Regional System of Natural Protected Areas of the Crimea: State and Geoecological Problems

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article analyzes the features of the system of specially protected natural territories (protected areas) at the regional level on the example of the Crimean Peninsula, as a high biological and landscape diversity. The purpose of the study is to assess the current structure of the regional system of protected areas of the Crimean Peninsula, the prospects for its development and identify the main geoecological problems, mainly related to the consequences of significant recreational and agricultural environmental management. To study the geoecological problems of regional protected areas in the model reserves “Cape Aya” and “Baydarsky”, field geobotanical descriptions were carried out, reserves of terrestrial phytomass, spatial features of nature management, the stage of recreational digression and the level of pollution were estimated. The mapping scheme of the protected areas of the peninsula made it possible to determine the representativeness of the regional system of territorial nature protection. Protected areas tend mainly to the mountainous and south-coastal regions of Crimea, while there are not enough protected sites in steppe landscapes. It has been revealed that the leading threats to the conservation of biodiversity in the protected areas of Crimea are unregulated recreation and associated pollution, the expansion of nature management and habitat reduction. The maximum transformation of the soil and vegetation cover was noted in the coastal strip of the Cape Aya nature reserve under conditions of abnormal recreational loads — up to the third stage of recreational digression. In the conditions of the intermountain basins of the Baydarsky reserve, residential zones are expanding and habitats are fragmenting. To reduce the severity of geoecological problems, it is recommended to increase the area of protected areas by creating new facilities and expanding existing ones, rationing anthropogenic loads and observing the regime of facilities.

About the authors

E. I. Golubeva

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: egolubeva@gmail.com
Russian Federation, Moscow

E. S. Kashirina

Branch of MSU in Sevastopol

Email: e_katerina.05@mail.ru
Russian Federation, Sevastopol

A. A. Novikov

Institute of Natural Engineering Systems

Email: a_novik@bk.ru
Russian Federation, Sevastopol

References

  1. Global’naya perspektiva v oblasti bioraznoobraziya 5 // [sajt]. Konvenciya o bioraznoobrazii. URL: https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-spm-ru.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 16.12.2023).
  2. Durbanskij akkord: Materialy Pyatogo vsemirnogo kongressa po osobo ohranyaemym prirodnym territoriyam. Per. s angl. // Otv. Red. Yu. L. Mazurov — M.: Institut Naslediya, 2004. 272 s.
  3. Departament prirodnyh resursov i ekologii goroda Sevastopolya // [sajt]. URL: https://spn.sev.gov.ru/deyatelnost/osobo-okhranyaemye-prirodnye-territorii-sevastopolya/obshchie-svedeniya/ (data obrashcheniya: 16.12.2023).
  4. Doklad o sostoyanii i ob ohrane okruzhayushchej sredy na territorii Respubliki Krym v 2022 godu. Simferopol’: OOO “Print”, 2023. 448 s.
  5. Ena A. V. Prirodnaya flora Krymskogo poluostrova. Simferopol’: N. Orіanda, 2012. 232 s.
  6. Epihin D. V., Vahrusheva L. P. Ekologo-biomorfologicheskie osobennosti stepnyh soobshchestv central’noj chasti Predgornogo Kryma // Sbornik nauchnyh trudov Gosudarstvennogo Nikitskogo botanicheskogo sada. 2019. T. 149. S. 65–77.
  7. Kazanskaya N. S. Izuchenie rekreacionnoj digressii estestvennyh gruppirovok rastitel’nosti // Izvestiya AN SSSR. Ser. geogr. 1972. № 1. S. 46–60.
  8. Kashirina E. S., Golubeva E. I. Prirodopol’zovanie na osobo ohranyaemyh prirodnyh territoriyah Krymskogo poluostrova // Izvestiya Rossijskoj akademii nauk. Seriya geograficheskaya. 2016. № 5. S. 91–97. https://doi.org/10.15356/0373-2444-2016-5-91-97
  9. Mironova L. P., Nukhimovskaya Yu. D. Stepnye ekosistemy Feodosiyskogo nizkogorya: chto my teryaem // Ekosistemy. 2022. No. 31. S. 39–60.
  10. Osobo ohranyaemye prirodnye territorii Sevastopolya / E. I. Golubeva, E. A. Pozachenyuk, Yu. A. Gavrilova i dr. IT Arial Simferopol’, 2020. 140 s.
  11. Pozachenyuk E. A., Pankeeva A. Yu., Pankeeva T. V. Sovremennye landshafty prirodnogo zakaznika “Bajdarskij” // Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal’nogo universiteta imeni V. I Vernadskogo. Geografiya. Geologiya. 2020. T. 6. № 1. S. 144–155.
  12. Puzachenko Yu. G., Drozdova N. N. Ploshchad’ ohranyaemyh territorij // Itogi i perspektivy zapovednogo dela v SSSR. M.: Nauka, 1986. S. 72–109.
  13. Rudyk A. N., Prokopov G. A. Analiz sovremennoj struktury OOPT Respubliki Krym // Nauchnye trudy nacional’nogo parka “Hvalynskij”. Sbornik nauchnyh statej V Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii. 2018. Saratov: OOO “Amirit”. 2018. S. 142–149.
  14. Sdasyuk G. V., Tishkov A. A. Klyuchevye regiony ustojchivogo razvitiya // Ocenka kachestva okruzhayushchej sredy i ekologicheskoe kartografirovanie / Ruk. N. F. Glazovskij, otv. redaktory G. V. Sdasyuk, A. S. SHestakov. M.: IG RAN, 1995 S. 107–116.
  15. Sovremennye landshafty Kryma i sopredelnyh territorij Pod nauch. red. E. A. Pozachenyuk. Simferopol: Biznes Inform. 2009. 672 s.
  16. Allan J. R., Possingham H. P., Atkinson S. C., Waldron A., Di Marco M., Butchart S. H., Adams V. M., Kissling W. D., Worsdell T., Sandbrook C., Gibbon G., Kumar K., Mehta P., Maron M., Williams B. A., Jones K. R., Wintle B. A., Reside A. E., Watson J. E. M. The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity. Science 376 Vol.6597. 2022, PP. 1094–1101. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl9127
  17. Bontempi A., Venturi P., Del Bene D., Scheidel A., Zaldo-Aubanell Q., Maneja Zaragoza R. Conflict and conservation: On the role of protected areas for environmental justice // Global Environmental Change. Vol.82. 2023, PP. 102740 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102740
  18. Bennett G., Wit P. The Development and Application of Ecological Networks. A Review of Proposals, Plans and Programmes. — Amsterdam: AIDEnvironment, 2001. 132 pp.
  19. Bicknell J. E., Collins M. B., Pickles R. S. A., McCann N. P., Bernar C. R., Fernandes D. J., Miller M. G. R., James S. M., Williams A. U., Struebig M .J., Davies Z. G., Smith R. J. Designing protected area networks that translate international conservation commitments into national action. Biological Conservation. 214. 2017. P. 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.024
  20. Fahrig L., Watling J. I., Arnillas C. A., Arroyo-Rodríguez V., Jörger-Hickfang T., Müller J., Pereira H. M., Riva F., Rösch V., Seibold S., Tscharntke T., May F. Resolving the SLOSS dilemma for biodiversity conservation: a research agenda // Biological Reviews. 2022. Vol. 97, Is.1 P. 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12792
  21. Lindenmayer D. B., Wood J., McBurney L., Blair D., Banks S. C. (2015b) Single large versus several small: the SLOSS debate in the context of bird responses to a variable retention logging experiment. For Ecol Manag 339:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.11.027
  22. Maiorano L., Falcucci A., Boitani L. Size-dependent resistance of protected areas to land-use change // Proc Biol Sci. 2008; 275(1640): PP. 1297–1304. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1756
  23. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2023. Protected Planet Website. [WWW document] Available at https://www.protectedplanet.net/en (accessed 10.08.2023).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2025 Russian Academy of Sciences