Ecological and economic values mapping of Tunkinsky national park ecosystems of the Republic of Buryatia

https://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2021-3-27-285-296

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Elena L. Vorobyevskaya

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

Sergey N. Kirillov

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: skaudi555@gmail.com

Mikhail V. Slipenchuk

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

Viktor A. Zhuravlev

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography,
Leninskie Gory 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: zuravlev.viktor32@mail.ru

Abstract

The underestimation of ecosystem services that exists today is explained by the complexity of the value expression of its various functions and interrelationships. Naturally, it is impossible to fully determine the economic value of nature, since the value of goods irreplaceable for life tends to infinity. At the same time, the value indicator of these benefits in a market economy is a determining condition for financial support for the preservation and self-reproduction of natural ecosystems. In the context of the formation of global markets for ecosystem services, the prospects for the ecological and economic assessment of specially protected natural areas are great. Such assessments should become mandatory for the regions and be taken into account in their development strategies. This also applies to the territory of Tunkinsky National Park, located in the Republic of Buryatia, which has become an object of mapping. Based on the concept of total economic value, the component and aggregate values of the cost of direct use of a number of services of the national park were calculated. The information on the nature and use of natural resources in the study area served as the basis for ecological and economic calculations. A map of the natural-territorial complexes of Tunkinsky National Park was compiled, the analysis of which made it possible to get an idea of the distribution of the main natural-territorial complexes within the study area, as well as to determine their areas. The assessment of direct ecosystem services was carried out based on the productivity of biological resources for a number of species of animals, fish, wild plants, as well as recreational and pasture resources. The assessment of indirect services is calculated on the basis of carbon sequestration by forests and swamps, filtration capacity of swamps. The conducted ecological and economic assessment and its visual display on the maps of the studied territory can help in the development of ways to optimize nature management, which will contribute to the careful use of natural resources, diversification of its structure in order to preserve the ecological framework of the territory, ethnocultural and landscape diversity.

Keywords

mapping, ecosystem services, Tunkinsky National Park.

References

  1. Bobylev S.N., Bukvareva E.N., Grabovsky V.I., Danilkin A.A. et al. Ecosystem Services in Russia: Prototype of the National Report. T. 1. Services of terrestrial ecosystems. Moscow: Publishing house of the Center for Wildlife Conservation, 2016. 148 p. (in Russian).
  2. Constanza R., d’Arge R., de Groot R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 1997. V. 387. P. 253–260.
  3. Dixon J.A., Scura L.F., Carpenter R.A., Sherman Р.В. Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts. London, 1994. 228 p.
  4. Kirillov S., Slipenchuk M., Zengina T. Management of the sustainable development of the Baikal natural territory in Russia. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2016. V. 10. No. 1. P. 57–68. DOI: 10.1504/IJISD.2016.073418.
  5. Mikhalchik K.I. Application of the method of transport and travel costs to determine the economic value of national parks and recreational areas: theoretical aspect. Young Scientist, 2014. No. 2. P. 500–502 (in Russian).
  6. Naidoo R., Balmford A., Costanza R. et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008. V. 105. No. 28. P. 9495-9500. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707823105.
  7. Naumov P.P. Ecological and economic assessment of resource potential and damage to the animal world. Handbook on the economics of biodiversity conservation in the Baikal region. Irkutsk: Irkutsk University Publishing House, 2002. P. 33–38 (in Russian).
  8. Neverov A.V., Redkovskaya O.V., Neverov D.A. Economic assessment of biodiversity of specially protected natural areas of Belarus. Natural resources. 2001. No. 3. P. 89–96 (in Russian).
  9. Pagiola S., von Ritter K., Bishop J.T. Assessing the Economic Value of Ecosystem Conservation. World Bank Environment Department, 2004. 66 p.
  10. Perelet R.A. Global ecological (ecosystem) services—international exchanges and trade. Innovations in environmental management and environmental protection. Yaroslavl: Cadastr, 2003. P. 78–85 (in Russian).
  11. Pools and fluxes of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems in Russia. Moscow: Nauka, 2007. 324 p. (in Russian).
  12. Slipenchuk M., Kirillov S., Vorobyova T., Zengina T. Mapping the recreational zones of the Republic of Buryatia, Russia. 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference and EXPO, SGEM 2015, 2015. V. 2. P. 979–986. DOI: 10.5593/SGEM2015/B22/S11.122.
  13. Tishkov A.A. Biosphere functions of natural ecosystems in Russia. Moscow: Nauka, 2005. 309 p. (in Russian).
  14. Traditional nature management: cultural, household and economic aspects. Moscow: Academy of Natural Sciences, 2007. 202 p. (in Russian).

For citation: Vorobyevskaya E.L., Kirillov S.N., Slipenchuk M.V., Zhuravlev V.A. Ecological and economic values mapping of Tunkinsky national park ecosystems of the Republic of Buryatia InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2021. V. 27. Part 3. P. 285–296. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2021-3-27-285-296 (In Russian)