URBAN SPACE GEOECOLOGICAL MAPPING AND ASSESSMENT WITH VECTOR FISHNET GIS ANALYSIS

http://doi.org/10.24057/2414-9179-2018-1-24-310-320

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Boris I. Kochurov

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences,
29 Staromonetny per., 119017, Moscow, Russia,
E-mail: info@ecoregion.ru

Alexander Yu. Karandeev

Pyotr Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky Lipetsk State Pedagogical University,
42 Lenin str., 398020, Lipetsk, Russia,
E-mail: aykarandeev@gmail.com

Abstract

This article represents applying vector fishnet GIS analysis in urban geoecological assessment and mapping based on information that are collected in geoecological data infrastructure. As a basis for geoecological assessment, authors propose geoecosociosystem conception that claims a balance between economic development and ecological improvement as a tool for sustainable development. The algorithm of assessment can be split on a few analytics flows and related key research. Points assessment method was chosen by authors for geoecological assessment. Points from 0 to 10 for each characters was summing with weight coefficient. Final result is sum point that includes characters of ecological network, pollution of the environment and transformation of natural ecosystems. Authors propose a formula for point’s calculation of cell (tile) characteristics, list of characteristics and other aspects of fishnet GIS analysis. For research was chosen an area of Lipetsk city and its suburbs. The prototype of geoecological data infrastructure was built on information about ecological network, history of city development and open spatial basic data and ecological data. The area was covered by vector fishnet with 50 × 50 meter cells. For each cell was calculate a point of anthropogenic transformation of cell’s area, distance to streets, which split to 3 categories: main, secondary and unpaved, distance to sources of atmosphere emissions, distant to industry area, distance to natural protected area and distance to elements of ecological network. 68.78 % (120,400 ha) of the area has satisfactory geoecological condition, 21.74 % (38,000 ha) has good condition and 9.48 % (16,600 ha) has poor geoecological condition.

Keywords

ecological assessment, geoecological assessment, geoinformation system, data infrastructure, fishnet analysis.

References

  1. Anichkina N.V. Natural and Resource Basis for the Development of the Territory of The City of Lipetsk, Geograficheskoe prostranstvo: sbalansirovannoe razvitie prirody i obshchestva materialy II zaochnoj Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii, posvyashchennoj pamyati T.L. Ishukovoj, 2011. P. 169–178 (in Russian).
  2. Anichkina N.V., Rostom G.R. Anthropogenous Ecosystems of Voronezh River Valley. European Journal of Natural History. 2016. No 6. С. 15–17.
  3. Feeney M., Rajabifard A., Williamson I.P. Spatial data infrastructure frameworks to support decision-making for sustainable development, Proceedings of the 5th Global Spatial Data Infrastructures 2001. P. 1–15.
  4. Haworth Billy, Eleanor Bruce and Kurt Iveson. Spatio-temporal analysis of graffiti occurrence in an inner-city urban environment. Applied Geography. 2013. V. 38. P. 53–63.
  5. Karandeev A.Y. GIS Modelling for Urban Management which Based on Landscape Ecological Principals, Materialy Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii, posvyashchennoj 180-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya P.P. Semenova-Tyan-Shanskogo. Lipeck: Izd-vo LGPU, 2007. P. 92–94 (in Russian).
  6. Karandeev A.Y. Historical Geographical GIS model of Lipetsk development, Problemy regional’noj ehkologii. M.: ID «Kamerton», 2012. No 3. P. 150–152 (in Russian).
  7. Kesoreckih I.I., Zotov S.I. Methodology of Assessment of Natural Complexes Sensitivity to Anthropogenic Impact, Vestnik Baltijskogo federal'nogo universiteta im. I. Kanta. 2012. V. 1. P. 51–57 (in Russian).
  8. Kochurov B. I. Ecological Diagnostics and Balanced Development. M.; Smolensk: Madzhenta, 2003. 384 p. (in Russian).
  9. Kochurov B.I. Geoecology: Ecological Diagnostic and Ecological and Economic Balance of the Territory, Smolensk: SGU, 1999. 154 p. (in Russian).
  10. Konovalova N.V., Smirennikova E.V. Geoinformation Approaches to the Tourist Potentional Evaluation of the Arkhangelsk Region, Arctic Evironmental Research. 2011. No 1. P. 13–18 (in Russian).
  11. ThiLoi Duong, Pham Anh Tuan and Kshama Gupta. Development of an Index for Assessment of Urban Green Spacesat City Level. International Journal Of Remote Sensing Applications. 2015. V. 5.1. P. 78.
  12. Tikunov V.S. Environmental Geoinformation Systems, Problemy regionalnoj ehkologii. M.: ID “Kamerton”, 2010. No 2. P. 73–83 (in Russian).
  13. Waddell Paul. A behavioral simulation model for metropolitan policy analysis and planning: residential location and housing market components of UrbanSim. Environment and planning B: Planning and Design. 2000. V. 27, No 2. P. 247–263.
  14. Waddell Paul. UrbanSim: Modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. Journal of the American planning association. 2002. V. 68, No 3. P. 297–314.

For citation: Kochurov B.I., Karandeev A.Yu. URBAN SPACE GEOECOLOGICAL MAPPING AND ASSESSMENT WITH VECTOR FISHNET GIS ANALYSIS Proceedings of the International conference “InterCarto. InterGIS”. 2018;24(1):310–320 http://doi.org/10.24057/2414-9179-2018-1-24-310-320