IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i24p13774-d701718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clarifying the Smokescreen of Russian Protected Areas

Author

Listed:
  • Roberto Cazzolla Gatti

    (Biological Institute, Tomsk State University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
    Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Alena Velichevksaya

    (Biological Institute, Tomsk State University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia)

  • Luigi Simeone

    (Geospatial Unit, Land and Water Division, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 00153 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Although in strictly protected areas no forest management and logging activities should be evident, a preliminary study detected that, even in the 200 areas with the highest protection of Russia, more than 2 Mha of trees have been lost between 2001 and 2018. Nonetheless, a relevant percentage of the actual drivers of tree loss in Russian strictly protected areas was surrounded by uncertainties due to several factors. Here, in an attempt to “clarify the smokescreen of Russian protected areas”, by validating previous remotely sensed data with new high-resolution satellite imagery and aerial images of land-use change, we shed more light on what has happened during the last 20 years. We used the same layer of tree loss from 2001 to 2020 but, instead of intersecting it with the MODIS data that could have been a source of underestimation of burned surfaces, we overlapped it to the layer of tree cover loss by dominant driver. We analysed the main drivers of tree loss in almost 200 strictly protected areas of Russia. We found that although fire is responsible for 75% of the loss in all strictly protected areas, forestry activities still account for 16%, and 9% is due to undefined causes. Therefore, uncontrolled wildfires (including those started before or after logging) and forestry activities are the main causes of 91% of the total tree loss. The combination of wildfires (often started intentionally) and forestry activities (illegally or barely legally put in place) caused a loss of an astonishing 3 million hectares. The fact that ≈10% of Russian tree cover was lost in two decades since 2001 only in strictly protected areas requires high attention by policymakers and important conservation actions to avoid losing other fundamental habitats and species during the next years when climate change and population growth can represent an additional trigger of an already dramatic situation. We call for an urgent response by national and local authorities that should start actively fighting wildfires, arsonists, and loggers even in inhabited remote areas and particularly in those included in strictly protected areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberto Cazzolla Gatti & Alena Velichevksaya & Luigi Simeone, 2021. "Clarifying the Smokescreen of Russian Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13774-:d:701718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13774/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/24/13774/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Danilo Mollicone & Hugh D. Eva & Frédéric Achard, 2006. "Human role in Russian wild fires," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7083), pages 436-437, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johanna Engström & Peyman Abbaszadeh & David Keellings & Proloy Deb & Hamid Moradkhani, 2022. "Wildfires in the Arctic and tropical biomes: what is the relative role of climate?," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 114(2), pages 1901-1914, November.
    2. Patrick J. Michaels, 2008. "Evidence for “Publication Bias†concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(2), pages 287-301, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:24:p:13774-:d:701718. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.