economics, SI «Institute of Regional Research named after M. I. Dolishniy of NAS of Ukraine», Head of the Department of
Regional Economic Policy, Ukraine.
2 PhD student, SI «Institute of Regional Research named after M. I. Dolishniy of NAS of Ukraine», senior engineer, Ukraine.
(corresponding author)
3 Doctor of Economics, SI «Institute of Regional Research named after M. I. Dolishniy of NAS of Ukraine», Head of the Sector of
Cross-Border Cooperation, Ukraine.
4 PhD in Economics, O.S. Popov Odesa National Academy of Telecommunications, director of the Research Institute of Information
Communications, Ukraine.
5 PhD in Economics, Lviv Polytechnic National University, associate professor of marketing and logistics department of the Institute
of Economics and Management, Ukraine.
Shults, S., Yanovych, A., Prytula, K., Ozarko, K., Bilyk, I. / Volume 12 - Issue 67: 96-105 / July, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
97
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Introduction
The concept of sustainable development is
considered to be one of the dominant ideas of the
XXI century. Its appearance was a consequence
of the world community’s awareness of the need
to ensure the coherence of current and future
generations’ interests in a way that the economic
growth should take place taking into account the
fundamental limitations of existing resources and
the importance of harmonizing the links between
ecological, economic and social systems.
Since the signing of the association agreement
with the European Union in 2014 and receiving
the status of a candidate for EU membership in
2022, Ukraine has started to join the
implementation of sustainable development
concept priorities and the observation system of
their realization. In this context, the problem of
evaluating and monitoring resource productivity,
which is implemented in the practice of the EU,
becomes extremely relevant. We should also note
that the issue of productivity is constantly in the
field of European science view and practice. To
improve the existing methods of assessing
resource productivity and deepening knowledge
in the field of resource use and its impact on the
environment, OECD countries have prepared a
number of recommendations for increasing
resource productivity. In addition, the
organization emphasized its positive attitude to
the experience exchange in matters of resource
productivity with countries that are not OECD
members. At the same time, the mentioned
recommendations concerned only those natural
resources whose production, processing, and
usage have international importance from an
ecological and economic point of view, in
particular non-metallic minerals, ores, and
biomass (OECD, 2008a). Besides, the G7
countries defined an action plan for the
implementation of the so-called 3R initiative -
reduce, reuse, recycle - which provided for the
reduction of resource consumption, their reuse
and recycling. The 3R policy is one of the steps
aimed at achieving the so-called decoupling, i.e.
breaking the linear relationship between
economic growth and the number of resources
used (G7 Information Centre, 2008). This is
extremely important because ensuring
sustainable development involves maximizing
resource productivity while minimizing resource
intensity. Thus, the productivity of using
resource potential is one of the key indicators of
sustainable development (Zablodska et al., 2020;
Shults et al., 2021, Prytula et al 2021).
The full-scale armed aggression of the Russian
Federation has caused significant destruction of
production facilities as well as infrastructural and
logistics facilities and provoked a number of
restrictions on Ukraine and the economic
development of its regions. These will exacerbate
the resource productivity issue. Under the current
circumstances, European experience will be
useful for Ukraine from the point of view of
identifying and improving existing approaches to
resource productivity assessment. Adaptation of
the methodological approaches of the EU
member states in Ukraine and conducting
domestic scientific research on the
modernization of the methods for assessing
resource productivity use is an important and
timely task for Ukrainian science.
Methods review
The evaluation of resource productivity in the EU
is carried out by the European Commission,
which conducts annual monitoring of this
indicator based on Eurostat data using methods
unified for all EU member states. A similar
approach to calculating resource productivity is
also used by the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development. The only
difference between these methods is the
constituent components that are included in the
biomass. While in the EU this category includes
materials of organic origin used for the
production of biofuel, in the OECD, biomass
includes agricultural crops used in the food
industry and agriculture, including feed (Eurostat
Statisctics Explained, 2023a; OECD, 2015).
According to the specified method, a resource
productivity indicator is calculated according to
formula 1:
RP = GDP
DMC + import - export (1)
where GDP is gross domestic product, DMC is
domestic material consumption, while imports
and exports are calculated in physical measures
(OECD 2008a, Eurostat Statisctics Explained
2023b).
With the aim of comparing EU member states by
the level of resource productivity and eliminating
the difference between national currencies,
calculations are presented in the purchasing
power standard (PPS) per kilogram. DMC
calculation is carried out for such main categories
of resources as ores, fossil energy materials,
98
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
biomass, and non-metallic minerals (Eurostat
Statisctics Explained, 2023a).
It is worth noting that when assessing resource
productivity by EU and OECD countries, water
resources are not taken into account and land
resources are evaluated indirectly, due to the
number of mineral fertilizers used in agriculture
(OECD, 2008c, 2015).
Nowadays, Ukraine does not assess resource
productivity according to the EU or OECD
methods.
The assessment of resource productivity is
carried out only at the level of individual
enterprises through the prism of accounting.
Therefore, natural resources are included into
long-term assets for which the depletion rate and
depletion costs are calculated according to
formulas 2 and 3:
Nd = Ct
Vt
, (2)
where Nd is the rate of depletion; Ct - purchase
cost of the resource or field (total cost); Vt –
explored reserves or the total volume of the
resource;
Ce= Nd × Ve , (3)
where Ce is the cost of expenditure; Ve is the
volume of extracted resources (Voronko, 2018).
Using formulas 2 and 3, some Ukrainian
researchers propose to determine the productivity
of resources according to formula 4:
RP = GDP
Ce
, (4)
where GDP is gross domestic product Ce is the
cost of expenditure (Bobukh, 2014).
The methods of assessing resource productivity
used in Ukraine have several significant
drawbacks, particularly, the purchase price does
not always correspond to the real value of the
resource or deposit; since its own rate of
depletion is determined for each individual
deposit, it does not allow the calculation of the
investigated indicator in a regional or national
dimension.
Therefore, we propose to calculate the
productivity of resources in the regions of
Ukraine as follows:
RPr = GRP
RMC + import - export , (5)
where GRP is gross regional product; RMC -
regional material consumption.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of the results of resource
productivity assessment in the EU according to
the current methods proved that resource
productivity dynamics in the EU are not stable
and shows that:
− The dominance of the share of non-metallic
minerals in the structure of DMC. Thus, in
2021, the specific weight of non-metallic
minerals was 53%, while the shares of
biomass, fossil energy materials, and ores
were 23%, 18%, and 6%, respectively
(Eurostat Statisctics Explained, 2023a).
− The growth of resource productivity against
the background of the upward trend of GDP
dynamics and the unstable dynamics of
DMC. During the years 2000-2021, we
observe two peaks of downward trends in
productivity, which are associated with the
consequences of the economic crises of 2008
and the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 1)
We would like to add that from 2000 to 2008 we
recorded a parallel growth of GDP and DMC,
which was correspondingly reflected in the
stability of the resource productivity indicator
during this period. The financial crisis of 2008
provoked changes in the dynamics of all the
above-mentioned indicators. There was a sharp
reduction in consumption in comparison with a
relatively small decrease in the GDP indicator.
This had a positive effect on the dynamics of the
resource productivity indicator, and by 2010, it
had increased by 15%. According to the G7 and
OECD reports, the financial crisis of 2008 led to
a decline in the mining industry in almost all EU
member states (OECD, 2008b).
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
99
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Figure 1. Resource productivity compared to GDP and DMC in the EU in 2000-2021 (Index 2000 = 100%)
Source: (Eurostat Statisctics Explained, 2023c)
In addition, there was a drop in the purchasing
power of resident citizens, and, accordingly, a
drop in the demand for resources themselves.
From 2008 to 2016, there was an increase in the
GDP of the EU member states and a downward
trend in the DMC indicator (except for 2011),
which provoked a short-term decrease in the
level of resource productivity. During 2016-
2019, all three indicators grew up. It is worth
noting that the impact of the crisis caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic was different from the
2008 crisis: the decrease in resource productivity
in the EU was insignificant compared to the
previous crisis period. Thus, during the period
2000-2021, the level of resource productivity in
the EU increased by 35% (Eurostat Statisctics
Explained, 2023c).
Analyzing the indicator of resource productivity
in the EU, we note a significant differentiation
level of this indicator in EU member states
(Table 1). As we can see, the highest resource
productivity in 2021 was in the Netherlands
(≈ 2.5 times higher than the average),
Luxembourg, and Italy (≈ 1.5 times higher than
the average). The indicator of Slovenia was the
closest to the average value of resource
productivity in the EU (2.3 PPS/kg), and in
Denmark, Sweden and Hungary it was
approximately three-quarters of the average
indicator for the EU. The lowest resource
productivity in 2021 was in Bulgaria and
Romania (≈ 3 times less than the average).
100
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 1.
Resource productivity in EU member states in 2021
Source: compiled and calculated by the authors based on Eurostat data
Taking into account the significant
differentiation of EU member states in terms of resource productivity, we consider it appropriate
to single out 4 groups of countries (Table 2).
per
PPS
GDP
capita
per capita
DMC
Resource productivity
(PPS per
capita)
(tonnes per
capita)
(PPS per
kilogram)
(Index EU = 100%)
EU
European Union
32 334
14,1
2,3
100,0
NL
Netherlands
42 344
7,4
5,7
249,8
LU
Luxembourg
89 661
25,1
3,6
157,5
IT
Italy
30 636
8,9
3,4
150,2
IE
Ireland
71 186
22,4
3,2
139,0
FR
France
33 734
10,9
3,1
136,3
ES
Spain
27 214
9,1
3,0
130,0
BE
Belgium
39 251
14,0
2,8
123,1
MT
Malta
31 955
11,8
2,7
119,0
DE
Germany
38 630
14,2
2,7
118,5
SI
Slovenia
29 103
12,7
2,3
99,7
EL
Greece
20 878
9,8
2,1
92,8
AT
Austria
38 936
19,1
2,0
89,2
HR
Croatia
22 576
11,3
1,9
84,3
CZ
Czech
29 498
15,5
1,9
83,1
SK
Slovakia
22 016
11,9
1,9
81,0
DK
Denmark
43 300
25,2
1,7
75,0
SE
Sweden
40 145
25,1
1,6
70,2
HU
Hungary
24 529
15,3
1,6
70,0
LV
Latvia
23 007
14,5
1,6
69,0
CY
Cyprus
28 392
19,0
1,5
65,6
PT
Portugal
23 970
16,9
1,4
61,8
PL
Poland
24 961
18,0
1,4
61,0
LT
Lithuania
28 399
21,2
1,3
58,7
FI
Finland
36 495
35,0
1,0
45,6
EE
Estonia
28 155
29,4
1,0
41,8
RO
Romania
23 529
29,0
0,8
35,5
BG
Bulgaria
17 849
22,4
0,8
34,7
CH
Switzerland
47 933
10,5
4,6
199,4
IS
Iceland
35 671
15,0
2,4
103,7
NO
Norway
41 858
23,7
1,8
77,1
TR
Turkey
18 466
10,6
1,7
75,8
MK
North Macedonia
11 172
9,0
1,2
54,2
AL
Albania
9 524
7,9
1,2
52,9
BA
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
10 104
11,2
0,9
39,2
Serbia
12 758
19,0
0,7
29,3
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
101
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 2.
Grouping of EU member states according to the main trends in the distribution of resource productivity
indicators in 2021
Group
States
Average PPS (
PPS
GDP )per capita
Average DMC
tonnes per ( )capita
Average resource
productivity
I
, Luxembourg, Netherlands , Spain, France, Ireland, Italy Germany, Malta, Belgium
44 957
13,8
3,4
II
, Austria, Greece, Slovenia Slovakia, Czech, Croatia
27 168
13,4
2
IIІ
, Hungary, Sweden, Denmark , Portugal, Cyprus, Latvia Lithuania, Poland
29 588
19,4
1,5
IV
, Romania, Estonia, Finland
Bulgaria
26 507
29
0,9
Source: compiled and calculated by the authors based on Eurostat data
• I - Countries where the resource productivity
indicator is higher than the European
average (> 100%); In particular, this group
includes all EU member states that are part
of the G7 and Benelux countries;
• II – Countries where the resource
productivity indicator is close to the
European average (80 - 100%);
• ІІІ – Countries where the resource
productivity indicator is lower than the
European average (60 - 80%);
• IV – Countries with a low level of resource
productivity in relation to the European level
(< 60%).
The analysis of selected groups of countries
allows us to conclude the intensive type of
economic growth in the countries of group I and
extensive in the countries of group IV. The
distribution of the formed groups of countries by
the level of resource productivity is presented in
Figure 2.
Our calculations of the Pearson correlation
coefficient, which ranges from 0.92 to 0.97,
proved the existence of a close relationship
between the indicators of GDP and DMC in each
of the groups.
The resource productivity indicator of Ukraine
calculated according to the European methods in
2021 was 0.47€/kg, which indicates that Ukraine
belongs to the group of countries with an
extensive type of development. It should be
noted that in the structure of DMC, we took into
account agglomerated iron ores and concentrates,
fossil energy materials (hard coal, crude oil,
natural gas, peat), non-metallic minerals
(construction sands; limestone and limestone
flux; other crushed stone, which used as a filler
in concrete and also for road surfacing and
similar purposes; clays; gypsum and anhydrite;
siliceous and quartz sands; chalk; crumb,
granules and powder of travertine, granite,
porphyry, basalt, sandstone, and other stone;
kaolin; salt stone) and biomass (cereal and
leguminous crops, sugar beet, sunflower,
soybean, rape and rapeseed, potatoes, vegetable
crops, fodder root crops, fodder corn, annual
grasses for hay, perennial grasses for hay, fruit
and berry crops, grapes, flax, meat, milk).
102
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Figure 2. Distribution of EU countries by the level of resource productivity in 2021
a – GDP was counted in Euro (per capita)
Source: compiled by the authors based on Eurostat data
During 2017-2022, the resource productivity
indicator in Ukraine increased by 38% and was
the highest in 2020 (Table 3). This situation was
caused by the growth of the country's GDP and
the fall in DMC caused by the COVID-19
pandemic. The methodical approach to resource
productivity assessment, which is used by the
European Commission, should also be used at the
regional level. A comparative analysis of the
productivity of the use of resource potential and
the efficiency of its use in the regions of Ukraine
will be useful in making strategic decisions
regarding the post-war reconstruction of the
country, which will require significant resources.
Table 3.
Resource productivity in Ukraine in 2017-2020
Source: compiled and calculated by the authors based on State Statistics Service of Ukraine data and
National Bank of Ukraine data
According to the proposed method, we calculated
the corresponding indicators of resource
productivity for the L’viv region for the period
2017-2020 (not including imports and exports,
due to lack of data in physical measures), which
is shown in Table 4. We note that the structure of
RMC takes into account the resources that the
region possesses, including fossil energy
materials (hard coal, crude oil, natural gas), non-
metallic minerals (building sand; limestone and
limestone flux, other crushed stone, which is
used as a concrete filler and also for road
surfacing and similar purposes; clay) and
biomass (cereal and leguminous crops, sugar
Ukraine
2017
2018
2019
2020
UAH billion, linked volumes-GDP in chain
2981,2
3560,3
3977,2
4191,9
million tonnes, DMC
294,2
308,8
305,4
289,1
UAH per kilogram, Resource productivity
10,1
11,5
13,0
14,5
Euro average exchange rate, UAH per €
30
32,1
28,6
30,8
€ per kilogram, Resource productivity
0,34
0,36
0,45
0,47
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
103
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
beet, sunflower, soybean, rape and rapeseed,
potatoes, vegetable crops, fodder roots, fodder corn, annual grasses for hay, perennial grasses
for hay, fruit and berry crops, meat, milk).
Table 4.
Resource productivity in L’viv region in 2017-2020
a Categories such as forage corn, annual grasses for hay, perennial grasses for hay, limestone and limestone
flux and clays for 2020 were calculated as an arithmetic average for 2017-2019.
Source: compiled and calculated by the authors based on State Statistics Service of Ukraine data
The analysis of the resource productivity
dynamics of the L’viv region shows the trend of
annual growth of this indicator and the
achievement of its maximum value in 2020. We
only note that RMC in L’viv region remained
practically unchanged, and the growth of the
resource productivity indicator is observed due to
the growth of the GRP of the region. During
2017-2020, the resource productivity of the
region increased by 51%, which is 13% higher
than the national indicator.
Comparing the productivity of resources in
Ukraine and the L’viv region for the period 2017-
2020, we note that the regional indicator over the
last three years was higher than its national level
(Figure 3). This situation testifies to the
significant resource potential of the region and
the sufficiently high efficiency of its use.
Figure 3. Comparison of resource productivity and its indicators in Ukraine and L’viv region in 2017-2020
(2017 = 100%)
Source: compiled by authors based on Table 3 and Table 4
Conclusions
Therefore, resource productivity is one of the
significant indicators characterizing to what
extent sustainable development tasks are
achieved. Since Ukraine is a candidate for
membership in the European Union, the
implementation of the methods of calculating
resource productivity is only a matter of time.
Therefore, evaluating the productivity of the
resources of Ukraine's regions in accordance
with European practice should become an
important task on the way to the implementation
of European integration reforms.
L’viv region
2017
2018
2019
2020
linked volumes, billion UAH-GRP in chain
147,4
177,2
214,5
236,3
RMC, million tonnes
11012,3
11493,6
11330,7
a
11246,0
Resource productivity, UAH per kilogram
13,4
15,4
18,9
21,0
Euro average exchange rate, UAH per €
30
32,1
28,6
30,8
Resource productivity, € per kilogram
0,45
0,48
0,66
0,68
104
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The implementation of resource productivity
monitoring of Ukraine regions will allow
identifying competitive advantages and problems
of preserving and using the resource potential of
each region in the process of post-war
reconstruction of the country. In addition, such
monitoring will make it possible to assess the
current state of achieving the goals of sustainable
development and suggest solutions to improve
the efficiency of regions` resource potential use.
However, in order to accept such monitoring in
Ukraine, the system of statistical indicators
should be improved, in particular, regarding the
accounting of foreign trade in physical measures.
This is crucial because a significant share of the
products produced is aimed at export markets and
cannot be included in the internal consumption of
resources.
Bibliographic references
Bobukh, I.M. (2014). The productivity of
resources – parts of the national wealth – as a
basic determinant of sustainable
development. Economics of Development,
2(70), 15-24. Available at:
http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/ecro_2014_2_5
Eurostat Statisctics Explained (2023a).
Glossary:Biomass. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Biomass
Eurostat Statisctics Explained (2023b). Material
flow accounts and resource productivity.
Available at: https://acortar.link/SotkEl
Eurostat Statisctics Explained (2023c). Resource
productivity statistics. Available at:
https://acortar.link/bsbvNp
G7 Information Centre. (2008). G8 Environment
Ministers Meeting 2008 Kobe 3R Action
Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/environment/env
080526-3R.pdf
National Bank of Ukraine (2023). Official
hryvnia exchange rate against foreign
currencies (period average). Available at:
https://bank.gov.ua/en/markets/exchangerate
s
OECD (2008a). Measuring material flow and
resource productivity, Vol 1, The OECD
Guide, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at:
https://acortar.link/EZ6I6d
OECD (2008b). Resource Productivity in the G8
and the OECD, A Report in the
Framework of the Kobe 3R Action Plan. Av
ailable at:
https://www.oecd.org/env/waste/resourcepro
ductivityintheg8andtheoecd.htm
OECD (2008c). Recommendation of the Council
on Resource Productivity. Available at:
https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/
52/52.en.зdf
OECD (2015). Material Resources, Productivity
and the Environment, OECD Greeen Growth
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available
at:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190504-
en
Prytula Kh. M., Shults S. L., Samilo A. V., &
Maslov. V. O. (2021).The magnitude and
nature of the shadow economy in ukrainian
border regions. Financial and Credit Activity
Problems of Theory and Practice, 4(31),
394–401.
https://doi.org/10.18371/fcaptp.v4i31.19095
8
Shults, S., Lutskiv, O,. Simkiv, L., & Andrusiv,
U. (2021). Analysis of the Dynamics of
Structural Processes in the Context of
Ensuring Sustainable Development.
European Journal of Sustainable
Development, 10(1), 153-167.
https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2021.v10n1p15
3
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020). The
agriculture of Lviv region for 2019. Available
at:
http://www.lv.ukrstat.gov.ua/ukr/publ/2020/
ZB0420200101.pdf
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2020). The
industry of Lviv region for 2019. Available
at:
http://www.lv.ukrstat.gov.ua/ukr/publ/2020/
ZB0320200101.pdf
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2021).
Statistical yearbook of Ukraine for 2020.
Available at:
https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat
_u/2021/zb/11/Yearbook_2020_e.pdf
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2021). The
agriculture of Lviv region for 2020 analytical
report. Available at:
https://www.lv.ukrstat.gov.ua/ukr/publ/2021
/DP0420210201.pdf
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2021). The
industry of Lviv region for 2020 analytical
report. Available at:
https://www.lv.ukrstat.gov.ua/ukr/publ/2021
/DP0320210201.pdf
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2022). Gross
Regional Product of Ukraine for 2020.
Available at:
https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat
_u/2022/zb/05/zb_vvp_2020.pdf
State Statistics Service of Ukraine (2022). Lviv
region in figures for 2021. Available at:
Volume 12 - Issue 67
/ July 2023
105
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
http://www.lv.ukrstat.gov.ua/ukr/publ/2022/
ZB0120220201.pdf
Voronko, R. M. (2018). Accounting in foreign
countries. Lviv, Magnolia 2006. Available at:
https://subj.ukr-lit.com/oblik-u-zarubizhnix-
kra%d1%97nax-voronko-r-m/
Zablodska, I., Akhromkin, Y., Akhromkin, A,.
Bielousova, L., & Litvinova, I. M. (2020).
World Experience in Public Administration
of the Transformation of Energy-dependent
Regions in the Context of Their Sustainable
Development. Problems of Sustainable
Development, 15(2), 235-244.
http://repository.hneu.edu.ua/handle/123456
789/25023