Assessment of Economic Damage to the Ecosystem from Pollutant Emissions During the Transition of the Territory to Sustainability

Abstract

The ecological sustainability of the territory and the assimilation potential of the ecosystem (APTE) are not directly involved in substantiating the cost of emissions. The aim of this study is to develop a methodology for assessing economic damage from environmental pollution (EDFEP), considering the concept of sustainability. The task was solved in the context of a critical and strong sustainability concept, using the maximum allowable load on the ecosystem (MALOTE) as a criterion for environmental sustainability. The APTE, cost method, and life cycle concept were also used. As a result, the traditional concept of assessing EDFEP has been supplemented, based on an assessment of the cost of eliminating and compensating for possible or identified consequences from environmental pollution. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the costs of preventing them using the APTE. The novelty of the approach for assessing economic damage to the ecosystem (EDTTE) lies in assessing the costs of forming and maintaining ecosystem elements with sufficient assimilation potential (AP) to prevent negative consequences for human health, and to protect natural and man-made objects from environmental pollution. The equivalent of EDTTE is the cost of APTE to neutralize the considered mass of pollutant emissions. Specific EDTTE is proposed to be defined as the ratio of the costs of forming and maintaining ecosystem elements with AP to the MALOTE of carbon monoxide. It is possible to evaluate the EDTTE regarding any element of the ecosystem that has an AP. This method makes it possible to increase the adequacy of assessing the consequences of pollution in the territory relative to sustainability goal.

1. Introduction

According to the modern theory of environmental protection economics and nature management, the basis for the expediency of environmental investments is the achievement of an optimal level of environmental pollution [1,2]. It is believed that the optimal level of environmental pollution is ensured by the equality of marginal environmental costs and marginal prevented damage. The quality of the environment is regulated not so much by objective “ecological” restrictions, but by the effectiveness of the institutional environment, economic conditions, the level of technology in the territory, features of assessing the negative impact on the environment, etc. The methodology of environmental situation analysis has a significant impact on management decision-making and the effectiveness of their implementation [3,4,5]. Analysis of the environmental situation for management decision-making involves an assessment of the economic damage from environmental pollution. The theoretical basis for assessing the economic damage caused by pollutant emissions can be reduced to assessing the possible or identified effects of pollution and summarized in several key steps [4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. In modern conditions, within the context of the Sustainable Development Goal, researchers rely on the concept of ecosystem services [6,7,8,9], market pricing [10,11,12,13,14], and the social cost of carbon [15,16,17,18] to analyze the environmental situation and make decisions. In fact, the limitations and disadvantages of assessing damage from pollution environment in physical and monetary terms determine the significance of environmental activities [3,4,5,19]. Environmental problems are especially exacerbated due to shortcomings in the mechanisms of the economy of nature management and compensation for damage from environmental pollution (DFEP) [4,19,20,21]. Under these conditions, the precautionary principle should become fundamental; in the long term, environmental goals, such as life-forming ones, must be balanced with social and economic ones [22,23,24,25,26,27]. Strategic management in the territory involves taking into account agreed and integrated in the totality of the implemented tasks of environmental and socio-economic goals. This situation can be seen especially clearly in solving the environmental problems of motor transport. On the one hand, it is one of the main sources of urban pollution [28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. At the same time, the road transport complex has a huge impact on the economy as a whole, and its transformation should take into account all aspects of sustainable development [28,35,36]. Thus, for the effective management of territories, it is necessary to supplement, generalize, and harmonize the accumulated experience of various theoretical concepts in a holistic strategy for reducing the EDFEP, which would be a synthesis of economic and environmental priorities, mechanisms, and tools for inclusion in a comprehensive strategy for the transition to a sustainable development (TTSD) region. The initial element of such a strategy should be the economic assessment of DFEP in accordance with the concept of sustainable development (CSD). To solve this problem, an analysis of damage assessment methods was carried out, the ecological foundations for the TTSD of the territory were considered, and a direction for their integration with the assessment of EDFEP was proposed.

The study raised the following main questions: to identify, from the point of view of the CSD, the limitations of approaches to assessing DFEP, to present the place of the APTE in the life cycle of pollution, to consider the costs of AP as equivalent to damage to the ecosystem from environmental pollution of the territory, to propose fundamentals for assessing EDFEP within the framework of the CSD, to develop a scheme for assessing EDTTE, to present the results of the assessment of the specific EDTTE using the example of the territory and the policy implications.

The main conclusions of the research paper are as follows:

• Pollution damage assessment should include the costs of its prevention;
• The danger of pollutants must be determined by the sustainability of the ecosystem;
• MALOTE—a long-term sustainability benchmark;
• It is proposed to use the costs of AP as an equivalent of damage to the ecosystem;
• The main stages of assessing the EDTTE from pollutant emissions are proposed;
• The proposed method for assessing EDTTE complements the theoretical basis for assessing economic damage from pollutant emissions in accordance with the goal of environmental sustainability of the territory
• The proposed method makes it possible to reduce information constraints when comparing different alternatives and making decisions in different territories.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Methodology of the Analysis of the Ecological Situation and the Sustainability of the Territory

Concerns have increased in recent decades that economic growth in many rich countries may actually be unprofitable. Healthcare has historically been closely linked to economic growth, with healthcare spending consistently growing faster than gross domestic product in the long run [37]. This may indicate both an increase in the quality of life and an increase in factors that negatively affect the health of the population.

Universal health coverage is increasingly unlikely unless there is a concerted response to non-communicable diseases and countries are better able to translate health spending into improved outcomes. Effective coverage and consideration of the world’s changing health needs lays the foundation for a better understanding of how all populations benefit from universal health coverage [38]. Therefore, the study of the relationship between healthcare and non-economic growth is one of the most important tasks of many studies. In addition, the results of such studies can help to reduce the information constraints on management decision-making in the territories. For example, environmental pollution has a significant negative impact on public health [39,40,41,42,43,44], man-made objects [45], and natural [46,47] objects. This, in turn, stimulates disproportional and structural changes in the economy of different territories.

Transport is one of the main determinants of air pollutant emissions in urban areas. Many studies have been carried out on air pollution from vehicles and air pollution damage to support transport policy development e.g., [28,32,36,48,49,50,51]. Often, simulation results show pollutant concentrations exceeding legal air quality standards [32,49]. The developed analysis structures are recommended to be used as auxiliary tools for public services specializing in the assessment of air pollution associated with road traffic. At the same time, the use of the results of these studies for decision-making and comparison of alternatives is limited, in addition to the complexity of assessing pollutant emissions from motor vehicles. Such problems are identifying and assessing natural damage, determining cause-and-effect relationships between pollution sources and possible (or observed) consequences, and assessing the specific damage per emission pollutant [4].

A truly sustainable urban transport network must be sustainable in all aspects, including economic, social, and environmental aspects. Determining the criteria for assessing the sustainability of an urban transport network and assessing the importance of these criteria is critical [52]. Based on data from 23 countries from 1990 to 2015, stringent environmental policies were found to have a negative impact on CO₂, NO_x, and SO_x emissions and have little impact on PM_2.5 emissions due to two possible reasons: first, the causes of PM_2.5 are complex; second, the process of compiling the Composite Index of Environmental Policy Severity does not focus on PM_2.5 restriction policies [53]. In other words, in order to make effective environmental decisions, a comprehensive analysis of the situation and differentiation of pollutant emissions according to their direct danger to the territory under consideration are important.

The influence of the situation analysis methodology on the decisions made and the consequences of their implementation is difficult to overestimate [3,5]. To improve the effectiveness of environmental protection in the territory, it is possible to increase the environmental assessment and the tax burden on pollutants, including through the import of institutions [54]. However, to achieve the goal of territorial sustainability, a reasonable analysis of the situation and an assessment of the consequences in the context of achieving this particular goal are necessary.

2.2. Theoretical Foundations for Assessing the EDFEP

The required environmental costs have posed, first of all, a number of difficult problems for economists in determining the effectiveness of environmental investments in an environment where monetary measurement of damage is often either difficult or impossible. In practice, the assessment of EDFEP is carried out in several main stages [39,41,42,43,45,47] as follows:

• Determining the level of environmental pollution based on either actual concentration measurements or mass emissions of harmful substances;
• Detection of pollution zones using the pollutant distribution model;
• Collection of data characterizing the technogenic impact on the ecosystem and determining the relationship between the level of environmental pollution and public health [36,51], equipment wear, productivity of agriculture, forestry, and farms. The result of the third stage is the assessment of natural DFEP;
• Assessment of EDFEP: calculation of costs for the elimination (including compensation) of negative consequences for the population, man-made objects, and natural objects.

Each stage of the assessment may have its own limitations and obstacles, especially in the conditions of a modern city, where many sources of pollution can be concentrated. Thus, for a relatively small number of sources of environmental pollution and the predictability of their functioning (for example, stationary sources), measuring the level of pollution and its forecast is a rather studied problem [39]. For the modern transport complex of a city, the solution (using common methods) to the problem of estimating the mass of emissions, the concentration of pollutants associated with them and identifying specific sources of pollution (causal relationships) is not always able to sufficiently reduce information constraints for making effective management decisions [4,31].

At the second stage, the addition of a developed environmental monitoring system to solve the problems of determining pollution zones will largely reduce the level of uncertainty. However, the complexity of determining cause-and-effect relationships will limit the effectiveness of managerial decisions. The perception of the road as a holistic source when determining the distribution of pollutants without differentiating cars and driver behavior (as a “black” box) limits the ability to compare different environmental alternatives.

Natural damage can be associated with many non-environmental factors and with many sources of pollution. Determining the impact of each is a difficult task. This task becomes more complicated when predictive values are needed to compare alternatives. In addition, large databases are needed to assess the effects of emissions (for more details, for example, see [36,51,55,56]).

In order to monetize assessments of the negative consequences of pollution within the framework of these and other approaches, an appropriate equivalent is selected, against which the cost of damage is determined. When conducting an economic assessment of the consequences of pollution, researchers are faced with the difficult task of determining social damage. The solution of this problem is associated with the statistical cost of living [44,57,58,59], the statistical cost of a year of life [60], assessment of liquidation and compensation of consequences (treatment costs, lost profits). The spread of estimates within the framework of the “statistical cost of living” approach, its criticism in general, and the many factors that influence the results of the assessment indicate the ambiguity of the approach and the need for its development [59,60,61,62,63].

Depending on the methods used to solve problems at each of the stages or, in general, to assess the DFEP, researchers may encounter various obstacles. Various methods partially overcome the problems. Indicators assigned by a volitional decision make it possible to influence the results of calculations of economic damage and reduce environmental protection to a subjective decision-making process at various levels of management [4].

2.3. Ecosystem Services, Market Pricing, and the Social Cost of Carbon

In practice, a market mechanism is often used to determine the price of carbon. The market approach to determining the cost of carbon emissions is linked to carbon trading systems and their effectiveness [10,11,12,13,14]. The features of such systems may give emitters the flexibility to purchase allowances at a preferred time rather than at the same time as emissions occur [64]. This allows generating companies to save on costs and reduce the cost of carbon.

Emissions trading has a number of advantages for determining the optimal price [12,14]. At the same time, organizations face risks when forming a strategy [13,65] and the price forecasting problem [66,67], which in these conditions depends on many factors [68,69,70].

The market mechanism for carbon pricing and carbon pricing in general have implications for different markets and their sustainability [71,72]. Compensating green investors for their risks through a higher risk premium built into the growth rate of expected carbon prices can help ensure that carbon pricing is cost-effective for achieving long-term goals [73]. Assessing opportunity costs is important for policy decisions and for allocating funding for measures to reduce environmental damage, such as avoided deforestation [74].

Much recent research has focused on the impact of policy on the price of carbon [75,76], considering the consequences of this for the socio-economic system of the territory [12], rather than the validity of its values [67,74,77].

In modern conditions, an important element of the analysis of approaches to assessing damage from emissions is the social cost of carbon (SCC). The process of assessing this indicator is associated with the forecast of remote consequences (natural damage), their economic assessment, discounting, and relation to risk [15,16,17,18]. Each of these elements brings its own limitations and uncertainties that expand the range of values of the SCC [15,16,17,78]. Additional expansion of carbon capture and storage reduces the average value of the SCC [79]. While the global-level approach is useful for finding optimization models, it hides the heterogeneous geography of climate change, the huge differences in countries’ contributions to the global SCC, climate, and socioeconomic uncertainties [80,81].

In many ways, the adoption of carbon pricing [82] and its assessment at the state level [15] is a consequence of a compromise of a significant or small part of the factors voiced. At the same time, the problems of comparing alternatives (especially at different levels of governance) based on the SCC may be speculative in nature, depending on the preferences of the subjects of governance and the current situation.

Ecosystem services, which have recently spread from the academic field to practice, have a significant impact on decision-making [7,8,9]. This concept emerged as an economic and ecological response to ecosystem degradation and has since expanded [83]. The multifunctionality of ecosystem services has conceptual merits for planning [6]. Consequences of applying the concept and methods for assessing ecosystem services depend on the objectives and context [84,85]. Differences in the definition of ecosystem services, and the purpose and the concept of their assessment, can lead to contradictory results [85,86,87]. To make effective decisions, we need tools for comparing different alternatives, which can also be integrated into the tools of environmental and economic regulation.

Ecosystem services or part of them are considered as a tool for reducing the negative impact of environmental pollution in the territory [86,88,89,90,91]. When assessing the damage from emissions, they participate as a factor reducing the consequences [90,92]. This makes it difficult to compare conservation alternatives, such as organizational, technical, and ecosystem service development approaches. Ecosystem services are not used as an equivalent to damage assessment based on the sustainability objective or prevention of consequences from pollution in the territory. Insufficient attention is paid to the development of approaches to justify specific economic damage and emissions fees in the context of territorial sustainability.

2.4. Limitations of the Methodology for Assessing EDFEP

DFEP, except for the objects of consequences (damage to the population, man-made objects, and natural objects), can be divided by types of pollution (material pollution can be divided into emissions into the atmosphere, sewage, and solid waste). Considering the damage from pollutant discharges into water bodies and from land pollution, it is noteworthy to include the costs of eliminating the consequences, compensation, and restoration of the quality of the environment (water or land object) in the damage assessment [43,46,47]. Moreover, the equivalent of the costs of cleaning up and restoring such environments (and, accordingly, part of the economic damage) are the costs of the best available technologies. Water and land objects can act as economic resources (for example, the use of water objects to supply the population with water involves its purification to the required quality); they are easier to control (the results of the environmentally unscrupulous behavior of the “free rider” are more noticeable), and ownership rights to them are often specified. Perhaps this affects the specifics of the methodology for assessing damage from pollution of these media.

The use of assigned indicators, the narrowly focused nature of calculations, and the simplification of complex processes of the movement of pollutants indicate that the common methods are not well suited for calculating the economic damage from one of the main sources of environmental pollution in cities—motor transport [4]. As a result, this hinders the achievement of the goal of territorial sustainability.

The mechanism of occurrence of negative consequences and their economic evaluation from the existence of a modern motor transport complex remains insufficiently studied. Known methods for determining environmental and economic damage make it possible to very approximately study the results of harmful anthropogenic influence, the possible effect of preventing this impact, and the effectiveness of environmental protection measures. In conditions of political and economic instability in different territories, there is a need for a balanced distribution of material resources to overcome the emerging consequences of the global environmental crisis. In this respect, in order to determine economic efficiency, it is important to quantify the total costs and results of applying various nature protection projects for an adequate comparison of alternatives.

The traditional definition of EDFEP is reduced to an assessment of the costs required to eliminate negative consequences for the population, man-made objects, and natural objects. Elimination of negative consequences includes repair, restoration of the quality of the facility, and public health (treatment). Emphasis is placed on assessing what happened and the consequences that have been identified. At the same time, consequences that cannot be corrected are assessed as losses relative to the chosen equivalent (for example, willingness to pay for risk, lost profits). The assessment is carried out in relation to the parties and the consequences for which can be eliminated or compensated. At the same time, the environmental protection resource of the structural elements of the ecosystem is not taken into account. When assessing EDFEP, MALOTE and APTE are not directly involved in justifying the cost of a unit of emission but often act as a reason for reducing the economic assessment of the negative impact [4,31,93] or ecosystem services factor [94,95,96]. The significance of conservation activities depends on the equivalent, the general assessment methodology, and the direction of its development [3]. The need to develop environmental assessment [5] and damage assessment methodologies in accordance with the CSD is considered at the level of practitioners in different countries. Managing the environmental safety of a territory involves the formation of a strategy for environmental activities, taking into account the AP and the precautionary principle. The development of a methodology for assessing DFEP is an urgent scientific task.

3. Methods

3.1. Sustainability and Environmental Stability Management Process

At the end of the 20th century, the emergence of significant feedback between the state of the environment and the results of the functioning of the economic system was noted. This was reflected in an increase in morbidity, an increase in cases of genetic changes and mortality of the population, as well as a decrease in the productivity of the economic system due to the depletion of the natural environment [39,41,42,43,45,55]. Even a reduction in the nature intensity of material production, which, according to some economists, contributes to the preservation of the natural habitat, is not a sufficient condition for the TTSD [97,98].

The severity and duration of the global environmental crisis, attempts to solve environmental problems based on so-called common sense, and not on the recommendations of economists, show that modern economic theory does not meet the requirements of ecology. This is due to the orientation of the mentioned theory, as well as applied economic disciplines, to the interests of enterprises, the purpose of which is to make profit without any kind of “unnecessary” environmental and social interference in their activities [99,100,101].

The profit of enterprises in the sphere of material production is formed, including in connection with inadequate compensation for the negative impact on the natural environment [101,102,103]. Any changes in the process of production of material goods (more precisely, in the process of impact on the environment) by enterprises can be voluntarily accepted only if they do not interfere with maximizing the net profit of the main stakeholders [99,100]. Hence, there is a desire to abstract from many realities in the economy, and especially in ecology, to replace specific results in improving the quality of the environment with slogans, for example, greening the economy.

First of all, it should be taken into consideration that the value of natural potential lies in providing functions such as [94,95,104] the following:

• Environment and human activity;
• “Repository” of the gene pool of species diversity of flora and fauna;
• Use as a source of raw materials and conditions that support economic activity;
• Absorption and recycling of waste (at no or minimal cost to society).

The peculiarity of natural ecosystem elements is the performance of these functions and ecosystem services in general. At the same time, some ecosystem services are based on biogeochemical cycles. The technologies and materials being developed can take over some of the ecosystem services [105,106,107,108]. However, it is important to consider their impact on biogeochemical cycles.

Some researchers and specialists in the field of environmental management associate the solution of environmental problems with the internalization of externalities, the determination of acceptable environmental loads, and the effectiveness of environmental activities using AP [31,104,109] or ecosystem services in general [94,95,96]. APTE should be understood as a specific resource or the ability of elements of the natural environment (Figure 1) and man-made (artificial) objects (for more information, for example, see [110]) to neutralize and recycle harmful substances (for more details, see [109,111]). New materials can act as ecosystem elements with assimilation potential, as well as help to deepen understanding of the mechanisms of pollutant assimilation and increase the effectiveness of their implementation in practice [106,108,112]. At the same time, one of the important aspects of such studies is minimizing the risks of substances that do not exist in nature entering natural cycles.

Ecological benefits or, in other words, an environment suitable for human life, together with the production of economic benefits, is the most important condition for human life support. An imbalance in the mechanisms of economic regulation can lead to irreversible (significant not only for the region or country, but also for the planet as a whole) socio-economic and environmental consequences [21,24,25,27]. To maintain the ecological stability of a territory, it is necessary to take into account the properties’ ecosystem, for example, the APTE, the MALOTE (the mass of emissions of pollutants that can be neutralized by the APTE, and at the same time will eliminate the formation in the air of concentrations of pollutants dangerous to humans and the natural environment [109]), climatic conditions, etc. In this regard, the actual natural potential can be considered as a natural environment for the disposal of waste from economic activities. Along with the intellectual potential of the population, it should be considered the main wealth of the state and directly participate in the state regulation of environmental stability.

Insufficient management efficiency environmental protection contributes to the adoption of unfounded decisions, “patch budget holes”, through environmental fees, and the emergence of additional barriers to improving the quality of the environment. Nevertheless, there is a possibility of a significant improvement in the environmental situation. When justifying environmental protection measures and determining the amount of money allocated for environmental purposes, it is necessary to adequately assess the anthropogenic impact on the environment, the resulting damage, and to establish a scientifically justified payment for the exploitation of ecosystem elements.

In modern conditions, the management of environmental protection in the territories often comes down to the problem of resource conservation, which by no means exhausts the issues of life safety [4]. The economic instruments used, such as resource taxes and market prices for resources [4,101,113,114], do not guarantee a transition to innovative (qualitative) changes in the structure of the country’s economy. Such actions, with stable demand, provoke economic development due to an increase in resource consumption, inflationary processes, and disproportions in the country’s economy (due to the transfer of capital to less environmentally intensive activities, such as trade and finance). As a result, the lack of effective incentives for long-term productive investment puts the economic and social sustainability of the state at risk. An effective policy in the field of rational use of natural potential involves not only the use of an economic mechanism, but also a system of environmental restrictions on the nature management regime. Such a system should be based on the properties of the elements of the natural environment, since the latter cannot be changed either by the social order or by the economic system.

3.2. MALOTE and Economic Damage

For the economic assessment of the negative impact of emissions from stationary and mobile sources, it is proposed to use, as the main element, the characteristic of the environmental sustainability of the ecosystem of the territory—the MALOTE, or maximum allowable load (MAL) of pollutants on the ecosystem. This is a reasonable level of environmental pollution that is safe for the population, at which its structural elements can dispose of pollutants without harm to themselves. MAL pollutants per ecosystem (in kg/year) is calculated based, firstly, on the ability of the ecosystem to utilize pollutants, and secondly, on the concentration of pollutants that is safe for bioorganisms in the air basin of residential areas. In the first case, the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of AP are studied, in the second, the possibility of the full functioning of phyto- and zooorganisms, including higher forms. The allowable content of pollutants is ensured, among other things, by a sufficient volume of air supply, the calculation of which is based on a pattern that has developed over a long period of time, which consists of maintaining the limits of the background concentration of gases that are part of the surface air that are acceptable for organisms in a given territory. The assessment of MAL is based on the analysis of the characteristics of an idealized object—a model ecosystem of the territory under consideration with the limiting values of the AP for this ecosystem and the air supply [109].

To ensure the environmental stability of the territory, it is necessary to use restrictions on pollution of ecosystems, in which harmful substances are completely neutralized by AP and damage to public health, natural objects, and man-made objects is excluded. This limitation will prevent the formation of dangerous concentrations of pollutants for humans and the natural environment. When ensuring emissions of pollutants at the level of MALOTE, DFEP will be associated only with the costs of neutralizing harmful substances by elements of the natural environment that have the ability to utilize. Emissions of pollutants exceeding MALOTE negatively affect the state of the environment (in addition to the risk of morbidity among the population, negative consequences for natural and man-made objects) and will require additional AP to neutralize harmful substances. Based on these characteristics of the ecosystem on an ecological basis, it is possible to divide the total emissions in the territory into limit and overlimit ones (Figure 2).

As a result of the differentiation of emissions based on such characteristics of the ecosystem, economic damage can be represented as the sum of the costs of eliminating the negative consequences of environmental pollution and assessing the costs of preventing them through the formation and functioning of ecosystem elements with AP.

Also, the MAL of pollutants on the ecosystem can be used to differentiate pollutants according to their danger to the ecosystem [109]. To establish the measure of the impact of pollutants on the environment of a particular territory, the value of the indicator of the relative hazard of substances is calculated by the formula:

A_i = MAL_co/MAL_i

(1)

where MAL_co (kg CO/year) is the MAL of carbon monoxide; MAL_i (kg/year) is the MAL of i harmful substance.

Using Formula (1), one can find the often neglected “harmfulness” of the main greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide.

Thus, the use of the compliance of the actual environmental pollution with the MALOTE as an ecological landmark for the development of the territory will allow the following:

• Ensure the fulfillment of the requirements for goals in the formation of a management system: complexity, consistency, consistency, specificity, clarity, measurability, clarity, as well as ensure the connection of the goal-setting system (transition to manageable goals for the territory (in kg/year) and the possibility of their distribution between sources pollution), control object, and optimization criteria [31];
• Divide the emission of pollutants into limit and overlimit for a given ecosystem (the object of research and management is an ecosystem with all sources of pollution, and not individual sources of pollution);
• To determine the relative hazard of various pollutants for a given territory, taking into account the characteristics of its ecosystem.

Summarizing the research methods, we note the following. In this study, I show the limitations of common assessment approaches in the context of the sustainability of the territory and the way to solve the problem of assessing the economic damage from pollutant emissions, including by vehicles. This method can be supplemented and developed. When developing the method, I relied on the concept of critical sustainability [23,95,97,98,104,115,116,117,118]. In the CSD, critical sustainability implies a compromise option between the concepts of “strong” and “weak” sustainability, an “ecological corridor” that determines the possibility of the sustainable development of the territory. The previously developed indicator of MALOTE [109] was chosen as a criterion for the ecological sustainability of the territory. The MAL of the i pollutant on the ecosystem of the territory is set according to the lesser of two values: APTE, or the yearly allowable mass of pollutants in the air of the territory. In other words, MALOTE takes into account APTE. Emissions at the level of MALOTE make it possible to avoid negative consequences for all elements of this ecosystem. In this case, there will be no damage to public health.

The use of the cost method for the economic assessment of a part of ecosystem services—APTE—will complement the traditional methods of assessing damage from environmental pollution in accordance with CSD.

The relative hazard of pollutants is determined based on the values of MALOTE (Formula (1)). I use this indicator to move from the specific EDTTE from emissions (Formula (4)) to EDTTE from emissions of the corresponding pollutant.

The indicator of MALOTE, based on model ecosystems with ideal qualitative characteristics and actual quantitative characteristics of the ecosystem elements of the territory, allows us to estimate its maximum value for the characteristics of the existing ecosystem. The use of this indicator in assessing the EDTTE allows us to talk about the minimum value of such damage.

3.3. Data

A small city in the south of Russia, Nazran (43°13′00″ N 44°46′00″ E), was chosen as a research object for an example of calculating the specific EDTTE from pollutant emissions. An assessment of the ecosystem phytomass was previously carried out for this city [119] and MALOTE [109].

Based on the calculations we performed earlier [109], we present information on the MALOTE of the city of Nazran in the south of Russia in

Table 1. Maximum allowable load on the ecosystem of Nazran city.

Pollutant	The Environmental Sustainability Criteria for the Territory, ton/year			Relative Hazard Index of Pollutant, kg CO/kg Pollutant
	APTE	Yearly Allowable Mass of Pollutants in the Air of the Territory	MALOTE
CO2	327.128	-	327.128	0.0048
CO	0.245–2.912	7045.21	1.58 *	1
SO2	0.059	19.961	0.059	26.75
NO2	0.0135	19.961	0.0135	117
Carbon soot	46.345	4.075	4.075	0.387
Fuel ash	5.132	0.451	0.451	3.5
C20H12	0.0079	0.000693	0.000693	2277.78
Pb	0.0082	0.209	0.0082	192.5

* Average value of the utilization capacity of the AP (col. 2).

.

In Table 1, the MALOTE value is defined as the lower of two indicators: the APTE and the yearly allowable mass of pollutants in the air of the territory. The first indicator reflects the recycling capacity of the ecosystem. The second indicator allows us to determine the yearly mass of pollutant emissions to ensure a safe concentration of pollutants for all elements of the ecosystem. Here, the minimum average daily maximum allowable concentration for the population and ecosystem elements (in this case, green spaces), as well as the volume of air supply, are used for evaluation. As a result, MALOTE can be used as the main indicator of the ecological sustainability of the territory. It can serve as a basis for determining the relative danger of pollutants for a particular ecosystem. Analysis of the results of the assessment of the MALOTE of Nazran allows us to conclude the features of this ecosystem: MALOTE for gaseous substances is the APTE value, and for solid pollutants (except lead)—the yearly allowable mass of pollutants in the air of the territory.

In this study, the common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) was selected as a monoculture for the model ecosystem of the city of Nazran. This taller plant is one of the most widespread in this area. It is also characterized by high biological productivity, long life span, and relative stability in urban conditions. In this study, I rely on the results of previous studies on biological productivity and MALOTE [109]. The market value of a five-year-old ash sapling in this area ranges from RUB 3200 to 6000 [120,121,122]. The planting service will be 30% of the cost. These are the terms offered by seedling suppliers in this area [120,121,122]. The specific costs for the reproduction of the j element of the ecosystem, capable of utilizing the i pollutant, (C_j) will be from 4160 to 7800 RUB/piece.

Peculiarities of assessing the MALOTE [109] allow us to determine the following indicators necessary for calculating the specific damage using Formula (4). The unit mass (quantity) of the j-th element of the ecosystem capable of neutralizing the i-th pollutant in the study area (m_j, pcs/m²) will be 1389 × 10⁻⁴ pcs/m². Since one ecosystem element was used to estimate the MALOTE, respectively, G and k_j will be equal to 1. The period of useful functioning of the j element of the ecosystem (P_uj) will be 60 years—the lifespan of the common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) in urban conditions, which was adopted when assessing the MALOTE. The total area of the j-th element, (S_j, m²) is 85460 m². The MAL of carbon monoxide is 1581 kg/year (see Table 1). The source data for calculating the specific economic damage to the ecosystem are summarized in

Table 2. Source data.

Indicator Name	Designation	Units of Measurement	The Value of the Indicator
1	2	3	4
Specific gravity of the j element of the ecosystem, capable of neutralizing the i pollutant in the study area	mj	pcs/m2	1389 × 10−4
Specific costs for the reproduction of the j element of the ecosystem, capable of utilizing the i pollutant	Cj	rubles/piece	4160–7800
Total area of the j element	Sj	m2	85,460
MAL of carbon monoxide on the ecosystem	MALCO	kg/year	1581
Period of useful functioning of the j element of the ecosystem	Puj	years	60
Weight coefficient of participation of the j element of the ecosystem in ensuring the ecological safety of the territory	kj	-	1
Number of elements of a particular ecosystem that can neutralize the i pollutant	G	-	1

.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. AP and Pollution Life Cycle

Structuring environmental pollution, taking into account the concept of the life cycle, economic damage from pollution, and MALOTE, the following stages can be distinguished:

• Formation and definition of needs;
• Development of technology for the processing of resources and the production of goods;
• Extraction of resources (the whole process from extraction to the receipt of resources by processors);
• Using technology to recycle resources;
• The appearance of waste;
• Capturing part of the waste, its accumulation or processing and recycling as resources;
• Pollution of the environment (inflow of waste into different environments);
• Increase in the concentration of pollutants in various environments (change in the quality of the environment);
• Assimilation of some pollutants by ecosystem elements with AP;
• Dilution of pollutant emissions with clean media (reducing the concentration of pollutants), for example, due to intake of fresh air from other ecosystems (air flows from the ocean or natural land systems);
• Distribution of pollutants and pollution zones (decrease in the concentration of pollutants near the source of pollution and increase in other areas);
• Behavior of objects of negative impact of a polluted environment–individuals (health strategy, personal protective equipment, lifestyle);
• The appearance of negative consequences from environmental pollution;
• Assessment of economic damage from the consequences of pollution (assessment of the consequences—what the researcher sees and takes into account—depends on the concept (understanding) of damage and the assessment methodology);
• Partial elimination of negative consequences;
• Economic justification for the effective level of pollution and environmental activities depending on the level of technology and assessment methodology;
• Formation of new needs (including those related to the negative consequences of pollution).

In modern conditions, the stages of the formation of needs and the development of technologies can change places. The market processes of the exchange of goods and resources can also influence the stages and the cycle as a whole. Each of the presented stages can be an object of management to increase the sustainability of the socio-economic system of the territory.

For the analysis, the transition from the appearance of waste to the occurrence of negative consequences from environmental pollution is important (stages 5–13). There are several stages between the appearance of waste products (production, exchange, and consumption of goods and resources) and the negative consequences of environmental pollution. APTE and the air supply are objective (autonomously functioning in the presence of appropriate conditions, the need for minimal intervention in relation to other environmental measures after the occurrence of waste, little depends on the will of the subject of management) factors to reduce negative consequences, the last natural “barrier” between pollution and negative consequences. One of the features of the AP as an environmental measure is the ability to capture and integrate pollutants into the cycles of the circulation of substances in nature, that is, to turn the finite into an endless process due to the cycle (a characteristic of the sustainability of the process).

If sustainable development is characterized by the opportunity cost, then the economic damage to the sustainable development of the territory (SDTT) determines the deviation from the opportunity cost of development. The equivalent for assessing such a deviation and, accordingly, the damage are sustainability indicators. For the ecological component of the SDTT, the sustainability indicator is MALOTE, including AP and air supply (if emissions correspond to this indicator, AP completely absorbs pollutants, and the dilution of emissions with air supply makes it possible to eliminate negative consequences for the ecosystem elements of the territory and the population). The processes and volumes of movement of air masses are difficult to account for and manage. Moreover, the pollution zone can spread to a more densely populated area. APTE largely depends on human impact and has many directions for increasing this resource. In this regard, it is the APTE that can be the equivalent of environmental pollution, and the costs of AP—the equivalent of the economic damage from pollution. Let us consider this approach in more detail.

4.2. Costs for AP as an Equivalent of Damage to the Ecosystem from Environmental Pollution of the Territory

In the context of the CSD, several arguments can be made in favor of using the APTE in the analysis of damage to form sustainable management systems in the territory.

• When using the traditional approach to assessing DFEP, a priori, the necessity and inevitability of negative consequences for public health and deterioration of the quality of the environment is assumed. The damage assessment methodology forms the behavior and institutional environment for the functioning of objects that affect the environment. The prerequisite for a management system with such a system of analysis is the advantage of the economy over the social and environmental spheres and the use and exploitation by future generations for modern economic growth (in addition to the use of advantages and unscrupulous behavior by social groups) is allowed. This damage assessment approach implies that if negative consequences are not identified (or cannot be identified by modern scientific methods) or no one makes a claim, then there is no damage. This is contrary to the principles of sustainable development and the laws of ecology;
• The CSD assumes an equitable distribution of benefits and resources within and between generations. There are strong, weak, and critical concepts of sustainable development [23,26,95,97,98,104,123,124]. Within the framework of a strong one, the exchange of various types of capital is not allowed, which implies the inadmissibility of the deterioration of the quality of the environment. For the weak and critical concepts, the exchange of environmental capital for economic and social capital is acceptable. For a critical concept, an exchange limit is provided, below which a decrease in the quality of the environment is unacceptable. For these concepts, the evaluation methodology is important. At the same time, the damage should be adequately distributed between generations: elimination of consequences (past), avoidance of consequences (future), reduction in environmental pollution, and prevention of the impact of pollution (present, taking into account the past and future—elimination and prevention of consequences);
• Damage from the point of view of the CSD can be considered as an obstacle to the TTSD of the territory. Its economic assessment includes the total costs associated with the elimination of the consequences, overcoming and preventing these obstacles. For a territory’s governance system, such damage could include, for example, the potential political consequences of environmental problems [125]. For the environmental component of SDTT, such damage may be associated with the excess of the actual environmental pollution in the territory of the indicator value of the ecosystem’s environmental sustainability [109] and disposal of pollutants. For the social and economic components, such damage is associated with ensuring the achievement of relevant goals through the balance of all components of sustainable development. For different concepts of sustainable development, the assessment of the balance of decisions can be very different. For the concept of strong sustainability, it is assumed that all types of capital are not reduced, and their exchange is unacceptable. In this case, there will be no acceptable level of pollution in the territory (unacceptability of pollution in general) or the requirements of strict restrictions will be met (for example, the MAL, [109]), under which pollutants released into the environment are completely neutralized by APTE and negative consequences. For weak CSD, the main role in understanding the balance will be played by the methods used to evaluate various types of capital [4,22]. In addition, for critical sustainability, the definition of an acceptable level of pollution will be significant [97,98,104]. To maintain the sustainability of some of the components of SDTT, the acceptable level of pollution may exceed MALOTE. This suggests a gradual tightening of the environmental benchmark in the future. As a result, the excess of pollution in the territory of MALOTE (including AP), and the compliance of the methodology for assessing different types of capital of the territory with the goals of its sustainable development, act as an obstacle to environmentally sustainable economic development. Thus, an ecological landmark that takes into account the characteristics of the ecosystem of the territory under consideration should be included in the methodology for assessing EDFEP;
• Pollution limits in units of measurement acceptable for management should be for land (as an object of study). The transition of the object of management and research from the maximum allowable concentration of pollutants to the MAL of pollutants on the ecosystem will increase the transparency and efficiency of management decisions [31]. For the purposes of the TTSD of the territory, it is necessary to build ecological foundations into economic mechanisms. Adequate indicators of the sustainability of the territory should serve as long-term goals. Such an indicator can be MALOTE, taking into account APTE and the mass of pollutant emissions that is safe for the entire ecosystem of the territory [109];
• Correspondence of the masses of emissions in the territory with MALOTE excludes negative consequences from environmental pollution, which characterizes strong CSD. Separate use of AP and the safe level of pollution (for example, by the level of the maximum allowable concentration of pollutants and the use of this criterion to determine the safe level of emissions for different emission sources) can act as forms of the critical level of environmental pollution of the territory. The possibility of exchanging social, economic, and environmental capital without restrictions, for example, with the help of willful decision-making by the administrations of territories on temporarily agreed emissions by sources of environmental pollution, characterizes the concept of weak sustainability. For each concept, the key influence on the decision is provided by the methodology for determining the target environmental benchmark (limitation) and the methodology for assessing negative consequences;
• To determine the optimal level of environmental costs, the equality of the marginal environmental costs and the marginal damage prevented is evaluated. That is, the goal is to determine the economic optimum based on the analysis of technologies and assessment methodology. Using the principle of the best available technologies allows minimizing the cost per unit of damage prevented. At the same time, the use of costs for technical environmental protection measures as an equivalent of damage (for example, within the framework of the strong sustainability concept or the critical sustainability concept) will shift the optimum environmental costs to zero environmental pollution. With strong CSD, it is assumed that there will be no negative consequences from environmental pollution. In the context of the need to solve the problems of the economic and social components of sustainable development in order to determine the effective level of pollution, the costs of all environmental measures necessary for the absence of negative consequences will be attributed to damage. If environmental protection measures are not enough, then it is necessary to abandon the use of this resource processing technology. Taking into account the natural mechanisms of the ecosystem as the ecological basis of the assessment methodology and using the costs of their formation as an equivalent of damage will make it possible to compare environmental alternatives with a long-term sustainable ecological resource of the ecosystem;
• When analyzing the consequences of the pollution of water bodies (for example, by oil) or land (for example, by waste), more stringent requirements for the restoration of such objects are common. Sustainable development involves bringing these objects to their original state: the purification of water bodies and land, respectively [46,47]. Considering by analogy the release of pollutants into the air, it can be noted that in order to ensure sustainable development, pollutants must be neutralized before or after they enter the environment;
• DFEP includes the cost of eliminating negative consequences. If environmental protection measures are regulated by the requirements of the legislation and the total environmental costs act as damage, then the search for the optimal level of pollution will shift to zero environmental pollution. Without creating conditions for the development of technologies, the principle of the best available technologies will not allow overcoming the distortions in the assessment of the effective level of pollution in the territory. It is often more profitable to prevent than to deal with negative consequences. The most effective solutions for environmental assessment adequate to sustainable development should be in the early stages of the pollution life cycle. Technical means aimed at reducing waste after its occurrence cannot always process and dispose of 100% of pollutants. The more cleaning, the more toxic the residual waste. APTE favorably differs here. The property of APTE is the utilization of pollutants and their integration into the circulation of substances. Natural metabolic processes (the cycle of substances in nature) show the possibilities for long-term environmental sustainability. Natural ecosystems, using the mechanisms of assimilation and homeostasis, build pollutants into metabolic processes. Possible primary disposal wastes can further participate in metabolic processes (including other ecosystems) and ensure 100% recycling of pollutants;
• In case of a negative impact on the environment, the damage assessment includes the restoration of the damaged environment to its previous state. One of the types of damage caused by environmental pollution is a decrease in air quality. This suggests the need to restore air quality. One of the most effective utilizers (in terms of the completeness of utilization and sustainability) are elements of the ecosystem that have AP;
• Traditional methods of damage assessment do not include in their methodology the motivation for the complete neutralization of pollutants. One of the options for such motivation is the APTE of the territory as an equivalent of DFEP;
• Emissions in excess of the ecological capabilities of the ecosystem disrupt the metabolic processes of the ecosystem (metabolism and metabolism energy). SDTT involves the prevention of negative consequences. Prevention of damage can be ensured by increasing the AP (and metabolic processes of self-purification of environments). The cost of AP can be considered the equivalent of damage. AP as a natural resource and universal (suitable for various pollutants) pollutant utilizer has advantages over other types of environmental protection activities. In addition, APTE is a natural barrier for pollutants before the occurrence of negative consequences from emissions;
• AP as an equivalent of damage can be considered for the evaluation and comparison of environmental alternatives. Comparison of alternatives with respect to AP will reveal the deviation of efficiency from the natural resource of the ecosystem;
• The cost of AP as an equivalent of EDFEP will reduce the informational limitations of situation analysis and decision-making.

Thus, it is proposed to use the definition of costs for AP as an equivalent of economic damage from pollutant emissions. In the context of the TTSD of the territory, this will reduce information restrictions and increase the sustainability of the socio-economic system.

4.3. Fundamentals of Assessing EDFEP in the Framework of CSD

EDFEP is usually identified with the costs of eliminating negative consequences for public health, man-made objects, and natural objects. Management of environmental protection in accordance with CSD involves the formation of a strategy for environmental protection, taking into account the AP of ecosystems and the precautionary principle. As a result, economic damage can be represented as the sum of the costs of eliminating the negative consequences of environmental pollution and assessing the costs of preventing them through the formation of ecosystem elements with AP. Let us consider this approach analytically in general terms (conditionally, we will take the costs of the formation of ecosystem elements with AP as damage to the ecosystem).

The total EDFEP in general terms can be defined as the total economic damage, respectively, from emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere, from discharges into water bodies, and waste disposal. Let us consider in general terms the damage from pollutant emissions [126], as shown in Formula (2) (by analogy, we can imagine the structure of damage from discharges into water bodies and from pollution of land).

D = D_{ECO A} + D_P + D_MO + D_NO

(2)

where D_{ECO A} (monetary units/year)—damage to the ecosystem from emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere; D_P (monetary units/year)—damage to the population (calculated according to the risks of morbidity and consists of the cost of treatment costs, compensation for damage to the enterprise in case of absenteeism of the employee, family from the forced loss of material benefits, reduction in the reproductive period, moral damage due to death, etc.) from pollutant emissions substances; D_MO (monetary units/year)—damage to man-made objects from pollutant emissions associated, for example, with an increase in the wear and tear of technical structures; D_NO (monetary units/year)—damage to natural objects from emissions of pollutants associated, for example, with a decrease in their productivity.

The author’s approach proposes a new concept for assessing damage to an ecosystem, identified with the costs of the formation and functioning of ecosystem elements. As a result, the economic damage is represented by the amount of expenses for the elimination and prevention of the negative consequences of anthropogenic activities. Damage from pollutant emissions will include damage to the ecosystem (determining the cost of APTE to neutralize pollutant emissions), damage to the population, man-made objects, and natural objects.

4.4. Assessment of EDTTE

In the general case, EDTTE is proposed to be identified with the costs of disposal of technogenic pollution [126]. In practice, it is proposed to assess EDTTE from the emission of pollutants in several stages (Figure 3).

Within the framework of the proposed method for assessing EDTTE, there is no stage for identifying causal relationships between emissions and pollutant concentrations. Such an important element of environmental protection as determining the concentration of pollutants in the air, including from vehicle emissions, is not involved in assessing EDTTE. It is necessary for traditional economic damage assessment methods. The use of the MALOTE indicator, the units of measurement of which (kg/year) coincide with the mass index of pollutant emissions from a car and other sources of environmental pollution, makes it possible to assess the effects of pollutant emissions. This innovation simplifies the management decision-making process from collecting primary data and evaluating to comparing alternatives.

EDTTE from atmospheric pollution by stationary and mobile emission sources, expressed in monetary units per year, can be presented by the formula (the calculation of damage from discharges of pollutants into water bodies and land contamination can be performed by analogy) as follows:

$$D_{\mathit{ECO} A}=d_{\mathit{ECO} A}\sum _{i=1}^N{A}_i{m}_i$$

(3)

where d_{ECO A} (monetary units/kg CO) is the specific EDTTE from pollutant emissions; A_i (kg CO/kg) is the coefficient of relative hazard, calculated on the basis of the MAL of the i pollutant on the ecosystem (Formula (1)); m_i (kg/year) is the mass of the annual release of impurities of the i type into the atmosphere; N is the number of impurities emitted by the source into the atmosphere.

The indicator of specific EDTTE, presented in Formula (4), is defined as the ratio of the costs of the formation of AP to the MAL of carbon monoxide on the ecosystem (this pollutant is used as the equivalent of the hazard of pollutants). The costs of forming AP are the sum of the costs of ecosystem elements that can neutralize pollutants. The cost of an ecosystem element can be represented as the ratio of the product of its specific mass, reproduction costs, and the total area of an ecosystem element to the period of its useful functioning. The specific EDTTE can be represented as follows:

$$d_{\mathit{ECO} \mathit{A}}=\sum _{j=1}^G{\displaystyle \frac{m_j{C}_j{S}_j{k}_j}{P_{\mathit{uj}}{ \mathit{MAL}}_{\mathit{CO}}}}$$

(4)

where m_j (kg/m² (pcs/m²)) is the specific gravity (amount) of the j element of the ecosystem, capable of neutralizing the i pollutant in the study area; C_j (monetary units/kg (monetary units /pc)) is the specific costs for the reproduction of the j element of the ecosystem, capable of utilizing the i pollutant (depending on the period of its useful functioning and including the total costs associated with the use of the assimilation properties of the considered element of the ecosystem.); S_j (m²) is the total area of the j element; k_j is the weight coefficient of participation of the j element of the ecosystem in ensuring the ecological safety of the territory; P_uj (year) is the period of useful functioning of the j element of the ecosystem (payback period for increasing the mass of the j element of the ecosystem capable of utilizing the i pollutant); MAL_CO (kg CO/year) is the MAL of carbon monoxide (as an equivalent of the hazard of toxicants) on the ecosystem; G is the number of elements of a particular ecosystem that can neutralize the i pollutant.

In Formula (4), value C_j depends on the period of useful functioning of the ecosystem element and includes the general (“capital” and operating) costs associated with the use of the assimilation properties of the considered ecosystem element.

Under the conditions of information limitations, for example, on the productivity and cost of the elements of the APTE of a particular territory, EDTTE can be determined with respect to any element of the ecosystem (having AP). Of the structural elements of the ecosystem of an urbanized territory, green plantings of the highest order lend themselves to relatively accurate accounting and forecasting of quantitative characteristics, i.e., trees. In this regard, the calculation of specific EDTTE within the city can be carried out on the basis of an assessment of the specific costs for planting and maintaining this element of the ecosystem, and the hazard of other pollutants can be determined by their MAL for the ecosystem under consideration.

Generalization and comparison of estimates of EDTTE of the territories under consideration is carried out by determining MAL and using the level of local prices for the formation and maintenance of ecosystem elements with AP. The damage to the ecosystem is expressed in the cost of AP to neutralize the actual mass of pollutant emissions. Damage to the ecosystem can characterize the environmental sustainability of the socio-economic system of the territory. The specific damage to the ecosystem is the minimum marginal cost of DFEP and, accordingly, the equivalent for the minimum environmental costs.

The traditional definition of EDFEP is an assessment of the costs required to eliminate negative consequences (possible or already identified), for example, for public health. However, the use of such an approach when trying to internalize damage will be associated with difficulties in the distribution of economic responsibility [127]. It is proposed that in the economic assessment of damage from pollution, in addition to assessing the costs of eliminating negative consequences, it is necessary to take into account the costs of forming and maintaining ecosystem elements that have sufficient AP to prevent harm to public health, natural objects, and man-made objects.

4.5. Example of Assessment of Specific EDTTE of Nazran, Russia

The city of Nazran was chosen as an example of assessing specific EDTTE due to the publication of the results of an earlier assessment conducted by MALOTE (for more information, see Section 3.3 “Data”). The methodology for assessing EDTTE needs to be further tested for different regions. The tasks of developing and simplifying the methodology will be set in the course of further research.

We are about to calculate the specific EDTTE using Formula (4), taking into account the information in Section 3.3 “Data”.

d_{ECO A min} = (1389 × 10⁻⁴ pcs/m² × 85,460 m² × 4160 RUB/pcs × 1)/(1581 kg/year × 60 years) = 520.565 RUB/kg CO

d_{ECO A max} = (1389 × 10⁻⁴ pcs/m² × 85,460 m² × 7800 RUB/pcs × 1)/(1581 kg/year × 60 years) = 976.060 RUB/kg CO

The specific damage to the ecosystem will amount to between 520,565 and 976,060 RUB/ton of CO.

Table 3. Specific economic damage to the ecosystem of Nazran from emissions of pollutants.

Pollutant	Relative Hazard Index of Pollutant, kg CO/kg Pollutant	Specific EDTTE from Emissions of Pollutants, RUB/ton	Specific EDTTE from Emissions of Pollutants, USD/ton *
1	2	3	4
CO2	0.0048	2499–4685	32–60
CO	1	520,565–976,060	6629–12,429
SO2	26.75	13,925,114–26,109,611	177,326–332,486
NO2	117	60,906,105–114,199,047	775,593–1,454,239
Carbon soot	0.387	201,459–377,735	2565–4810
Fuel ash	3.5	1,821,978–3,416,211	23,202–43,503
C20H12	2277.78	1,185,732,546–2,223,250,465	15,099,410–28,311,419
Pb	192.5	100,208,763–187,891,594	1,276,083–2,392,658

* 1 RUB = 0.0127 USD. According to the Central Bank of Russia for 4 July 2025 [128].

presents the results of the assessment of the specific EDTTE for different pollutants.

Depending on the characteristics of the ecosystem and its development plans, the values of specific EDTTE and the total economic damage from pollutant emissions can be regulated.

The price of a seedling (and other elements of the ecosystem with AP) in the territory is an important indicator for assessing EDTTE. In practice, many factors can influence this indicator. It can also be manipulated by stakeholders. At the same time, the model in this form will be useful for comparing alternatives. To use the approach in models’ internalization of damage from emissions requires their development taking into account the proposed method. In particular, without taking into account the negative effects of emissions on the population, natural objects, and man-made facilities, the internalization of damage from emissions will be incomplete. In addition, it is necessary to consider the factors of unfair behavior of stakeholders when assessing EDTTE and the consequences of environmental pollution. The analysis of the correlation between the assessment of EDTTE and the various consequences of environmental pollution, as well as solving the problems of unfair behavior in the context of damage assessment, will be the tasks of future research.

Government bureaucracy can make decisions when analyzing alternatives using support tools and assessing the effective level of such support. It is important to note that the proposed method for assessing economic damage from pollutant emissions does not replace existing approaches but rather complements them. The sustainability of any territory involves considering the equivalent costs of maintaining elements of the local ecosystem to neutralize pollutant emissions when evaluating alternatives.

4.6. Policy Implications

An analysis of the modern theoretical and methodological basis for assessing DFEP suggests the need to improve the existing tools in accordance with CSD. To reduce environmental tension, state regulation in the field of environmental protection should be based on the properties of natural objects, and the assessment of environmental protection measures should be built on the basis of scientifically based criteria, one of which can be MALOTE. One of the main obstacles to making effective management decisions, including at the territorial level, are information and time restrictions. To identify the long-term consequences of the negative effects of environmental pollution, researchers, among other things, need a lot of time. The economic assessment of such consequences is also difficult and depends on many factors in the territory. Decision-makers are forced to use various equivalents to describe and compare alternatives. Depending on the purpose of the development of the territory, the equivalent of damage, among other things, may be the costs of AP. The proposed approach to the economic assessment of damage to an ecosystem characterizes the deviation from sustainability in monetary terms based on prices and productivity of the ecosystem of a specific territory. Also, the assessment results can help determine the level of marginal costs of environmental protection measures. That is, environmental alternatives will be compared with the APTE. The vegetation period of trees has a significant impact on the ability to absorb pollutants. In this regard, the assessment of the APTE indicator was carried out for a year (kg/year). To reduce environmental risks, emissions in areas must be carried out evenly throughout the year, taking into account the climatic conditions in the area.

The significance of the research results can be reduced to the following main points: a more complete and adequate assessment of DFEP has been proposed for the purpose of SDTT; the advantages of APTE over other equivalents in terms of sustainability are presented; the proposed approach allows us to avoid the problem of distorting the assessment of the cause-and-effect relationships of pollutant emissions from motor vehicles and the concentration of pollutants in the air in the territory [4,31]; the method simplifies the procedures for forecasting, evaluating, and comparing alternatives; the method will make it possible to use APTE as an object of property rights (more details in [126]; the proposed method will allow assessing the effectiveness of measures to increase the AP of the territory (more details in [54]) and the consequences of its reduction in the territory; the method will allow us to develop a model of internalization of economic damage from emissions on the territory (and will allow us to form a theoretical basis for involving the AP of the territory in the process of internalization of EDFEP).

The proposed method for assessing EDTTE uses the costs of APTE as an equivalent. In this regard, it can be used to determine the initial prices of emission rights in various territories. Exceeding the initial price in the framework of emission rights trading will allow determining the market price of emissions and the profit of the owner of APTE. The MALOTE indicator can be used to determine the maximum volume of permits for environmental pollution. However, the values of this indicator in various territories can be significantly lower than the actual emissions. In this regard, for now it can rather perform the function of a strategic target for the environmental sustainability of territories. The tasks of using this approach to form a system for internalizing damage from emissions will be considered in more detail during further research.

In addition, the proposed indicator can be used to develop new decision-making and performance criteria. In this way, various sources of pollution can be characterized by correlating the profit or other results of an organization (industry, territory) with damage to the ecosystem. Thus, decision-makers can create new tools for assessing alternatives and forecasting. Different sources of pollution (for example, energy and motor vehicles) can be compared by determining what damage to the ecosystem will be caused when producing 1 kilowatt of energy, a unit of useful work, or how much electricity can be produced for an acceptable value of damage to the ecosystem for a given territory.

Difficulties in estimating pollutant emissions from motor vehicles due to the influence of many different factors can distort the comparison of alternatives [129,130,131,132]. The proposed approach reduces distortions when comparing environmental alternatives for vehicles. Assessing damage to the ecosystem can be an additional criterion for assessing the “cleanliness” of electricity for a territory. Additional indicators can help compare alternatives such as local power generation and imports. In general, the economic damage to the sustainable development of territories can be considered as an indicator of the ecological state of the socio-economic systems of territories.

The study of the problem of indicating environmental and economic damage from emissions of pollutants is in demand in environmental and economic science and can contribute to the formation of a highly effective regional environmental management strategy. The results of the study will allow us to begin to create effective mechanisms for internalizing economic damage from pollutant emissions.

4.7. Method Limitations

The analysis of the established concepts revealed that traditional approaches to assessing the economic damage from emissions do not fully reflect the situation in the territory in the context of the goal of TTSD. The study shows the limitations and gaps of common methods of economic assessment of environmental damage in the context of SDTT. Traditional methods of damage assessment, where consequences act as the equivalent of damage, need to be supplemented. As an additional factor, it is necessary to take into account the limitations of achieving environmental sustainability. The equivalent of damage in this case may be the cost of ecosystem elements that have AP to prevent negative effects from emissions.

However, the proposed approach has its limitations and disadvantages.

The specifics of some ecosystems may be difficult to take into account when assessing EDTTE from emissions. Thus, it can be difficult to assess the costs of forming and maintaining the basic elements of an ecosystem in terms of assimilation abilities. For example, the application of a cost method to evaluate the artificial formation of photosynthetic organisms in water bodies may be limited by the level of development of biotechnologies. In this case, you can use the remaining elements of this ecosystem that have AP. For a local ecosystem, plants of the highest order, trees (the dominant tree species in a given territory), can be used as an equivalent of damage.

The MALOTE indicator used has its limitations in terms of the number of pollutants taken into account (currently there are eight of them—the main pollutants in vehicle emissions [31,109]). This implies the development of an approach based on the analysis and generalization of the mechanisms of assimilation of other pollutants by ecosystem elements is needed.

The approach to determining MALOTE is based on a model ecosystem, an idealized research object for a specific territory. In practice, APTE will deviate from such an assessment. In this regard, the assessment of EDTTE based on this approach is the minimum value of damage from emissions in the territory in the context of sustainable development.

As a result, the proposed method complements the existing methods for assessing the effects of pollution, taking into account CSD. This method simplifies and makes the process of assessing the damage from emissions and making decisions based on it more transparent. This method is an addition to the existing ones for making decisions and comparing alternatives based on an estimate of the cost per unit of pollutant release for a specific ecosystem. It is difficult to predict damage to public health and other long-term risks when the volume and structure of emissions in the territory change, especially from vehicles. The use of the proposed equivalent in the form of the cost of ecosystem elements makes it possible to estimate the minimum economic damage from emissions in the territory from the point of view of sustainable development.

5. Conclusions

The basis for the increment of theoretical and analytical knowledge, which characterizes the potential of this area, is to combine the ecological limitations of the ecosystem with the economic assessment of damage from pollutant emissions in the context of the TTSD of the territory. The limitation of environmental pollution to the extent of complete neutralization of harmful substances by AP, and population health and ecosystem’s elements damage exclusion, can ensure the ecological sustainability of the territory. With maintaining an environmentally justified level of pollutant emissions on the territory, environmental damage will be associated only with the costs of pollutant disposal by ecosystem elements. The pollution exceeding such a MALOTE negatively affects its condition (in addition to the risk of morbidity among the population) and will require additional AP to neutralize pollutants.

Based on the analysis of the links between pollutant emissions and the APTE, an ecological and economic mechanism for the occurrence of EDTTE from atmospheric pollution has been identified. It is expressed in the fact that pollutants in the atmospheric air negatively affect the health of the population and must be neutralized by the natural environment. The necessary neutralization of pollutants, identified with the costs of disposal by APTE, leads to EDTTE.

Within the framework of the developed approach, EDTTE from pollutant emissions is identified with the costs of disposal of technogenic pollution by ecosystem elements. This will supplement the traditional definition of costs for the elimination of negative consequences of environmental pollution using the assessment of the costs of their prevention through the formation of ecosystem elements with AP.

The proposed theoretical and methodological bases for assessing the economic damage from pollutant emissions include, along with the assessment of the costs of eliminating negative consequences, the costs of forming and maintaining ecosystem elements that have sufficient AP to prevent harm to human health, natural objects, and man-made objects. Within the framework of this approach, the specific economic damage to an ecosystem is defined as the ratio of the costs of the formation of AP to the MAL of carbon monoxide on the ecosystem. This allows us, using the values of the pollutant hazard coefficients calculated according to MALOTE, to proceed to an economic assessment of damage from emissions of other pollutants. The damage to the ecosystem determines the deviation of the actual state of the ecosystem from the characteristics of the idealized model ecosystem. Estimation of costs for AP (cost of AP) is determined by the price level of the territory. The assessment of alternatives will be carried out in relation to MAL and the AP cost of the territory’s ecosystem.

Common approaches to estimating the economic damage from emissions are incomplete. In the context of the sustainability of the territory, the proposed method complements the existing conceptual understanding of the assessment of economic damage. Within the framework of this study, in order to determine the minimum economic damage from emissions in the territory, I propose to use as an equivalent the costs of ecosystem elements with AP. In this case, the assessment of economic damage from emissions will take into account the ecological features of the ecosystem of a particular territory and the price level, characterizing the equivalent costs of restoring and maintaining ecosystem elements with AP. The proposed approach combines the environmental, economic, and social aspects of the problem of assessing EDFEP. The criterion of ecological sustainability (used by MALOTE), based on the characteristics of the ecosystem, makes it possible to determine the relative hazard of pollutants for the ecosystem of the territory under consideration. This criterion includes one of the ecosystem services—APTE. The cost method is used for the economic characterization of APTE and reflects the economic aspect of the assessment problem. The environmental benchmark for limiting emissions to prevent negative consequences for the population, man-made objects, and natural objects characterizes the social aspect. In the context of critical and strong sustainability, this aspect is complemented by the goal of neutralizing pollutant emissions using APTE and assessing the equivalent costs of doing so. The synthesis of these elements of the EDTTE assessment approach allows us to complement the traditional EDFEP assessment concept.

To achieve the goal of sustainable development of the territory, the concept of assessing EDFEP needs to be supplemented; in addition to assessing the consequences (losses, costs of elimination and compensation) from pollution, it is necessary to additionally take into account the costs of preventing negative consequences by the APTE. The equivalent of such damage is the cost of the formation and functioning of ecosystem elements to neutralize the considered mass of pollutant emissions. The novelty of this approach to assessing EDTTE is to assess the costs of creating and maintaining ecosystem components that have sufficient AP to prevent negative impacts on public health, natural objects, and man-made objects due to environmental pollution. Specific EDTTE is proposed to be defined as the ratio of the costs of forming and maintaining ecosystem elements with AP to the MALOTE of carbon monoxide.

The results of this study show the costs of ecosystem elements (which perform ecosystem services). This is a convenient and the most acceptable equivalent to the assessment of EDTTE caused by pollutant emissions. In the proposed method, I combine the assessment of ecosystem services based on the cost method and the assessment of damage from emissions. I also solve the problem of substantiating the need for such a synthesis from the point of view of CSD. This will complement the understanding of the economic damage caused by emissions in the territory in the context of its sustainability. Using this proposed method will reduce information constraints when comparing alternatives and making decisions on the territory. The proposed approach is not without drawbacks. EDTTE assessment can only be performed for the eight main pollutants contained in vehicle exhaust gases, the characteristics of some ecosystems may be difficult to take into account, and the specifics of the approach to assessing MALOTE will overestimate the value of this indicator and underestimate the value of EDTTE. At the same time, the development of this direction will make it possible to improve the mechanisms for internalizing economic damage from emissions and develop methods for forming a strategy to reduce environmental damage in the territory. The results of this study can be a guideline for the development of public administration tools for achieving sustainable development goals at the territorial level. In addition, the tasks of future research may include the development of a methodology for assessing the economic damage to public health from emissions of pollutants, the development of a method for assessing MALOTE under conditions of significant information constraints and increasing the number of pollutants taken into account, and, finally, the development of mechanisms for compensating for economic damage from emissions of various sources of environmental pollution.

6. Glossary

Assimilation potential of the ecosystem (APTE)—the ability of elements of the natural environment (green spaces, soil, mineral rocks and inorganic residues, atmospheric moisture, and water of reservoirs) and man-made (artificial) objects neutralize and process harmful substances without changing their basic properties.

The cost of assimilation potential—the cost of monetary units in current prices in the territory for the formation and functioning of ecosystem elements with assimilation potential.

Maximum allowable load on the ecosystem (MALOTE)—the mass of emissions of pollutants that can be neutralized by the assimilation potential of the ecosystem, and at the same time will eliminate the formation in the air of concentrations of pollutants dangerous to humans and the natural environment.

Relative hazard of pollutants—an indicator of the danger of pollutants to the ecosystem of a territory relative to carbon monoxide.

Yearly allowable mass of pollutant in the air of the territory—the mass of pollutant that the volume of incoming air in the territory can dilute to the minimum daily maximum allowable concentration for humans and elements of the ecosystem in question or the natural ground concentration of pollutant in the territory (kg/year).