Preview

Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya

Advanced search

Tourism-Geographical Consequences of the Pandemic

https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587556622040057

Abstract

The results of the fight against coronavirus are taken as indicators of the viability of states. According to the data on the number of patients and deaths per 1 million persons, there are inter-ethnic differences in success in the fight against coronavirus. It has been demonstrated that the pandemic exacerbates intercountry and intercivilizational differences and accentuates the human and social importance of geography. The impact of the pandemic on tourism is being studied. By giving primacy to national and social interests over global and economic pandemics, intangible goods have been given priority. The importance of the accelerated development of the digital economy in boosting rural tourism and dacha de-urbanization as a recreational response of the population to the pandemic was discussed. They have been suggested to be important in creating preconditions for the rehabilitation of abandoned villages. The coronavirus pandemic reinforces the importance of secluded landscapes’ walks, local history, and rural tourism. The preventive value of landscape therapy was set. Landscape healing powers can be used almost all the time and almost everywhere, both in a fixed location and in a travel environment. The laws of nature are the laws of beauty. It is assumed that all places perceived as beautiful can heal. The article introduces the idea of the beauty of the landscape as an important natural and health resource. It is assumed that by trusting one’s feelings, experience, and intuition, one can discover for oneself the healing power of a particular landscape. Landscape therapy integrates geography, medicine, and human science. The pandemic serves to reorient geography and ecology from the transformation and protection of nature to the transformation and rescue of man.

About the Author

Yu. N. Golubchikov
Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University.

Moscow.



References

1. Armand D.L. Nam i vnukam [Us and Our Grandchildren]. Moscow: Mysl' Publ., 1966. 254 p.

2. Averkieva K.V. Rural areas of the Non-Chernozem Zone: depopulation and possible ways of adaptation to new conditions. In Voprosy geografii [Problems of Geography]. Vol. 135: Geografiya naseleniya i sotsial'naya geografiya [Population and Social Geography]. Alekseev A.I., Tkachenko A.A., Eds. Moscow: Kodeks Publ., 2013, pp. 108-125. (In Russ.).

3. Badenkov Yu.P. Zhizn’ vgorakh. Prirodnoe i kul'turnoe raznoobrazie - raznoobrazie modelei razvitiya [Life in the Mountains. Natural and Cultural Diversity - a Variety of Development Models]. Moscow: GEOS Publ., 2017. 479 p.

4. Bacon F. Experiments. In Sochineniya v dvukh tomakh [Works in Two Volumes]. Moscow: Mysl' Publ., 1978, vol. 2. 575 p. (In Russ.).

5. Brade I., Makhrova A.G., Nefedova T.G., Treivish A.I. Features of suburbanization in the Moscow agglomeration. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Geogr., 2013, no. 2, pp. 1929. (In Russ.).

6. Breitnauer J. The Spanish flu epidemic and its influence on history: Stories from the 1918—1920 global flu pandemic. Yorkshire - Philadelphia: Pen&Sword History, 2019. XIV. 138 p.

7. Chizhevskii A.L. Atmospheric electricity and life. In Zemlya vo Vselennoi [Earth in the Universe]. Moscow: Mysl' Publ., 1964, pp. 422-442. (In Russ.).

8. Chizhevskii A.L. Aeroionifikatsiya v narodnom khozyaistve [Aeiroionization in the National Economy]. Moscow: Stroiizdat Publ., 1989, 2d ed. 488 p.

9. Gesler W., Wilbert M., Therapetic landscapes: medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Soc. Sci. Med., 1992, vol. 34, pp. 735-746.

10. Grafetstatter C., Gaisberger M., Prossegger J., Ritter M., Kolarz P., Pichler C., Thalhamer J., Hartl A. Does waterfall aerosol influence mucosal immunity and chronic stress? A randomized controlled clinical trial? J. Physiol. Anthropol., 2017, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40101-016-0117-3

11. Grindle B., Patil G.G. Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2009, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 2332-2343.

12. Gunya A.N., Efimov A.B. Regional diversity and differences in the development of the territory of Russia as factors of its modern development (religious and philosophical aspect). Kul'turnoe Nasledie Rossii, 2018, no. 2, pp. 15-23. (In Russ.).

13. Ioffe G. Nefedova T. Land use changes in the environs of Moscow. Area, 2001, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 273-286.

14. Kaganskii V.L. Cultural landscape: basic concepts in Russian geography. Observatoriya Kul'tury: Zh.-Obozrenie, 2009, no. 1, pp. 62-70. (In Russ.).

15. Kant I. Kritika sposobnosti suzhdeniya [Criticism of the Ability of Judgment]. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ., 1994. 367 p.

16. Klyuev N.N., Sdasyuk G.V., Tishkov A.A. Global crises -the need to implement transition programmes to sustainable development. In Ratsionalnoe prirodopol'zovanie: mezhdunarodnye programmy, rossiiskii i zarubezhnyi opyt [Rational Natural Resource Use: International Programs, Russian And Foreign Experience]. Moscow: KMK Publ., 2010, pp. 10-38. (In Russ.).

17. Kochurov B.I., Ivashkina I.V. Cities after COVID-19. In Mirovaya ekologicheskaya povestka i Rossiya: Mat. Vseross. nauchn. konf. s mezhdunar. uch. [World Ecological Agenda and Russia: Proc. All-Russ. Conf. with Int. Participants]. Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 2020, pp.223-226. (In Russ.).

18. Lavrov S.B. Geopolitics and regionalism: the scientific perspective. In Geopoliticheskie i geoekonomicheskie problemy Rossii [Geopolitical and Geoeconomical Problems of Russia]. SPb, 1995, pp. 3-10. (In Russ.).

19. Likhachev D.S. Protected landscape. In Kniga bespokoistv. Moscow: Novosti Publ., 1991. 528 p. (In Russ.).

20. Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoi estetiki [History of Ancient Aesthetics]. Vol 4: Aristotel' i pozdnyaya klassika [Aristotle and Later Classics]. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ., 1975. 672 p.

21. Makhrova A.G. Specific features of stadial development of the Moscow agglomeration. Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., 2014, no. 5, pp. 10-16. (In Russ.).

22. Matveichev O.A. Chto delat' Rossii? Proryvnye strategii tret'ego tysyacheletiya [What Should Russia Do? Breakthrough Strategies of the Third Millennium]. Moscow: Eksmo Publ., 2012. 352 p.

23. Milligan C., Wiles J. Landscapes of care. Progress Hum. Geogr., 2010, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 736-754.

24. Nefedova T.G., Medvedev A.A. Compression of developed space in Central Russia: population dynamics and use of land in rural areas. Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. G eogr. , 2020, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 645-659. (In Russ.).

25. Nikolaeva U.G., Rusanov A.V. Self-isolation at the dacha: Can't? Can? Have to? Population and Economics, 2020, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 182-198. https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e54577

26. Okhotina N.M. Development of rural tourism in the Republic of Mari El. Servis Plus, 2018, vol. 12, no. 3, pp.26-33. (In Russ.).

27. Paustovskii K.G. Letters from Tarusa. In Sobranie Sochinenii [Selected Works]. Vol. 8: Literaturnye portrety, Ocherki. Zametki [Literary Portraits. Essays. Notes]. Moscow: Khudozh. Literatura Publ., 1970. 447 p.

28. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky V.P. Raion i strana [Region and Country]. Moscow-Leningrad, 1928. 311 p.

29. Sen-Mark F. Sotsializatsiya prirody [Socialization of Nature]. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1977. 440 p.

30. Smirnova A.A., Tkachenko A.A. Rural settlements in Russia: can they be counted? In Staroosvoennye raiony: genezis, istoricheskie sud'by, sovremennye trendy razvitiya [Old-Developed Areas: Genesis, Historical Destinies, Modern Development Trends]. Streletskii V.N., Eds. Moscow: Matushkina I.I. Publ., 2019, pp. 49-61. (In Russ.).

31. Treivish A.I. “Dacha Studies” as the Science on Second Homes in the West and in Russia. Reg. Res. Russ., 2014, vol.4, no. 3, pp. 179-188.

32. Voeikov A.I. Issledovanie klimatov dlya tselei klimaticheskogo lecheniya i gigieny [Climate Research for the Purposes of Climate Treatment and Hygiene]. St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1893. 13 p.

33. Williams S. Tourism Geography: A New Synthesis. London and New York, 2009, 2d ed. 310 p.

34. Zavarika G.M., Fedorenko K.S. Wellness tourism as an opportunity for the development of the territory in the conditions of post-conflict and pandemic. Turizm i Gostepriimstvo, 2020, no. 2, pp. 28-35. (In Russ.).

35. Zielinski S., Botero C.M. Beach tourism in times of COVID-19 pandemic: Critical issues, knowledge gaps and research opportunities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2020, vol. 17 (19), no. 7288. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197288.

36. Zorin I.V., Lakovskii S.G. Professional orientation of the recreational essence of ecohumanism. In V Mezhdun-arodnyi forum “Turizm: nauka i obrazovani” [V International Forum “Tourism: Science and Education”]. Pityukova V.Yu., Ed. Moscow: Univ. Kniga Publ., 2018, pp. 73-80. (In Russ.).

37. Zotic V., Alexandru D., Dezsi §., Debate on tourism in Postmodernism and beyond. The Business of Tourism, 2014, no. 13, pp. 79-93.

38. Zyryanov A.I., Balaban M.Yu, Zyryanov G.A. The geography of the coronavirus and tourism issues. Geografiya i Turizm , 2020, no. 2, pp. 5-17. (In Russ.).


Review

For citations:


Golubchikov Yu.N. Tourism-Geographical Consequences of the Pandemic. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Geograficheskaya. 2022;86(4):651-660. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587556622040057

Views: 324


ISSN 2587-5566 (Print)
ISSN 2658-6975 (Online)