Mapping of ecosystem services of Vorkuta park zones for improvement of planning solutions

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2023-2-29-371-381

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Stanislav K. Belousov

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Geographical Faculty,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: web-town@mail.ru

Alexander V. Evseev

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Geographical Faculty,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: avevseev@yandex.ru

Tatiana M. Krasovskaya

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Geographical Faculty,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: krasovsktex@yandex.ru

Abstract

Urban green infrastructure development is one of the main ways to achieve sustainable development of cities. The most important role in this process belongs to park areas, squares, street landscaping, etc. This function is achieved due to presenting a wide range of ecosystem services: regulatory, supporting, information and provisioning. Studies of green infrastructure ecosystem services pools are of particular importance for cities of the Russian Federation Arctic Zone, whose population reaches 50–300 thousand people: Murmansk, Apatity, Vorkuta, Norilsk etc. Environmental and socio-economic characteristics of cities control the demand for certain services of their green infrastructure. This should be taken into account in municipal planning. Vorkuta parks were formed mainly on wasteland areas with willow thickets, swamps, ravines, etc., which were subsequently recultivated. Ecosystem services of five Vorkuta parks and their various combinations were considered. These combinations differ depending on the variations of geoecological characteristics of the park’s location. Such characteristics include the state of vegetation cover, location on a slope, presence of a water reservoir, position in relation to major highways, etc. The studied elements of Vorkuta green infrastructure have significant differences both in functional role and social value. T he priority ecosystem services of these territories are regulatory (filtration of polluted air, regulation and filtration of surface runoff, control of temperature regime of the permafrost layer covered by soils, erosion processes control, regulation of microclimate and noise pollution); informational (recreational, aesthetic, formation of a sense of place, etc.), to a lesser extent, due to the severity of natural conditions—supporting (biodiversity support, formation of biogeochemical cycles). The map “Ecosystem services of Vorkuta parks” was compiled based on territorial binding of priority ecosystem services.

Keywords

Arctic cities, green infrastructure, ecosystem services, map

References

  1. Belousov S.K., Evseev A.V., Krasovskaya T.M. Differentiation of priority ecosystem services of green infrastructure in Kirovsk (Murmansk region). InterCarto. InterGIS. Geoinformation support of territorial sustainable development. Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow, 2022. V. 28. Part 1. P. 69–77 (in Russian). DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-1-28-69-77.
  2. Bergum C., Beaubien L-A. Smart growth and winter city design. The city St. Albert planning development Bulletin, 2009. No. 14. P. 1–7.
  3. Bobylev S.N., Zavaleev I.S., Zavaleeva A.I., Hovavko I.Yu. Urban green infrastructure development. Scientific investigations of the Economic Faculty. Electronic Journal, 2022. V. 14. No. 3. P. 48–61 (in Russian). DOI: 10.38050/2078-3809-2022-14-3-48-61.
  4. Crane J. An indoor public space for a winter city. Thesis (M. Arch.). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Architecture, 2005. 93 p. Web resource: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/31197/61280692.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 20.12.2022).
  5. Evseev A.V., Krasovskaya T.M. Small urban parks in the Russian Arctic cities: priority ecosystem functions and services promoting city resilience. Proceedings of the Russian Geographical Society, 2022. No. 5–6. P. 36–48 (in Russian).
  6. Geneletti D. Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Environment Impact Assessment Rev., 2013. No. 40. P. 1–2. DOI: 10.1016/.jeiar.2013.02.005.
  7. Geneletti D., Cortinovis C., Zardo L. et al. Reviewing ecosystem services in urban plans. Planning for Ecosystem Services in Cities. Springer Briefs in Environmental Science, 2020. Cham: Springer. 86 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20024-4.
  8. Global Environment Outlook 5 (GEO 5): Environment for the future we want. United Nations Environment Program, 2012. Web resource: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/8021 (accessed 15.09.2022).
  9. Haase D., Larondelle N., Andersson E., Artmann M., Borgström S., Breuste J., Gomez-Baggethun E., Gren A., Hamstead Z., Hansen R. et al. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. AMBIO, 2014. No. 43. P. 413–433.
  10. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. 4th Report—Final, March, 2016. EU. 94 p.
  11. Shabaev Yu.L., Zherebzova I.L., Labunova O.V. Cultural evolution of the polar city: From a concentration camp city to a ghost town. Proceedings of the Komi Scientific Center, the Ural Branch, RAS, 2018. No. 3 (35). P. 88–94 (in Russian). DOI: 10.191 10/1994-5655-2018-3-88-94.

For citation: Belousov S.K., Evseev A.V., Krasovskaya T.M. Mapping of ecosystem services of Vorkuta park zones for improvement of planning solutions. InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2023. V. 29. Part 2. P. 371–381. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2023-2-29-371-381 (in Russian)