ɗɄɈɇɈɆɂɄȺ ɂ ɍɉɊȺȼɅȿɇɂȿ V. ɇȺ ɉɊȿȾɉɊɂəɌɂəɏ ɅȿɋɇɈȽɈ ɋȿɄɌɈɊȺ

V. ɗɄɈɇɈɆɂɄȺ ɂ ɍɉɊȺȼɅȿɇɂȿ
ɇȺ ɉɊȿȾɉɊɂəɌɂəɏ ɅȿɋɇɈȽɈ ɋȿɄɌɈɊȺ
630*469
Ɇɢɯɚɢɥ Ɇɢɯɚɣɥɨɜɢɱ ɋɚɜɟɥɶɟɜ,
mihail.savelev.83@mail.ru
ɋɚɧɤɬ-ɉɟɬɟɪɛɭɪɝɫɤɢɣ ɝɨɫɭɞɚɪɫɬɜɟɧɧɵɣ ɥɟɫɨɬɟɯɧɢɱɟɫɤɢɣ ɭɧɢɜɟɪɫɢɬɟɬ
ɆȿɌɈȾɕ ɈɐȿɇɄɂ ɇȺɊɍɒȿɇɇɕɏ ɁȿɆȿɅɖ
ɅȿɋɇɈȽɈ ɎɈɇȾȺ
ɋɨɫɬɨɹɧɢɟ ɩɪɨɛɥɟɦɵ ɢ ɩɭɬɢ ɟɟ ɪɟɲɟɧɢɹ
,
-
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
-
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
-
(
),
,
.
-
.
,
,
.
,
165
.
.
, . .
.
–
,
,
,
.
,
, . .
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
Ʉɪɚɬɤɚɹ ɯɚɪɚɤɬɟɪɢɫɬɢɤɚ ɨɛɴɟɤɬɚ ɢɫɫɥɟɞɨɜɚɧɢɹ
,
,
,
,
,
,
1709,8
[1].
65 %,
1104,9
.
,
,
.
(
),
.
(
,
( -
,
.).
166
,
.
.
)
-
,
,
,
,
,
(
–
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
.) [7].
,
-
-
.
-
,
.
,
,
,
.
-
:
;
,
,
;
,
;
;
-
,
,
;
,
,
. . [3].
-
.
–
,
-
,
[2].
-
,
,
.
.
. ,
5675,3
– 4569
.
– 171,3
934,9
.
.
.
[4].
167
-
,
–
,
,
,
, 2010 .
,
.
4,95
76 %
40
.
20,9
. .
.
0,25
. .
66,1
.
-
.
,
.
Ɇɟɬɨɞɵ ɨɰɟɧɤɢ ɧɚɪɭɲɟɧɧɵɯ ɭɱɚɫɬɤɨɜ ɡɟɦɟɥɶ ɥɟɫɧɨɝɨ ɮɨɧɞɚ
–
.
.
–
-
.
,
:
.
,
?
,
,
-
,
.
,
.
,
.
–
,
,
,
,
.
-
,
[5].
,
.
-
,
.
168
-
,
.
.
–
.
-
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
(
),
,
,
.
-
:
,
,
.
-
,
,
:
,
,
.
.
-
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
«
/
».
-
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
169
[6].
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
-
,
,
».
«
.
:
PV   ( ADi / (1  p ) n ),
n
(1)
i 1
PV –
; ADi –
;p–
i-
-
,
,
. .
.
,
.
170
;n–
.
(R)
(p).
.
–
.
–
,
,
,
.
:
C = R / 0,0p,
C–
(2)
;R–
p–
;
,
0,0p = p / 100.
,
[5].
-
,
.
.
,
,
-
.
.
.
.
,
«
»
.
,
-
,
(
,
,
-
.).
171
,
.
-
ȼɵɜɨɞɵ
-
.
.
.
,
,
-
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
40–60
,
.
:
,
,
.
,
-
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
Ȼɢɛɥɢɨɝɪɚɮɢɱɟɫɤɢɣ ɫɩɢɫɨɤ
1.
2.
23.02.1994 .
172
[
,
[
,
]:
]. –
.:
- , 2002. – 98 .
№ 140
3.
4.
[
]. – .:
- .2007. – 55
[
]:
.
№ 13903.03.2010 . – 250 .
5. ɉɟɬɪɨɜ, ȼ.ɇ.
[
] :
.
. .
.–
.:
, 2003. – 176 .
6. ɉɟɬɪɨɜ, ȼ.ɇ.
,
[
]:
.
/ . .
.–
.:
, 2010. – 416 .
7. ɋɚɜɟɥɶɟɜ, Ɇ.Ɇ.
[
]/ . .
//
.
., 2009. – 84 .
.
.
.
/
:
.:
. –
,
-
,
.
:
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
,
,
66,1
.
,
-
.
76 %
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
-
.
,
.
,
-
173
.
,
.
,
.
***
This article is deals with definitions of criteria evaluation of disturbed forest land
for specification disturbed forest lands as independent category in list of forest lands and
for finding optimal algorithm for further usage of disturbed forest lands and applicability
of existed evaluation methods of lands.
The article consists from following parts: current problems of land evaluation, characteristic of research object, methods of evaluation of disturbed forest lands.
One of the results of illegal anthropogenic activity on forest land is disturbed forest
land. Burnt, mine, dumps, wind thoughts are disturbed lands. For example, fund of disturbed forest lands of Leningrad region is about 66.1 thousands ha (76 % of lands, which
needed reforestation). Forestry and environment have big losses due to reduction of
functions of these lands.
Recultivation is necessary treatment for functions recovery of disturbed forest land
for further usage. Recultivation is expensive treatment, but it economical evaluation of
costs and incomes is absent.
Forest land has list of economical features. The most important is irregularity of
incomes in time, because of long term process of forest growing and high risks.
The result of research is idea that for evaluation of disturbed forest land application
of income method as method of monetary income discount is the most suit. This method
can be applicable in case of violent changed irregularly incomes from utilization of forest site.
174