| Annotation |
In the process of economic development of regions, the nature of the neighborhood
of specially protected natural areas changes. Industrial and residential areas
are expanding their boundaries, moving them towards the borders of nature reserves.
The purpose of the research is to assess the readiness of specially protected natural
areas of the Transbaikal Territory to the unfavorably changing nature of the neighborhood
from the standpoint of domestic and foreign spatial planning practice. The
research methodology is based on a combination of three concepts: optimal form of
protected areas, polarized landscape of B. B. Rodoman and post-non-classical science
V. S. Stepina. Domestic (L. I. Milkina) and foreign (Jared M. Diamond, Margaret Game)
geographers believe that the most optimal shape for protected areas is a shape close
to the shape of a circle. A circle is a geometric figure, compared to all other geometric
figures, with a minimum perimeter and a maximum area. For protected areas, this fact
is of great importance: the smaller the perimeter ‒ the border, the less likely it is for
external threats to penetrate. The authors have adapted the methodology for calculating
the ideal form of protected areas by L. I. Milkina to assess their readiness for a new
neighborhood with industrial and urban areas: with a round shape ‒ ideal readiness;
with a shape close to a square – acceptable readiness; in the case of an elongated rectangle
shape ‒ vulnerable readiness; with a ribbon form ‒ complete unpreparedness. In
reality, the shape of protected areas is far from round. The protected areas formed far
from industrial facilities are surrounded by a belt of natural landscapes. The boundaries
of such territories are drawn according to orographic and hydrographic objects, and the
shape turned out to be far from a circle. It has been proved that there is a belt of external
buffer territories. These buffer territories could disappear and be developed by industry
and agriculture, populated by people; such a scenario has not been planned. Almost
all protected areas demonstrate their unpreparedness for changing the nature of the
neighborhood in the Transbaikal region.
Acknowledgment: The article was made within the framework of the state |
| References |
1. Kalikhman T. P., Enkh-Amgalan S. Systems of protected areas in Siberia and Mongolia: similarities and
differences. Sustainable development of specially protected natural areas: coll. art. VIII All-Russian (national)
scientific and practical. conf. Еd. L. M. Shagarov. Sochi: Natural ornithological park in the Imeretinskaya
lowland, 2021. (In Rus.).
2. Belonovskaya E. A., Korotkov K. O., Saravaisky A. A., Tishkov A. A. Study and conservation of
biodiversity in mountain regions. News of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Geographical series, no. 6,
pp. 60–62, 1999. (In Rus.).
3. Korytny L. M. Basin concept in environmental management. Irkutsk: Publishing House of SB RAS
Institute of Geography, 2001. (In Rus.).
4. Milkina L. I. Geographical foundations of the conservation area. News of the All ‒ Union Geographical
Society, vol. 107, no. 6, pp. 485–495, 1975. (In Rus.).
5. Rodoman B. B. «Polarized landscape»: half a century later. News of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Geographic series, no. 3, pp. 467–480, 2021. (In Rus.).
6. Rodoman B. B. Territorial areas and networks. Essays on theoretical geography. Smolensk: Oikumena,
1999. (In Rus.).
7. Stepin V. S. Peculiarities of scientific knowledge and criteria for types of scientific rationality.
Epistemology and philosophy of science, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 78‒91, 2013. (In Rus.).
8. Tomskikh A. A. Environmental management in mountainous countries: global and regional aspects.
Bulletin of the Transbaikal State University, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 28–35, 2022. DOI: 10.21209/2227924520222832835
(In Rus.).
9. Cheryatova Yu. S., Alisov V. O., Voronov M. S. Actual aspects of nature conservation in Russian
reserves. Biospheric economy: theory and practice, no. 4, pp. 61–65, 2023. (In Rus.).
10. Chibilev A. A. Geographical aspects of the development of the protected system of Russia. Bulletin
of the Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 532–539, 2022. DOI: 10.31857/S0869587322060032
(In Rus.).
11. Christaller W. Die zentralenOrte in Suddeutschland. USA: Prentice Hall, 1966. (In Eng.).
12. Game M. Best shape for nature reserves. Nature, vol. 287, рр. 630–632, 1980. (In Eng.).
13. Hamaide V, Hamaide B., Williams J. C. Nature reserve optimization with buffer zones and wildlife
corridors for rare species. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, vol. 2, p. 100003, 2022. (In Eng.).
14. Jared M. Diamond The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of
natural reserves. Biological Conservation, vol. 7, pp. 129–146, 1975. (In Eng.).
15. Justin C. Williamsa, Charles S. ReVellea, Simon A. Levinb Spatial attributes and reserve design
models: A review. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, vol. 10, pp. 163–181, 2005. DOI: 10.1007/s10666-
005-9007-5. (In Eng.).
16. Ma Z. et al. Changes in area and number of nature reserves in China. Conserv. Biol., vol. 33, pp. 1066–
1075, 2019. (In Eng.).
17. Michael S. Blouin, Edward F. Connor Is there a best shape for nature reserves? Biological Conservation,
vol. 32, pp. 277–288, 1985. (In Eng.).
18. Weerasena L., Shier D., Tonkyn D., McFeaters M., Collins C. A sequential approach to reserve design
with compactness and contiguity considerations. Ecological Modelling, vol. 478, p. 110281, 2023. (In Eng.). |
