Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barrier Function of the Urban Environment and Its Quantitative Assessment (a Case Study of Moscow)

  • URBAN GEOGRAPHY
  • Published:
Regional Research of Russia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract—

The article analyzes intracity borders–barriers in Moscow. The author calls the barrier between urban nodal areas with a high degree of barrier function a barrier in an urban environment. Such a boundary—rigid, distinct, quasilinear—has existed for a long time (decades or more). The barrier function of the urban environment in the author’s terminology is the degree of disintegration of a city into relatively loosely connected areas with internal integrity. Three types of urban barriers are distinguished in terms of genesis: automobile, railway, and water. Military, forest, industrial, and fenced private areas (condominiums and individual land plots) are beyond the scope of the study. The barriers created by them do not separate social, economic, political, and other areas of cities, but specific territories from the rest of the urban environment (i.e., they are independent regions). For each city, there are barriers with maximum and minimum border permeability. In this case, the permeability of intracity borders is understood as the possibility of intersection and the degree of intersection of the barrier. It is proposed to call an urban barrier with maximum permeability “permissive barrier.” An urban barrier with minimum permeability can be called a “filter barrier.” Comparison of the “permissive barrier” and the “filter barrier” makes it possible to assess the range of territorial differences within the city. Comparison of different types of barriers with permissive and filter barriers makes it possible to estimate the characteristic permeability of the barriers against the maximum and minimum values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Order of the Ministry of Regional Development of Russia No. 371 of September 9, 2013, On Approval of the Methodology for Assessing the Quality of the Urban Living Environment.

REFERENCES

  1. Animitsa, E.G., The largest cities of Russia in the context of global urbanization processes, Ars Admin., 2013, no. 1, pp. 82–96.

  2. Baklanov, P.Ya., Territory of advanced development: concept, structure, and approaches to allocation, Reg. Issled., 2014, no. 3, pp. 12–19.

  3. Balla, O.A., A space with a human face: from Herodotus to branding of territories. Interview with Ivan Mitin, Znanie-Sila, 2014, no. 1, pp. 33–40.

  4. Belokurov, S.V., Modeling urban transport traffic network, Vestn. Samar. Gos. Aerokosm. Univ. im. S.P. Koroleva, 2008, no. 1, pp. 111–119.

  5. Zamyatina, N.Yu. and Yashunskii, A.D., Virtual geography of the virtual population, Monit. Obshch. Mneniya: Ekon. Sots. Peremeny, 2018, no. 1, pp. 117–137.

  6. Zamyatina, N.Yu. and Pilyasov, A.N., Single-industry cities of Russia: obstacles and drivers for innovative development, Forsait, 2016, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zyuzin, P.V., Spatial transformation of urban passenger transport networks in post-socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former USSR, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation, Moscow: Inst. Geogr., Russ. Acad. Sci., 2012.

  8. Kagansky, V.L., Areal paradigm of spatial identity: basis, limits, and going beyond, Vestn. Permsk. Nauchn. Tsentra, 2014, no. 5, pp. 10–19.

  9. Kagansky, V.L., Postmodern. Landscape. Russia, Labirint, 2016, nos. 1-2, pp. 74–85.

  10. Kagansky, V.L., The border situation and logical-semiotic types of borders, Mezhdunar. Zh. Issled. Kul’t., 2015, no. 4 (21), pp. 5–27.

  11. Karlova, E.V. and Kharchenko, S.V., The relationship of the geographical borders of urban vernacular regions with natural borders (case study of large cities), Reg. Issled., 2014, no. 3, pp. 112–123.

  12. Karavaev, V.A., Urban areas in the view of citizens and in normative documents, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation, Moscow: Inst. Geogr., Russ. Acad. Sci., 2007.

  13. Lappo, G.M., Goroda Rossii. Vzglyad geografa (Russian Cities: View of a Geographer), Moscow: Novyi Khronograf, 2012.

  14. Makhrova, A.G. and Babkin, R.A., Pulsation analysis of the resettlement system of the Moscow agglomeration using data from mobile operators, Reg. Res. Russ., 2020, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 373−380.

  15. Makhrova, A.G. and Bochkarev, A.N., Analysis of local labor markets through labor commuting of the population (case study of municipalities in Moscow), Vestn. S.-Peterb. Gos. Univ.,Nauki Zemle, 2018, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Makhrova, A.G. and Kirillov, P.L., “Housing dimension” of contemporary urbanization in Russia, Reg. Issled., 2014, no. 4, pp. 134–144.

  17. Mitin, I.I., Mythogeography as a theoretical framework for city branding, in Brending malykh i srednikh gorodov Rossii (Branding of Small and Average Cities in Russia), Britvin, A.M., Ed., Yekaterinburg: Ural. Gos. Univ., 2012, pp. 135–142.

  18. Mitin, I.I., Mythogeography: spatial images and multiple realities, Communitas, 2005, no. 2, pp. 12—25.

  19. Pavlyuk, S.G., Vernacular areas in the post-industrial era, Materialy Shestykh Sokraticheskikh chtenii “Postindustrial’naya transformatsiya sotsial’nogo prostranstva Rossii” (Proc. Sixth Socrates Readings “Post-Industrial Transformation of Social Space of Russia”), Moscow: Eslan, 2006, pp. 94–115.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pavlyuk, S.G., Key studies of vernacular areas, in Voprosy ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi geografii zarubezhnykh stran (Economic and Political Geography of Foreign Countries), Smolensk: Oikumena, 2009, no. 18, pp. 46–56.

  21. Pereverzeva, N.V. and Sanok, S.I., Global trends in the organization of shopping areas in the central districts of cities, Akad. Vestn. Ural. Issled. Proektno-Konstr. Inst., 2017, no. 4 (35), pp. 22–28.

  22. Pivovarov, Yu.L., Osnovy geourbanistiki (Principles of Geourbanistics), Moscow: Vlados, 1999.

  23. Puzanov, K.A., Stereotypes of intracity districts, Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5:Geogr., 2012, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Puzanov, K.A., Territorial borders of urban communities, Sotsiol. Vlasti, 2013, no. 3, pp. 27–38.

  25. Puzanov, K.A., and Stepantsov, P.M., Mekhanika Moskvy. Issledovanie gorodskoi sredy (Mechanics of Moscow. Study of Urban Environment), Moscow: Mosk. Inst. Sots.-Kul’t. Progr., 2015.

  26. Rodoman, B.B., Territorial’nye arealy i seti. Ocherki teoreticheskoi geografii (Territorial Areas and Networks. Theoretical Geography), Smolensk: Oikumena, 1999.

  27. Rodoman, B.B., Polyarizovannaya biosfera (Polarized Biosphere), Smolensk: Oikumena, 2002.

  28. Rodoman, B.B., Geografiya, raionirovanie, kartoidy (Geography, Zoning, and Kartoids), Smolensk: Oikumena, 2007.

  29. Geograficheskie granitsy (Geographical Borders), Rodoman, B.B. and Ekkel’, B.M., Eds., Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1982.

  30. Smirnyagin, L.V., Key issues of regionalization, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nusk, Ser. Geogr., 2005, no. 1, pp. 5–16.

  31. Tarkhov, S.A., Urban transport of the Russian Empire during the First World War, Ekon. Zh., 2014, no. 4 (36), pp. 89–122.

  32. Tarkhov, S.A., Istoriya moskovskogo tramvaya (The History of Moscow Tram), Moscow: Mosgortrans, 1999.

  33. Tarkhov, S.A., Evolyutsionnaya morfologiya transportnykh setei (Evolutionary Morphology of Transport Networks), Smolensk: Universum, 2005.

  34. Shuvalov, V.E., The concept of border and effect of border function and their place in economic and geographical research, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation, Moscow: Moscow State Univ., 1980.

  35. Arieli, T., Borders, conflict and security, Int. J. Conflict Manage., 2016, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 487–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bollens, S.A., Governing polarized cities, in Power Sharing in Deeply Divided Places, McEvoy, J. and O’Leary, B., Eds., Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2013, pp. 327–361.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Buttimer, A., Geography’s contested stories: changing states-of-the-art, Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr., 1998, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 90–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Buursink, J., The binational reality of border-crossing cities, GeoJournal, 2001, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Calame, J. and Charlesworth E., Divided Cities. Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia, Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Henrikson, A.K., Facing across borders: the diplomacy of bon voisinage, Int. Polit. Sci. Rev., 2000, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Keirsey, D. and Gatrell, J., Ideology on the Walls: Contested Space in Planned Urban Areas in Northern Ireland, Belfast: Sch. Environ. Plann., Queen’s Univ., 2001 (unpublished).

  42. Sparrow, G., San Diego−Tijuana: not quite a binational city or region, GeoJournal, 2001, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zelinsky, W., North America vernacular regions, Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 1980, vol. 70, no. 1, 1980. pp. 1–16.

  44. Zelinsky, W., The Cultural Geography of the United States, New York: Prentice Hall, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119017, Moscow, Russia

    G. G. Kamkin

Authors
  1. G. G. Kamkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. G. Kamkin.

Ethics declarations

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kamkin, G.G. Barrier Function of the Urban Environment and Its Quantitative Assessment (a Case Study of Moscow). Reg. Res. Russ. 10, 381–387 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970520030053

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970520030053

Keywords:

Search

Navigation