An assessment of the risk of environmental management for the countries of the European Union was carried out on the basis of two main criteria – natural hazard and protection from natural disasters. For this purpose, specific geoinformation support was used to calculate the risk according to the author’s methodology. Natural hazard consists of natural processes of various origins – lithospheric, hydrospheric, atmospheric and biospheric, which are considered dangerous within the entire state according to official data, – as well as of protection from natural disasters and catastrophes at the state level. The last criterion is calculated on the basis of a number of socio-economic and environmental indicators for the EU countries: gross domestic product, the share of the working-age population and the population living below the poverty line, telecommunications and transport coefficients, life expectancy and literacy of the population, child mortality, and the intensity of environmental problems. The relationship between the level of economic development and the level of risk of environmental management in individual EU countries has not been established. So, highly developed countries fall into all risk categories: Italy, Austria and Germany – high risk, France, Netherlands and Belgium – medium risk, Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark – low risk. Conversely, underdeveloped countries are also present in all categories: Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania – high risk, Latvia, Lithuania – medium risk, Estonia – low risk. Therefore, the assessment of the risk of environmental management, its subsequent analysis and management of natural and natural-man-made emergencies, one should not rely only on indicators of the level of economic development in countries, for example, GDP, as well as on environmental standards established, albeit at the international level, such as MPC, MPE of harmful substances in soils, plants, water bodies, atmospheric air, etc. Consideration of direct indicators and damage from past events when assessing the risk of natural resource use also has a number of drawbacks. A differentiated approach is required.

Sergey B. Kuzmin
Doctor of Geography Sciences
Leading Researcher Institute of Geography mem. V.B. Sotchava, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
1, Ulanbatorskaya Str., Irkutsk, 664033, Russia
e-mail: kuzmin@irigs.ir.ru, sergey_kuzmin1966@mail.ru,
sbkuzminhome@yandex.ru

Dmitrii A. Lopatkin
Candidate of Geography Sciences
Senior Researcher Institute of Geography mem. V.B. Sotchava, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
1, Ulanbatorskaya Str., Irkutsk, 664033, Russia
e-mail: ld@irigs.irk.ru, ld.78@mail.ru

1. Arpad G. Makroregion Dunaya na karte Evropeiskogo Soyuza [Danube macroregion on the map of the European Union]. Sovremennaya Evropa. 2011;2(46):54–61.
2. Byzov A.P., Efremov S.V., Lukina D.V., Pelekh M.T. Socio-economic aspects of acceptable risk. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta GPS MCHS Rossii. 2019;2:166–173.
3. Vitchak E.L., Grushitsyn A.S., Danilina M.V., Ternovskov V.B., Yarkin V.V. Elaboration of economic model for emergency situation. Monitoring. Science and Technologies. 2020;1(43):99–102. DOI: 10.25714/MNT.2020.43.012.
4. Vlasova O.S. Opasnye prirodnye protsessy [Dangerous natural processes]. Volgograd: VolgGASU; 2015. 104 p.
5. Gorodnova N.V. Gosudarstvennyi risk-menedzhment [State risk management]. Ekaterinburg: Ural Federal University; 2016. 108 p.
6. Knaub R.V., Ignatieva A.V. The development of complex regional systems under the influence of disasters of various genesis. Geopolitics and Ecogeodynamics of Regions. 2020;6(2):127–136.
7. Kosov Yu., Gribanova G. EU strategy for the Baltic sea region: challenges and perspectives of international cooperation. Baltic Region. 2016;8(2):33–44. DOI: 10.5922/2079-8555-2016-2-3.
8. Kuzmin S.B. Evaluation of Economic Activity Risk under Condition of Disasters along the World Countries. Izvestiya RAN (Akad. Nauk SSSR). Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2007;4:86–96.
9. Kuzmin S.B. Mirovye otsenki riska prirodopol’zovaniya [World assessments of the risk of environmental management]. Problems of Modern Science and Education. 2015;10:120–125.
10. Kuzmin S.B. Risk assessment for natural resource management in the subjects of Russian Federation. GeoRisk. 2016;2:30–37.
11. Kuzmin S. B. Geoinformation supplying and mapping of protection of administrative-territorial subjects from natural disasters. Geoinformatika. 2019;1:53–66.
12. Malneva I.V. Natural catastrophes, connected with hazardous geological processes, and their prediction. The Life of the Earth. 2017;39(1):12–25.
13. Mongush B.S. The gist and content of the notion of environment and economic risk. Economy and business: theory and practice. 2017;11:140–143.
14. Osipov V.I. Natural disasters: analysis of development and reduction of consequences. In: V.I. Osipov (ed.). Analysis, prediction and management of natural risks in the modern world (GEORISK-2015). Proceedings of the 9^th International scientific-practical conference (Moscow, 12–14 October 2015). Moscow: RUDN University; 2015. pp. 7–24.
15. Khodakov V.E., Sokolova N.A. Prirodno-klimaticheskie faktory i sotsial’no-ehkonomicheskie sistemy [Natural and climatic factors and socio-economic systems]. Moscow: NITs INFRA-M Press; 2016. 604 p.
16. Khorev A.I., Grigorieva V.V. The comparative analysis of the level of economic security of states. Razvitie i bezopasnost’. 2019;2:46–59.
17. Shekhovtsev O.A. Rol’ gosudarstva v upravlenii katastroficheskimi riskami prirodnogo kharaktera [The role of the state in the management of catastrophic natural risks]. In: Lyashenko S.M. (ed.) Sotsial’no-ehkonomicheskie aspekty prinyatiya upravlencheskikh reshenii. Materialy vtorogo mezhvuzovskogo nauchnogo seminara (Moscow, 26 February 2018). Moscow: Akademiya GPS MCHS Rossii; 2018. pp. 66–72.
18. Antoniano‐Villalobos I., Borgonovo E., Siriwardena S. Which parameters are important? Differential importance under uncertainty. Risk Analysis. 2018;38(11):2459–2477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13125.
19. Barrios C., Flores E., Martinez M.A. Club convergence in innovation activity across European regions. Papers in Regional Science. 2019;98(4):1545–1565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12429.
20. Berz G., Kron W., Loster T., Rauch E. Schimetschek J., Schmieder J., Siebert A., Smolka A., Wirtz A. World map of natural hazards: a global view of the dis-tribution and intensity of significant exposures. Natural Hazards. 2001;23:443–465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011193724026.
21. Capello R., Cerisola S. Competitiveness through integration in the European Union Strategy for Alpine Region. European Planning Studies. 2019;27(5):1013–1034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1588860.
22. Chapman S., Meliciani V. Behind Pan-European convergence path: the role of innovation, specialisation and socio-economic factors. Growth and Change. 2017;48(1):61–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12148.
23. Halkos G., Zisiadou A. Examining the natural environmental hazards over the last century. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change. 2019;3:119–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-018-0037-2.
24. Johnson L.A., Olshansky R.B. After Great Disasters: An In-Depth Analysis of How Six Countries Managed Community Recovery. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Press; 2017. 376 p.
25. Keller E.A., DeVecchio D.E. Natural hazards: Earth’s processes as hazards, disasters, and catastrophes. Redwood City: Benjamin Cummings Publishers; 2019. 664 p.
26. Marelli E.P., Parisi M.L., Signorelli M. Economic convergence in the EU and Eurozone. Journal of Economic Studies. 2019;46(7):1332–1344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-03-2019-0139
27. Milne J. Earthquakes and Other Earth Movements. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2020. 380 p.
28. Padbury S. Emergency Management: An Overview and Issues for Congress. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2018. 222 p.
29. Pimentel J., Dutra Th., Ribeiro R.S., Pfaltzgraff P.A.S., Brenny M.E.R., Peixoto D., Silva D.R. de, Iwanami H., Nishimura T. Risk assessment and hazard mapping technique in the project for strengthening national strategy of integrated natural disaster risk management. International Journal of Erosion Control Engineering. 2020;13(1):35–47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13101/ijece.13.35.
30. Rohan P., Kironmala C., Chandra D.S. Spatial variation of multi-hazard susceptibility across India. Disaster Advances. 2020;13(4):59–71.
31. Romero D. Natural Disasters: Risk Assessment, Management Strategies and Challenges. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2016. 271 p.
32. Walsh B., Hallegatte S. Measuring natural risks in the Philippines: socioeconomic resilience and wellbeing losses. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change. 2020;4:249–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-019-00047-x.
33. Ward P.J., Blauhut V., Bloemendaal N. et al. Natural hazard risk assessments at the global scale. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science. 2020;20(4):1069–1096. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-1069-2020.