NATURAL RESOURCE DOMINANTS OF THE RESILIENCE OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE POPULATION OF UKRAINE: A REGIONAL DIMENSION OF STRUCTURAL CHANGES

Abstract

Ensuring the resilience of the population’s quality of life in Ukraine under conditions of fullscale military aggression has acquired critical significance, as the destruction of critical infrastructure facilities, enterprise relocation, and massive internal population displacement have caused unprecedented structural changes in the territorial distribution of anthropogenic environmental pressure. The identification of natural resource dominants that determine the environmental component of resilience becomes a prerequisite for scientifically grounded planning of post-war reconstruction. The research aim is to develop methodological foundations and methodological tools for assessing the environmental conflict intensity of Ukrainian regions as a key characteristic of population quality of life resilience, as well as to identify natural resource dominants that determine the nature of structural environmental changes. The scientific novelty lies in substantiating a conceptual approach to understanding environmental conflict intensity as a dynamic characteristic of spatial formations and developing a methodology for calculating an integral index based on a system of five normalized indicators characterizing natural resource dominants of anthropogenic pressure. A complex of methods was applied to achieve the aim: systems approach, abstract-logical analysis, indicator normalization, and the equal interval method for regional grouping. Analysis of the regional dimension of structural changes has demonstrated a radical transformation of the territorial configuration of anthropogenic pressure, manifested in the geographical shift of environmental conflict intensity centers from the east and south to central regions. Four key dominants of structural environmental changes have been identified: the transformational impact of war, spatially polarized industrial pressure, intensive agricultural land exploitation, and institutional inefficiency, particularly in the sphere of waste management. Key patterns of territorial redistribution of anthropogenic pressure have been identified, and directions for further research on population quality of life resilience in the context of post-war reconstruction have been determined.

REFERENCES / ЛІТЕРАТУРА

1. Libanova, E. M. (Ed.). (2024). Institutional instruments of effective nature management. Kyiv: Institute of Demography and Life Quality Problems of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 186 p. https://www.demography.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/%D0%9D%D0%B0-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE_ 1230_2024.pdf

[Лібанова, Е. М. (Ред.). (2024). Інституційні інструменти ефективного природокористування. Інститут демографії та проблем якості життя НАН України. 186 с.].

2. Libanova, E. M. (Ed.). (2023). Directions of post-war environmental restoration and ensuring ecosystem resilience. Kyiv: Institute of Demography and Life Quality Problems of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 249 p. https://www.demography.org.ua/wpcontent/uploads/2025/06/%D0%9D%D0%B0-%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE_ 1230_2023.pdf

[Лібанова, Е. М. (Ред.). (2023). Напрями повоєнного відновлення довкілля та забезпечення резилієнтності екосистем. Інститут демографії та проблем якості життя НАН України. 249 с.].

3. Leal Filho, W., Fedoruk, M., Paulino Pires Eustachio, J. H., Kovaleva, M., Lisovska, T., & Schmitz Roux, G. L.et al. (2024). War in Ukraine: An overview of environmental impacts and consequences for human health. Frontiers in Sustainable Resource Management, 3, 1423444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsrma.2024.1423444

4. Shumilova, O., Tockner, K., Sukhodolov, A., Khilchevskyi, V., De Meester, L., & Ste pa nenko, S. et al. (2023). Impact of the Russia-Ukraine armed conflict on water resources and water infrastructure. Nature Sustainability, 6 (5), 578—586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01068-x

5. Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), & Zoï Environment Network. (2023). The environmental consequences of the war against Ukraine: Preliminary 12-month asses sment, February 2022 — February 2023. https://ceobs.org/the-environmental-consequences-of-thewar-against-ukraine-preliminary-12-month-assessment-summary-and-recommendations/

6. OECD (2020). Development co-operation report 2020: Learning from crises, building re silience. https://doi.org/10.1787/f6d42aa5-en

7. Flamm, P., & Kroll, S. (2024). Environmental (in)security, peacebuilding and green economic recovery in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Environment and Security, 3 (1), 1—18. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538796241231332

8. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1—23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

9. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Island Press. https://faculty.washington.edu/stevehar/Resilience%20thinking.pdf

10. Pyrozhkov, S. I., Bozhok, Ye. V., & Khamitov, N. V. (2021). National resilience of the country: Strategy and tactics of anticipating hybrid threats. Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 8, 74—82. https://doi.org/10.15407/visn2021.08.074

[Пирожков, С. І., Божок, Є. В., & Хамітов, Н. В. (2021). Національна стійкість (резилієнтність) країни: стратегія і тактика випередження гібридних загроз. Вісник Національної академії наук України, 8, 74—82].

11. Ivaniuta, S. P., & Yakushenko, L. M. (2024). Priorities for ensuring environmental security of Ukraine in conditions of Russian military aggression: Analytical report. Kyiv: National Institute for Strategic Studies. https://doi.org/10.53679/NISS-analytrep.2024.11

[Іванюта, С. П., & Якушенко, Л. М. (2024). Пріоритети забезпечення екологічної безпеки України в умовах російської воєнної агресії: аналітична доповідь. Київ: НІСД].

12. Yakovchuk, O., Shakhman, I., Briukhanov, A., Tolkach, O., Kholodna, O., & Bortniak, L. et al. (2022). Trends in the environmental conditions, climate change and human health in the southern region of Ukraine. Sustainability, 14 (9), 5664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095664

13. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine. (2024). Environmental passports for 2023. https://mepr.gov.ua/diyalnist/napryamky/ekologichnyjmonitoryng/ekologichni-pasporty/

[Міністерство захисту довкілля та природних ресурсів України (2024). Екологічні паспорти за 2023 рік].

14. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine (2024). Regional reports on the state of the environment in Ukraine. https://mepr.gov.ua/diyalnist/napryamky/ekologichnyj-monitoryng/regionalni-dopovidi-pro-stan-navkolyshnogoseredovyshha-v-ukrayini/

[Міністерство захисту довкілля та природних ресурсів України (2024). Регіональні доповіді про стан навколишнього природного середовища в Україні].

15. State Statistics Service of Ukraine, & Ptoukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. (2012). Methodology for measuring regional human development. Kyiv, 50 p. https://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/metod_polog/menu/menu_/1_soc_zah.htm

[Державна служба статистики України, & Інститут демографії та соціальних досліджень ім. М. В. Птухи НАН України (2012). Методика вимірювання регіонального людського розвитку].

16. Khvesyk, M., Bystryakov, I., Levkovska, L., & Mandzyk, V. (2024). Institutional support of ecological sustainability. Demography and Social Economy, 3 (57), 141—158. https://doi.org/10.15407/dse2024.03.141

[Хвесик, М., Бистряков, І., Левковська, Л., & Мандзик, В. (2024). Інституційна підтримка екологічної стійкості. Демографія та соціальна економіка, 3 (57), 141—158].