Assessment of Innovative Sustainability of Northern Resource-type

Regions

Nikolay E. Egorov

, Grigory S. Kovrov

and Olga A. Guk

Scientific-Research Institute of Regional Economy of the North «M.K. Ammosov North-Eastern Federal University»,

Yakutsk, Russian Federation

V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Simferopol, Russian Federation

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Northern Resource-Type Regions, Indicator System, Regional Innovation System,

Rating Score, Sustainability Coefficient.

Abstract: The article is devoted to assessing the innovative sustainability of the regional innovation system. The

research is reviewed and the concept of "sustainable development" is studied. It is noted that the country's

sustainable economic development largely depends on the best possible development and effective

functioning of the national innovation system, which is based on regional innovation systems. The

methodological and procedural bases for assessing the innovative sustainability of Russian regions are studied.

The system of main indicators in innovations is determined and the integral ranking of the northern resource-

type regions' innovative development level for the period from 2010 to 2019 is performed. According to the

ranking results, the regions are differentiated into three categories according to the innovative development

level. Based on the method of calculating the variation coefficient for a random variable, which is widely used

in probability and statistics, the authors propose a similar method for determining a region's innovative

sustainability level by the coefficient of innovative sustainability, which is calculated using the composite

index of the region's innovative development for the considered period. It is established that in northern

resource-type regions, there is mainly a sustainable favourable innovative development, except for the

Sakhalin Region, which has low innovative sustainability.

1 INTRODUCTION

Currently, the term "sustainable development" is

widely used by economic researchers. Sustainability

in a broad sense is understood as the ability of a

system to return to an equilibrium position after it has

been unbalanced under external or internal disturbing

influences (Lukyanov et al., 2013).

The very concept of "sustainable development"

was formulated in 1987 in the report of the UN World

Commission on Environment and Development "Our

Common Future", known as the report by G.

Brundtland (Brundtland, 1987). According to this

report, sustainable development is a development in

which society meets its present needs and doesn't

jeopardize future generations' ability to meet their

needs. Sustainability of development is achieved by

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8459-0903

https://orcid.org/0000-0000-3439-002x

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3810-3091

three interrelated core factors being developed:

economic, social and environmental.

In Russia, the regulation "On the Concept of the

Transition of the Russian Federation to Sustainable

Development" (Decree of the President of the

Russian Federation, 1996) determines the main tasks

for a consistent transition to sustainable development,

ensuring the solution of socio-economic tasks and

problems of preserving a favourable environment and

natural resource potential in order to meet current and

future generations' needs.

In general, the concept of "sustainable

development" includes the principles of viability and

balance, while economic growth is associated with

the country's dominant economic goals (including

innovative factors), with its citizens' well-being: with

the social development, with the state of the labour

312

Egorov, N., Kovrov, G. and Guk, O.

Assessment of Innovative Sustainability of Northern Resource-type Regions.

DOI: 10.5220/0010589903120318

In Proceedings of the International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure (ISSDRI 2021), pages 312-318

ISBN: 978-989-758-519-7

market and other factors (Kryukova et al., 2020).

Various interpretations of the concept of "the region's

sustainable development" are reviewed in the works

(Kalinchikov, 2005; Gabidullina, 2020). According

to the authors of the article (Bukreyev, Pshenichnykh,

2018), the region's sustainable socio-economic

development is a development of the territory as a

system of equal elements (man, nature, society),

which, in response to the impact of environmental

factors, contributes to the preservation of the system,

restoring its balance, maintaining the state, type of

functioning, its qualitative improvement at a new

stage of development.

The analysis and assessment of the sustainability

of innovative development of industrial enterprises in

the region are considered in the work by Yashin S.N.

and Korobov Yu.S. (Yashin, Korobov, 2017).

According to the authors, the sustainability of

innovative development of an enterprise is the ability

of its economic system to set and maintain the

necessary rates and parameters of innovative and

general development in a dynamically changing

macro- and micro-environment over a certain period.

The higher the integral innovation index of the

enterprise, the higher the sustainability of innovative

development in the regional industrial sector.

It is well known that the country's sustainable

economic development largely depends on how well

and effectively the national innovation system is

developed and functioning, the basis of which is

regional innovation systems (RIS). RIS is designed to

ensure the implementation of tasks of the national

innovation policy in a particular region. To recognize

regions as subjects of sustainable development

requires activating the formation of RIS as a key

component of sustainable development. The region's

transition to sustainable development is impossible

without the development of appropriate policies of

regional authorities oriented to ensuring an effective

innovation subsystem (Badmayev, 2015).

Innovative sustainability can be considered as one

of the characteristic features of successful innovative

development of the socio-economic system. The

innovative sustainability of the regional socio-

economic system should be understood as the ability

of the system to generate intellectual property objects

over a certain period, followed by their introduction

in producing sector in order to significantly change

the structure of the industry and develop new

technological production. Innovative sustainability

shows the strength and reliability of RIS, its dynamic

balance, as well as its ability to withstand internal and

external negative influences. Assessing regional

innovative sustainability can be performed by the

modified methodology of the Data Envelope

Analysis. Herewith, the result of this approach is the

calculated deviation of the actual value from the

established standard (Charnes at all, 1994; Morgunov

and Morgunova; 2003; Ruiga, 2015; 2017; Ruiga et

al., 2019). This approach is rather labour-intensive

due to the necessity to form a system of threshold

values for indicating innovative development to

determine correctly the quantitative parameters of the

standard. For this reason, ranking based on forming a

composite index of the region's innovative

development can be considered the most simple and

statistically reliable method of assessing the region's

innovative sustainability.

2 METHODOLOGY OF

RESEARCH

Assessment of the region's innovation potential based

on constant monitoring of changes in its indicators is

necessary for determining the level of regional

innovative development of the economy and making

various organizational and managerial decisions by

local public authorities.

Currently, various methods and models for

assessing the level of the region's innovative

development are proposed in Russia (Barinova &

Zemtsov, 2016; Bortnik et al., 2013; Il'ina et al., 2018;

Lisina, 2012; Makaruk, 2017; Mityakov et al., 2017).

Despite numerous studies in this area, there is no one-

size-fits-all approach to assessing the innovation

index (Mityakov et al., 2017).

There is also the author's method of rapid

assessment of the region's innovative development

based on the Triple Helix model, which allows

performing a comparative econometric assessment of

the region's innovative development level, as well as

the contribution of academic organizations, business

and the state to the overall innovative development of

the economic entity according to their minimum

statistical key figures in scientific and innovative

activity (Egorov, 2017; Egorov at el., 2019).

Methodological issues of forming Russian

regions' innovative development ranking are

discussed in detail in the works (Mikheyeva, 2013;

Yashin end Korobova, 2017). Currently, the

Association of Innovative Russian Regions (AIRR)

(Rating of Innovative Development of Russian

Regions, 2018) and the Higher School of Economics

(HSE) (Russian Regional Innovation Development

Ranking, 2020) are mainly engaged in preparing the

Assessment of Innovative Sustainability of Northern Resource-type Regions

313

assessment system for a region's innovative

development.

The 2018 AIRR ranking includes 29 indicators.

The developed analytical ranking system allows the

regional authorities to clearly show their strengths

and weaknesses, directions for further development

and improvement of innovation systems, as well as

the dynamics of changes in all areas reflected by the

indicators.

The HSE ranking system is based on the original

system of quantitative and qualitative indicators of

the region's innovative development, which meets

modern statistical standards applied both in Russian

state statistics and in leading countries and

international organizations. It also integrates

indicators used in similar developments of the

European Commission (Regional Innovation

Scoreboard). The developed ranking is the result of

ranking 85 Russian regional subjects in descending

order by 53 innovation indicators grouped into five

thematic blocks: socio-economic conditions,

scientific and technical potential, innovation activity,

export activity and the quality of regional innovation

policy, each of which has its own sub-ranking.

When selecting indicators, their quantity required

for the assessment is equally important. On the one

hand, they should be enough for the assessment to be

comprehensive and objective, on the other hand, their

number should be limited by importance and

significance for the sustainable development goals of

a particular region (Alferova, 2020).

The main problem in determining the region's

innovative development level is the lack of a

scientifically based, necessary and sufficient number

of indicators to assess the effectiveness of regional

innovation processes. The analysis of management

requirements shows that in order to improve the

efficiency of managerial decisions in innovations, it

is necessary to identify 15-20 indicators, on the basis

of which the region's innovative development is

assessed (Lisina, 2012).

We should also take into account the fact that by

increasing the number of indicators, we are

expanding the boundaries of the review, but at the

same time, we are blurring the benchmarks in

assessing the most significant aspects for achieving

sustainable development (Tanguay and etc., 2010).

Given the above, the authors propose the

following methodological approach (algorithm) for

assessing the sustainability of the region's innovative

development or a regional innovation system (RIS).

Ranking the region's innovative development

level is based on three aggregative blocks of key

indicators that characterize innovative activity. Each

group of indicators includes several quantitative

indicators, data on which are available on the official

Internet resources of Rosstat, Rospatent and the

Federal Treasury:

1. The activity of organizations and citizens in

innovations.

 share of organizations, that implemented

technological innovations, in the total number of

organizations surveyed, %;

 number of employees engaged in research and

development, people;

 internal costs for research and development,

million rubles;

 innovation activity costs, million rubles.

2. The effectiveness of innovative activities.

 number of patents granted for inventions, utility

models and industrial designs per 10,000 employees,

units;

 advanced manufacturing technologies used by

the subjects of the Russian Federation, units;

 volume of innovative goods, works, and

services, million rubles;

 volume of innovative goods, works and services

in the total volume of goods shipped, works

performed, and services provided, %.

3. The national policy of the region in the

development of RIS.

 share of public funds in internal research and

development expenditures, %;

 expenses of the consolidated budget of the

subject of the Russian Federation for scientific

research, million rubles.

The subjects of the northern resource-type regions

are ranked in descending order by an integral ranking

score from 0 to 1 using the methodology of limitation

of the annual indicators of the region's innovative

development (Rating of the socio-economic situation

of the subjects of the Russian Federation, 2019)

In this paper, the assessment of the region's

innovative development was performed for the

northern resource-type regions (NRTR) over 2010-

2019. The general review shows that resource-type

regions are regions characterized not only by high

resourcing but also a certain degree of resource

dependence. The authors assigned the subjects to

northern resource-type regions by estimating the Far

North regions' resource dependence by share of

statistical indicators for Foreign Economic Activities

of Mining and Quarrying (FEA MQ) in the Gross

Regional Product (GRP) structure of the subject, they

determine the following criteria for assigning a

subject to the resource-type regions (Egorov, Kovrov,

2020):

ISSDRI 2021 - International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure

314

Highly dependent – more than 50% of FEA MQ

in the GRP structure of the subject.

Moderately dependent – from 21.4% to 50%;

Independent – under 21.4%.

After the obtained results of the regions' resource

dependence analyzed and in accordance with the

criteria proposed by the authors for classifying a

subject as a resource-type region, the following 8

subjects of the Far North are proposed to be

considered northern resource-type regions: the

Republic of Komi; the Nenets Autonomous Okrug

(NAO); the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug–

Yugra (KhMAO); the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous

Okrug (YaNAO); the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia);

the Magadan Region; the Sakhalin Region and the

Chukotka Autonomous Okrug (CHAO).

At the second stage, to assess the region's

innovative sustainability basing on the combined

integral index values, the authors calculated the

innovative sustainability coefficient of (Csust) RIS.

For this purpose, the variation coefficient of a random

variable widely used in statistical theory is taken.

Variation coefficient V is a relative index of

variability and is the ratio of the standard deviation

( 𝛿 ) to the arithmetic mean (𝑥̅ ), expressed as a

percentage (Variation coefficient):

V = 𝛿/𝑥̅ ∗ 100

(1)

It should be noted that the variation coefficient

can be used to determine the sustainability of the

forecasting model. V's gradual decreasing on the

totality of forecast values from period to period

indicates the sustainability of the forecasting model

as a system. An increase in this indicator signals a loss

of its sustainability. (Zaporozhets). In this regard, the

authors propose to use the formula (1) to calculate the

innovative sustainability coefficient (Csust) of RIS.

3 RESULTS OF RESEARCH

In accordance with the proposed methodology and

with the selected indicators, the calculations of the

innovative development indices by year and region

and the composite index of innovative development

were performed and resulted in an integral ranking of

the northern resource-type regions by the level of

innovative development, they are illustrated in a

normalized form from 0 to 1 (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Ranking of the northern resource-type regions by

the integral index of innovative development.

The analysis of the figure shows that the Republic

of Sakha (Yakutia) and the Khanty-Mansi

Autonomous Okrug have a high level of the region's

innovative development (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Regions with a high level of innovative

development.

The average level of the region's innovative

development is observed in the Sakhalin Region, the

Komi Republic, the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous

Okrug and the Magadan Region (Fig. 3). This group

of regions is characterized by large variations in the

dynamics of the integral index development and

comparable levels with the average value for the

macroregion.

Figure 3: Regions with an average level of innovative

development.

Assessment of Innovative Sustainability of Northern Resource-type Regions

315

The Chukotka and Nenets Autonomous Okrugs

are ranked last, with a low level of innovative

development (Fig. 4).

Figure 4: Regions with a low level of innovative

development.

The innovative sustainability coefficient (C

sust

) of

the northern resource-type regions for the period of

2010-2019 is calculated by the formula (1) and

presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Innovative sustainability coefficient (C

sust

), %.

Northern resource-type regions Csust, %

Republic of Komi 17.20

Nenets Autonomous Okrug 12.43

Khant

-Mansi Autonomous Okru

12.41

Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okru

10.69

ublic of Sakha

(

Yakutia

)

10.12

Magadan Region 16.16

Sakhalin Region 20.26

Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 15.01

Source: compiled by the authors.

The obtained values of the C

sust

indicator

determine criteria for assessing the level of innovative

sustainability of RIS in the northern resource-type

regions (Table 2). The C

sust

criteria correspond to the

variation coefficient accepted in statistics, the value

of which determines the corresponding sustainability

criteria: high, average and low.

Table 2: Criteria for assessing the level of innovative

sustainability of the northern resource-type regions.

Sustainability

level

Criteria

sus

, %

Regions

high

sustainabilit

<10 no

average

sustainability

10–20

Yakutia, Yamalo-

Nenets Autonomous

Okrug, Nenets

Autonomous Okrug,

Khanty-Mansi

Autonomous Okrug,

Chukotka

Autonomous Okrug,

Republic of Komi,

adan Re

ion

low

sustainabilit

>20 Sakhalin Region

Source: compiled by the authors.

The analysis of this table shows that no region has

a high level of RIS sustainability (less than 10%). All

the subjects of northern resource-type regions, except

Sakhalin, belong to the group with an average level

of innovative sustainability (C

sust

= 10% - 20%).

4 DISCUSSION OF THE

RESULTS

The research results obtained in this article are quite

reliable since it uses statistical data from official

sources intended for open publication. Quantitative

assessment is carried out on a system of indicators in

innovations, the system can be adjusted depending on

the purposes and tasks of the research.

The methodological approach proposed by the

authors is based on using the variation coefficient

well-known in probability and statistics. The use of

formula (1) for calculating the variation coefficient

shows an adequate assessment for determining the

sustainability of the regions' innovative development.

Therefore, according to the authors, using the

variation coefficient as a coefficient of the region's

innovative sustainability is quite reasonable and can

be used to assess the innovative sustainability not

only of regions but also for other economic sectors

and social spheres with corresponding changes in the

system of indicators reflecting their production and

economic activities.

The main advantages of this method include the

simplicity of numerical calculations based on the

standard Microsoft Excel platform, the use of official

statistical data which exclude subjectivity that occurs

when different weighing coefficients are used.

ISSDRI 2021 - International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure

316

5 CONCLUSIONS

The innovative development of the northern resource-

type regions for the period from 2010 to 2019 was

ranked by using the selected key indicators. The

authors propose a method for determining the level of

the region's innovative sustainability by the value of

the innovative sustainability coefficient, which is

calculated according to the data of the composite

index of the region's innovative development.

According to the research results, it can be

concluded that the ranking system based on the

formation of a composite index of innovative

development can be used to assess the level of

innovative sustainability of RIS. At the same time, the

variation coefficient in the dynamics of the

development of the consolidated level of the region's

innovative development can be taken as the

coefficient of innovative sustainability of RIS.

Besides the regional authorities, various

economic and social entities can use the research

results to monitor and forecast the innovative

development of their sector, as well as to adjust the

existing legal documents relating to innovation

policy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The article was prepared as part of the performance

of the state task of the Russian Ministry of Education

and Science under Project FSRG-2020-0010

"Patterns of Spatial Organization and Spatial

Development of Socio-Economic Systems of the

Northern Resource-Type Regions".

REFERENCES

Alferova, T. (2020). Ustoychivoye razvitiye regiona:

podkhody k otboru pokazateley otsenki. Vestnik

Permskogo universiteta. Ekonomika, 15(4): 494–511.

DOI: 10.17072/1994-9960-2020-4-494-511.

Badmayev, Z. (2015). K voprosu obespecheniya

ustoychivogo razvitiya regiona na osnove aktivizatsii

innovatsionnoy sostavlyayushchey. Vestnik VSGTU,

5(56): 70-73.

Barinova, V.A., Zemtsov, S.P. (2016). Reytingi

innovatsionnogo razvitiya regionov: zachem nuzhna

novaya metodika v Rossii? Vestnik Povolzhskogo

instituta upravleniya, 6(57): 110–116.

Bortnik, I.M., Zinov, V.G., Kotsyubinskiy, V.A., Sorokina,

A.V. (2013). Indikatory innovatsionnogo razvitiya

regionov Rossii dlya tseley monitoringa i upravleniya.

Innovatsii, 11: 2-13.

Brundtland, G., 1987. Report of the World Commission on

Environment and Development: Our Common Future.

URL: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/

documents/5987our-common-future.pdf.

Bukreyev, A., Pshenichnykh, A., (2018). Soderzhaniye

ponyatiya «ustoychivoye razvitiye regiona» kak

predmeta nauchnogo issledovaniya. Region:

gosudarstvennoye i munitsipal'noye upravleniye, 2(14).

http://regiongmu.ru/wp-content/uploads

/2018/07/RegionGMU0602014.pdf.

Charnes, A., at all (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis:

Theory, Methodology, and Application. Boston:

Kluwer Academic Publishers, 513 p.

Egorov, N., Pospelova, T., Yarygina, A. and Klochkova, E.

(2019). The Assessment of Innovation Development in

the Arctic Regions of Russia Based on the Triple Helix

Model. Resources, 8(2), p. 72. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8020072.

Egorov, N.E. (2017). Method of Express Assessment of

Innovative Development of Region Based on Triple

Helix Model. AEBMR-Advances in Economics

Business and Management Research, 38: 139–143.

DOI: 10.2991/ttiess-17.2017.24.

Gabidullina, CH. (2020). Ustoychivoye razvitiye regiona:

ponyatiyno-kategorial'nyy apparat. Ekonomika:

vchera, segodnya, zavtra, 10(4A): 413-424. DOI: 10.

34670/AR.2020.90.23.049.

Il'ina, I.Ye., Zharova, Ye.N., Agamirova Ye.V.,

Kamenskiy, A.S. (2018). Innovatsionnoye razvitiye

regionov Rossii. Regionologiya, 26(2): 230–255.DOI:

10.15507/2413-1407.103.026.201802.230-255.

Kalinchikov, M., (2005). Teoretiko-metodicheskiye

osnovy kontseptsii ustoychivogo razvitiya regiona.

Regional'naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika, 9(24): 14-

18.

Koeffitsiyent variatsii. https://

wiki.loginom.ru/articles/variation-coefficient.html.

Kryukova, Ye., Matsuy, Ye., end Teplinskikh, Ye. (2020).

Vliyaniye innovatsionnykh protsessov na ustoychivoye

razvitiye regiona. Yevraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal,

9(148): 447-451.

Lisina, A.N. (2012). Metodika otsenki urovnya

innovatsionnogo razvitiya regiona. Vestnik NGU.

Seriya: Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskiye nauki, 12(1): 115–

126

Lukyanov, V., Mukhor'yanova, O. end Nedvizhai, S.

(2013). Theoretical aspects of sustainable economic

development of the region. Stavropol: AGRUS, 115 p.

Makaruk, O.Ye. (2017). Kompleksnyy indeks

innovatsionnogo razvitiya regionov. Nauka i innovatsii,

1(167):38–42.

Mikheyeva, N.N. (2013). K voprosu ob innovatsionnykh

reytingakh rossiyskikh regionov. Sovremennyye

proizvoditel'nyye sily, 2: 54-67.

Mityakov, S.N., Mityakova, O.I., Murashova, N.A. (2017).

Innovatsionnoye razvitiye regionov Rossii: metodika

reytingovaniya. Innovatsii, 9: 97–104.

Morgunov, Ye. And Morgunova, O. (2003). Kratkoye

opisaniye metoda Data Envelopment Analysis.

http://morgunov.org/docs/DEA_intro.pdf.

Assessment of Innovative Sustainability of Northern Resource-type Regions

317

Regional Innovation Scoreboard, 2019. European

Commission. URL: https: //ec.europa.eu/ growth/sites/

growth/ files/ris2019.pdf.

Reyting innovatsionnogo razvitiya regionov Rossii, 2018.

Assotsiatsiya innovatsionnykh regionov Rossii. URL:

https://www.nso.ru.

Reyting innovatsionnogo razvitiya sub"yektov Rossiyskoy

Federatsii. M.: NIU VSHE, 2020. 264 p.

https://issek.hse.ru/.

Reyting sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo polozheniya

sub"yektov RF. Itogi 2019 goda. Reytingovoye

agentstvo «RIA Reyting». URL:

http://vid1.rian.ru/ig/ratings/rating_regions_2020.pdf.

Ruiga, I. at all, 2019. Practical implementation of Data

Envelopment Analysis technology to assess the

innovative sustainability of resource type regions.

Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1399 03311. DOI: 10.1088/1742-

6596/1399/3/033118.

Ruyga, I. (2017). Metody otsenki innovatsionnoy

ustoychivosti regiona. Kreativnaya ekonomika, 11(10):

1025-1038. DOI: 10.18334/ce.11.10.38411.

Ruyga, I., (2015). Formirovaniye sistemy kriteriyev i

pokazateley otsenki innovatsionnoy ustoychivosti na

regional'nom urovne. Innovatsionnoye razvitiye

ekonomiki, 6(42):156-163.

Tanguay, G., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J. end Lanoie, P.

(2010). Measuring the sustainability of cities: An

analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecological

Indicators, 10: 407-418.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2009.07.013.

Yashin, S.N. end Korobova Y.S. (2017). A method for

calculus of integral index of the region's innovative

development. Financial Analytics: Science and

Experience, 10(4): 360-374.

Yashin, S.N., Korobova, YU.S. (2017). Otsenka stepeni

ustoychivosti innovatsionnogo razvitiya

promyshlennykh predpriyatiy regiona na primere

Nizhegorodskoy oblasti. Nauchno-tekhnicheskiye

vedomosti SPbGPU. Ekonomicheskiye nauki, 10(3):

112-123. DOI: 10.18721/JE.10310.

Yegorov, N.Ye. and Kovrov, G.S. (2020). Sravnitel'naya

otsenka innovatsionnogo razvitiya regionov Kraynego

Severa. Arktika i Sever., 41: 62-74. DOI:

10.37482/issn2221-2698.2020.41.62.

Zaporozhets, A.V. Ispol'zovaniye koeffitsiyenta variatsii

dlya opredeleniya ustoychivosti modeli

prognozirovaniya. URL:

https://docplayer.ru/46767028-Ispolzovanie-

koefficienta-variacii-dlya-opredeleniya-ustoychivosti-

modeli-prognozirovaniya.html.

O kontseptsii perekhoda Rossiyskoy Federatsii k

ustoychivomu razvitiyu. Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy

Federatsii ot 01.04.1996 g. № 440.

ISSDRI 2021 - International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure

318