V.Yu. Yukhnovskyi, O.V. Zibtseva. ESTIMATION OF ECOLOGICAL STABILITY OF SMALL TOWN BUCHA IN KYIV REGION

DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2019.02.049
Ukr. geogr. z. 2019, N2:49-56
Ukrainian Geographical Journal 2019 (2)
Language of publication: 
Ukrainian
Full text: 
PDF icon UGJ-2019-2_49-56.pdf
Authors: 

V.Yu. Yukhnovskyi - National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv;
O.V. Zibtseva - National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv.

Abstract: 

The purpose of the study is to assess the ecological balance of the small town Bucha in Kyiv region for the environmental justification of the long-term plan for the development of the urban landscape. The integrated assessment of the ecological state of the town territory is researched taking into account the heterogeneity of the impacts and ecological significance of each biotechnical element of the town. The analysis of the distribution of urban lands according to the General City Development Plan allowed tracing the dynamics of the areas of certain categories and the changes associated with it in the ecological state of urban territory. Ecological balance of the urban landscape was determined by the analysis of ecogeographic indicators, which are represented by the coefficients: anthropogenic load, anthropogenic transformation, natural protection, ecological stability, absolute and relative tension of the ecological and economic condition of the town. It‘s established that the coefficients of anthropogenic load, ecological stability and natural protection of the landscape are 4.25, 0.15 and 0.66 respectively, according to which the town is characterized as an ecologically unstable urbun landscape. The coefficient of anthropogenic transformation of the territory, which characterizes the share of anthropogenic modified territories in the structure of land use, will increase from 0.66 (now) to 0.75 (after 20 years), which in both cases corresponds to the increased value. The ecological and economic state of the territory is not balanced by the degree of anthropogenic load and rational correlation of ecologically stabilizing lands. Prognosis data indicate a further deterioration of the environmental situation. The expediency of use of ecogeographic indicators for optimization of general planning of the town territory is substantiated.

Key words: 
anthropogenic load, ecogeographic indicators, ecological fund, urban environment
Pages: 
49-56
References: 

1. Wu J. (2014). Urban ecology and sustainability: the state of the science and future directions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 209-221.URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.018
 
2. Green T., Kronenberg J., Andersson E., Elmqvist T., Gomez-Baggethun E. (2016). Insurance value of green infrastructure in and around cities. Ecosystems, 19, 6, 1051-1063.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-9986-x
 
3. Häkkinen T., Helin T., Antuña C., Supper S., Schiopu N. et al. (2013). Land use as an aspect of sustainable building. International Journal of Sustainable Land Use and Urban Planning, 1, 21-41.
https://doi.org/10.24102/ijslup.v1i1.202
 
4. Kabisch N., Haase D. (2013). Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990-2006. Landscape and urban planning, 110, 113-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.017
 
5. Kopecká M., Szatmári D., Rosina, K. (2017). Analysis of urban green spaces based on sentinel-2A: case studies from Slovakia. Open Access Land, 6(2), 25. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/land6020025
https://doi.org/10.3390/land6020025
 
6. Glukhovskaya M. (2017). Analysis of ecological resistance and stability of regional territory (on the example of Orenburg region). Bulletin of Orenburg State University, 4, 53-61. [In Russian]. [Глуховская М. Ю. Анализ экологической устойчивости и стабильности региональной территории на примере Оренбургской области. Вестник Оренбургского государственного университета. 2017. №. 4. С. 53-61.]
 
7. Haase D., Larondelle N., Andersson E., Artmann M., Borgstrom S. et al. (2014). A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implem entation. AMBIO, 43, 4, 413-433. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
 
8. Lehmann I., Mathey J., Roessler S., Braeuer A., Goldberg V. (2014). Urban vegetation structure types as a methodological approach for identifying ecosystem services-application to the analysis of microclimatic effects. Ecological Indicators, 42, 58-72. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.036
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.036
 
9. Zhou W., Cadenasso M., Schwarz K., Pickett S. (2014). Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in urban landscapes: integrating visual interpretation and object-based classification. Remote Sens, 6(4), 3369-3386. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6043369
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6043369
 
10. Butrym O. (2013). Structure of land resources of the Kyiv region and optimization of their using. Balanced nature management, Iss. 2-3, 83-88. URL: http://natureus.org.ua/repec/archive/2_3_2013/14.pdf [In Ukrainian]. [Бутрим О. В. Структура земельних ресурсів Київської області та оптимізація їх використання. Землекористу-вання: Збалансоване природокористування. 2013. Вип. 2-3. С. 83-88. URL: http://natureus.org.ua/repec/archive/ 2_3_2013/14.pdf].
 
11. Kuybida V., Bilokon Yu. (2009). Territorial planning in Ukraine: European principles and national experience. Kyiv, 108 p. [In Ukrainian]. [Куйбіда В., Білоконь Ю. Територіальне планування в Україні: європейські принципи і національний досвід. Київ, 2009. 108 с.].
 
12. Tappert S., Kloti T., Drilling M. (2018). Contested urban green spaces in the compact city: The (re-)negotiation of urban gardening in Swiss cities. Landscape and urban planning, 170, 69-78. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.08.016
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.08.016
 
13. Kochurov B.I. (2003). Ecological diagnostics and balanced development. Moscow- Smolensk, 384 p. [In Russian]. [Кочуров В. И. Экодиагностика и сбалансованное развитие. Москва-Смоленск, 2003. 384 с.].
 
14. Kurhanevych L., Shipka M. (2012). The estimation of ecological resistance of geocomplexes of Poltva river basin. Constructive geography and geoecology. Scientific transactions, 2, 94-101. [In Ukrainian]. [Курганевич Л., Шіпка М. Визначення екологічної стійкості геокомплексів басейну річки Полтви. Конструктивна географія і геоекологія. Наукові записки. 2012. № 2. С. 94-101.]
 
15. Yukhnovskyi V., Zibtseva O. (2018). Dynamics of ecological stability of small towns in Kyiv region. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology. 27(2), 386-398. URL: https://doi.org/10.15421/111863
https://doi.org/10.15421/111863
 
16. Shishchenko P.G. (1999). Principles and methods of landscape analysis are in the regional planning. Kyiv, 284 p. [In Russian]. [Шищенко П.Г. Принципы и методы ландшафтного анализа в региональном проектировании. Киев, 1999. 284 с.].
 
17. Khryschuk S.Yu., Bespal'ko R.I. (2013). Anthropogenic transformation as a criterion of optimization of land-tenures at regional level. Science and Education a New Dimension: Nature and Technical Sciences, 1(2), Iss.15, 138-141. [In Ukrainian]. [Хрищук С. Ю., Беспалько Р. І. Антропогенна перетвореність як критерій оптимізації землекористувань на регіональному рівні. Science and education a New Dimension: Nature and Technical Sciences. Будапешт, 2013. № 1(2). Вип.15. С. 138-141.]
 
18. Ivan P., Chebeňová T. (2016). Assessment of the ecological stability of the Village of Bielovce as a result of to changes in land use. Slovak Journal of Civil Engineering, 24, 2, 1-6. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/sjce-2016-0006
https://doi.org/10.1515/sjce-2016-0006
 
19. Muchová Z., Vanek J., Halaj P., Hrnčiarová T., Konc L. et al. (2009). Methodical standards for the design of land consolidation. 1st ed. Nitra, Garmond. 361 p.
 
20. Streďanský J., Šimonides I. (1995)/ Landscaping. Nitra, VŠP. 104.
 
21. Zibtseva O. V. (2018). About ecological balance of the small town territory. Proceedings of NULESU, Iss. 278, 48-54. [In Ukrainian]. [Зібцева О. В. Щодо екозбалансованості території малого міста. Науковий вісник НУБіП України. 2018. Вип. 278. С. 48-54.].
 
22. Artmann M. (2016). Urban gray vs. urban green vs. soil protection - development of a systemic solution to soil sealing management on the example of Germany. Environ. Impact Assess, 59, 27- 42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.004
 
23. Rehačková T. Pauditšová E. (2007). Methodical procedure to calculate the coefficient of ecological stability. Acta environmentalica universitatis comenianae, 15, 1, 26-38.
 
24. Kupková L. (2001). Land use as indicator of the anthropogenic impact on the landscape. Land use/land cover changes in the period of globalization. In: Bičík I. (ed.): Proceedings of the IGU-LUUC International Conference, Prague, 2001, 133-143.
 
25. Löw J. (1984). Principles for defining and designing a territorial system of ecological stability in land-use planning practice. Brno, 55 p.
 
26. Lin B., Fuller R. (2013). Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the world's cities? Journal of applied ecology, 50, 5, 1161-1168. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12118
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12118
 
27. Tian Y., Jim C., Wang H. (2014). Assessing the landscape and ecological quality of urban green spaces in a compact city. Landscape and urban planning, 121, 97-108. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.10.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.10.001
 
28. Kronenberg J. (2015). Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem services, 12, 218-227. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002