Assessment of urban protected areas regulations changes using GIS software

https://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2021-3-27-323-334

View or download the article (Rus)

About the Authors

Vitaly A. Kryukov

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

Elena I. Golubeva

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

Abstract

The scale of functional zones transformations, related nature conservation regulations, vulnerability of ecosystems to human impact, PAs borders transformations, changes of ecosystem potentials (estimated in two ways: on the basis of ecosystem services value and functional zoning and PAs restrictions established by law) is assessed in case study PA—Setun valley nature reserve (Moscow, Russia). Free open-source softwares QGIS and InVEST, open-access spatial data were used. Crucial negative transformations and predominance of negative zoning areas with too mild nature protection regimes have been revealed: landscape metrics indices rise (some of them more than doubled, especially coefficient of ideal form), exclusion of some PA part and its compensations with valley parts that are lie further away from main PA part, average-weighted ecosystem potentials difference estimated in two ways is -4.8 (possible values range from -20 to +20), reduction of zones with strict nature protection restrictions from 35% to 11%. Growth of recreational potential and construction of large transport objects are the crucial causes of current negative changes in case-study reserve at the same time, construction of engineering, social and administrative facilities are the secondary causes. Associated rise of road and pedestrian network is leading to PAs cores fragmentation and decrease of its ability to complete the main reserve goal—a conservation of natural and cultural complexes and biodiversity. The results of case-study reserve transformations analysis demonstrate an imbalance in sustainable development triad “nature-society-economy” in favour of last two components.

Keywords

protected areas, GIS, urban ecology, functional zoning, PADDD.

References

  1. Bhardwaj G., Kumar A. The comparison of shape indices and perimeter interface of selected protected areas especially with reference to Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2018. V. 17. e00504. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00504.
  2. Hawbaker T.J., Radeloff V.C., Clayton M.K., Hammer R.B., Gonzales-Abraham C.E. Road Development, Housing Growth, And Landscape Fragmentation in Northern Wisconsin: 1937–1999. Ecological Applications, 2006. V. 16. I. 3. P. 1222–1237. DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1222:RDHGAL]2.0.CO;2.
  3. Jaeger J.A.G. Landscape division, splitting index, and effective mesh size: new measures of landscape fragmentation. Landscape Ecology, 2000. 15. P. 115–130.
  4. Isachenko G., Isachenko T. The role of specially protected natural areas in the formation of Saint Petersburg cultural landscapes. Heritage and Modern Times, 2020. No. 4. P. 55–72. (in Russian).
  5. Makhrova A.G., Nefedova T.G., Treivish A.I. New Moscow in the context of Moscow agglomeration. Geoecologic problems of New Moscow (edited by Koshkarev A.V., Likhacheva E.A., Tishkov A.A.), 2013. Мoscow, Media-PRESS. P. 18–26. (in Russian).
  6. Prugh L.R., Hodges K.E., Sinclair A.R., Brashares J.S. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008. V. 105. No. 52. P. 20770-20775. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0806080105.
  7. Schumaker N.H. Using landscape indices to predict habitat connectivity. Ecology, 1996. V. 77. No. 4. P. 1210–1225.
  8. Sokolskaya E.V., Kochurov B.I., Dolgov Y.A, Lobkovsky V.A. A multi-factor model as the basis for the environmental quality management of urban аreas. Theoretical and applied ecology, 2018. No. 2. P. 26-34. DOI: 10.25750/1995-4301-2018-2-026-034. (in Russian).
  9. Tishkov A.A. Biosphere functions of Russia natural ecosystems. Moscow: Nauka, 2005. 309 p. (in Russian).

For citation: Kryukov V.A., Golubeva E.I. Assessment of urban protected areas regulations changes using GIS software 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. 323–334. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2021-3-27-323-334 (In Russian)