Economic and Geographical Diff erentiation of the Territory of the Russian-Kazakh Transboundary Area
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17308/geo/1609-0683/2024/4/85-92Keywords:
steppe zone, Russia, Kazakhstan, zoning, gross regional product, demographic processes, development of the territory, cross-border regionAbstract
The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between the economy, the settlement system and demographic processes, taking into account natural and geographical features in the regions of the Russian–Kazakh border. Materials and methods. On the basis of statistical and cartographic methods and the method of spatial analysis, 3-stage zoning was carried out according to groups of indicators: the development of space; the level of economic development; demographic situation. The study was carried out at diff erent levels of territorial organization – cross-country, regional and in the context of municipalities. Results and discussion. A structural analysis of the leading sectors of the economy by border regions and the distribution of GRP is carried out. It is revealed that the basis of regional specifi cs are economic and geographical location, natural conditions and resources, social, demographic and national characteristics. Based on long-term data on economic development, specifi cs of economic activity, development of territories and demographic processes in the Russian-Kazakh border region, 4 districts were allocated, consisting of 21 districts allocated on the basis of geographical location and landscape features. Conclusions. The most populated territory of the trans-border area is also the most developed in the economic aspect (Northern and Western sectors). Less populated territories lag behind in socio-economic development (Eastern and Central sectors). Of the identifi ed geodemographic regions, 6 do not have access to the state border (Pridonsky, Bugulminsko-Belebeyevsky, Gorno-Uralsky, Novosibirsk, Ekibastuzsky, Ayagozsky) and gravitate to other centers of infl uence near their borders. Another 6 districts (Caspian, Ishim, Barabinsky, Priirtyshsky, Priobsky, Gorno-Irtysh) have access to the state border, but do not cross it, these territories are closed on their own development centers and have organic links with adjacent border areas. The remaining 9 districts (Volzhsky, Uzenky, Zavolzhsko-Uralsky, Ural-Mugodzharsky, Trans-Uralsky, Tobolo-Ishim, Turgaysky, Pre-Altai, Altai) are cross-border and have close socio-economic and natural-economic ties in their internal structure









