YAKUTSK, January 14. /TASS/. Permafrost monitoring in populated areas remains a pending problem as regions have to address it on their own, leading researcher at the Anadyr Branch of the Northeastern Integrated Research Institute (the Russian Academy of Sciences' Far Eastern Branch) Oleg Tregubov told TASS.
Russia has been developing a natural background permafrost monitoring. Businesses are involved in geotechnical monitoring, and in settlements owners of buildings or structures are responsible for monitoring. This operational monitoring is conducted if requested by the building owner or when regulatory authorities insist on it.
"The entire territory of a settlement with residential and industrial buildings and infrastructures remains unattended. Is no one aware of this problem? No, of course, the number of well aware scientists, specialists and managers, officials and businesses is huge. But there are no specific instructions or orders, <...> and every Arctic region is trying to solve this problem at its own risk, depending on financial abilities and local natural conditions," the expert in geology and minerals said.
The scientist has created the Anadyr permafrost monitoring system, which is due to be commissioned by the end of 2025. The new concept means modeling temperature fields in the city soil, and experts would be able to make long and short term forecasts of permafrost development, including threats to urban infrastructures.
Addressing the problem
The scientist named three approaches to geotechnical permafrost monitoring in populated areas. Some regions are updating existing data sources for industrial geotechnical permafrost monitoring with new controlled residential and other buildings.
The second approach is the total control of all residential buildings, and automated permafrost monitoring for municipal buildings and structures, with connected industrial subsystems.
The third approach is to focus right on permafrost monitoring of the entire populated area, to survey the territory to identify cryogenic processes and soil thawing zones, to organize a network of automated monitoring to register soil temperatures and to control how hazardous areas are spreading.
"In my opinion, the first approach is expectant and prudent, the second is conservative, administrative and rich, the third is mine - it is innovative, economical, scientifically based and risky. It is innovative because we control the territory, not individual buildings. It is economical because the number of controlled objects (permafrost thawing areas against buildings) is 10-20 times lower. It is scientifically based because we control the source of the impact, not the object that expects an external negative impact," the scientist said.
Due to climate changes in populated areas, the main factor in changing permafrost conditions have been climatic effects, not man-made causes, the expert said. High-quality designed and built buildings on pile foundations with ventilated underground are "islands of cold" in the new conditions, he noted.
"The main climatic cryogenic processes threatening permafrost originate and develop outside most buildings and structures in a populated area (wastelands, streets, roadsides, yards). In most cases, those are above-permafrost thawing areas of 3-12 meters, fed by precipitation, condensation and meltwater from underground ice, as well as by leaks from utility networks, by surface runoffs from road cleaners," the expert said in conclusion.