ACRA has prepared an updated environmental ranking of the regions of the Russian Federation as part of its assessment of regional sustainable development. The results of this ranking differ from the results of last year’s ecological ranking of regions1 compiled by ACRA, since in the updated ranking, the population indicator was used instead of the gross regional product (GRP) as the base indicator for calculating the specific values for all negative impact factors2. ACRA believes that this change makes it possible to assess the impact of environmental aspects directly on the living conditions of the population of a region, as well as to exclude distortion of results due to the transfer of profit centers to the trading divisions of large companies.
In general, the results of the ranking indicate a fairly even distribution of scores between the regions. All the values of the complex environmental indicator, developed specifically for this ranking3, range between 1.8 and 4 points. This suggests that certain environmental problems are present in all of Russia’s regions. However, if environmental problems are usually associated with one or two factors for the leaders of the ranking, then for outsiders, almost all factors used in the calculation are problematic.
1 https://www.acra-ratings.ru/research/2328/?lang=en
2 Negative impact factors include the volume of emissions of pollutants from stationary and mobile sources, discharge of polluted wastewater, and intake of water from natural water sources.
3 The full version of the Methodology is provided in Appendix 2.
RANK | REGION | INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL indicator score |
1 | Moscow | 1.875 |
2–4 | Moscow Region | 2.125 |
2–4 | Tyva Republic | 2.125 |
2–4 | Chuvash Republic | 2.125 |
Source: ACRA
Table 2. Distribution of factor scores among the leaders of ACRA’s regional environmental ranking
Source: ACRA
Moscow holds the number one spot in ACRA’s environmental ranking.
Leaders of the ranking
Moscow occupies first place in ACRA’s 2022 environmental ranking. The capital is the leader due to the high concentration of its population, as well as the implementation of various environmental initiatives. The capital’s environmental indicators have improved over the last few years, which is the result of the regional government’s targeted policy in this area, as well as due to the relocation of some industrial companies beyond the city limits. The implementation of energy efficiency programs and substantial investment in energy-saving technology and infrastructure4 result in Moscow having the most effective use of energy resources among Russia’s regions; this is evidenced by its score for GRP energy intensity. The policy of rational water use that the capital has adhered to over the past ten years5 has resulted in water consumption falling by 30%. Although the city has deployed similar programs for emissions of pollutants6, the issue of air quality is still relevant, especially in terms of motor vehicle emissions. In recent years, the city’s government has been carrying out a policy to make public transport greener, toughened fuel quality requirements, and restricted the movement of freight transport within Moscow. However, all these measures are not enough to offset the annual growth of the number of cars. ACRA assumes that the implementation of most of the programs will continue regardless of the economic situation, and that in the next few years all the city’s environmental indicators will improve.
Second place in the ranking was taken by three regions that differ significantly in terms of the size and structure of their economies: the Moscow Region, the Tyva Republic, and the Chuvash Republic.
Like Moscow, the Moscow Region occupies a high position in the ranking thanks to the population effect, as well as the regional authorities’ substantial environmental initiatives. For example, the Moscow Region is first in terms of the share of budget expenses on environmental protection — they account for 1.68% of the region’s total expenses. Funds are invested in several major environmental projects aimed at improving the condition of water bodies and comprehensively solving the problem of waste7 8. The most problematic factors for the Moscow Region are water intake from natural water sources and discharge of polluted wastewater.
4 https://icmos.ru/government/moskva-vxodit-v-pyaterku-samyx-osveshhennyx-gorodov-mira
5 https://ria.ru/20220225/vodopotreblenie-1775027836.html
6 https://www.m24.ru/articles/ehkologiya/22122021/158982
7 https://mep.mosreg.ru/deyatelnost/nacproekty
8 https://mep.mosreg.ru/download/document/13854
The Tyva Republic is among the leaders of the ranking thanks to its rather high negative impact scores (emissions of pollutants, wastewater discharges), which is due to the absence of large industrial enterprises. In addition, Tyva considerably increased budget expenditures on environmental protection in 2021 compared to previous years. From 2017 to 2020, this area accounted for no more than 0.25% of the republic’s total expenditures; in 2021 it was close to 1%. The most pressing issue for the region continues to be rational use of resources, including water and energy. The indicator of specific water consumption in Tyva is at the average for Russia, while GRP energy intensity is one of the highest in the country. ACRA assumes that plans to develop industry in the Tyva Republic will, on the one hand, contribute to its economic development, indirectly influencing the rational use of resources, but on the other hand, may adversely affect the factors of negative impact in terms of emissions of pollutants and wastewater discharge
Over the last few years, the Chuvash Republic has demonstrated stable positive dynamics of its environmental indicators. In the republic, the level of pollutant emissions from stationary and mobile sources is declining smoothly, water intake from natural sources is shrinking, and the volume of polluted wastewater is falling. Despite a slight increase in these indicators in 2021 compared to the pandemic year of 2020, ACRA believes that the trend of declining negative impact will continue in the republic.
In the Agency’s opinion, these achievements are possible thanks to the implementation of state and republican environmental programs in Chuvashia9 10 11. In terms of environmental problems in the republic, the most critical factor is the share of captured and neutralized pollutants in the total volume of waste pollutants from stationary sources. Despite positive progress for this indicator from 2018 to 202012, it is still very low (22%), which is likely the product of weak deployment of modern emission cleaning systems by the region’s enterprises.
Environmental situation in Russia
Despite the fact that a number of major environmental incidents have taken place in Russia in recent years, statistics show that the environmental situation in the country is generally improving. This mainly concerns negative impact indicators (emissions of pollutants, wastewater discharge, and water consumption).
Thanks to the mass installation of water consumption control devices and the implementation of rational water use programs in many regions and companies, over 11 years, the volume of water intake from natural water sources in Russia has decreased by 18%, and the discharge of polluted wastewater has decreased by almost 30% over the specified period. ACRA considers that more efficient management of water resources may be economically feasible, especially for major enterprises, therefore in the upcoming years the downward trend in water intake will continue.
9 https://minpriroda.cap.ru/doc/informaciya-dlya-organizacij/gosudarstvennaya-programma-chuvashskoj-respubliki-
10 https://minpriroda.cap.ru/news/2021/07/21/o-hode-realizacii-regionaljnogo-proekta-ozdorovlen
11 http://old-minpriroda.cap.ru/sitemap.aspx?id=599129
12 Data on the share of captured and neutralized substances in the total amount of waste pollutants from stationary sources in state statistics is given only for 2020.
More than 90% of emissions are captured only in three regions, while in 35 regions this indicator is less than 50%.
Pollutant emissions from stationary sources in Russia have been gradually decreasing since 2012 thanks to the modernization of air purification systems at industrial enterprises. At the same time, an analysis of the share of captured and neutralized pollutants in the total volume of emissions from stationary sources indicates that more than 90% of emissions are captured only in three regions, while in 35 regions this indicator stands at less than 50%.
Emissions of pollutants from mobile sources increased between 2012 and 2018 due to the rapid growth of motor vehicles in the country. The number of passenger cars and trucks increased by 39% and 20% during this period, respectively. The methodology for calculating emissions from mobile sources was significantly amended13 in 2019 with regard to accounting carbon monoxide emissions, resulting in a sharp drop in emissions since 2019. Due to this, it is difficult to judge the current situation in terms of emissions from mobile sources, and in ACRA’s opinion, comparison of emission data for 2019–2021 with previous periods is inappropriate.
The Agency assumes that in the current economic situation, the toughening of control over emissions of pollutants (in particular, greenhouse gases) that has been outlined over the past three years is likely to be postponed. However, ACRA believes that the topic of reducing emissions will not be completely forgotten in Russia, and the forced delay in the implementation of control measures will give the authorities a chance find the mildest and, at the same time, most effective tools to solve this problem.
13 https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4499913
Figure 3. Pollutant emissions in Russia, thousand tons per year
Source: Rosstat
Figure 4. Share of captured and neutralized air pollutants in the total volume of pollutants from stationary sources in Russia, %
Source: Rosstat
Despite the favorable trends described above, Russia is noticeably lagging behind developed countries in a number of areas. The government’s ambitious plans to reduce the GDP energy intensity and the positive dynamics in this area demonstrated in recent years14 have not yet resulted in a significant increase in the energy efficiency of the Russian economy15.
14 A Russian Presidential Decree dated June 4, 2008 assumed that GDP energy intensity in Russia would decline by 40% from 2002 to 2020, however, over the past ten years, the actual decline amounted to a mere 9%, according to the Russian Ministry of Economy and Development.
15 https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-intensity-gdp-data.html
Figure 5. GDP energy intensity, OE kg/USD (in the 2015 constant)
Source: Enerdata
In the period from 2017 to 2021, the share of environmental protection expenditures of the aggregate consolidated regional budgets has more than doubled. In 2020, against the background of the pandemic, the dynamics slowed down to some extent and, subsequently, have not recovered. According to ACRA’s estimates, in the current economic conditions, governments will be forced to reduce these expenditures, but the drop will be comparable to the situation that arose as a result of the pandemic.
Figure 6. Share of environmental protection expenditures of consolidated regional budgets in Russia, % of consolidated budgets
Source: Federal Treasury
Appendix 1. Environmental ranking of Russian regions
| RANK | REGION | indicator value | FACTOR SCORES |
| |||||||
| GRP energy intensity | Environmental protection expenditures | Environmental protection expenditures (general) | Emissions from stationary sources | Emissions from mobile sources (motor vehicles and railway transport) | Share of captured and neutralized air pollutants | Wastewater discharge | Water intake from natural water sources | ||||
| 1 | Moscow | 1.875 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | |
| 2-4 | Moscow Region | 2.125 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |
| 2-4 | Tyva Republic | 2.125 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| 2-4 | Chuvash Republic | 2.125 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 5 | Sevastopol | 2.25 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 6 | Mari El Republic | 2.375 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |
| 7-9 | Kaliningrad Region | 2.5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |
| 7-9 | Omsk Region | 2.5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| 7-9 | Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) | 2.5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
| 10-15 | Bryansk Region | 2.625 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 10-15 | Kaluga Region | 2.625 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | |
| 10-15 | Republic of Buryatia | 2.625 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
| 10-15 | Republic of Crimea | 2.625 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
| 10-15 | Republic of Tatarstan | 2.625 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 10-15 | Chukotka Autonomous Okrug | 2.625 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |
| 16-26 | Belgorod Region | 2.75 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 16-26 | Saint Petersburg | 2.75 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | |
| 16-26 | Zabaykalsky Krai | 2.75 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| 16-26 | Ivanovo Region | 2.75 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |
| 16-26 | Kursk Region | 2.75 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | |
| 16-26 | Murmansk Region | 2.75 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | |
| 16-26 | Penza Region | 2.75 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | |
| 16-26 | Altay Republic | 2.75 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | |
| 16-26 | Republic of Dagestan | 2.75 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| 16-26 | Samara Region | 2.75 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
| 16-26 | Ulyanovsk Region | 2.75 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | |
| 27-33 | Voronezh Region | 2.875 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| 27-33 | Jewish Autonomous Region | 2.875 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | |
| 27-33 | Karachay-Cherkess Republic | 2.875 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| 27-33 | Nizhny Novgorod Region | 2.875 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | |
| 27-33 | Novosibirsk Region | 2.875 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| 27-33 | Sakhalin Region | 2.875 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 27-33 | Smolensk Region | 2.875 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 34-42 | Amur Region | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |
| 34-42 | Krasnodar Region | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| 34-42 | Kurgan Region | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |
| 34-42 | Lipetsk Region | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| 34-42 | Magadan Region | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| 34-42 | Novgorod Region | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
| 34-42 | Republic of Mordovia | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 34-42 | Rostov Region | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| 34-42 | Tyumen Region | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 43-57 | Arkhangelsk Region | 3.125 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | |
| 43-57 | Astrakhan Region | 3.125 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 5 | |
| 43-57 | Kabardino-Balkarian Republic | 3.125 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | |
| 43-57 | Kostroma Region | 3.125 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | |
| 43-57 | Nenets Autonomous Okrug | 3.125 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | |
| 43-57 | Republic of Adygea | 3.125 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | |
| 43-57 | Republic of Ingushetia | 3.125 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 4 | |
| 43-57 | Republic of North Ossetia-Alania | 3.125 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | |
| 43-57 | Republic of Khakassia | 3.125 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 43-57 | Sverdlovsk Region | 3.125 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 3 | |
| 43-57 | Tambov Region | 3.125 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |
| 43-57 | Tula Region | 3.125 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | |
| 43-57 | Udmurt Republic | 3.125 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | |
| 43-57 | Khabarovsk Krai | 3.125 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | |
| 43-57 | Chelyabinsk Region | 3.125 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | |
| 58-69 | Altai Krai | 3.25 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| 58-69 | Vladimir Region | 3.25 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | |
| 58-69 | Vologda Region | 3.25 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 58-69 | Kamchatka Krai | 3.25 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | |
| 58-69 | Kirov Region | 3.25 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| 58-69 | Krasnoyarsk Krai | 3.25 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |
| 58-69 | Primorsky Krai | 3.25 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 3 | |
| 58-69 | Pskov Region | 3.25 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
| 58-69 | Tver Region | 3.25 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | |
| 58-69 | Chechen Republic | 3.25 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | |
| 58-69 | Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug | 3.25 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |
| 58-69 | Yaroslavl Region | 3.25 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 2 | |
| 70-76 | Volgograd Region | 3.375 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | |
| 70-76 | Irkutsk Region | 3.375 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | |
| 70-76 | Leningrad Region | 3.375 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | |
| 70-76 | Perm Krai | 3.375 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 70-76 | Republic of Bashkortostan | 3.375 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | |
| 70-76 | Republic of Kalmykia | 3.375 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 5 | |
| 70-76 | Tomsk Region | 3.375 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
| 77-79 | Orenburg Region | 3.5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
| 77-79 | Saratov Region | 3.5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| 77-79 | Stavropol Krai | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 5 | |
| 80-82 | Oryol Region | 3.625 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |
| 80-82 | Ryazan Region | 3.625 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |
| 80-82 | Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Yugra | 3.625 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 5 | |
| 83 | Kemerovo Region | 3.75 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | |
| 84 | Republic of Karelia | 3.875 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | |
| 85 | Komi Republic | 4 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | |
Source: ACRA
Appendix2. Ranking methodologyACRA published its first environmental ranking of Russian regions in 2021. In 2022, the Agency improved its ranking methodology and expanded the range of factors used in calculations. Among the newly introduced factors are total environmental protection expenditures of consolidated regional budgets and the share of captured and neutralized air pollutants in the total volume of pollutants emitted by stationary sources. In addition, in the updated ranking, to calculate the specific values of all negative impact factors, population (not GRP) was used as the base indicator. In ACRA’s opinion, this change makes it possible to assess the impact of environmental aspects directly on the living conditions of the population in a region, as well as to exclude potential distortions arising from the shift of profit centers to the trading divisions of large companies.
In order to compile the ranking, ACRA developed its own comprehensive environmental indicator that reflects the environmental priorities of a region. The indicator ranges from 1 to 5, where 1 is the maximum score, 5 is the minimum. A similar approach is applied by the Agency to assign solicited ESG assessments.
The integrated environmental indicator is calculated based on eight factors that reflect the environmental conditions in a region. The Agency used statistical data as of the end of 2021, with the exception of the share of captured and neutralized air pollutants in the total amount of pollutants from stationary sources, for which data is only for available 2020.
In order to correctly compare regions with each other, specific values of the factors indicated in the table below were used in the calculations of the integrated environmental indicator.
ACRA only used official state statistics disclosed on the portal of the Unified Interdepartmental Information and Statistical System (UIISS)16, information from the almanac Regions of Russia. Socio-Economic Indicators17, as well as information published on the portal of the Federal Treasury.
16 https://www.fedstat.ru/
17 https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204
Factors used to calculate the integrated environmental indicator
factor | indicator used to calculate specific value | |
1 | GRP energy intensity18 | - |
2 | Environmental protection expenditures of the consolidated budget19 | Total expenditures of the consolidated budget of a region |
3 | Environmental protection expenditures (general)20 | Per capita, taking into account price level |
4 | Volume of air pollutants from stationary sources21 | Per capita |
5 | Volume of air pollutants from mobile sources (motor22 and railway23 transport) | Per capita |
6 | Share of captured and neutralized air pollutants from stationary sources24 | - |
7 | Wastewater discharge25 | Per capita |
8 | Water intake from natural water sources26 | Per capita |
Source: ACRA | ||
18 https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/11194
19 https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204, p. 439.
20https://www.fedstat.ru/indicator/42723
21https://www.fedstat.ru/indicator/42722
22 https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204, p. 441.
23 https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204, p. 449.
24 https://www.fedstat.ru/indicator/34563
25 https://rosstat.gov.ru/folder/210/document/13204, p. 449.
26 https://www.fedstat.ru/indicator/34563
To calculate the integrated environmental indicator, ACRA uses specific values of factors obtained as the ratio of the absolute value of a factor (for example, the volume of air pollutants, wastewater discharge, or water intake from natural water bodies) to the population of a relevant region.
In terms of the environmental expenditures, their share in the structure of the consolidated budget expenditures of a region is calculated. For the factor Environmental Protection Expenditures (General), the calculation is made per capita with an adjustment for the price level of a region.
The GRP energy intensity and share of captured and neutralized pollutants in the total amount of pollutants from stationary sources are already given as specific values in the state statistics.
Use of specific values allows ACRA to compare regions with each other and assign scores. For each factor, ACRA conducts its assessment based on a quintile analysis. In this approach, the whole set of specific values of a region for each factor is divided into five groups — quintiles. The upper and lower limits of the factor’s specific value are determined for each of the quintiles. The score of a region in each of the factors corresponds to the ordinal number of the quintile, within which its specific value falls: 1 is assigned to the best regions, 5 to the worst. If the data necessary to assess a factor is not available in state statistics, a region is assigned 5 points for the factor. Then the scores for each factor are summed up (taking into account the equal weights of each of the eight factors used) into a final integrated environmental indicator. The indicator value is used to determine the rank of a region. Regions that receive equal final scores are ranked equally.
