Methodological Approaches to the Distribution of Territories by the Level of Resource Potential Use

Abstract

This methodology is based on the selection of indicators reflecting the availability, level of investment and efficiency of the following types of resources: labor resources, fixed and circulating funds, agricultural land area. To bring the system of heterogeneous indicators to a single basis, the normalization procedure is applied. An integral assessment is formed for each group of indicators, and then, by simple summation, an integral assessment of the resource potential. To consider the dynamic processes of the resource potential and its impact on the production and commercial economic results of agricultural entities, it is proposed to take into account the average annual growth rates of the entire resource potential of the territory, its functional components, as well as revenue from sales. This allows you to assess the degree of sensitivity (elasticity) of income for the main activity to a change in the level of use of a particular type of resource. At the end of this methodology, the distribution of territories by the level of elasticity of revenue from products' sales and the aggregate integral indicator of the resource potential of the territories is given. The calculations made it possible to group the Kurgan region's districts according to the final indicator and thereby form a "map" of the investment attractiveness of these territories. Keywords-level of resource potential use, integral indicator of resource potential, 'map' of investment attractiveness of territories.

Analysis of the regional food supply

“…The level of self-sufficiency in food resources (LSFR) of the Saratov region is calculated as the ratio of the volume of production of a certain type of product to the need for this product [7][8][9].…”

Role of livestock in sustainable agriculture for food security

“…In the region, as of January 1, 2021, the following were recorded: 1138 peasant (farming) households (according to statistics); 27 agricultural consumer cooperatives, of which 4 -credit, 13 -processing, 8 -supply and marketing, 2 -service; 167.8 thousand families with personal subsidiary plots [3][4].…”