Impact of War on the Natural Preserve Fund: Challenges for the Development of Ecological Tourism and Environmental Protection


The global deterioration of the quality of the natural environment causes an increase in the importance of ecological tourism, primarily at the sites of the nature reserve fund. This paper is one of the first attempts to fill the existing gaps in the question of the impact of war on protected natural areas. The article determines the development trends, current state, and problems of the objects of the nature reserve fund in Ukraine in the conditions of unjustified full-scale russian military aggression and makes an approximate calculation of the damages caused as a result of hostilities. It was established that during 2012–2020, the number of objects of the nature reserve fund in Ukraine increased by 605 units or by 7.5 %; the area of these objects increased by 562,460.6 hectares or by 14.3 %. Due to russian military aggression, danger threatens 900 protected areas, which is 1.2 million hectares or about 30 % of the area of all protected areas of Ukraine. The damage calculation was carried out on the example of the Feldman EcoPark regional landscape park in the Dergachy district of the Kharkiv region. It was established that the approximate estimate of damages from the loss of ecosystem services of this landscape park as of 20.05.2022 was 16,979.5 thousand USD, including in terms of ecosystem services: (i) recreation and ecotourism – 13,846.2 thousand USD; (ii) air purification from solid fine particles and harmful gases – 272.1 thousand USD; (iii) biodiversity habitat – 2,861.3 thousand USD. In addition, the amount of damage caused to the regional landscape park due to the loss of animals, calculated based on special fees for calculating the amount of damage to the nature reserve fund, amounts to 63,350 USD. The determined damage estimates are preliminary and need to be clarified after the end of the war.



[1] Andreieva, V., Voitiuk, V., Kychyliuk, O., Shepeliuk, M., Hetmanchuk, A., and Derkach, V. 2021. Economic estimation of Sheremsky swamp on the basis of ecosystem services. Notes in Current Biology 1(1): 15–24. DOI:
[2] Budziak, O., Budziak, V., and Hrytsak, O. 2021. Effective use of “clean” lands of Ukraine under conditions of sustainable development. Agricultural and Resource Economics 7(3): 162–178. DOI:
[3] Constanza, R., et al. 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 387: 253–260.
[4] Ilyina, M. V., and Kobzar, O. M. 2022. Damage to biodiversity and nature reserves due to hostilities. Available at:
[5] Irtyshcheva, I., et al. 2022. Environmental security of territories: challenges of today and guidelines for strengthening in war. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism 5(61): 1229–1239. DOI:
[6] Klimov, O. V., et al. 2005. Natural reserve fund of the Kharkiv region. Kharkiv, Ryder.
[7] Lemishko О., Davydenko, N., and Shevchenko, A. 2022. Strategic directions of the economic recovery of post-war Ukraine. Journal of Innovations and Sustainability 6(2): 09.
[8] Lukavenko, Y., and Derevska, K. 2017. Economic estimation of the ecosystem services of Askanian steppe (Askania-Nova biosphere reserve as an example). Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Pryrodnychi nauky, 197.
[9] Melnyk, A. V., and Chyr, N. V. 2019. Modern aspects of research of the natural reserve fund of the Transcarpathian region as a core of the development of ecological tourism. Ukrainian Geographical Journal 2019(3): 43–52. DOI:
[10] Okolovych, I. 2022. Directions for ensuring the sustainability of rural tourism in Ukraine. Journal of Innovations and Sustainability 6(4): 01. DOI:
[11] Perera, P., Jayakody, С., Jayapali, U., and Newsome, D. 2023. Challenges and opportunities for the resumption of nature tourism in post-pandemic Sri Lanka. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks 11(2): 234–246. DOI:
[12] Ryazantseva, A. 2022. Nine deer from the ecopark in Kharkiv were killed under russian fire, another 20 escaped. Available at:
[13] Sedell, J., Sharpe, M., Dravnieks Apple, D., Copenhagen, M., and Furniss, M. 2000. Water and the Forest Service. FS-660. Washington, DC. USDA-Forest Service, Washington Office. Available at:
[14] Shvedun, V., et al. 2023. Evaluation of environmental security of Ukraine during the russian invasion: state, challenges, prospects. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism 14(3): 787–798. DOI:
[15] Shyshchenko, P. H., Havrylenko, O. P., and Tsyhanok, Ye. Yu. 2019. Ecosystem value of Holosiyivskyi forest as an urban protected area: causes and consequences of degradation. Ukrainian Geographical Journal 4: 40–49. DOI:
[16] Solodovnik, M. 2022. In the ecopark in Kharkiv, kangaroos died under shelling, some of the animals live in Feldman’s house. Available at:
[17] Soloviy, I. 2016. Evaluation of forest ecosystem services provided by forests of Ukraine and proposals on PES mechanisms. Available at:
[18] Soloviy, I. P., and Burda, Yu. A. 2022. Methodological features of forest ecosystem services evaluation within nature protected territories. Scientific Bulletin of UNFU 32(3): 37–42. DOI:
[19] Strilets, R. 2022. Damage to the environment for half a year of the war reached almost 1 trillion hryvnias. Available at:
[20] Vasyliuk, O. 2022. Impact of the war on the objects of the nature reserve fund. Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group. Available at:
[21] Vicente, M. C., Loja, P. J., and Subade, R. 2023. Economic valuation of ecosystem services in Balatin River Sub-Watershed, Southern Philippines. Agricultural and Resource Economics 9(1): 139–166. DOI:
[22] Yakymchuk, A., et al. 2021. Rural “green” tourism as a driver of local economy development in the process of decentralization of power. Agricultural and Resource Economics 7(1): 232–259. DOI:
[23] Zamula, І., and Shavurska, O. 2023. Strategic directions for restoration of environmental security of the Polissia region in the post-war period. Journal of Innovations and Sustainability 7(1): 02. DOI:
[24] Briefing on the environmental damage caused by Russias war of aggression against Ukraine. 2022. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine (11–18 May 2022). Available at:
[25] Feldman will build a new ecopark in Odesa for $15 million. Economic truth. 2020. Available at:
[26] Holosiiv National Park – a treasure trove of free benefits Press release – Ecology Right Human. 2022. Ecology Law Man. Available at:
[27] Kharkiv Ecopark will welcome visitors again. 2023. Available at:
[28] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Available at:
[29] Primates died during shelling in the Kharkiv Ecopark. 2022. Kharkiv today. Available at:
[30] Resolution of the Cabinet Ministers of Ukraine. 2022. On the approval of special fees for calculating the amount of damage caused by the violation of the legislation on the nature reserve fund. Available at:п#Text

[31] The baby was left an orphan: the russians killed a couple of bison in the Kharkiv Ecopark. 2022. Available at:
[32] The Government has approved new special fees for calculating the amount of damage to the nature reserve fund of Ukraine. 2022. Available at:
[33] Website of Feldman EcoPark. 2022. Social and humanitarian multi-complex in Kharkiv. Available at:
[34] Zoo in Kharkiv: how to get there, how to sign up and schedule. 2022. Available at:
How to Cite
KUCHER, Anatolii et al. Impact of War on the Natural Preserve Fund: Challenges for the Development of Ecological Tourism and Environmental Protection. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 5, p. 2414 - 2425, sep. 2023. ISSN 2068-7729. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 01 oct. 2023. doi: