Geoinformation analysis of the spatial structure of the natural-ecological framework of the Arctic zone of Russian European Northeast

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2025-1-31-101-116

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Tatiana Yu. Zengina

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: tzengina@mail.ru

Alla A. Pakina

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: allapa@yandex.ru

Nataliia D. Trubitsyna

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russia,
E-mail: trubitsunanatalia@mail.ru

Abstract

Ecological stability in the Arctic zone of the European north-east of Russia can be ensured by the natural-ecological framework (NEF), including the ecological framework—protected areas with legislative restrictions on nature management, and the natural framework—territories that do not have a protected status, but maintain ecological balance. The purpose of the work is a quantitative assessment of the compliance of the spatial structure of the NEF of the region with the scientific recommendations of N.F. Reimers and F.R. Shtilmark on the necessary share of the NEF area and the recommendations of the Arctic Council on the share of the area of protected areas from the area of natural subzones. The analysis, conducted on the basis of the formed database of multi-scale geospatial data, consisting of three sets of vector and raster layers, including protected areas, areas of high landscape and ecological value, disturbed lands and licensed areas for subsoil development, showed the following. The region’s NEF is represented by unevenly distributed protected areas and ecologically significant landscapes, the largest areas of which are in the subtundra forest and large swamp areas. The disturbed lands in the NEF structure are not large, but the NEF area located within the licensed subsoil areas, and therefore under threat of degradation, is significant and amounts to about 13 % in the northern subarctic tundra and forest tundra. The recommended share of the NEF area is noted only for the arctic tundra and northern taiga. In the southern subarctic tundra, this is only 1/5 of the norm. The recommended share of the area of protected areas from the area of natural subzones is also noted only for the arctic tundra (52 %), and for the forest tundra it is only 2.8 % instead of 15. Of all the natural subzones, the forest-tundra least meets scientific recommendations and characterized by a combination of: an insignificant share of the NEF from the area of the subzone, the lowest share of the area of the protected area from the NEF area, the largest area of already disturbed and threatened lands within the NEF. Thus, the potential of ecological balance in the region can be ensured by improving the NEF structure by increasing the number of protected areas and developing legislatively formalized restrictions on nature management, primarily for the territories of the natural framework located within the licensed areas for subsoil development.

Keywords

natural and ecological framework, protected areas, Arctic zone, landscape and ecological value, geoinformation analysis and mapping

References

  1. Chibileva V.P. Development of a Model of the Natural and Ecological Framework of the Regional and Macroregional Level on the Example of the Orenburg Region. Problems of Geoecology and Steppe Science, 2010. P. 285–294 (in Russian).
  2. Evseev A.V., Krasovskaya T.M. Ecological Framework of the North of Russia. Theoretical and Applied Ecology, 2014. No. 1. P. 8–11 (in Russian).
  3. Evseev A.V., Krasovskaya T.M., Tikunov V.S., Tikunova I.N. Assessment of Environmental Services of the Traditional Nature Use Territories of the Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Geography and Natural Resources, 2018. No. 3. P. 134–139 (in Russian). DOI: 10.21782/GIPR0206-1619-2018-3(134-139).
  4. Jalkanen J., Toivonen T., Moilanen A. Identification of Ecological Networks for Land-Use Planning with Spatial Conservation Prioritization. Landscape Ecology, 2020. V. 35. P. 353–371. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-019-00950-4.
  5. Jongman R.H., Kristiansen Ib. National and Regional Approaches for Ecological Networks in Europe. Council of Europe, 2001. No. 18 (110). 61 p.
  6. Landscape Map of the USSR. Scale 1:2 500 000. Moscow: All-Russian Research Institute of Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, 1987. 16 sh. (in Russian).
  7. Luzhkov R.S., Pakina A.A. Analysis of the Land Use Structure of Old-Developed Region for the Purpose of Forming a Natural-Ecological Framework Using GIS Technologies (On Example of the Belgorod Region). InterCarto. InterGIS. Proceedings of the International Conference. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography, 2021. V. 27. Part 4. P. 105–119 (in Russian). DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2021-4-27-105-119.
  8. Mineev Yu.N. Wetlands in the North-East of the European Part of Russia. Bulletin of the Institute of Biology of the Komi Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008. No. 5 (127). P. 10–13 (in Russian).
  9. Osadchaya G.G., Sharapova L.V., Zengina T.Yu. Possibilities of Ecologization of Subsurface Use in the European North through the Improvement of Regulatory Acts. Regional Environmental Issues, 2015. No. 3. P. 222–227 (in Russian).
  10. Panchenko E.M., Dyukarev A.G. Ecological Framework as a Regional Environmental Protection System. Tomsk State University Journal, 2010. No. 340. P. 216–221 (in Russian).
  11. Prishchepa O.M., Metkin D.M., Borovikov I.S. The Hydrocarbon Potential of the Arctic Zone of Russia and the Prospects for its Development. Mineral Resources of Russia. Economics and Management, 2019. No. 3. P. 14–28 (in Russian).
  12. Reimers N.F. Environmental Management: A Dictionary. Moscow: Mysl’, 1990. 637 p. (in Russian).
  13. Reimers N.F., Shtilmark F.R. Specially Protected Natural Areas. Moscow: Mysl’, 1978. 298 p. (in Russian).
  14. Rozhnov V.V., Lavrinenko I.A., Razzhivin V.Yu., Makarova O.L., Lavrinenko O.V. Revision of the Biodiversity of a Large Arctic Region as the Basis for its Monitoring and Protection in Conditions of Active Economic Development (Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Russia). Nature Conservation Research, 2019. No. 2. P. 1–28 (in Russian).
  15. Sobolev N.A. Proposals for the Concept of Protection and Use of Natural Territories. Biodiversity Conservation, 1999. No. 3. P. 20–24 (in Russian).
  16. Strelnikov V.V., Gaiduk V.I., Buyalsky I.P., Achokh Yu.R. The Natural and Ecological Framework as the Basis of Organizational and Legal Mechanisms for Sustainable Development of the Region. Ministry of Agriculture of Russian Federation, 2019. No. 2. P. 31–33 (in Russian).
  17. Tikhonova T.V. Assessment of the Potential of the Subarctic Territories’ Ecosystems of the Komi Republic. Proceedings of the Komi Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014. No. 1 (17). P. 117–123 (in Russian).
  18. Tishkov A.A. The “Arctic Vector” in the Preservation of Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Arctic: Ecology and Economy, 2012. No. 2 (6). P. 28–43 (in Russian).
  19. Yanitskaya T. Practical Guide to the Allocation of Forests of High Conservation Value in Russia. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Moscow, 2008. 136 p. (in Russian).
  20. Zengina T.Yu., Osadchaya G.G. Modern Threats to the Preservation of the Main Elements of the Natural-Ecological Framework of the Usinsk Region of the Komi Republic. Proceedings of the Komi Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014. No. 4 (20). P. 33–42 (in Russian).

For citation: Zengina T.Yu., Pakina A.A., Trubitsyna N.D. Geoinformation analysis of the spatial structure of the natural-ecological framework of the Arctic zone of Russian European Northeast. InterCarto. InterGIS. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2025. V. 31. Part 1. P. 101–116. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2025-1-31-101-116 (in Russian)