This article provides a practical example of the development of cross-border tourism and its link to achieving sustainable development goals. Greenways (GWs) are successful and recognized initiatives in Western Europe, but have recently also shown development trends in Eastern Europe, notably, in the Baltic Sea Region and Russia. These initiatives improve the quality of life and provide opportunities for sustainable economic activities for the local communities, especially in rural areas, adding value to their natural, cultural, historical and human heritage. The authors studied examples of best practice in scientific literature and practice, encouraging the development of cross-border tourism and GWs in Europe and Russia, in order to further adapt it to other continents. Analyzing the environmental, economic, social and institutional factors in the region and their role in sustainable development, the need for institutional regulation that would allow the development of a wider development of GWs is identified. Research results reveal sustainable development dilemmas of positive socioeconomic effects of GWs and negative environmental effects of increased flows of tourists. Focus groups and expert interviews allowed us to assess the level of various factors contributing to sustainable development and clarify the directions of the future research.

Introduction. The concept of circular agricultural production is a promising trend for ensuring food security and reducing current negative environmental effects. The aim of the study is to analyse the prospects for the development of a circular economy in the agricultural sector of the Krasnodar Territory in the new institutional environment. Materials and Methods. The research process used the methods of critical analysis of modern literature, analysis of official statistical data, regulatory and programme documents that form the institutional framework for the development of closed-loop economy in agriculture. The main regulatory and program documents influencing the current and future institutional transformations of a circular economy in agriculture and the valorization of generated agricultural waste are analyzed. Results. The differential characteristics of the concept of circular agricultural production are determined; the basic principles and limitations of a circular economy in agriculture are highlighted, as well as the benefits and costs of a circular transition in agriculture. Some specific characteristics of agricultural production in Krasnodar Territory are described, which determine the priority of implementing circular practices. Discussion and Conclusions. It has been revealed that the emerging model for managing the circular transition in agricultural production in our country has a “top-down” character with the determining role of governmental institutions. This model has both undeniable advantages and areas of deficiency. The transformation of the characteristics of this model will occur under the influence of the specific characteristics of Russian regions. The results of the study are important for executive authorities and business structures for the institutional design of the introduction of circular economy in the agricultural sector of the Krasnodar Territory and other agricultural regions.

The overwhelming goal of large-scale cross-country research is to evaluate consumers’ perception of a sharing economy. The research was limited by the number of respondents, as well as by the countries represented in the survey. Latvia, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus were mostly represented, and only these responses (757) were analyzed. The study used multilevel modelling of sharing economy elements (dependent variable) in relation to personal characteristics (age, gender, income, industry) nested by the self-assessed level of eco-friendliness (a key predictor for the attitude towards sharing economy). Findings: The key personal characteristics, which influence a person’s intention to be involved in the sharing economy practices, are level of income, education, and also self-perceived ecological friendliness. The sharing economy is not only a topic for investigation among academicians, but also an issue on the agenda of the European Commission, because it is considered as a driver for growth and job creation in the European Union. Despite an increasing interest and many studies, there is a limited number of studies focused on difference in perception of sharing economy depending on personal characteristics of respondents. This indicates the necessity of conducting such surveys, involving participants from different European countries. The given paper could be used as a methodological framework for other European researchers who are interested in the exploration of the topic regarding perception of the sharing economy.

Despite the existence of a variety of conceptual approaches to rural development, there is a lack of methods that take into account intangible assets, such as, for example, social capital, leadership, and local identity. A more effective design of the rural development strategy may be achieved by uncovering knowledge regarding the manifestation of various intangible resources. Territorial development policies, both in terms of the level of socio-economic development and the presence of intangible resources in rural areas, are investigated in this study. The main objective is to determine how intangible resources manifest in specific empirical models of development policy for rural settlements. A novel ensemble of indices and indicators of socio-economic development and the manifestation of intangible resources, calculated based on the method of analytical hierarchies and frequency analysis, are provided. These allow for a comprehensive study of the development of rural areas by clustering settlements with a similar level of development. Patterns and deficits of resources in rural settlements are analysed according to empirical models. Verification of the empirical models is carried out by assessing the level of socio-economic development and indicators of intangible resources for 12 rural settlements in the south of Russia. Therefore, several groups of factors of intangible resources splitting the factors related (reflect the current state) and unrelated (reflect the development potential) to the socio-economic development of rural settlements have been specified.