Barrier Function of the Urban Environment and Its Quantitative Assessment: Case of Moscow
https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587556620010094
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of city boundaries-barriers in Moscow. City barrier is considered as one of the types of boundary between city nodal areas. Such boundary is rigid, clear, and quasilinear and it exists for a long time (decades or more). The barrier function of the urban environment is the degree of city disintegration into relatively loosely connected areas with internal integrity. There are three types of urban barriers’ genesis – automobile, rail, and water. Military, forested, industrial and fenced private areas are not considered because they do not divide city regions (social, economic, political etc.), but only separate selected areas from the urban environment (they are independent regions). There are barriers with maximum and minimum permeability of borders for each city. The boundaries’ permeability in this case refers to the possibility and degree of trespassing the barrier. The author names the city barrier with the maximum permeability “barrierstandard”, and the barrier with minimum permeability “barrier-filter”. Comparison of “barrier-standard” and “barrier-filter” demonstrates territorial differences within the city. Comparison of different types of barriers with the “barrier-standard” and the “barrier-filter” allows to measure representative permeability value in comparison with maximum and minimum values.
References
1. Animitsa E.G. Largest cities of Russia in the context of global urbanization processes. Ars Administrandi, 2013, no. 1, pp. 82–96. (In Russ.).
2. Baklanov P.Ya. Territories of advanced development: concept, structure, approaches to allocation. Reg. Issled., 2014, no. 3, pp. 12–19. (In Russ.).
3. Balla O.A. Human-faced Space: from Herodotus to territorial branding (interview with Ivan Mitin). Znanie – Sila, 2014, no. 1, pp. 33–40. (In Russ.).
4. Belokurov S.V. Modeling route system of city transport. Vestn. SGAU, 2008, no. 1, pp. 111–119. (In Russ.).
5. Zamyatina N.Yu., Yashunskii A.D. Virtual geography of virtual population. Monitoring Obshchestv. Mneniya: Ekon. i Sotsial’nye Peremeny, 2018, no. 1, pp. 117–137. (In Russ.).
6. Zamyatina N.Yu., Pilyasov A.N. Single industry cities of Russia: blocks and drivers of innovative search. Forsait, 2016, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 227–239. (In Russ.).
7. Zyuzin P.V. Spatial transformation of city transport networks of the countries of Central-Eastern Europe and the former USSR. Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation. Moscow: Moscow State Univ., 2012. 23 p.
8. Kagansky V.L. Areal paradigm of space identity: foundations, limits, going beyond limits. Vestn. Perm. Nauchn. Tsentra, 2014, no. 5, pp. 10–19. (In Russ.).
9. Kagansky V.L. Postmodernity. Landscape. Russia. Labirint. Zh. Sotsial’no-Gumanitarnykh Issled., 2016, no. 1–2, pp. 74–85. (In Russ.).
10. Kagansky V.L. Boundary situation and logic-semiotic types of boundaries. Mezhdunarodnyi Zh. Issled. Kul’tury, 2015, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 5–27. (In Russ.).
11. Karlova E.V., Kharchenko S.V. On the connection of geographical boundaries of vernacular urban areas with natural boundaries (on the example of large cities). Reg. Issled., 2014, no. 3, pp. 112–123. (In Russ.).
12. Karavaev V.A. Town localities in the representation of citizens and in normative documents. Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation. Moscow: Inst. Geogr., RAS, 2007. 23 p.
13. Lappo G.M. Goroda Rossii. Vzglyad geografa [Russian Cities. The View of the Geographer]. Moscow: Novyi Khronograph Publ., 2012. 504 p.
14. Makhrova A.G., Babkin R.A. Analysis of pulsations of the Moscow agglomeration settlement system using data from mobile operators. Reg. Issled., 2018, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 68–78. (In Russ.).
15. Makhrova A.G., Bochkarev A.N. Analyzing local labor markets through commuting (a study of Moscow municipalities). Vestn. S.-Peterb. Gos. Univ. Nauki o Zemle, 2018, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 56–68. (In Russ.). doi 10.21638/11701/spbu07.2018.104
16. Makhrova A.G., Kirillov P.L. The 'housing dimension' of contemporary urbanization in Russia. Reg. Issled., 2014, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 134–144. (In Russ.).
17. Mitin I.I. Mythogeography as a theoretical framework of city branding. In Brending malykh i srednikh gorodov Rossii [Branding of Small and Medium-Sized Cities of Russia]. Britvin A.M., Ed. Ekaterinburg: Uralskii Univ. Publ., 2012, pp. 135–142. (In Russ.).
18. Mitin I.I. Mythogeography: spatial images and multiple realities. Communitas/Soobshchestvo, 2005, no. 2, pp. 12–25. (In Russ.).
19. Pavlyuk S.G. Vernacular regions in postindustrial epoch. In Postindustrial’naya transformatsiya sotsial’nogo neravenstva Rossii. Sb. dokladov 6 Sokraticheskikh Chtenii [Postindustrial Transformation of Social Inequality in Russia. Collection of Reports of the 6th Socratic Readings]. Moscow: Eslan Publ., 2006, pp. 94–115. (In Russ.).
20. Pavlyuk S.G. Key issues for exploration of vernacular regions. In Vopr. ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi geogafii zarubezhnykh stran [Issues of Economic and Political Geography of Foreign Countries]. Smolensk: Oykumena Publ., 2009, vol. 18, pp. 46–56. (In Russ.).
21. Pereverzeva N.V., Sanok S.I. Global trends in the organization of trade zones in the central areas of cities. Akad. Vestn. UralNIIproekt RAASN, 2017, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 22–28. (In Russ.).
22. Pivovarov Yu.L. Osnovy geourbanistiki [The Fundamentals of Geourbanistics]. Moscow: VLADOS Publ., 1999. 232 p.
23. On Approval of the Methodology for Assessing the Quality of the Urban Living Environment. Order of the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation no. 371, 9 September 2013.
24. Puzanov K.A. Stereotypes of intercity regions. Vestn. Mosk. Univ. Ser. 5: Geogr., 2012, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 13–18. (In Russ.).
25. Puzanov K.A. Territorial boundaries of city communities. Sotsiologiya Vlasti, 2013, no. 3, pp. 27–38. (In Russ.).
26. Puzanov K.A., Stepantsov P.M. Mekhanika Moskvy. Issledovanie gorodskoi sredy [Mechanics of Moscow. Study of the Urban Environment]. Moscow: Mosk. Inst. Sotsialno-Kulturnykh Program, 2015. 95 p.
27. Rodoman B.B. Territorial’nye arealy i seti. Ocherky teoreticheskoi geografii [Territorial Areas and Networks. Essays on Theoretical Geography]. Smolensk: Oikumena Publ., 1999. 256 p.
28. Rodoman B.B. Polyarizovannaya biosfera: sbornik statei [Polarized Biosphere: Collection of Articles]. Smolensk: Oykumena Publ., 2002. 336 p.
29. Rodoman B.B. Geographiya, raionirovanie, kartoidy: sbornik trudov [Geography, Regionalization, Cartoids: Collection of Works]. Smolensk: Oikumena Publ., 2007. 368 p.
30. Rodoman B.B. Geograficheskie granitsy [Geographical Boundaries]. Ekkel B.M., Ed. Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1982. 128 p.
31. Smirnyagin L.V. Key issues of regionalization. Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2005, no. 1, pp. 5–16. (In Russ.).
32. Tarkhov S.A. City transport of Russian empire during the First World War. Ekon. Zh., 2014, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 89–122. (In Russ.).
33. Tarkhov S.A. Istoriya moskovskogo tramvaya [History of Moscow Tram]. Moscow: Mosgortrans, 1999. 365 p.
34. Tarkhov S.A. Evolutsionnaya morfologiya transportnykh setei [Evolution Morphology of Transport Networks]. Smolensk, Moscow: Universum Publ., 2005. 384 p.
35. Shuvalov V.E. The concept of boundary and the boundary effect, and their place in economic and geographical research. Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation. Moscow: Moscow State Univ., 1980. 24 p.
36. Arieli T. Borders, conflict and security. Int. J. Confl. Manag., 2016, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 487–504.
37. Bollens S.A. Governing polarized cities. In Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places. McEvoy J., O’Leary B., Eds. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2013, pp. 327–361.
38. Buttimer A. Geography’s contested stories: changing states-of-the-art. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr., 1998, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 90–99.
39. Buursink J. The binational reality of border-crossing cities. Geo J., 2001, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 7–19.
40. Calame, J., Charlesworth E. Divided Cities. Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. 280 p.
41. Henrikson A.K. Facing across borders: the diplomacy of bon voisinage. Int. Political Sci. Rev., 2000, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 121–147.
42. Keirsey D., Gatrell J. Ideology on the Walls: Contested Space in Planned Urban Areas in Northern Ireland. A Working Paper, unpublished. Belfast: School of Environ. Planning, Queen’s Univ., 2001.
43. Sparrow G. San Diego-Tijuana: Not quite a binational city or region. GeoJournal, 2001, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 73–83.
44. Zelinsky W. North America’s vernacular regions. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr., 1980. vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1–16.
45. Zelinsky W. The Cultural Geography of the United States. Englwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973. 164 p.
Graphical Abstract
|
|
1. Некоторые барьеры Москвы | |
| Subject | ||
| Type | Исследовательские инструменты | |
View
(336KB)
|
Indexing metadata ▾ | |
|
|
2. Barrier types in Moscow | |
| Subject | ||
| Type | Исследовательские инструменты | |
View
(261KB)
|
Indexing metadata ▾ | |
|
3. PDF | |
| Subject | ||
| Type | Исследовательские инструменты | |
Download
(3MB)
|
Indexing metadata ▾ | |
- Barrier function of urban habitat represents the degree the city disintegrated into the areas separated by weakly permeable borders.
- There are three main types of city barriers, namely car roads, railroads, and water barriers.
- City barriers determine two key directions of city development that are magistralization and polarization.
- City barriers differentiate city space into functional zones, cultural and administrative districts.
Review
For citations:
Kamkin G.G. Barrier Function of the Urban Environment and Its Quantitative Assessment: Case of Moscow. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2020;(1):27-36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587556620010094
Views:
920
Email this article 
