THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTECTED AREAS

IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Sergeeva Kseniia, Professor LIN Hui

School of Geography and Environment/UNESCO HIST-NB, Jiangxi
Normal University
ABSTRACT
In order to tackle environmental challenges and, in particular, problems associated with the high
demand for forest and resources, the consequence of which is the degradation of ecological
systems, Russia has developed the biggest network of specially protected natural areas in the
world. Although the scale of SPNA may look impressive, a recent comprehensive study on the
period from 2001 to 2018 brought the spotlight on the protected areas in Russia experiencing
massive tree loss annually. Since Russia is experiencing unprecedented fires breaking the records
each year, the problem of preserving rare animal and plant species, their habitats, and natural
ecosystems is very acute. This paper is aimed to assess the extent and effectiveness of SPNAs
with regard to wilderness conservation in the Russian Federation based on the most recent
updated data; the main focus is on the period of 2014-2019 – before and after the launch of the
environmental safety strategies, along with additional analysis of available data for the following
year of 2020.With due consideration of unique geographical, economic and sociocultural
circumstances, as well as historical background and legislative reality of SPNAs in Russia, we
conducted statistical analysis of data from the official annual reports from the Federal State
Statistics Service on SPNAs by territories and significance, expenditures on maintenance and
ecotourism, followed by RGB analysis of satellite imagery via means of GIS software for
visualization of obtained data and further analytics. Despite growth of SPNA network in Russia,
resulting in astonishing 240,2 Mha in 2020, estimated 4 Mha of tree loss accounted for SPNAs
over the period of 2014-2019, and 1,34 Mha – solely in 2020. Our findings indicate the need for
application of comprehensive GIS approach for further development and effective management
of SPNA network in Russia. Furthermore, the results include recommendations on legislative
changes, engagement of locals in SPNA protection and popularization of ecotourism, which can
be valuable for policy makers and SPNA development.

Key-words: GIS, protected area, nature conservation.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Historical background and perception of protected areas in Russia

Since antiquity, all peoples have had sacred natural areas; initially, ancient people
protected them by worshipping the gods of the forest, later the preservation of green
wealth became more meaningful. One of the first evidence of protected areas in
ancient Russia refers us to the reign of Vladimir Monomakh: it was at this time the
first prerequisites for nature reserves were laid - these were "menageries" where
princes "made catches" of all kinds of animals that live in the thickets and ravines (for
example, the Sokoliy Rog tract) [1]. The grounds were guarded and protected in every
way from encroachment by commoners, and violations were severely punished; and
these restrictions, as well as the very notion of "reserve", are documented in the
"Russian Pravda" in the 11th century [2].
Throughout Siberia, every ethnic group living there has for centuries had territories
where all hunting of beasts and birds was forbidden. Sacred places, sacred groves
arose as a practical manifestation of the cult of Nature-Mother, quite common among
the inhabitants of the North. The inviolability was strictly observed, whoever
infringed on the integrity of the environment was subjected to ritual punishments and
even expulsion from the tribe - in fact, these were the first sanctuaries [3]. In less
remote locations, there were hunting reservations, the purpose of which was to protect
the hunting grounds from the commoners. The world-famous Belovezhskaya Pushcha
(the oldest nature park) became a nature reserve eight centuries ago. During the reign
of the hunting lover Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, four protected areas were created.
The tsar's hunting places were guarded by Cossack cavalry and experienced
gamekeepers. Although a lot of animals died in such places, they nevertheless
contributed to the preservation of nature, since the breaks between hunts were long
and special measures were taken to increase the number of wild animals. Birds were
caught only with special permits, and hunting and economic activities were forbidden
or severely restricted. [1]
But the Russians owe their conservation efforts not only to the tsars - the Chukchi
established walrus sanctuaries in the Arctic seas. Russian industrialists agreed not to
kill animals in certain taiga tracts. The Tuvinians observed a ban on beaver harvesting
at the headwaters of the Yenisei River. All these measures had one and the same
principle: to preserve commercially valuable species and their habitat. For a long time
hunters realized that if a man would not be able to limit himself, he would be left
without an object of hunting. However, such measures were much more effective as
long as mankind was relatively sparse and the tools of hunting relatively imperfect. [3]
Speaking about Slavs in general and small remote peoples of Russia its difficult not to
mention their worldview, defined by the cult of nature – naive, often deeply poetic
and respectful, born of the closeness of man to nature, to the earth. Every forest,
creek, well, even a single tree was perceived by ancient Slavs as alive. They were
especially attracted by the power of old, large trees, spreading bushy-leaved oaks.
They worshipped deep and fast rivers: it is not without reason that in the later legends
the rivers speak to the heroes in human language. They worshipped huge stones and
mountains: not without reason the fate of Russian heroes was placed in a mysterious
connection with rocky mountains. The gods of Slavic pantheon represented good and
evil forces of nature, the richness and mysteries of nature, and anthropomorphism
transferred the human qualities to the non-human sphere in order to bring it closer to
the human mind, and was inherent in the Slavic pictorial thinking from the earliest
times [4]. As the pace of life accelerates, we are beginning to reassess the possibility of
communicating with nature, the value of that communication, and the need to
preserve our natural environment; perhaps a reassessment of values will resurrect a
true respect for nature.
During the reign of Peter the Great, state environmental protection measures became
purposeful and systematic. By decree of the tsar, water protection forests were
defined, where felling of trees and cattle grazing were forbidden. Cutting of ship pine
forests was limited or prohibited. To protect the forests, the tsar created a special
forest guard and established severe penalties for violations. In addition, Peter began to
regulate fishing and hunting. Also, many of the nobles were highly educated and
progressive-minded, so they began to establish nature reserves on their lands. [1]
However, despite such deep historical roots, the first official protected areas were
conceived in the end of the 19th century; the perception of protected areas as
sanctuaries for the wildlife was relatively observed during the Soviet period, yet the
following chaos of liberalization in the 1990s led to increasing capitalization and
commodification [5].
Thus, development of perception of nature and protected areas in Russia was
inconsistent and had its ups and downs throughout history; nevertheless, historical
overview already outlines the key factors for successful approach of nature
conservation in general, and development of PA system in particular, within Russian
social and cultural reality: transparent law regulations, controlled resource
management, revitalization of lands and repopulation of animals, respectful approach
and clear understanding that nature conservation is essential for, if not equal to the
progress and future of humankind.

1.2 Development of protected areas in Russia

In view of the intensifying environmental problems, and in particular those related to
the exploitation of forest, mineral and fuel-energy resources, leading to the
disturbance and degradation of ecosystems in large areas and water bodies, the need
to preserve unique areas of land and water is becoming evident. In response to the
total exploitation of natural resources, a network of special protected natural areas
(SPNAs) has been created at different levels, from local and regional to federal and
international [6]. The emerging systems serve as an ecological framework, while
individual PAs serve as a kind of nucleus, allowing to preserve highly valuable
natural complexes in their natural state and contribute to recovery of ecosystems
exposed to anthropogenic influences. Protected areas preserve wildlife, save a
variety of animals and plants from extinction, as well as contribute significantly to
the development of science, environmental education and the advancement of
ecotourism – their value cannot be underestimated.
The global importance of the Russian natural heritage multiplies the responsibility for
its conservation and reproduction. Russia contains the largest area of wilderness and
primeval forests in the world that cover 815 Mha, which accounts for nearly a half of
the entire country, and, more importantly, a quarter of total forest area on our planet
[7]
. That said, Russia not only lives in natural wealth, but is also a global reserve of
untouched nature.
As Russian government recognized its sacred natural assets granted by the
geopolitical position, over the course of years Russia developed its current system of
specially protected natural areas (SPNAs) that have status of national heritage. In
accordance with the Federal Law of the Russian Federation, SPNAs are defined as
parts of land, water surface and air space above them where natural complexes and
objects are located that have special conservation, scientific, cultural, aesthetic,
recreational and healthful significance; they are taken in full or in part out of
economic use by decision of the government, and have an established regime of
special protection [8]. Depending on the objectives and features of the protection
regime, the categories of SPNAs are the following: state natural reserves, including
biosphere reserves; national parks; nature parks; state natural sanctuaries; natural
monuments; dendrological parks and botanic gardens. Specially protected natural
areas have federal, regional or local significance depending on the levels of governing
authorities and organizations [8].
On September 25th 2015, as a UN member, Russia adopted a set of goals to protect
the planet – including conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and global climate
change, to ensure prosperity and wellbeing for all as part of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development [9]. Shortly after this agreement on SDGs, the year of 2017
was proclaimed by Kremlin as the Year of Ecology and Vladimir Putin signed
environmental safety strategies of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025,
the objectives of which include conservation of biological diversity, terrestrial and sea
ecosystems, which resulted in growth of total area of SPNAs by 13% or 28,2 Mha as
of April, 2021 (see Fig. 1) [10,11]. At first glance the numbers may look impressive, yet
a recent comprehensive study on the period from 2001 to 2018 brought the spotlight
on the protected areas in Russia experiencing massive tree loss annually, including
Lake Baikal, a World Heritage site, which lost 485 k ha of forest with only 21% of
tree loss attributed to fire [11]. Thus, the situation is far from being bright, as it may
appear on paper, and requires close analysis and evaluation in order to determine if
the chosen vector for nature conservation policies is efficient or requires urgent
alterations – at this point of irreversible climate changes each year counts.
 300

250

200
SPNAs total area
including SPNAs of federal signif -
area, Mha

150 icance
including SPNAs of regional signif -
icance
100 including SPNAs of local significance

50

0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Fig. 1 – Significance dynamics for SPNAs in the Russian Federation over the period of 2014-2019, Mha
[11]

Since Russia is experiencing unprecedented fires that have greater and greater scale
every summer (Pic.1), the problem of preserving rare animal and plant species, their
habitats, and natural ecosystems is very acute; it is essential to validate effectiveness
of ecosystem preservation strategies before interlinked natural world suffers
catastrophic consequences. This paper is aimed to assess the extent and effectiveness
of SPNAs with regard to wilderness conservation in the Russian Federation based on
the most recent updated data; the main focus is on the period of 2014-2019 – before
and after the launch of the environmental safety strategies, along with additional
analysis of available data for the following year of 2020. The insights obtained
through measuring conservation efficiency can validate the progress and represent
great value for policy makers.

Pic. 1 – Areal footage of massive forest fires in Olekminsky Nature Reserve, Yakutia, June 2021.

2. METHODS
In accordance with IUCN-WCPA guidelines for evaluation of protected areas,
evaluation of SPNA system in Russia has to be conducted with due consideration of
unique geographical circumstances – vast territories of the country, as well as the
context of protected areas, as some of the areas are in remote and hard-to-access
locations [13, 14]. Therefore, the choice of data, tools and materials for further
comparison and analysis was the following:
 data from the official annual reports from the Federal State Statistics Service on
SPNAs by territories and significance, expenditures on maintenance and
touristic flows – for the period of 2014-2019, with manual additions and
verifications that were based on additional sources, including scanned
documents and reports on SPNAs from each territorial entity of the Russian
Federation [15];
 satellite imagery illustrating current location of key protected areas based on
data provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the
Russian Federation [16] and retrieved through the Protected Planet recourse [17];
 satellite imagery of tree cover loss by year captured by
Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA, accessed through Global Forest Watch –
for the period of 2014-2019 and 2020 [18];
 RGB analysis;
 ArcGIS software for visualization of obtained data and further analysis.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Extent of SPNAs in Russia

Russia or the Russian Federation stretches over two continents; the length of the
territory in the latitudinal direction is almost 10 thousand km, in the meridional
direction it is more than 4 thousand km. Russia is the largest country in the world with
a territory of 1712,5 Mha [15]. In 2000, by decree of the President of the Russian
Federation, in order to strengthen power, all the constituent entities of the Russian
Federation were united into seven federal districts, in each of which representatives of
the President were appointed: Central, North-West, South, Volga, Ural, Siberian and
Far East [19]. There is a traditional division into 85 territorial entities: federal cities,
republics, autonomous okrugs, autonomous oblasts, oblasts, krais and oblasts – each
territory was thoroughly analyzed with regard to nature conservation [15].

The role of SPNAs in nature protection in a broad sense, primarily in the protection of
humans as a part of nature, the protection of the environment, natural landscapes,
economic, technical and other objects, and the maintenance of ecological balance in
various physical and geographical regions is extremely important. Based on the data
from the official annual reports from the Federal State Statistics Service on SPNAs by
territories, areal extent of SPNAs has positive growth dynamics [15]. The total area of
SPNAs grew from 202,3 Mha in 2014 to 237,7 Mha in 2018 – massive expansion of
protected areas was stimulated by environmental safety strategies adopted in 2017, yet
further growth significantly slowed down and resulted in 238,8 Mha in 2019 and
240,2 Mha in 2020 with no growth reported later.

The picture of SPNA locations throughout the country is uneven for obvious socio-
economic reasons (Fig.2). Thus, the Far East and Siberia are the key regions of nature
conservation with a total of 1209 (154, 66 Mha) and 759 (28,72 Mha) protected areas
covering respectively. The smallest number of SPNAs – 541 areas, located on 1,86
Mha of land in the North Caucasus.

4.66 24.64

3.98
1.86
5.78

14.48

28.73
154.66

Central Federal District Northwestern Federal District

Southern Federal District North Caucasian Federal District
Volga Federal District Ural Federal District
Siberia Federal District Far Eastern Federal District

Fig. 2 – Total area of specially protected natural areas by territorial entities of the Russian Federation for
2019, Mha [15]
In accordance with regional and federal laws, there are three categories of protected
areas with a certain status with regard to significance [8]. Federal significance PAs are
federal property and are under the jurisdiction of federal government bodies – the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation exercises state
management in the organization and functioning of specially protected natural areas
of federal significance that are represented with 31% of total SPNAs’ area [8, 15].
Nearly 50% of all SPNAs in Russia are of regional significance – are under the
jurisdiction of state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation [8,
15]
. Local importance SPNAs are the property of municipalities and are under the
jurisdiction of local governments [8, 15].
Fig. 3 – Total area of specially protected natural areas by significance in the Russian federation for 2019,
Mha [15]
The list of relative areas of SPNAs across the county is led by eleven regions: Yakutia
- 38%, Sevastopol – 29%, Arkhangelsk Oblast – 28%, Kabardino-Balkar Republic –
27%, Altai Republic – 25%, Karachay-Cherkess Republic – 24%, Republic of
Ingushetia – 19%, Kamchatka Krai – 19%, and Primorsky Krai – 17%. Tula and
Kirov Oblasts, having the smallest relative area of 0.32% and 0.39% respectively,
have the smallest relative areas (Fig.4).

Fig. 4 – Relative area of SPNAs in of the Russian Federation, %. (Kaliningrad oblast, Saint Petersburg
and Sevastopol are not shown) [15]

In a resource-fueled economy, natural assets are a major driver for economic

development; destruction of the biosphere, being the totality of living organisms,
including humans, and the environment was inevitable. Socio-economic factor has
direct influence on areal representation of SPNAs in the regions. Thus, the higher
population density and development levels are, the less areal coverage of SPNAs is
observed in regions – Central, Southern, Volga and North Caucasian Federal Districts
vividly illustrate it. Remote and less dense regions, on the contrary, are represented
with 93% of total SPNA territory. In general, significantly more wilderness is
observed in all the regions located to the east of Ural Mountains.

Effective use of existing forest reserves and purposeful expansion of their network
requires coordination of these activities at the national level, which is difficult to do in
a republic with a federal model of state organization. In order to correct the situation
and to improve the effectiveness of state environmental control, it is recommended to
eliminate duplication of functions and reduce the number of violations in this area, it
is necessary to create an independent (directly subordinate to the Government or the
President of the Russian Federation) federal executive body which would fully
exercise the functions of state supervision in the field of environmental protection and
natural resources, including the functions of state management and oversight in the
organization and functioning of SPNAs; this will allow full transparency and allow
accurate monitoring. It is also necessary to develop public control over the condition
and observance of the regime of the most valuable and important protected areas
across the country, both federal and regional. Moreover, it is essential to involve
active people in this process on the local level, as well as increase the number of
rangers to provide proper protection and biotechnical work in the territory surrounded
by anthropogenic landscape – this implies expanding the size of budget.

3.2 Ecotourism potential

Statistical analysis with regard to social impact, popularization of SPNAs in
particular, revealed that the number of visitors of state natural reserves and national
parks peaked in 2018 – shortly after major promotion campaign “2017 – the Year of
Ecology in Russia”. Nevertheless, a drop in visitors is observed in the following years
and the average number of visitors in the period of 2014-2017 comparing to 2017-
2020 decreased by 57% (Fig. 5).
16000000

14000000

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

State Natural Reserves National Parks Total

 Fig. 5 – Number of visitors of SPNAs in of the Russian Federation.

The effectiveness of SPNA protection is largely ensured by the interaction with the
local population, its attitude towards SPNA, and the quality of outreach work. In
accordance with the Concept of development of the system of federal protected
areas for the period up to 2020 [21], the task in the sphere of environmental
education and work with the population is to form an understanding of the
problems of conservation of biological landscape diversity, the role of protected
areas in solving these problems, as well as their place in the socio-economic
development of regions, ensuring effective public support of protected areas. For
this purpose, departments (sectors) of environmental education are established in
nature reserves and national parks.
We have studied the experience of ecotourism development in several countries in
terms of management structure, business models, and service programming [ 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]
. Here are some common features: commercial infrastructure is
built only in the areas adjacent to PAs, it is important to calculate the
anthropogenic load, assess the current capacity of the object of visit and carefully
monitor the indicators. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) methodology is
used in many countries of the world as one of the methods for controlling and
evaluating anthropogenic impacts [32]. It focuses not so much on the quantitative
characteristics of recreational loads as on the qualitative changes occurring in
SPNAs, it is based on a management approach. The basic (eco-trails, visitor
centers, entrances, navigation, viewing platforms, etc.) and supporting
(communications) infrastructure is created by the state, while the commercial
(accommodation, catering, tours, transportation, etc.) component is created by
business.
Well-organised eco-tourism in different countries is a means of protecting
biodiversity: it provides local people with an additional source of income and
prevents them from participating in poaching (the direct contribution of nature
tourism to global GDP is estimated at $120.1 billion, which is five times higher
than the value of the illegal wildlife trade). [33]. And the global profit from tourism
on nature territories considerably exceeds financial costs of their management.
According to a large-scale 2015 study, protected areas worldwide accounted for 8
billion visits per year, and annual tourist spending amounted to $600 billion with
global spending on the development and management of protected areas at $10
billion per year [34]. Thus, with proper management and legislative support the
potential of ecotourism in Russia is promising – potential profits from ecotourism
can greatly exceed expenses on SPNAs and eliminate the need for deforestation
and poaching.
3.3 Forest conservation as the key to success
Unfortunately, the natural complexes of SPNAs are poorly studied and data on the
flora and fauna is sketchy and inconsistent; these complications can be reasoned with
both the scale of the territories and the need for formalization to process large
amounts of data. Therefore, since forests are the most important component of the
ecosystem, a habitat of wildlife and repositories of water, further analysis was mainly
focused on the forest changes in the protected areas, as the key criteria for evaluation
of SPNAs. While sacrificing accuracy, information based on satellite imagery copes
with challenges of vast territories, allowing to analyze global trends.
Analysis of the Global Forest Watch data, showed that Russia suffered a dramatic loss
of 26.4 Mha of tree, equivalent to a 3.5% decrease in tree cover since 2000, and
5.13Gt of CO₂e emissions [18, 19]. Through RGB analysis of WCPA based overlaying
map of major SPNAs in Russia, it was estimated that 15,3% or 4 Mha of tree loss
accounted for SPNAs over the period of 2014-2019, which equals to 86,6 Mt of CO ₂e
emissions (Fig.6a). In 2020, 5.44 Mha of tree cover was lost, which equals to 865 Mt
of CO₂e of emissions [18, 19]. The estimated tree loss in SPNAs is quarter of these
amounts – 1,34 Mha and 4,8 Mt respectively (Fig.6b). Thus, the territories of tree loss
in the Russian SPNAs solely for 2020 exceeds the total area of Ireland.

-
a)Tree loss areas (pink) and SPNAs (green) for the period of 2014-2019
 -
b)Tree loss areas (pink) and SPNAs (green) for the period for 2020

Fig. 6 Visual scheme of tree loss in SPNAs in the Russian Federation [16, 17, 18]

Effective use of existing forest reserves and purposeful expansion of their network
requires coordination of these activities at the national level, which is difficult to do in
a republic with a federal model of state organization. In order to correct the situation
and to improve the effectiveness of state environmental control, it is recommended to
eliminate duplication of functions and reduce the number of violations in this area, it
is necessary to create an independent (directly subordinate to the Government or the
President of the Russian Federation) federal executive body which would fully
exercise the functions of state supervision in the field of environmental protection and
natural resources, including the functions of state management and oversight in the
organization and functioning of SPNAs; this will allow full transparency and allow
accurate monitoring. It is also necessary to develop public control over the condition
and observance of the regime of the most valuable and important protected areas
across the country, both federal and regional. Moreover, it is essential to involve
active people in this process on the local level, as well as increase the number of
rangers to provide proper protection and biotechnical work in the territory surrounded
by anthropogenic landscape – this implies expanding the size of budget.

Deforestation in SPNAs, as well as deforestation in general is devastating not just for

Russia yet for the wellbeing of our planet. In order to preserve the natural landscapes
of SPNAs, protect them as habitats of groups of rare species of plants and animals in
need of special protection, it is necessary to take decisive measures to prevent
deforestation and forest fires. As the Russian authorities and businessmen close to
them continue to hope to get the opportunity to use Russian PAs for their own needs,
fires are most often deliberately instigated to conceal evidence of illegal logging or to
set up new logging spots under the fake pretext of clearing “wildfire” areas, which is
common knowledge for Russians. This means that attempts to reform the legislation
on protected areas will be repeated over and over again. It also follows from all of the
above that the existing system of PA management at both the federal and regional
levels is extremely inefficient. Due to the rapid dynamics in forest loss, in the nearest
future the president and the government has to abandon attempts to weaken the
legislation on protected areas and create a new management system that will provide
Russian protected areas with the necessary legal protection and support, otherwise
soon there can be not much left to protect.

Russian SPNA system requires GIS approach; development of geoinformation

technologies allows to analyze the structure of the earth surface: to interpret separate
components; to create information layers of various themes; to model consequences of
activity and to make retrospective analysis. GIS-technology reduces subjectivity and
creates prerequisites for system analysis of geosystem functioning. It assumes the
possibility of using an integrated approach to the assessment of sites when selecting
protected areas, by creating thematic layers with subsequent overlapping and
coordination of contours. Thus, upon achievement of transparency and development
of appropriate management schemes for the SPNA system, it is essential to expand its
territories based on objective data and with due consideration of situational
circumstances.

5. CONCLUSSIONS
With acceleration of life rhythm and growing appetites of fuel economy, the value of
Russian natural legacy shall be revised, switching social and governmental perception
from commodifying approach to ecocentric preservation of green global reserve. The
progress of SPNA development in Russia over the period of 2014-2020 was strong on
expansion of territories, yet lacks efficiency, which resulted in mega hectares of tree
loss even in protected areas. GIS approach in a such complex situation of Russian
reality gives an opportunity to curve the damages suffered and change the future
vector to transparent management. Surely full governmental support, implying
education, involvement in and promotion of nature protection is vital for the success
of the system. Nevertheless, once the mechanisms of nationwide involvement are
properly started, the benefits of growing ecotourism will pay off all the efforts not
just in a financial sense, yet through a moral prism that allows wildlife to be seen as a
value in its own right, independent of human criteria of benefit, reversing the time to
the era of genuine respect for nature in a modern scenery. Along with global changes,
the importance of nature is increasing annually too, and in many countries
communicating with it has become inaccessible to most people; to preserve natural
assets successfully our society should be focusing on the need for effective protection
and restoration of natural communities. Thus, more research with further detailization
and consistent monitoring of SPNAs is needed.
REFERENCES
1. Lomonosov Moscow State University A. N. IVANOV V. P. CHIZHOVA Protected
areas. Protected Natural Areas Study Guide Second edition, revised and enlarged
Published by the Educational-methodical Association for the classic university education
in the Russian Federation as a study guide for the students of higher schools specializing
in 020400 - Geography and 020800 - Ecology and Nature Management.
2. Monuments of Russian law. М. : Gosurizdat, 1952. Vol. 1: Monuments of the right of
Kievan state in X-XII centuries / ed. V. YUSHKOV; comp. A. A. Zimin. p. 162
3. Traditional Culture of Nomadic Peoples in the System of Art Education : materials of
scientific and creative conference with international participation, 22 March 2014,
Yakutsk / Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. State Institute of Arts and
Culture, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of Mongolia, Mongolian State
University of Culture and Arts, Ministry of Culture and Spiritual Development of Sakha
(Yakutia); [editor: S.S. IGNATYEVA and others]. - Yakutsk : AGIIK, 2014. - 360 p.
4. GAVRILOV D.A., NAGOVITSYN A.E. Gods of the Slavs. Paganism. Tradition. -
Moscow: Refl-Book, 2002. - 464 с. ISBN 5-87983- 111-6
5. MARTIN MÜLLER From sacred cow to cash cow: The shifting political ecologies of
protected areas in Russia October 2014 Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 58(2):127-
143 DOI:10.1515/zfw.2014.0009
6. MIKHAIL SLEPNEV, ALEKSANDR MARSHALKOVICH, PAVEL PAPUSH
"Creating protected areas in the urban environment, corresponding to the "Smart City"
formation concept. The way to sustainable development of urban ecosystems" , IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2018
7. OLIVER YORKE Deforestation in Russia: Depleting the Lungs of the World NOV
19TH 2020 https://earth.org/deforestation-in-russia/
8. Federal Law dated 14 March 1995 No. 33-FZ “On specially protected natural areas.”
9. About SDGs. ROSSTAT: Federal State Statistics Service https://eng.rosstat.gov.ru/sdg
10. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 19 April 2017 No.176 “On the
Strategy of Ecological Safety of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025.”
11. Total Area of SPNAs. ROSSTAT: Federal State Statistics Service. Online access:
https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/qlhISygW/os_oxr_ter.xlsx
12. CAZZOLLA GATTI, ROBERTO; VELICHEVSKAYA, ALENA; DUDKO,
ANASTASIA; FABBIO, LUCA; NOTARNICOLA, CLAUDIA. The Smokescreen of
Russian Protected Areas the Science of the Total Environment, 2021-09-01, Vol.785,
P.147372
13. HOCKINGS, M., STOLTON, S., LEVERINGTON, F., DUDLEY, N. AND COURRAU,
J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management
effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK. xiv + 105 pp https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-
014.pdf
14. DAVEY, A.G. (1998). National System Planning for Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 71pp.
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-001.pdf
15. Scanned Documents and Reports on SPNAs from Each Territorial Entity of the Russian
Federation ROSSTAT: Federal State Statistics Service. Online access:
https://rosstat.gov.ru/monitoring?document=96634
16. Russia's Specially Protected Natural Areas and Sites (SPNA). Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation Online access:
https://www.mnr.gov.ru/activity/oopt/
17. UNEP-WCMC (2021). Protected Area Profile for Russian Federation from the World
Database of Protected Areas, September 2021. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net
18. Hansen, M. C., P. V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina,
D. Thau, S. V. Stehman, S. J. Goetz, T. R. Loveland, A. Kommareddy, A. Egorov, L.
Chini, C. O. Justice, and J. R. G. Townshend. 2013. “High-Resolution Global Maps of
21st-Century Forest Cover Change.” Science 342 (15 November): 850–53. Data available
from: https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change.
19. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated 13 May 2000 No. 849 “On the
Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal
District.”
20. Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of 22.12.2011 No. 2322-p “On
approval of the Concept of development of specially protected natural areas of federal
importance for the period until 2020” (together with “Action plan for implementation of
the Concept of development of specially protected natural areas of federal importance for
the period until 2020”)
21. PAUL F.J. EAGLES PAUL F.J. EAGLES. Tourism Recreation Research. Canadian
Ecotourists January 1995 20(1):22-28 DOI:10.1080/02508281.1995.11014729 Project:
Ecotourist Travel Motivations
22. BRYAN HIGGINS Decolonizing Ecotourism in North America October 2019
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.16201.90728 Conference: Indigenous Peoples Day 2019 Projects:
Explore the Best and Offer It, Make Poverty History, Geographies of Ecotourism.
23. ANNA NEBESNAYA A. GARSHINA A. ORUSOV The development of ecotourism in
China October 2015 Actual directions of scientific researches of the XXI century theory
and practice 3(4):14-18 DOI:10.12737/14206
24. YE WEN XUE XIMING The Differences in Ecotourism between China and the West
November 2008 Current Issues in Tourism 11(6):567-586
DOI:10.1080/13683500802475927
25. R. SONG On stakeholders of ecotourism: With China as an example. China Population
Resources and Environment 15(1) Jan 2005 ISBN: 1872-583X
26. YAN-PENG LI, LIXIANG ZHANG, YING GAO, ZHI-PANG HUANG Ecotourism in
China, Misuse or Genuine Development? An Analysis Based on Map Browser Results
September 2019 Sustainability 11(18):4997 DOI:10.3390/su11184997
27. PURAM ROSINA GEORGE and B. VICTOR WELLINGTON Ecotourism and
Conservation – Review August 2021 In Book: Biodiversity and Ecotourism (Proceedings
of National Webinar) (pp.39-42) Chapter: 5 Publisher: JUPITOR PUBLICATIONS,
CHENNAI Aug 2021 ISBN: 978-93-91303-06-8
28. J. JENKINS, S. WEARING Ecotourism and protected areas in Australia. January 2003
DOI:10.1079/9780851996097.0205 In book: Ecotourism policy and planning (pp.205-
233)
29. HIGHAM, J.E.S.; CARR, A.M. AND GALE, S. Ecotourism in New Zealand: Profiling
visitors to New Zealand Ecotourism Operations. Research Paper Number Ten.Dunedin.
New Zealand. Department of Tourism, University of Otago. Sep 2021
30. Andrés M Cisneros-Montemayor, Amanda Townsel, Claire Gonzales, Andrew F.
Johnson. Marine ecotourism in the Gulf of California and the Baja California Peninsula:
Research trends and information gaps April 2019 Scientia Marina 83(2)
DOI:10.3989/scimar.04880.14A ISBN: 0214-8358
31. MANOHAR MARIAPAN, EVELYN LIM, AZITA AHMAD ZAWAWI, NOOR
JALILAH JUMAAT. Ecotourism in Malaysia: Current Scenario. Conference: 3rd.
International Conference on Adventure and Ecotourism 2019 Publisher: Faculty of
Forestry and Environment, Universiti Putra Malaysia, November 2020, ISBN: 978-967-
5526-19-0
32. The Limits of Acceptable Change. Department of Agriculture, Water and the
Environment, Australian Government. Online access:
https://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/factsheet-limits-
acceptable-change
33. World Travel & Tourism Council. Global wildlife tourism generates five times more
revenue than illegal wildlife trade annually. 12 August 2019. Online access:
https://wttc.org/News-Article/Global-wildlife-tourism-generates-five-times-more-
revenue-than-illegal-wildlife-trade-annually
34. ANDREW BALMFORD, JONATHAN GREEN, MICHAEL ANDERSON, JAMES
BERESFORD. Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to
Protected Areas February 2015 PLoS Biology 13(2):e1002074
DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074 Source PubMed Project: UNEP-WCMC Outputs
35. MIKHAIL SLEPNEV, ALEKSANDR MARSHALKOVICH, PAVEL PAPUSH.
"Creating protected areas in the urban environment, corresponding to the "Smart City"
formation concept. The way to sustainable development of urban ecosystems" , IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2018