Self-organization effects in regional environmental monitoring systems – an assessment and governance implications

Khodyko Dmitrii Igorevich
Candidate of Economic Sc., Assoc. Prof. of Dept. of Economy of Ukraine,
Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine

  • A heuristic concept of institutional self-organization in regional environmental monitoring systems is proposed and tested with a cross-country example. The effect of pollutants’ health and environmental impact upon their coverage in annual monitoring programs is modeled using logistic regression with random effects, controlling for central government budget allocations. Statistical estimations show the varying degree of self-organizing systems’ capability of efficiently mediating macro policy signals. A regular assessment of this kind may provide the screening criteria for efficiency audit, as well as design, of environmental monitoring systems, and assist in establishing co-financing amounts and structures for environmental administration.
  • institutional self-organization, environmental monitoring, environmental governance, socio-ecological systems, fiscal decentralization, Ukraine, Poland .
  • Download full text of the article.
  • 1. Hryniv, L. (2009). Transdisciplinary approach to sustainability: new models and possibilities. Ecological economics and sustainable forest management: developing a transdisciplinary approach for the Carpathian Mountains. Soloviy, I.P., Keeton, W.S. (Eds.), (pp. 85–95). Lviv: Ukrainian National Forestry University Press, Liga-Pres. Retrieved from:
    2. Luhmann, N. (2012). Evolution. Theory of Society (Vol. 1.), (pp. 251-358). Stanford University Press.
    3. Elsner, W., & Heinrich, T. (2011). Towards ‘Meso’-Economics. On the Co-Evolution of Institutionalized Coordination, ‘Platform’ Size, and Performance. Sectors matter! Exploring Mesoeconomics. Mann, St. (Ed.). Berlin: Heidelberg; New York: Springer.
    4. Samet, R.H. (2012). Complexity science and theory development for the futures field. Futures, 44, 504–513.
    5. Bateira, J. (2007). Do institutions evolve? Proceedings from EAEPE Conference: Economic growth, development, and institutions – lessons for policy and the need for an evolutionary framework of analysis. Porto: Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Retrieved from:
    6. Hryniv, L.S., & Khodyko, D. (2013). Target-based environmental programming for Carpathian region: the potential contribution of Visegrad Group. Visegrad Conference on Common Environmental Problems – 2013. Proceedings of Extended Abstracts. (pp. 37-44). Banská Bystrica: Matej Bel University, Faculty of Economics.
    7. Lviv Regional State Administration Department of Ecology and Natural Resources. (2014). Routine functioning of natural environment monitoring system. Retrieved from: [in Ukrainian]
    8. Transcarpathian RSA Department of Ecology and Natural Resources. (2014). Monitoring of Environment. Retrieved from: [in Ukrainian]
    9. Glowny Inspektorat Ochrony Srodowiska [Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection]. (2014). Lista Wojewodzkich Inspektoratow Ochrony Srodowiska [The List of Voivodship Inspectorates for Environmental Protection]. Retrieved from: [in Polish]
    10. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. Ofitsiinyi Veb-Portal [The Supreme Council of Ukraine. The official web portal]. Retrieved from: [in Ukrainian]
    11. Ministerstwo Finansow. Ustawy Budzetowe [Ministry of Finance. Budget Laws]. Retrieved from: [in Polish]
  • Khodyko D. I. Glоbаl еnеrgy соnflicts and sustaіnable dеvеlоpment risks caused by the сlimаte сhаngеs [Internet source] / D. I. Khodyko // Economic Processes Management: International Scientific E-Journal. – 2014. – № 3. – Access mode:
  • URL