Abstract
The article deals with cartographic approaches to the analysis of infrastructure development in Russia. Drawing up special map content from diversified sources of information allows for a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the spatial development strategy of the Russian Federation. The map and geodatabase allows spatial monitoring of infrastructure development in the country. The authors describe in detail the possibilities of such analysis based on the classification of types of infrastructure facilities. Based on them, a geodata database was created, which contains information on 9 parameters, including the expected effects of its implementation. The article Provides a detailed analysis of the effects and possible consequences of the implementation of major infrastructure projects in the regional context of the country. The authors conclude that while the creation of infrastructure in Russia is extremely fragmentary. Viewed regions-leaders and regions-outsiders. The difference between them is not only in the availability of the resource base, but also in the peculiarities of the Russian model of federalism.
Highlights
On February 13th 2019, Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev promulgated a long-awaited document: the “Strategy for Spatial (Territorial) Development of the Russian Federation by 2025” (“Spatial development strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025”)
The 115-page document seems to follow directly the great plans of the Soviet era: 68 of these pages are devoted to a detailed list of specializations that it would be useful to develop in the 85 subjects of the Federation
We present different tables and maps of the new infrastructure shifts in Russia
Summary
On February 13th 2019, Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev promulgated a long-awaited document: the “Strategy for Spatial (Territorial) Development of the Russian Federation by 2025” (“Spatial development strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025”). Since the independence of Russia, after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, many shortcomings have been even accentuated: inter and interregional differences in economic and social development; population disparities increased by the demographic crisis (the downward trend of natural growth) and uncontrolled migratory movements (mainly eastern and northern regions towards the European part); weakness of the urban network marked by the overwhelming dominance of Moscow (city and region); persistent weakness of the structuring elements that should constitute the major transport networks, energy transmission and infrastructure alone able to hoist Russia to the international level to which it claims An example of these debates: “The spatial development strategy did not pass the audition”. This can be a real handicap in a country where the weight of the administrations remains essential
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
