STEPPE ZONE OF UKRAINE AS THE BIOME AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF EAST-EUROPEAN PLAIN WITH REGARD TO ASSESSMENT OF NATURE-RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Abstract
When examining the NRP value across the Steppe Zone's seven provincial ecosystems, the descending order is as follows: Donetsk: 15.6 %; left-Bank-Dnieper-Pryazovska: 11.4 %; Dniester-Dnieper: 10.3 %; Zadonetsko-Donska, Prychornomorska, Crimean Steppe, and Prychornomorsko-Pryazovska provincial ecosystems: each contribute 3.05 %.
At the oblast level, specific regions play leading roles for different NRP components: Mineral Resources: Donetsk Upland Oblast and South-Prydniprovska Slope-Upland Oblast; Water Resources: South-Prydniprovska Slope-Upland Oblast and Kinsko-Yalynska Lowland Oblast; Land Resources: South-Prydniprovska Slope-Upland Oblast and Orilsko-Samarska Lowland Oblast; Forest Resources: Starobilsk Oblast and West Donetsk Slope-Upland Oblast; Fauna Resources: South-Prydniprovska Oblast and Starobilsk Slope-Upland Oblast; Natural Recreation Resources: South-Prydniprovska Oblast, Starobilsk Slope-Upland Oblast, Donetsk Oblast, and Central Crimean Upland Oblast.
The findings of this study are significant both scientifically and practically. They not only demonstrate the position of various resource potentials within the Steppe Zone, its subzones, provincial ecosystems, and oblast-level ecosystems in the overall NRP of the East European Plain but also underscore the importance of individual NRP components within each ecosystem at different hierarchical levels, highlighting their unique natural resource specializations.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Українська)References
Azarov S. I., Zadunai O. S. Analiz nadiinosti ekosystem. Ekolohichni nauky. 2020. Vyp. 1 (28). S. 90–96. https://doi.org/10.32846/2306-9716/2020.eco.1-28.13. [in Ukrainian]
Holubtsov O. H., Sorokina L. Yu., Tymuliak L. M., Chekhnii V. M., Farion Yu. M., Roha I. V., Batova N. I., Petrov M. F., Nazarchuk N. I. Heoinformatsiynyi analiz antropohennykh zmin landshaftiv Lisostepovoi zony Ukrainy. Ukrainskyi heohrafichnyi zhurnal. 2021. No 3. S. 38–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ ugz2021.03.038. [in Ukrainian]
Hrodzynskyi M. D. Evoliutsiia landshaftiv Ukrainy: landshaftoznavstvo-heohrafichnyi vymir problemy : monohrafiia. Kyiv : VPTs «Kyivskyi universytet», 2023. 432 s. [in Ukrainian]
Yemelianov I. H. Biom. Entsyklopediia Suchasnoi Ukrainy. Kyiv, 2004. T. 3 : Bio-Bia. S. 27. [in Ukrainian]
Maruniak Ye. O., Chekhnii V. M. Naukovi zdobutky spivrobitnykiv Instytutu heohrafii NAN Ukrainy u 2022 rotsi. Ukrainskyi heohrafichnyi zhurnal. 2023. No 1. S. 3–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2023.01.003. [in Ukrainian]
Marynych O. M. Struktura heohrafichnoi nauky ta ii suchasnyi stan v Ukraini. Ukrainskyi heohrafichnyi zhurnal. 1993. No 1. S. 4–8. [in Ukrainian]
Petlin V. M. Prohramovanist orhanizovanosti terytorialnykh system ta ii vplyv na evoliutsiyni yavyshcha. Ukrainskyi heohrafichnyi zhurnal. 2025. No 1. S. 17–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2025.01.017. [in Ukrainian]
Rudenko L. H., Holubtsov O. H., Chekhnii V. M. ta in. Metodolohiia i praktyka otsiniuvannia terytorii Ukrainy dlia zapovidannia. Kyiv : Nauk. dumka, 2020. 248 s. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2019.01.024. [in Ukrainian]
Rudenko S. V., Rudenko V. P., Pakhomov O. Ye. Ekorehiony Ukrainy: terytoriia, naselennia, pryrodno-resursnyi potentsial. Pryrodnycha osvita ta nauka. 2024. No 4. S. 102–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10/32782/NSER/2024-4.16. [in Ukrainian]
Denysyk Hr. I., Yatsentiuk Yu. V., Denysyk B. Hr., Chyzh O. P., Voina I. M. Modern Anthropogenic Hydrosphere of Ukraine. Український географічний журнал. 2024. No. 4 :12–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2024.04.012.
Grekousis G. Spatial Analysis Methods and Practice Describe-Explore-Explain GIS. Cambridge: University Press, 2020, 518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108614528.
Kinnaman T. C. A New Perspective on the Natural Resource Curse. World. 2023. 4 (4). 670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/world4040042.
Martin A. E., Collins S. J., Crowe S., Girard J., Naujokaitis-Lewis I., Smith A. C., Lindsay K., Mitchell S., Fahrig L. Effects of farmland heterogeneity on biodiversity are similar to – or even larger than – the effects of farming practices. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment. 2020. Vol. 288. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agee.2019.106698.
Ramirez-Marquez C., Posadas-Paredes T., Raya-Tapia A. Y., Ponce-Ortega J. M. Natural Resource Optimization and Sustainability in Society 5.0: Comprehensive Review. Resources. 2024. 13 (2). 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13020019.
Rudenko S., Rudenko V. Nature-resource potential of natural regions of Ukraine in present-day figures. Екологічні науки. 2023. № 6 (51). S. 84–89. DOI https://doi.org/10.32846/2306-9716/2023.eco.6-51.13.
Samoilenko V., Bilous L., Havrylenko O., Dibrova I. Geoinformation model cause-effect analysis of anthropogenic impact in the Podilsko-Prydniprovskyi region. European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. Conference Proceedings, Geoinformatics (May 2021). 2021. Vol. 2021, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.20215521006.
Smyth E. Is impact assessment ensuring proper prediction and assessment of the environmental, economic, and social impacts of projects-how to reduce bias? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 2021. 39 (4), 352–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1905222.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25128/2078-2357.25.1-2.6
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
