Quantitative methods of marine spatial planning (environmental aspect) in the Far North and the Arctic zone
https://doi.org/10.21443/3034-1434-2023-1-1-32-40
Abstract
The study identifies and analyzes the dependence of environmental and economic costs associated with marine dredging on the total volume of dredged soil for the Russian marine areas in the Far North and the Arctic zone, as well as for the other, more southern seas in Russia. The analysis was conducted using a representative sample of over 300 dredging projects from the database of Eco-Express Service LLC, an environmental design company in St. Petersburg. The total environmental and economic costs were found to be directly dependent on the total volume of dredged soil, both for the marine areas in the Far North and the Arctic zone and the other seas of the Russian Federation. However, relative environmental and economic costs arising from dredging (per volume unit of dredged soil) are virtually independent of the total dredged soil volume within its entire examined range. Of note is that the relative environmental and economic costs associated with dredging in the Far North and the Arctic are 1.6 times higher than those for the other seas in Russia. The study results can be used for the information and analytical support of scientific research and management decisions regarding the development of Russian marine areas.
About the Authors
V. A. Zhigulsky
Eco-Express-Service LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Saint Petersburg
V. F. Shuisky
Eco-Express-Service LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Saint Petersburg
E. Yu. Chebykina
Eco-Express-Service LLC
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Saint Petersburg
References
1. Douvere F., Ehler C. The Need for a Common Vocabulary for Marine Spatial Planning in Ecosystem-based Marine Management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission UNESCO, ENCORA Network, France; 2007.
2. Fourth Conference of Ministers for Spatial Planning and Development. Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea 2010. From vision to Action. Stockholm; 1996.
3. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Planю HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, Krakow, Poland, 15 November 2007 [internet]. (In Russ.) Available at: https://textarchive.ru/c-2848741-pall.html
4. Commission of the European Communities. Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU. Brussels, 25.11.2008 [internet]. Available at: http://www.partiseapate.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/com2008_0791en01.pdf
5. Commission of the European Communities. Action Plan. Accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and Social committee and the Committee of the regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Brussels, 10.6.2009. Revised Action Plan 15.2.2021. [internet]. Available at: https://www.eusbsr.eu/attachments/article/590824/Action%20Plan%202021.PDF
6. VASAB Committee on Spatial Development. VASAB Long-Term Perspective for the Territorial Development of the Baltic Sea Region [internet]. VASAB Secretariat; 2010. Available at: https://vasab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/vasab_ltp_final.pdf
7. Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning [internet]. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/89/oj
8. Lokhov A.S., Gubaidullin M.G., Korobov V.B., Tutygin A.G. Geographical and ecological land zoning of onshore oil pipeline location by level of hazard to environment from emergency oil spills in Arctic region. Theoretical and Applied Ecology. 2020;(4):43–48. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25750/1995-4301-2020-4-043-048
9. Gogoberidze G., Rumiantceva E., Danilov A., Zhigulsky V., Zhigulskaya D., Shuisky V., Maksimova E. Analysis of scientific researches in Russian Arctic. In: 2018 IEEE/OES Baltic International Symposium (BALTIC), Klaipėda, Lithuania, 2018, p. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/baltic.2018.8634843
10. Zhigulsky V., Gogoberidze G., Rumiantceva E., Shilin M., Bobylev N. Evaluation of environmental effects of dredging in the Sabetta seaport (Kara sea) for regional bioresources management. In: 20th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2020. 2020;20(5.1):315–322. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2020/5.1/s20.040
11. Maritime doctrine of the Russian Federation: approved by the President of the Russian Federation dated July 31, 2022, No. 512 [internet]. (In Russ.) Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/351339890
12. On approval of the Strategy for marine activities development in the Russian Federation until 2030: The Russian Federation Government Decree dated August 30, 2019 No. 1930-r [internet]. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/72573254/
13. Rumiantceva E., Gogoberidze G. Risk assessment of anthropogenic impact in the model of marine spatial planning at the district governance level. In: 19th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2019, Bulgaria. 2019;19(5.1):663–668. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2019/5.1/S20.082
14. Zhigulsky V., Rumiantceva E., Shuisky V., Chebykina E., Gogoberidze G. Environmental and economic costs of marine dredging in Russia’s high north and the Arctic region. In: 20th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2020. 2020;(5.2):219–226. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2020/5.2/s21.026
15. Zhigulsky V., Rumiantceva E., Shuisky V., Chebykina E., Gogoberidze G. Comparative multi-criteria assessment of alternative options for locating industrial facilities in the arctic region and continental shelf. In: 20th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2020. 2020;20(5.1):175–182. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2020/5.1/s20.022
16. Zhigulsky V., Shuisky V., Maksimova E., Bylina T., Solovey N., Maksimova T. Previous experience and prospects of using certain quantitative methods for the environmental assessment of hydraulic engineering constructions during the design process. In: Managing risks to coastal regions and communities in a changing world. Academus Publishing; 2016, p. 1-1. https://doi.org/10.31519/conferencearticle_5b1b9428400b88.10954372
17. Zhigulsky V., Gogoberidze G., Zhigulskaya D., Shuisky V., Maksimova E. Some aspects of quantitative assessments and management of hydraulic works impact on marine and coastal ecosystems. In: 7th IEEE/OES International Symposium (BALTIC), Klaipėda, Lithuania, 2018, p. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/BALTIC.2018.8634865
18. Zhigulsky V., Zhigulskaya D., Shuisky V., Maksimova E. Pre-project comparative environmental assessment of alternative locations for a production facility. Ecology and Industry of Russia. 2019;23(4):41–45. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18412/1816-0395-2019-4-41-45
19. Shilin M., Chusov A., Zhigulsky V., Ershova A., Abramov V., Bagrova T., Popov N. Environmental safety of the Nord Stream 2 Marine gas pipeline (Russian section). In: 7th IEEE/ OES International Symposium (BALTIC), Klaipėda, Lithuania, 2018, p. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/BALTIC.2018.8634858
20. On the approval of the methodology for calculating the damage caused to aquatic biological resources: Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation dated March 31, 2020 No. 167 [internet]. (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/74543552/
Review
For citations:
Zhigulsky V.A., Shuisky V.F., Chebykina E.Yu. Quantitative methods of marine spatial planning (environmental aspect) in the Far North and the Arctic zone. Arctic and Innovations. 2023;1(1):32-40. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21443/3034-1434-2023-1-1-32-40
Views:
457
Email this article 