Ural State Mining University, Yekaterinburg, Russia:

Dushin A. V., Associate Professor, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Acting Rector, rector@m.ursmu.ru
Yurak V. V., Candidate of Economic Sciences, Master of Management and Jurisprudence, Acting Rector Assistant

Total economic value concept operates as a consistent approach for economic evaluation of natural resources in the context of exacerbation of the ecological crisis and overexploitation of natural resources. However, the essence and structure are still the subject of scientific research. This article determines that along with the existence of subjective, ideal and real values, the subjective values are the most interesting from the point of view of economic evaluation and distribution within the framework of the total economic value concept. The presented genesis of the term of “value”, analysis of the total economic value concept development and the theory of ecosystem services contributed to the creation of an author’s approach to the distribution of values. We justify the inclusion in indirect value the cultural services as opposed to the direct value; option value takes into account the value in use by future individuals; we remobilize the quasi-option value in the structure of total economic value. The paper provides an improved total economic value model. This model takes into account the time aspect, the understanding of the term “value” and theoretical principles of ecosystem services and author’s principle of value evaluation – “based on the best possible alternative”. The practical implications of the research is to improve the economic mechanism of government regulation of natural resource management by clarifying and improving the consistent basis for the economic evaluation of the value of natural resources for making managerial decisions on their involvement in economic turnover.

1. Chernikova O. P., Baranov P. P. Environmental reporting in coal Mining. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2018. No. 3. pp. 82–85. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2018.03.14.
2. Zenkov I. V., Yuronen Yu. P., Nefedov B. N., Vokin V. N. Monitoring of ecosystem formation at open pit mines and waste dumps in the area of Bazhenovsky asbestos deposit by means of the earth remote sensing. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2017. No. 3. pp. 81–85. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2017.03.15.
3. Gurban I. A., Pecherkina M. S. Behavior of economic system of a territory: Methodology of analysis and classification of stability states. Natsionalnye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost. 2016. No. 1(334). pp. 61–76.
4. Ignatieva M. N., Loginov V. G., Litvinova A. A., Morozova L. M., Ektova S. N. Economic evaluation of damage of the Arctic ecosystems during oil and gas field development. Ekonomika regiona. 2014. No. 1(37). pp. 102–111.
5. Dushin A. V., Polyanskaya I. G., Yurak V. V. Theoretical aspects of ecosystem services: Essentials and classifications. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii. 2017. No. 2. pp. 40–54.
6. Economics of biodiversity preservation. Handbook. Tishkov A. A. (Ed.). Moscow : Institut ekonomiki prirodopolzovaniya. 2002. p. 604.
7. Girusov E. V., Bobylev S. N., Novoselov A. N., Chepurnykh N. V. Ecology and Economy of Nature Management. Moscow : YUNITI. 1998. p. 455.
8. Bobylev S. N., Tishkov A. A. (Eds.). Economic Assessment of Biodiversity. Moscow : Institut ekonomiki prirodopolzovaniya. 1999. p. 112.
9. Glazyrina I. P. Looking for a path to Sustainability in Eastern Siberia. Ecosystem Health. 1998. No. 4(4). pp. 248–255.
10. Serageldin I., Steer A. Making Development Sustainable: From Concept to Action. Environmentally Sustainable Development Occasional Paper Series, 1994. р. 67.
11. Glazyrina I. P. Nature Capital in Economics of Transition. Moscow : NIA-Priroda, REFIA. 2001. p. 204.
12. Yurak V. V., Dushin A. V. Evolution of the concept of total economic value. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoi teorii. 2004. No. 4. pp. 204–214.
13. Bhagwat S. A. Ecosystem services and sacred natural sites: reconciling material and non-material values in nature conservation. Environ. Values. 2009. No. 18(4). pp. 417–427.
14. Saarikoski H., Mustajoki J., Marttunen M. Participatory multi-criteria assessment as ‘opening up’ vs. ‘closing down’ of policy discourses: A case of old-growth forest conflict in Finnish Upper Lapland. Land Use Policy. 2013. No. 32. pp. 329–336.
15. Elliot R. Intrinsic value, environmental obligation and naturalness. The Monist. 1992. No. 75. pp. 138–160.
16. Ronnow-Rasmussen T., Zimmerman M. J. Recent Work on Intrinsic Value. Berlin : Springer. 2005. p. 428.
17. Zimmerman M. J. Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/ (accessed: 28.02.2018).
18. Attfield R. The Ethics of Environmental Concern. Athens and London. University of Georgia Press, 1991. p. 377.
19. Lerch A. Naturbewertung in ökonomischer und ethischer Perspektive. Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, Wirtschaftsethische Perspektiven VI, Neue Folge Band. 2001. Vol. 228. pp. 223–246.
20. Pearce D. W., Turner R. K. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990. p. 378.
21. Pearce D. W., Warford J. W. World without End: Economics, Environment, and Sustainable Development. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1993. p. 440.
22. Davidson M. D. On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation. Ecological Economics. 2013. No. 95. pp. 171–177.
23. Adams W. M. The value of valuing nature. Science. 2014. 346 (6209). pp. 549–551.
24. Vaz P. Discovery of natural resources: A class of total equilibrium models. Energy Economics. 2017. 61. pp. 174–178.
25. Yurak V. V. Improving Instrumentation of Governmental Regulation in Nature Management. Yekaterinburg : Institut ekonomiki RAN. 2016. p. 198.
26. Tatrkin A. I. (Ed.). System Development of Natural Potential of Weekly Studied Territories. Yekaterinburg : Institut ekonomiki RAN. 2015. p. 310.