Technogenesis and Natural Disasters

  • Victor Osipov
  • Nadezhda RumyantsevaEmail author
Part of the Innovation and Discovery in Russian Science and Engineering book series (IDRSE)


The paper scrutinizes technogenesis in the context of human industrial activity in natural resources development and the creation of social and economic infrastructure on the Earth. The rapidly growing antagonism between technogenesis and the society requires the elaboration of a new strategy of modern civilization development based on keeping the balance between the human economic activity and the environment protection.

Some problems arising from technogenesis development are analyzed, and it is shown how the environmentally friendly economic activity may be managed. As an example, the seismic and engineering geological zoning of Moscow is described, which was aimed at “fitting” items of the technosphere to the natural conditions and at optimizing the interaction between the engineering structures and the environment. The problems in surface and groundwater conservation, assessment of natural risks upon land development, as well as industrial and domestic waste treatment are discussed. The cases cited witness to the necessity of developing the scientifically grounded policy of human technogenic activity based on the principle of technogenesis-environment coevolution.


Technogenesis Natural disasters Environment Risk assessment Natural risks Land development Waste treatment 



This study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, project no. 16-17-00125 “Assessment of risk caused by hazardous natural processes in urban areas.”


  1. 1.
    Bogoyavlenskii, V. I. (2014). The danger of catastrophic gas emissions in the permafrost zone. Arctic. Funnels on Yamal and Taimyr Peninsulas. Burenie i neft’ (Drilling and oil), 9, 13–19.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mokhov, I. I., & Eliseev, A. V. (2012). Modeling global climate changes in XX–XXIII centuries upon the new scenarios of anthropogenic impacts RCP. Doklady akademii nauk (Reports of Academy of Sciences), 443(6), 732–736.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osipov, V. I. (2010). Management of natural risks. Vestnik RAN (Herald of RAS), 8(4), 291–297.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osipov, V. I., Frolova, N. I., Sushchev, S. P., & Larionov, V. I. (2011). Assessment of seismic and natural risk for the population and territories of Russian Federation. Extreme natural phenomena and disasters. In V. M. Kotlyakov Ed.-in-Chief, IG RAN; Compiled by Sobisevich, A.L., IFZ RAN; – Moscow: IFZ RAN, Volume 2: Uranium geology, geoecology and glaciology (pp. 28–48). Moscow: IFZ RAN, Probel 2000 Publ (in Russian).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porfir’ev, B. N. (2015). Economic consequences of catastrophic flood in the Far East in 2013. Vestnik RAN (Herald of RAS), 2, 30–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sergeev Institute of Environmental Geoscience RASMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations