General information about possible geopark

Presentation plan
General information about possible geopark including
The Puchezh-Katunki impact crater and red brechia dislocations
The Prosek Upper Bathonian deposit
The landscape at the confluence of the Oka and Volga rivers
General information about possible urbanizing project at the confluence as alternative to geopark project
Multi-Criteria evaluation of two alternative projects
Discussion and conclusion

Why Geopark?
Geoparks are based on unique experience of nature use evolving habits, ways, literature, music and arts.
Geoparks are drivers of a low carbon economic development, involving the local population in it and creating markets for post-industrial goods and services based on network technologies.
Geopark is a site for multidisciplinary scientific research
Geopark has its special role in education including both Earth sciences and anthropological sciences based on culture, history and Geo heritage economy
Geoparks belong to the global network of educational and scientific tourism and local conventional economy to attract both residents and guests
Geoparks are inherently the prototype of the civilization of the future.

General information about geological heritage of the region
The most famous Geo Heritage site of the region is the Puchezh-Katunki impact crater of an early Jurassic age.
The Puchezh-Katunki dislocation belongs to top ten Earth objects of asteroid origin
The Bathonian-Callovian deposits of the Jurassic system near the settlement of Prosek on the banks of the Cheboksary reservoir is considered as «the golden nail» of the Jurassic stratigraphy
The landscape at the confluence of Oka and Volga rivers was created by water flows in the postglacial period. The landscape is considered as the most beautiful Russian landscape

Geological sites at
Nizhny Novgorod region

Geopark at the confluence of the Oka and Volga Rivers
Scenario 2

Breccia of the Puchezh-Katunki permian dislocation (photo by Аnton Ulyakhin)

The Prosek Upper Bathonian deposit

UNIQUE LANDSCAPE AT THE OKA AND
VOLGA RIVERS CONFLUENCE
Oka
Volga

SPRING ICE MELTING AT THE CONFLUENCE
Oka
Volga

NIZHNY NOVGOROD AS A REGALLY POSED CITY
Oka
Volga
The height difference between the left floodplain and right steep banks is 150 m
The height difference was formed under the influence of melt water
after the melting of glaciers

NIZHNY NOVGOROD AS
A REGALLY POSED CITY

URBANIZING PROJECTS
AS ALTERNATIVE TO GEOPARK
SCENARIO 1

URBANIZING PROJECTS
ON THE LEFT BANK OF THE VOLGA RIVER
Globe town with population 400…500 thousand
(2009)
The project was postponed
No investors were found

A NEW VERSION OF FLOODPLAIN
URBANIZATION NAMED PARKOGRAD (2021)
Volga
The project of the biggest university campus and IT village
(70 000 students,
30 000 campus employers,
40 000
IT employers)

PARKOGRAD (2021)
Oka
Volga

PARKOGRAD (2021)
Oka
Volga

Oka
MULTI-CRITERIA EVALUATION OF TWO ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS

Oka
IMPACT MATRIX –
SYSTEM STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Ten variables were selected by the team of the Platform project
Strong links between residents, economy, tourism, landscape and natural heritage were indicated.

CAUSE AND EFFECTS
OF THE GEOPARK IMPACT

WEIGHTING MATRIX FOR MCE
GEOPARK NIZHNY NOVGOROD

COMPARISON OF TWO SCENARIOS BASED ON TOTAL “UTILITY’

CONCLUSION (1)
The use of the MCE and the Brunswik’s approach made possible to form a deeper and critical insight of processes in the Nizhny Novgorod agglomeration.
In particular, the key role of tourism, natural heritage and landscape was indicated.
The shrinking role of local agriculture and industry is important for low carbon transformation.
Our experts ranked natural heritage higher than cultural heritage. May be because they were focused on geological and natural heritage conservation. It looks amazing for the agglomeration with more than one hundred cultural monuments and sites. A new value is being formed in the public consciousness This is cultural landscape integrating natural landscape of high value and human creations.

CONCLUSION (2)
The weighting matrix analysis showed that there is some support in society for a more utilitarian projects based on modern construction technologies in difficult hydrological conditions.
This approach creates huge urban areas on floodplains in the vicinity of the river. The unique natural landscape will be lost.
The MCE performed in presentation suggests that for the selected variables and team of experts the option of creating a Geopark looks more preferable. For more reliable conclusions, further research is required.

CONCLUSION (3)
According to the results obtained scenario 2 looks more attractive for the population and for the regional economy.
At the same time, a number of uncertainties in the assessment remain.
How can the result change with the expansion of expert team?
How does new variables change the final evaluation?
How does utility1 and utility2 refining change the final evaluation?
The authors hope to pursue these questions in discussions at SGEM workshop on 17-18th August
You are welcome!