Differentiation of priority ecosystem services of green infrastructure in Kirovsk (Murmansk region)

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-69-77

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Stanislav K. Belousov

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory, 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: web-town@mail.ru

Alexander V. Evseev

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov,
Faculty of Geography, Leninskie Gory, 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: avevseev@yandex.ru

Tatiana M. Krasovskaya

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory, 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: krasovsktex@yandex.ru

Abstract

Various combinations of green infrastructure ecosystem services in Kirovsk (Murmansk Region), which included a city park and squares, are considered. These combinations differ depending on the local geoecological characteristics of green infrastructure elements. The following characteristics were considered: area, position in relief, nature of vegetation cover, surrounding residential areas, location of highways, etc. Depending on the combinations of these characteristics, priority sets of ecosystem services that form a comfortable living environment were determined. The traditional range of ecosystem services was typical only for the city park, where it included not only supporting, regulating, informational, but also provisioning ecosystem services—rare for urban green infrastructure. The identified combinations of ecosystem services were shown on the map. At the same time, the structure of information ecosystem services, which turned out to be among the priorities for most of the studied elements, was presented in detail using indexes. The conducted differentiation of ecosystem services enables to develop priority economic measures to maintain the most important ones that ensure comfortable living. For the city park, they include the largest list of activities: sanitary logging, removal of shrubby undergrowth, laying glades to enhance the aesthetics of landscapes and create viewpoints, laying ecological trails, etc. For small squares in the city center with priority information services, the first measure will be the arrangement of social space—lighting, benches, colorful flower beds, snow removal, etc. For squares with the priority of regulatory services management activities include the selection of wood species with the greatest noise and dust suppressing effect, windproof and anti-erosion functions.

Keywords

urban green infrastructure, ecosystem services, mapping, Murmansk Region

References

  1. Bartesaghi Koc C., Osmond P., Peters A. Towards a comprehensive green infrastructure typology: a systematic review of approaches, methods and typologies. Urban Ecosystems, 2017. V. 20. No. 1. P. 15–35. DOI: 10.1007/s11252-016-0578-5.
  2. Bastian O., Grunewald K., Khoroshev A.V. The significance of geosystem and landscape concepts for the assessment of ecosystem services: exemplified on a case study in Russia. Landscape Ecology, 2015. V. 30. No. 7. P. 1145–1164. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-015-0200-x.
  3. Burkhard B., Kandziora M., Hue J., Mueller F. Ecosystems service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localization, indication, and quantification. Landscape Online, 2014. V. 34. No. 1. P. 1–32. DOI: 10.3097/LO.201434.
  4. Collier M., Nedovic-Budic Z., Aerts J., Connop S. Transitioning to resilience and sustainability in urban communities. Cities, 2013. V. 32. P. 21–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.010.
  5. Evseev A., Krasovskaya T., Tikunov V., Tikunova I. New look at territories of traditional nature use traditional nature management lands at the coastal zone of the Ice Silk Road: A case study for the Russian Arctic. International Journal of Digital Earth, 2017. V. 29. P. 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/17538947.2017.1423405.
  6. Geneletti D., Cortinovis C., Zardo L., Esmail B.A. Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities. Springer International Publishing, 2019. 85 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20024-4.
  7. Identity: Personality, Society, Politics. Encyclopedic edition. Moscow: Ves mir, 2017. 992 p. (in Russian).
  8. Krasovskaya T., Evseev A. Prioritization of urban green infrastructure ecosystem services for Subarctic cities. Landscape science and landscape ecology: considering responses to global challenges. Proceedings of IALE-Russia online conference. Moscow: Moscow State University, 2020.
  9. McHale M.R., Pickett S.T.A., Barbosa O., Bunn D.N., Cadenasso M.L., Childers D.L., Gartin M., Hess G.R., Iwaniec D.M., McPhearson T., Peterson M.N., Poole A.K., Rivers L., III, Shutters Sh.T., Zhou W. The New Global Urban Realm: Complex, Connected, Diffuse, and Diverse Social-Ecological Systems. Sustainability, 2015.V. 7. P. 5211–5240. DOI: 10.3390/su7055211.
  10. Pickett S., Cadenasso M., McGrath B. Resilence in ecology and urban design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities. Springer, 2013. 499 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5341-9.
  11. Renowden C., Beer T., Mata L. Exploring integrated ArtScience experiences to foster nature connectedness through head, heart, and hand. Dryad, Dataset, 2021. DOI: 10.5061/dryad.dz08kprzp.
  12. Tian Tian, Lin Sun, Shegjing Peng, Fengyun Sun, Yue Che. Understanding the process from perception to cultural ecosystem services assessment by comparing valuation methods. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2020. No. 57 (8). P. 126945. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126945.

For citation: Belousov S.K., Evseev A.V., Krasovskaya T.M. Differentiation of priority ecosystem services of green infrastructure in Kirovsk (Murmansk region). InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2022. V. 28. Part 1. P. 69–77. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-69-77 (in Russian)