Global Insights, Regional Action: Approaches to Environmental Policy Assessment in Russia and Kazakhstan

Abstract

Ecological safety has become one of the most critical factors in regional development. This article examines how environmental methodologies can be integrated and effectively applied at the regional level in Russia and Kazakhstan—two countries whose unique natural resource potentials contribute significantly to global sustainable development. The study systematizes and compares data from both countries across national, regional, and local frameworks, identifying key priorities, directions, and specific mechanisms for applying ecological policies in their regions. Additionally, it shows how national priorities align with those identified in regional environmental policies. This article brings together environmental methods for assessing, monitoring, and managing regional ecosystems in Russia and Kazakhstan. The main focus is made on understanding ecosystem connections, predicting changes, and developing strategies for sustainable regional development. By comparing the application of these methods and policy priorities at national and regional levels, the study highlights practical challenges in implementing current frameworks. Key elements include environmental impact assessment, ecological monitoring, and resource management. The proposed approach offers a comprehensive yet flexible way to address regional environmental issues, balancing economic growth with nature conservation. The methodologies and criteria presented can help establish a rigorous framework for systematic assessment and management of environmental impacts, supporting evidence-based decisions that balance environmental concerns with sustainable development. In conclusion, the article summarizes best practices and suggests improvements to ecological policies in Russia and Kazakhstan, pointing out opportunities to enhance ecological resilience amid global environmental change.

1. Introduction

In today’s world, environmental challenges have expanded beyond local concerns to become systemic threats to humanity’s sustainable development. Ecosystem degradation, climate change, the depletion of natural resources, and pollution now have a direct impact not only on the quality of life but also on economic stability and national security. These issues acquire particular urgency at the regional level, where local conditions, such as industrial zones, unique natural landmarks, and transboundary river basins, demand carefully tailored approaches to environmental risk management.

For Russia and Kazakhstan, two vast countries endowed with rich natural resources and ecologically sensitive territories, the question of effective environmental governance is crucial. Their abundant resources make them key players in the global economy and energy sector. However, intensive resource exploitation in both countries has resulted in significant pressure on local ecosystems, worsening environmental conditions and highlighting the need for more adaptive and regionally responsive environmental policies.

On the international stage, Russia and Kazakhstan are strategic actors whose ecological strategies shape both regional and global environmental security. Despite their similarities, each country faces distinct challenges that are not always fully reflected in current policy design. For example, in Russia, efforts to consistently reduce emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere have fallen short. In 2024, total emissions rose from 21,096 to 22,075 thousand tons, with emissions from stationary sources increasing from 16,952 to 17,092 thousand tons. Compounding the issue, the volume of captured and neutralized pollutants from these sources fell sharply—from 55,354 to 47,153 thousand tons [1].

Kazakhstan has experienced a comparable trend. Between 2022 and 2024, the total volume of emissions from stationary sources grew from 2276.4 to 2328.6 thousand tons. In 2024 alone, stationary sources released 2271.4 thousand tons of pollutants into the atmosphere—an increase of 1.9% compared to 2022 [2].

Both Russia and Kazakhstan exhibit significant interregional disparities in environmental indicators. In Russia, the highest emission volumes are recorded in Krasnoyarsk (2.2 million tons) and Kemerovo (1.6 million tons) regions, while the lowest are in Ingushetia (2.4 thousand tons) and Kalmykia (4.1 thousand tons). At a broader scale, the Siberian Federal District, which hosts much of the country’s extractive and processing industries, produces over 30% of Russia’s total pollutant emissions despite containing only 11% of its population [1]. Similarly, in Kazakhstan, emissions are heavily concentrated in certain areas: Pavlodar (694.2 thousand tons) and Karaganda (455 thousand tons) regions contribute the most to national pollution levels [2].

Russian and Kazakhstani scholars focus extensively on regional environmental imbalances and policies. In this context, Dregulo [3] has proposed preliminary indicators of environmental degradation caused by various forms of unaccounted-for environmental impact. Titova [4] introduces the concept of “ecological debt” to explain why environmental degradation persists on the national and regional levels despite rising public spending on environmental protection. Krasilnikova et al. examine the core principles of ecological sustainability in regions of the Russian Arctic [5]. Meanwhile, other research evidence points to the importance of preserving iconic ecosystems like Baikal and the Volga for national security reasons [6,7].

Kazakhstan faces its own distinct environmental challenges such as the need to combat desertification, restoration of the Aral Sea, reducing the impact of the mining sector, and dealing with the problem of transboundary pollution. Wu et al. [8], as well as Issanova et al. [9], examine both natural and human-induced factors behind land degradation and identify key drivers that exacerbate these processes.

Researchers from the Institute of Plant Biology and Biotechnology have developed ecological and geoecological maps to assess the environmental impact of slag dust emissions from a lead plant in various regions of Kazakhstan [10].

Other important studies [11,12] focus on the development of a national environmental doctrine and provide justification for establishing a comprehensive monitoring system in the country’s cities and regions. Despite the recognized importance of regional approaches to environmental protection, there is still no unified methodology for analyzing regional environmental policies. This gap has resulted in the lack of a coherent environmental policy framework, an underestimation of ecological risks, and persisting tensions between economic development goals and ecological priorities. A key problem is the discrepancy between the formal adoption of international standards and their practical implementation in regions with unique socio-economic and natural-climatic characteristics.

In response to these challenges, this study seeks to develop a comprehensive methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of regional environmental policy in Russia and Kazakhstan—one that strikes a sustainable balance between economic growth and environmental resilience. The research hypothesis is that the effectiveness of regional environmental policy can be enhanced through a universal approach that integrates international methodologies into regional management while considering national and local specificities. The following research questions are posed: How can key international environmental methodologies be adapted to regional conditions in Russia and Kazakhstan? How can criteria for the effectiveness of environmental policy be systematized, considering the integration of international standards and national characteristics? What implementation algorithm would be effective at the regional level? What practical recommendations can be formulated to create a universal yet flexible assessment methodology? To achieve the research goal and address the corresponding questions, the following research tasks were formulated:

• Compare how key environmental tools such as impact assessment, biodiversity monitoring, and waste management are implemented in Russia and Kazakhstan, highlighting regional barriers to their adoption;
• Systematize criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of regional environmental policy by integrating international standards such as ISO, UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the national contexts of both countries;
• Design a comprehensive implementation algorithm that includes the following stages: data collection → analysis → strategic planning → implementation → monitoring;
• Formulate evidence-based recommendations for the development of an integrated framework to evaluate regional environmental policy across Russia and Kazakhstan.

This approach enables, for the first time, a clear comparative analysis of how environmental methods can be integrated into regional governance systems in Russia and Kazakhstan. By bridging environmental science, geopolitics, and public administration, the study addresses a critical gap in understanding how these fields intersect in environmental governance. This integration aims to reduce environmental risks, enhance economic stability, improve quality of life, and help both countries meet their international commitments to sustainable development.

2. Literature Review

The existing body of literature can be divided into three groups. The first group gathers works focused on justifying the fundamental goals of environmental policy, which are most often framed as ensuring sustainable development. Volkov and Simonyan [13] analyze current approaches to regional sustainability assessment. Their work systematizes various methodologies, identifying key classification criteria that enhance their practical application in managing territorial environmental development. Particular emphasis is placed on the integration of environmental, social, and economic factors in sustainability assessments. Glazachev and Kosonozhkin [14] explore the impact of human activity on biospheric processes, in particular how natural systems adapt to anthropogenic pressures, and propose strategies of environmental policy to mitigate harmful effects and increase resilience to negative impacts.

Aleksandrova [15] analyzes both international and Russian experiences in embedding circular economy models in environmental policy, highlighting their potential to reduce environmental stress and increase production efficiency. Special attention is given to the legal and economic instruments of environmental policy that facilitate this transition.

The second group includes works addressing specific approaches, tools, and empirical data on environmental policy in Russia and Kazakhstan. For example, Panova [16] substantiates the implementation of sustainable development goals in Russia’s environmental policy. Tyutyukina et al. [17] assess the impact of environmental policy on regional investments in environmental protection. Turtseva [18] examines specific mechanisms for implementing environmental policy using tools such as state programs. Alimbek & Vovk [19] identify opportunities for using environmental criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of Kazakhstan’s public investment policy. Kazbekova [20] highlights the role of various stakeholders in shaping environmental policy.

The third group of sources comprises key studies on international analytical tools that have shaped our approach to assessing regional environmental policy. These studies reflect the key areas of environmental activity in global practice, namely: main methodologies for environmental assessment and monitoring; resource and ecosystem management; urban and social aspects of environmental policy; and integrated environmental monitoring and management systems. We are going to consider these works in more detail below.

Modern environmental assessment and monitoring combine multiple frameworks. In terms of impact assessment, Manfreda et al. [21] highlight innovative UAV-based remote monitoring methods. Kehoe et al. [22] add techniques for predicting human impacts on biodiversity, which is monitored according to international standards set by the Convention on Biological Diversity [23]. In climate research, Odum’s classic work [24] remains relevant for its holistic view of climate change and ecological effects. This perspective extends to land degradation studies, where Kust and colleagues [25] propose new indicators to assess desertification through the concept of a neutral degradation balance.

Natural resource and ecosystem management is built around three key methodological areas. In water management, Samburskiy [26] advocates for nature-based solutions in urban systems, emphasizing closed-loop principles, while international guidelines are outlined by the World Meteorological Organization [27]. For ecosystem services, the Russian report [28] offers a practical framework for assessing natural capital. In addressing industrial pollution, Stern [29] introduces economic tools to manage human impacts, with particular focus on the climate effects of industrial activity.

Research in urban ecology and socio-ecological systems is advancing along two interconnected lines. In urban planning, Gehl [30] describes a human-centered design that aligns environmental principles with residents’ needs. Building on Elinor Ostrom’s work, Strekalova [31] develops a comprehensive framework for analyzing interactions between society and the environment. Related studies on the circular economy, e.g., Aleksandrova [15], and climate policy, e.g., Roginko [32], explore ways to adapt environmental strategies to socio-economic conditions. Together, these works seek to balance ecological sustainability with the realities of urban life.

This perspective is closely tied to broader trends in environmental governance, which typically include three core components. In monitoring, Medvedeva [33] and Sataeva [34] offer frameworks for assessing risks and managing monitoring systems. On sustainability indicators, Pearce [35] provides an economic basis for evaluating environmental performance. These approaches are reinforced by circular economy models, such as that of Aleksandrova [15], which offer practical tools for resource efficiency and waste reduction. Collectively, these studies reflect a systemic approach to governance—combining scientific methods with legal, economic, and technological tools to support integrated environmental management.

3. Research Methodology

The study applies a combination of qualitative empirical methods, including content analysis, comparative-geographical analysis, and normative-criteria analysis. The empirical base included qualitative data from a content analysis of key strategic and regulatory texts on environmental policy in Russia and Kazakhstan, such as national projects, strategies, state programs, and environmental legislation. Quantitative data were collected from official sources, including Rosstat, the Bureau of National Statistics of Kazakhstan, and open international databases on environmental pollution.

With the help of content analysis [36], we categorized fifteen methodologies used for assessing environmental development of a territory. The selection of methodologies for analysis was based on four criteria: (1) relevance for evaluating environmental policy and sustainable development; (2) international recognition and standardization; (3) coverage of key areas of environmental policy; and (4) potential for regional adaptation. For the content analysis, we established coding rules. Compliance with international standards (e.g., ISO, UN SDGs) was assessed through official documentation, looking for direct references or clear alignment with relevant indicators. The coding was carried out independently by two researchers and then cross-checked to ensure reliability

Using Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and waste management as examples (

Table 1. Classification of international methodologies for assessing environmental development of a territory.

Criterion	Methodology
Compliance with International Association for Impact Assessment standards Consideration of transboundary environmental effects Integration of sustainable development principles (UN SDGs) Use of multi-criteria analysis (economic, social, and environmental aspects)	Environmental Impact Assessment
Use of IUCN Red List indicators to assess species extinction risk Living Planet Index for assessing wildlife populations Indicators from the Convention on Biological Diversity (e.g., protecting 30% of land and oceans by 2030) Monitoring of ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, climate regulation)	Biodiversity Monitoring
Adherence to the Paris Agreement (limiting temperature rise to 1.5 °C) Greenhouse gas inventory using IPCC methodology Climate vulnerability indicators (e.g., ND-GAIN Index) Product carbon footprint analysis (ISO 14064–14067 standards [37])	Climate Research
Aridity Index and Land Degradation Index Compliance with the UN Convention to Combat Desertification Soil restoration through agroforestry and permaculture methods Use of satellite data to assess vegetation dynamics (NDVI)	Desertification and Land Degradation Assessment
Water Quality Index (WQI) and compliance with WHO guidelines Basin-level management approach Integration of SDG 6 principles (clean water and sanitation) Monitoring of microplastics and ocean toxins (UNEP programs)	Water Quality and Resource Management Assessment
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) methodologies Ecosystem service mapping using IPBES platforms Integration into national accounting systems (e.g., UN SEEA) Valuation of recreational and cultural ecosystem services	Ecosystem Services Assessment
Emission standards from EU IED Directive and US EPA Air Quality Index (AQI) and monitoring of PM2.5/PM10 Application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) Biomonitoring	Industrial Pollution Control
Establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in line with IUCN standards Ocean acidification monitoring (SDG 14 targets) Overfishing assessment (e.g., FAO indicators) Coral reef restoration programs (e.g., Great Barrier Reef)	Marine Ecology Assessment
Green City Index Waste management guided by Zero Waste principles Integration of green infrastructure (parks, green roofs) Assessment of urban carbon neutrality (e.g., C40 Cities)	Urban Ecology Assessment
Community Sustainability Index (CSI) Participation of local populations in resource management (FPIC principle) Environmental conflict assessment (EJAtlas database) Climate change adaptation in vulnerable regions (e.g., Small Island Developing States—SIDS)	Socio-Ecological Systems Assessment
Forest change analysis via Global Forest Watch Natural disaster prediction (fires, floods) using NASA Earth Observing System Carbon stock mapping (REDD+ projects)	Remote Sensing and GIS
FSC certification (sustainable forest management) ISO 14,000 standards (environmental management) Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ratings Equator Principles for project finance	International Environmental Standards
1. Biological Monitoring: Indicator species: use of environmentally sensitive species to monitor ecosystem health Bioindicators: organisms or communities used to assess the quality of the environment 2. Physico-Chemical Monitoring: Air analysis: monitoring pollutants such as nitrogen and sulfur oxides Water analysis: measuring pH, oxygen levels, heavy metal presence 3. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Mapping: creating maps showing environmental data (e.g., species distribution, pollution zones) Spatial data analysis: using GIS to identify and analyze spatial patterns in environmental data	Environmental Monitoring
1. Economic criteria Evaluate environmental impact on economic growth and resource intensity Ecological efficiency: ratio between economic benefit and environmental cost Resource intensity: amount of resources used per unit of production 2. Social criteria Assess social impact on society and public health Public health: influence of environmental factors on health and well-being Social equity: equal access to natural resources and environmental goods 3. Environmental criteria Focus on biodiversity conservation and air, water, and soil quality Biodiversity conservation: measures to maintain and restore species and habitats Environmental quality: maintaining and improving air, water, and soil quality	Sustainable Environmental Development Indicator Systems
1. Recycling and Reuse Waste collection and recycling systems: infrastructure for effective material recovery Reuse technologies: development of processes for reusing materials in production 2. Waste Management Waste minimization: strategies and technologies to reduce waste at all stages Disposal and treatment: safe handling of waste through incineration, landfilling, or recycling	Waste and Resource Management Methodologies

), the study also identifies key barriers to adapting these methodologies to regional contexts.

We apply a comparative-geographical approach [38,39] to analyze the national environmental priorities of Russia and Kazakhstan. This approach served as an analytical framework for a systematic comparison of program documents and practices of environmental policy implementation in the regions of both countries. The selection and classification of documents drew on a system of complementary criteria designed to form a representative and multi-level empirical database. The key selection criteria were as follows: legal authority and scope of regulation (international law, national legislation, subordinate acts, and strategic and program documents); geographic and institutional origin (documents from international organizations, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Kazakhstan); and type and content of information (legal acts, official statistics, analytical reviews, and reports). Based on these criteria, all sources were grouped into several key categories. The first and largest category consisted of legal acts, including international agreements ratified by both countries and national laws and codes forming the legal framework of environmental policy. The second category comprised strategic and program documents defining specific goals, objectives, and implementation mechanisms at the national level, such as Russia’s national project “Ecology” and Kazakhstan’s Concept for Transition to a Green Economy. The third group included official statistics and analytical reports from authorized government agencies, which furnished a factual basis for assessing the state and trends of environmental indicators. The fourth group consisted of academic publications and recommendations from international organizations, providing a theoretical and methodological foundation for our classification and comparative analysis of methodologies. Thus, the document selection aimed to cover all levels of governance, from global to national, and combined normative prescriptions with their practical implementation and evaluation, ensuring the study’ comprehensiveness and reliability. As a result, the study brought to light not only the formal priorities enshrined in the strategies of both countries but also the actual regional differences in their implementation, driven by geographic specifics, economic structure, and accumulated environmental damage. In Russia, these priorities include addressing accumulated environmental damage and protecting major water bodies such as Lake Baikal and the Volga River. In Kazakhstan, the focus is on combating desertification and restoring the Aral Sea. A comparative review of key environmental policy documents from both countries was conducted and criteria were proposed for evaluating their effectiveness. The study highlights the importance of aligning international standards, such as ISO 14000 and the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), with national strategies, programs, and regulations. For example, Russia uses indicators from its national project “Ecology” [40], while Kazakhstan relies on the criteria from its Environmental Code [41].

At the core of the proposed methodology is the identification and description of four main frameworks for assessing environmental performance, as outlined in

Table 2. Key components of environmental assessment and management worldwide.

Description	Content	Component
This component covers core methods for assessing territorial environmental conditions, including EIA, biodiversity monitoring, climate research, and land degradation analysis. These tools underpin environmental decision-making and provide a basis for further research.	1. Environmental Impact Assessment 2. Biodiversity Monitoring 3. Climate Research 4. Assessment of Desertification and Land Degradation	Core Methods of Environmental Assessment and Monitoring
This component focuses on practical methods for managing natural resources, including water management, ecosystem service assessment, industrial pollution control, and marine ecosystem management. The emphasis is on implementation and sustainable use.	5. Water Resource Management 6. Ecosystem Services Assessment 7. Industrial Pollution Control 8. Marine Ecology	Resource and Ecosystem Management
This component examines human–nature interactions in urban settings. It covers urban ecology, socio-ecological systems, advanced monitoring technologies, and international standards, addressing sustainable urban development and the social aspects of environmental policy	9. Urban Ecology 10. Socio-Ecological Systems 11. Remote Sensing and GIS 12. International Environmental Standards	Urban and Social Aspects of Ecology
This component brings together comprehensive approaches to monitoring and management. It includes monitoring systems, sustainability indicators, and waste and resource management methods, offering integrated solutions for regional environmental development.	13. Environmental Monitoring 14. Indicators of Sustainable Environmental Development 15. Waste and Resource Management Methods	Integrated Environmental Monitoring and Management Systems

.

The above-described classification of key components of environmental activity in global practice organizes the methods and criteria systems used in environmental research and natural resource management worldwide. These areas demand approaches that are both universal and adaptable.

The novelty of the proposed approach lies in several key contributions. First, the study introduces a universal comparative algorithm specifically tailored for regional application—marking the first comprehensive effort to adapt and apply environmental methodologies to the regional contexts of Russia and Kazakhstan. Second, it organizes and integrates diverse environmental methods used in both countries into a unified model, providing a clearer framework for policy analysis and implementation. Third, the study offers a comparative analysis of the barriers that hinder the adaptation of these methods at the regional level. Fourth, it incorporates socio-economic indicators to enhance the evaluation of environmental policy effectiveness. Finally, it highlights the connection between specific methods, such as waste management, and their impact on quality of life, providing guidance for balancing economic development with environmental sustainability.

The analysis clarified the role of each component and its importance in shaping effective regional policy.

The first component, “Core Methods of Environmental Assessment and Monitoring”, integrates techniques to systematically identify human impacts and natural system dynamics. Environmental Impact Assessment forecasts the environmental effects of economic activities using qualitative tools like expert evaluations and matrix modeling, alongside quantitative methods such as probabilistic risk analysis, energy balances, and hydrological modeling [42]. Biodiversity monitoring catalogs species and evaluates ecosystem function using metrics like the Shannon Index for diversity and the Index of Biotic Integrity for ecosystem structure, enabling quantitative assessment of regulatory services like climate stabilization [23,43]. Climate research attributes climate change to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, in line with IPCC standards, using the ND-GAIN Index to assess regional vulnerability and track ocean acidification. Desertification diagnostics rely on satellite indices (NDVI) and the Aridity Index (AI) to detect early land degradation.

These methods can be used to support regional efforts in managing environmental risks and developing strategies for biodiversity conservation, land restoration, and climate adaptation [24].

The second component, “Resource and Ecosystem Management”, integrates methods to balance resource use with environmental protection. Water management applies integrated use principles by monitoring the Water Quality Index (WQI), water withdrawals, and compliance with UN SDG 6 to safeguard transboundary basins. Ecosystem services assessment uses the TEEB framework to economically value benefits like wastewater filtration and recreation, encouraging preservation of biological corridors. Industrial pollution control enforces maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) and Best Available Techniques (BAT), tracking particulate matter (PM2.5/PM10) and gas cleaning efficiency to reduce emissions. Marine ecosystem management regulates coastal activities through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), guided by FAO overfishing indicators and ocean acidification data [27]. Together, these methods provide regional tools for resource allocation, economic validation of environmental programs, and environmentally constrained industrial modernization.

The third component, “Urban and Social Aspects of Ecology”, focuses on harmonizing human-nature interactions. Urban ecology mitigates heat islands and noise pollution through optimized green infrastructure, measured by per capita greening and noise maps. Socio-ecological research analyzes conflict resolution mechanisms using the Community Sustainability Index (CSI) and EJAtlas to assess environmental risk distribution. Geoinformation technologies enable spatial monitoring of land-use and carbon flows (e.g., Global Forest Watch), supporting predictive models. International standards (ISO 14001, FSC) align environmental practices reflected in Environmental Performance Index (EPI) rankings [32,37]. These methods promote sustainable urban development, social capital integration, and “smart city” strategies based on remote sensing.

The fourth component, “Integrated Environmental Monitoring and Management Systems”, offers comprehensive tools for assessing ecological, social, and economic interactions. Environmental monitoring combines bioindicators with physicochemical analyses (pH, heavy metals) for quick pollution detection. Sustainability indicator systems compile economic, environmental, and social metrics into composite indices for regional comparison. Waste management relies on principles of circular economy, tracking recycling rates and energy recovery. Together, these methods underpin balanced territorial policies, resource-efficient economic transformation, and multi-level environmental auditing.

Table 3. Methodology for assessing environmental performance: structure, novelty, objectives, and significance for regional policy.

Significance for Regional Policy	Task	Key Method and Indicator	Component
Enables preventive risk management, adaptive conservation strategies, and rehabilitation of degraded areas	Forecasting environmental impacts; assessing ecosystem integrity; analyzing climate vulnerability; early land degradation detection	EIA (expert assessments, matrix modeling, hydrological modeling) Biodiversity monitoring (Shannon index, biotic integrity index) Climate research (ND-GAIN, IPCC methodology) Desertification assessment (NDVI, AI)	Core Methods of Environmental Assessment and Monitoring
Supports rational resource allocation, economic validation of environmental programs, and industrial modernization	Ensuring ecological security of transboundary basins; monetizing ecosystem benefits; reducing industrial pollution; regulating coastal activities	Water resource management (WQI, UN SDG 6) Ecosystem services assessment (TEEB) Industrial pollution control (MPC, BAT, PM2.5/PM10) Marine ecology (MSP, FAO overfishing indicators)	Resource and Ecosystem Management
Advances smart city development, social capital integration, and sustainable urbanization	Mitigating urban heat islands; analyzing environmental conflicts; spatial land-use monitoring; harmonizing environmental standards	Urban ecology (greening index, noise maps) Socio-ecological systems (CSI, EJAtlas) GIS and remote sensing (Global Forest Watch) International standards (ISO 14001, EPI)	Urban and Social Aspects of Ecology
Provides the foundation for balanced territorial policy, resource-based economic transformation, and multi-level environmental auditing	Rapid pollution detection; regional sustainability comparison; applying circular economy principles	Environmental monitoring (bioindication, physico-chemical analysis) Sustainability indicators (SIs) Waste management (municipal solid waste recycling, energy recovery)	Integrated Environmental Monitoring and Management Systems

summarizes the proposed methodology, combining international experience and regional specifics to create a practical toolkit for a more effective environmental policy.

The integrative system of components, widely used internationally, provides a comprehensive toolkit for regional environmental risk management. Core methods for assessing human impact (Component 1) and optimizing resource use (Component 2) underpin strategies for sustainable use of natural capital. Integrating urban (Component 3) and systemic approaches (Component 4) balances policy by incorporating social factors and composite indicators.

At the final stage of the study, we applied normative-criteria analysis to develop recommendations [44]. This approach involved identifying and comparing sets of criteria embedded in international standards (ISO, UN SDGs), national strategies, and regional programs of both countries. Rather than focusing on economic efficiency, we assessed the degree of compliance and completeness in the implementation of environmental policy at different levels of governance, while also identifying gaps and possibilities for adjusting methodologies to national and regional contexts.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Factors for Adapting International Methodologies to the National Level

For effective implementation, global environmental practices in Russia must be tailored to its diverse geography and the aftermath of industrial development. A major challenge is the legacy of Soviet-era industrialization, which demands targeted land reclamation efforts, such as restoring the Volga River and eliminating hazardous waste sites. As Titova rightly notes, the concept of ecological debt explains why, despite growing spending on environmental protection, natural system degradation persists [4]. However, as Dregulo shows, to effectively address these challenges, specialized methodologies are needed to identify accumulated environmental damage with the help of primary indicators of degradation [3]. Russia’s vast ecological diversity also necessitates tailored methods of biodiversity assessment suited to ecosystems ranging from Arctic tundra to black soil steppes, with special attention to sites like Lake Baikal and the Volga Delta.

The centralized governance model, implemented through federal programs like the national project “Ecology”, requires that international standards (ISO, UN SDGs) should be aligned with national regulations, although progress is slowed by technological lag in some sectors. Water management is a key priority, which means that a basin-wide approach must be combined with infrastructure modernization and reduced transboundary impacts [40,45]. In 2024, government spending allocated to the implementation of the national project “Ecology” amounted to 70,408 million rubles, or about half of the country’s total environmental budget. Priority areas of funding included the programs “Clean Air”, “Reviving the Volga”, and “Clean Country” (accounting for 46%, 13%, and 12% of total financing in 2019–2024, respectively), which target the rehabilitation of areas with the greatest accumulated environmental damage [40]. The share of the environmental budget distributed through the system of national projects is expected to increase in the future, both because these projects set clearer goals and performance indicators and because they provide greater opportunities for attracting extra-budgetary investment [46].

In Kazakhstan, international methodologies must be adapted to the country’s extreme climatic conditions and its heavy reliance on transboundary water resources. As shown by Issanova et al. [9] and Wu et al. [8], the processes of desertification and land degradation in regions such as the Aral Sea basin and Mangystau are complex in nature and require the integration of satellite monitoring (NDVI, AI) with predictive climate models. Significant efforts are being made to improve water quality. In 2024, the Concept for the Development of the Water Resources Management System of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2024–2030 was approved, which legally establishes regulations for preserving the country’s water resource potential [47]. As of 2025, 99.3% of the urban population and 97.5% of the rural population have access to drinking water. However, the problem is not yet fully resolved: full access to drinking water has not been achieved in 17 cities (including Astana, Almaty, and Shymkent) and 469 villages [48].

Socio-economic conditions also shape policy needs. Given the dominance of extractive industries, pollution control must align with EU standards while maintaining economic competitiveness. Cultural knowledge, particularly traditional practices of nomadic communities, plays a valuable role in sustainable pasture use and should be integrated into desertification mitigation programs like “Zhasyl Damu.” Finally, the transboundary nature of ecosystems, especially in the Ural and Irtysh basins, requires that EIA methodologies be adapted to international agreements and support joint monitoring with neighboring countries [24].

Our analysis revealed key differences in the application and adaptation of international environmental methodologies in Russia and Kazakhstan. To illustrate and systematize these differences,

Table 4. International methods of environmental development applied in Russia and Kazakhstan.

Russia	Kazakhstan	Methodology
Focus: Remediation of historical damage, protection of unique water bodies (Baikal, Volga) EIA: Emphasis on hydrological modeling and expert assessments for infrastructure projects Climate: Industrial adaptation (IPCC methodology) Desertification: Not a priority area	Focus: Combating desertification and land degradation EIA: Mandatory consideration of transboundary effects (Ural and Irtysh river basins) Climate: Monitoring of Tien Shan glaciers under the Paris Agreement Desertification: A key priority using satellite indices (NDVI, aridity)	Block 1: Key Methods for Assessment and Monitoring
Focus: Technological modernization of industry (BAT) Water: Basin-based approach, large-scale river rehabilitation projects Ecosystem services: Not systematically integrated into management Pollution: Implementation of BAT, federal projects (“Clean Air”)	Focus: Management of scarce water resources under aridification Water: Strict regulation, quotas, and control of transboundary rivers Ecosystem services: Pilot applications (TEEB) in reforestation projects Pollution: Alignment with European standards, particularly in oil extraction	Block 2: Resource and Ecosystem Management
Focus: Creation of “smart cities” Urban ecology: Optimization of green infrastructure, ISO 14001 standards Socio-environmental systems: Analysis of public health impacts; integration of traditional knowledge is limited	Focus: Combating dust pollution and urban “heat islands” Urban ecology: Relevant for major cities (Nur-Sultan, Karaganda) Socio-environmental systems: Integration of nomadic traditional knowledge, evaluation of programs like “Zhasyl Damu”	Block 3: Urban and Social Aspects
Focus: Pragmatic, measurable goals within state programs, though with the recognition of lagging behind in the circular economy Waste management: Establishment of eco-technoparks, recycling technologies (circularity indicators below standard) Monitoring: Centralized indicator system within the national project “Ecology”	Focus: Pragmatic, measurable goals within state programs, pro-active use of innovative technologies for monitoring Waste management: Evolving under green economy strategies with a focus on minimizing landfill disposal Monitoring: Indicator systems harmonize Kazakhstan’s Environmental Code with international standards	Block 4: Integrated Monitoring and Management Systems

presents the approaches of each country in detail across four conceptual blocks defined in the methodology.

4.2. Comparative Analysis of the Application of Environmental Methodologies in Russia and Kazakhstan

Thus, it can be said that Russia demonstrates a centralized governance model, where environmental methods are systematically integrated with well-defined qualitative indicators. The key features of Russia’s approach include the following:

• A dominance of water management issues, linked to the remediation of historical environmental damage;
• A technocratic approach with an emphasis on industrial modernization through BAT;
• Limited application of ecosystem service assessments and socio-cultural indicators;
• Addressing regional specificities through the adaptation of federal programs to local contexts, such as Lake Baikal and the Arctic.

While Volkov and Simonyan stress the need to integrate environmental, social, and economic factors [13], our finding is that at the regional level in Russia, these factors are often poorly balanced, especially in industrial areas with significant accumulated environmental damage.

Kazakhstan focuses on adaptation to extreme conditions, with an emphasis on international cooperation. While Kust et al. developed criteria for assessing desertification [25], Kazakhstan established a similar set of measures to combat land degradation the foundation of its environmental policy. Moreover, unlike classical technocratic schemes criticized by, among others, Strekalova for ignoring social context and local resource management practices [31], the Kazakh approach supplements international methodologies with traditional knowledge from nomadic communities, enabling a more flexible socio-environmental approach to pasture management and climate adaptation. The key features of Kazakhstan’s approach include the following:

• A set of measures to combat desertification and land degradation as the foundation of environmental policy;
• A transboundary context in water resource and pollution management;
• Active use of satellite monitoring and GIS technologies to cover vast sparsely populated areas;
• Integration of traditional knowledge and assessments of health impacts on populations in arid regions.

These approaches demonstrate the breadth of environmental issues addressed by both countries and their contribution to global ecological efforts.

The analysis shows that both Russia and Kazakhstan employ nearly all major tools for fostering favorable environmental conditions. However, certain methodological gaps still remain: Kust et al. [25] note that desertification can be detected at early stages using satellite indices and aridity calculations, an approach that is highly relevant for Kazakhstan but still rarely applied in Russia. At the same time, we cannot fully agree with Aleksandrova’s view of the circular economy as a panacea [15], since the absence of certain methodologies does not indicate neglect: both countries address these issues to varying degrees, depending on their distinct geographical characteristics and unique natural features.

In some cases, the absence of specific methods reflects the complexity and broad criteria that these approaches require. Building on Medvedeva’s idea of comprehensive environmental risk assessment [33], it should be emphasized that both countries generally demonstrate a strong commitment to global environmental standards, applying a broad range of internationally recognized methodologies adapted to the scale and ecological diversity of their vast, multi-climatic territories.

4.3. Factors Influencing the Adaptation of National Methodologies to the Regional Level

In Russia, federal environmental methods need to be adapted to fit the different ecological risks and economic situations across regions. In industrial centers like Norilsk and Chelyabinsk, pollution control must be adapted to local emissions, possibly through BAT adoption and revised MPC limits reflecting long-term damage. In protected areas like Baikal and the Caucasus, strengthening biodiversity monitoring demands GIS development and R&D involvement. Climatic variation also calls for a zoned approach: permafrost regions prioritize thaw assessment, while agricultural areas focus on erosion control. Centralized national targets often exceed local capacities, making decentralization and flexible funding mechanisms, such as ecological funds, key to effective implementation.

In Kazakhstan, environmental programs must reflect regional contrasts between dense urban areas and sparsely populated zones. Cities like Astana and Almaty prioritize dust reduction and urban cooling through green infrastructure, requiring local adaptation of standards like ISO 14001. In agricultural areas such as Kyzylorda and Turkestan, updated water management addresses shortages, seasonal shifts, and salinization via water limits and drip irrigation. In disaster zones like the Aral Sea region, satellite monitoring is paired with social adaptation measures. Traditional nomadic practices inform pasture management through regulated grazing and restored migration routes. In oil-producing border regions, public health risk assessments, especially for industrial emissions, are particularly important.

However, formal adoption of international requirements and standards is often combined with low implementation effectiveness. Legal, organizational, and financial challenges in implementing environmental impact assessments are evident, including difficulties in forecasting environmental indicators [49], overlapping regulatory powers between federal and regional authorities [50], and the prevalence of economic efficiency over environmental safety goals [51]. Although environmental issues are integrated into development programs practically in all regions of Kazakhstan, regional investment in environmental protection remains extremely low [52].

In order to overcome these contradictions and successfully adapt methodologies at the national and regional levels, it is necessary to consider a set of interconnected factors identified through a synthesis of comparative analyses of regulatory documents, academic publications, and regional practices. These factors include the following:

• natural and climatic specifics (aridization, permafrost, unique ecosystems);
• socio-economic context (industrial specialization, population density, traditional practices);
• institutional capacities (balance between centralization and regional autonomy, availability of scientific and technical infrastructure);
• cross-border interactions (management of shared basins, harmonization of standards).

The proposed approach is characterized by a clear separation of natural-climatic, socio-economic, institutional, and transboundary factors, as well as by the introduction of an institutional factor that emphasizes the balance between centralization and regional autonomy, which is particularly relevant for large countries like Russia and Kazakhstan. Transboundary interactions are treated as a distinct factor rather than as part of broader international or interregional conditions. In addition to the barriers highlighted in previous studies (e.g., Chkhutiashvili [45], Roginko [32]), we propose a structured tool for systematically accounting for and mitigating these barriers during the adaptation of environmental methodologies to regional contexts.

The practical value of this approach is fully realized only when country-specific political and administrative constraints are taken into account.

In Russia, the main challenge remains the conflict between a centralized system for setting target indicators (national projects) and the lack of institutional, human, and financial capacity to achieve them locally. This causes formal compliance without tangible environmental improvements and creates bureaucratic obstacles that delay the adoption of best available technologies due to complex approval processes and lobbying by major industrial groups.

In Kazakhstan, the main constraint is the need to simultaneously address economic development dependent on the extractive sector while fulfilling sustainable development commitments. This creates internal contradictions in governance, where environmental initiatives may conflict with the economic interests of resource-dependent regions. Additionally, challenges in interagency coordination and the limited capacity of civil society hinder effective public oversight, sometimes leading to low transparency and accountability in the implementation of environmental programs.

4.4. Methodological Recommendations for Assessing Regional Environmental Policy Effectiveness in Russia and Kazakhstan

The global environmental crisis is a major challenge driven by both human and natural factors. To improve regional environments, it is essential to raise environmental awareness and balance business activities with ecological protection. Regional industrial specialization, including the concentration of industrial enterprises in a particular territory, also influences local environmental conditions. In light of the above, authorities should apply unified methodologies for ecosystem assessment, monitoring, and management to better understand ecosystem dynamics, predict changes, and develop sustainable strategies. Key elements of these methodologies include environmental impact assessment, ecological monitoring, and resource management.

Although there are unified methodologies for ecosystem assessment and management, tools specifically tailored to evaluate the effectiveness of regional environmental policies remain scarce.

Regional authorities should systematically integrate relevant global and national ecological methods, as outlined below, to enhance environmental governance:

1. EIA methodologies, which enable the development of effective regional environmental policies. EIAs must be considered when developing projects for specific territories in a region or municipality (e.g., feasibility studies for investments, construction projects or complexes, and site selection projects for roads or routes).

2. Environmental monitoring methodologies should be incorporated into regional land management processes, with mandatory consideration of ecological factors to provide an environmental assessment of the region’s territory. Environmental monitoring forms the basis for planning and implementing regional nature conservation measures.

3. Systems of indicators (criteria) for sustainable environmental development can be used for a comprehensive assessment of the state or changes in economic, social, or ecological variables operating in the region. Regional indices help assess and predict ecological issues for evidence-based decision-making.

4. Waste and resource management methodologies. Efficient waste and resource management enables the region to develop systems for waste collection and recycling and to implement technologies for material reuse, thereby providing additional sources of raw materials for regional producers and beyond. In waste management, the primary tasks for regional authorities are waste minimization, utilization, and neutralization. These processes will help improve the environmental situation and reduce anthropogenic impact. By addressing these tasks, regional authorities can maximize the region’s potential in a responsible manner.

5. Methods for assessing biodiversity. Biodiversity conservation and restoration remain central priorities for the region. Regional authorities should inventory biological species and natural complexes, and monitor the condition of natural communities in the region.

Integration of these methods can be used to build a comprehensive algorithm for regional environmental management, shown as a flowchart below (

Table 5. Comprehensive algorithm for regional environmental management.

Tool/Method	Subcomponent	Component	Stage
• Remote sensing • Ground sensors • GIS technologies	• Biodiversity • Geological/hydrological resources • Climate data	Natural resource inventory	1. Data collection
• Computer modeling • Statistical analysis • Expert assessments	• Environmental modeling • Hydroclimatic models • EIA • Socio-environmental analysis	Impact modeling and evaluation	2. Analysis and assessment
• SWOT analysis • Scenario planning • Public hearings	• Priority setting • Risk assessment • Action planning • Stakeholder engagement	Environmental planning	3. Strategy development
• Resource-saving technologies • Land reclamation • Establishment of protected areas	• Resource management • Ecosystem restoration • Biodiversity protection	Execution of environmental programs	4. Implementation
• Adaptive management: adjusting strategies and plans to new data and experience	• Systematic monitoring • Analysis of results • Strategy adjustment	Effectiveness evaluation	5. Monitoring and adjustment

).

At the first stage, data collection involves inventorying natural resources, including biodiversity, geological and hydrological characteristics, and climate parameters. Modern technologies such as remote sensing and ground-based sensor networks provide accurate and up-to-date information on environmental conditions. These data form the foundation for analysis and assessment, which is conducted by employing environmental and hydroclimatic modeling to forecast changes driven by natural and human factors. Special attention is given to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and socio-environmental analysis, allowing evaluation of both ecological and social consequences of planned activities.

During strategy development, regional environmental priorities are determined depending on the identified problems and risks. Short- and long-term action plans are created with active participation from stakeholders, including local communities, businesses, and government authorities, ensuring balance and public support.

Implementation focuses on concrete measures in resource management, waste management, ecosystem restoration, and biodiversity conservation. Key elements include adopting resource-saving technologies and establishing specially protected natural areas.

The final stage, monitoring and adjustment, ensures feedback within the management system. Regular evaluation of implemented measures through indicator systems enables timely adjustments to strategies and plans, ensuring their effectiveness under changing conditions.

The proposed framework offers a comprehensive and adaptive approach to managing regional environmental challenges. It helps optimize ecological efforts and strike the right balance between economic development and the preservation of the natural environment.

5. Conclusions

The study confirmed the hypothesis that it is possible to enhance the effectiveness of regional environmental policy by applying a universal approach that integrates international methodologies. Our comparative analysis of methodologies and systems of criteria in environmental research and natural resource management in Russia and Kazakhstan shows that both countries use ecological approaches that are fully aligned with global environmental research trends. They incorporate current international practices while addressing national environmental challenges shaped by their unique geographic locations and diverse natural zones, Importantly, the “universality” of this approach lies not in a single template but in a flexible methodological framework that systematically adapts to national and regional specificities. Even the most advanced methodologies cannot ensure environmental improvement without effective mechanisms for implementation and enforcement, which explains why challenges persist despite the existence of monitoring and assessment tools.

However, there is still a gap between the formal adoption of international standards (such as ISO and the SDGs) and their effective implementation at the regional level. Russia focuses primarily on technological modernization and remediation of accumulated environmental damage while Kazakhstan prioritizes adaptive strategies to cope with irreversible environmental changes, including aridification and the degradation of the Aral Sea. This contrast reflects fundamental differences in their environmental contexts: Russia’s approach mainly targets anthropogenic impacts from the industrial era, while Kazakhstan’s approach is centered on responding to global climate changes affecting its fragile ecosystems.

The research yielded the following answers to the questions posed.

First, two levels of barriers to adapting international environmental methodologies were identified. System-wide barriers include the legacy of the planned economy, accumulated environmental damage, technological gaps in certain sectors, and the disconnect between centralized legislation and decentralized implementation resources. Barriers differ between countries: in Russia, the main challenges lie in implementing ecosystem services assessments and incorporating socio-cultural indicators into management, while in Kazakhstan, the most pressing issues are severe water scarcity, transboundary dependencies, and the need to adapt to irreversible climate changes.

Second, criteria for evaluating environmental policy were organized into four blocks: assessment and monitoring, resource management, urban and social aspects, and integrated systems, forming a coherent framework from previously fragmented indicators. International standards (SDGs, ISO) were harmonized with national priorities, such as Russia’s “Ecology” national project indicators and Kazakhstan’s Environmental Code criteria.

Third, a five-stage algorithm was developed for implementing international methodologies at the regional level: data collection, analysis, strategic planning, implementation, and monitoring with adjustment. A key feature is the cyclical connection between stages, ensuring that data collection informs analysis and decision-making, and that feedback is generated through monitoring results.

Fourth, practical recommendations were proposed to improve policy effectiveness. These include integrating environmental indicators into regional socio-economic strategies, creating incentives for green business investments, ensuring access to environmental information and public participation mechanisms, and strengthening institutional capacity to use data in decision-making.

Thus, the proposed approach serves not only as an assessment tool but as a system for enhancing the effectiveness of environmental policy.

We believe future research should focus on two main areas. The first is the analysis of economic and managerial mechanisms that ensure effective implementation of methodologies in regional governance, translating data into concrete actions and measurable outcomes. The second is the study of regional specificities within the global context of the green transition in Russia and Kazakhstan. Both countries face the dual challenge of diversifying their economies while using their competitive energy resources to finance ecological transformation, which requires the development of tailored strategies rather than the mere replication of existing green economy models. On the one hand, dependence on hydrocarbon exports creates resistance to rapid decarbonization, generating risks to macroeconomic stability and technological inertia. Energy infrastructure concentrates investments, slowing the development of new sectors and potentially creating new dependencies on imported green technologies. For Kazakhstan, the water requirements of many green solutions add further challenges due to acute water scarcity. On the other hand, these resources provide unique opportunities: revenues from oil and gas can finance large-scale renewable energy development, while extensive gas infrastructure supports the production and export of both blue hydrogen using CCUS technologies and green hydrogen from renewable sources. As a result, the old model can be transformed into a diversified and competitive framework for the evolving global energy market. In this context, environmental policy should be adjusted to promote not only renewable energy sources but also carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies, hydrogen energy, and the modernization of existing infrastructure to reduce its carbon footprint. New opportunities in this area are emerging with the launch in Russia in 2025 of the new national project “Ecological Well-Being” [53] and the significant 2024 update of Kazakhstan’s Concept for the Transition to a Green Economy [54].

Forecasts for future environmental policy in both countries should consider global decarbonization trends and their potential impact on raw material exports, turning these risks into opportunities to create new green industrial sectors.

Our findings provide valuable insights into regional environmental challenges and opportunities. They support the development of more flexible and appropriate methods for managing natural resources. By integrating international, national, and regional approaches, the study contributes to strengthening the resilience of ecosystems and reducing the harmful effects of human activity. In the long term, this integrated approach will help improve the effectiveness of international cooperation in the sphere of environmental protection and sustainable development. To foster a better balance between society and nature, continuous improvement of environmental policy evaluation methods in Russia and Kazakhstan is essential.