Abstract
The analysis of the geoecological state of basin geosystems was carried out by evaluation of the anthropogenic pressure on the basin. As indicators that directly or indirectly reflect the anthropogenic impact, the following were used: population density in the basin, density of the road network, and agricultural development of the basin territory. The spatial and statistical distributions of indicators were analyzed after the indicators were brought to a unified scale (transformation, normalization). The integral indicator of anthropogenic pressure, calculated as a linear combination of individual variables, was ranked to six categories of anthropogenic pressure: “absent”, “very low”, “low”, “moderate”, “high”, and “very high”. Using the developed methodology and prepared geodata, for the first time at scale of 1:200,000, the territory of the Volga Federal District was zoned according to the anthropogenic pressure on each river basin. Basins with a high and very high pressure are concentrated around large cities. Most of the basins belonging to the categories of low and moderate anthropogenic pressure are located in the forest-steppe and steppe zones with maximal agricultural development. Basins with zero and very low pressure lie in the north of the study area, in the forest zone, and in the southern Ural.
Highlights
The choice of operational-territorial units is very important when assessing the anthropogenic pressure
The resulting integral indicator is ranked to six categories: absent, very low, low, moderate, high, and very high pressure (Table 7)
The resulting integral indicator is ranked to six categories: absent, very low, low, moderate, Table 7
Summary
The choice of operational-territorial units is very important when assessing the anthropogenic pressure. The main approaches are discussed in detail in an article by Stenis et al [1], devoted to the analysis of modern methods of anthropogenic load normalization. There are three main approaches: landscape approach; river basin approach; and combined approach, i.e., combination of both approaches. In the landscape approach, depending on the scale of the study, different taxonomic ranks act as spatial units: landscape, type of terrain, facies, etc. The advantage of the landscape approach is the ability to take into account the sustainability of the selected units to negative effects [2,3,4]. A significant lack in the approach is some subjectivity in the delineation of landscapes boundaries and their subordinate units [5]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have