View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Elena V. Yaseneva

Lomonosov Moscow State University branch in the city of Sevastopol, Faculty of Ocean Geography, Sevastopol, Russia,
docent, Ph.D.
E-mail: eyaseneva@yandex.ru

Irina A. Yaseneva

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography, Moscow, Russia, graduate student,
E-mail: iyaseneva@yandex.ru


The concept of sustainable development of the Crimea is based on the ecological aspect of sustainable development, which presupposes conservation of the environment and rational use of natural resources—protection of the atmosphere, lands, bowels, forests, waters and their economical use.

In this article, modern ideas about the ecological component of the sustainable development of the Crimea are considered. Now, despite the ongoing environmental protection measures, in general, the ecological status of the study area can be characterized as tense with individual local foci of the pre-crisis state. Priority environmental problems of the Crimea are the following: significant anthropogenic pollution of atmospheric air; water and land resources; threats to the natural heritage of the Crimea; accumulation of a large number of toxic industrial, agricultural and domestic wastes in populated areas and recreational areas.

As a result of the analysis of the statistics, reports and recommendations of the republican, national and international environmental organizations for the Crimea, 20 environmental indicators were selected reflecting the pressure, impact, condition of natural and technical systems over time, characterizing the development trends of these systems. Only a few indicators have been analyzed, such as air and water pollution; an indicator of the proportion of samples that do not meet the water quality standards and an indicator of the state of the nature reserve fund of the coastal territories of the Crimea.

The difference in potentials leads to insignificant discontinuities in the level of social development of the territories, which, in turn, strengthens migration processes and worsens the demographic potential of the less developed cities of the Crimea. The result of the research was the ranking of the territory of the Crimea according to the selected parameters of environmental indicators.


sustainable development, environmental component, indicators, sources of pollution, Crimea.


  1. Chugunova T.N., Fenenko A.S. Ecological and economic indicators of sustainable development of resort regions // Culture of the peoples of the Black Sea region. 2004. No 55. V. 3. P. 64–67 (in Russian).
  2. Ignatov E.I., Yaseneva E.V., Yaseneva I.A. Ranking of coastal cities of Crimea on the basis of ecological indicators. Use and protection of natural resources in Russia. 2015. No 5. P. 58–61 (in Russian).
  3. Kislyi V.N., Lapin E.V., Trofimenko N.A. Ecologization of enterprise management. Sumy: VTD “University book”, 2002. 238 p. (in Russian).
  4. Voronin I.N., Voronina A.B. Problems of development of recreational activities in the specially protected natural areas of the Crimea. Reserves of Crimea-2016: biological and landscape diversity, protection and management. Theses of the VIII International Scientific and Practical Conference (Simferopol, April 28–30, 2016). Simferopol, 2016. P. 33–35 (in Russian).
  5. Voronina A.B. Territorial structure of recreational activities in the specially protected natural areas of the Crimea and ways to optimize it: the abstract of the dis. Candidate of Geographical Sciences: 25.00.24. Simferopol, 2016. 20 p. (in Russian).
  6. Yaseneva E.V. Geoecological situation of the urbanized territories of the Crimea (on the example of Sevastopol) / E.V. Yaseneva. Author′s abstract. Diss., Moscow, 2010. 26 p. (in Russian).
  7. Zgurovsky M.Z., Gvishiani A.D. Global modeling of sustainable development processes. Kiev: Політехніка, 2008. 348 p. (in Russian).

For citation: Yaseneva E.V., Yaseneva I.A. FEATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMEA Proceedings of the International conference “InterCarto/InterGIS”. 2018;24(1):54–67 http://doi.org/10.24057/2414-9179-2018-1-24-54-67