• Nie Znaleziono Wyników

Implementation of landscape ecological knowledge into land management using landscape ecological planning

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Implementation of landscape ecological knowledge into land management using landscape ecological planning"

Copied!
12
0
0

Pełen tekst

(1)

Nikodemus O. et al., 2010. Implementation of landscape ecological knowledge into land management using landscape ecological planning.

The Problems of Landscape Ecology, Vol. XXVIII. 123–133.

Implementation of landscape ecological knowledge into land management using landscape ecological planning

Olgerts Nikodemus

1

, Peteris Lakovskis

1

, Oskars Beikulis

2

, Valdis Pilats

3

1 Faculty of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Latvia, Alberta Street 10, Riga, LV-1010, peteris.lakovskis@lais.lv (+371 29139987)

2 “Estonian, Latvian & Lithuanian Environment”, Ltd.

3 Nature Conservation Agency

Abstract: In undertaking the development of a new land area, the best method for implementing landscape ecology principles and knowledge is by way of the use of ecological landscape planning process. Recently in Latvia, such a Landscape Ecological Plan was produced for the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve. When the Landscape Ecological Plan was created, concurrently the biotic, abiotic, socio-economic factors and cultural heritage values were also taken into consideration. In order to make an effective analysis possible, a large number of spatial data was pronounced as necessary, as well as the need for carrying out a generous utilization of a wide variety of geographic information systems. The performed studies provided ample information about the historical changes of the landscape, the cur- rent situation, as well as gap analysis. They also pointed out the potential for further improvements. During the devel- opment of the Landscape Ecological Plan, the general public and other stakeholders were also involved. In order to define a desirable landscape structure, land-use and appropriate approach for the implementation of the Landscape Ecological Plan, also the opinions of communities were taken into account. The Landscape Ecological Plan is being applied when updating the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve Management Plan, elaborating spatial plans of the municipalities and producing forest management plans.

Key words: ecological planning, landscape management, biosphere reserve

Introduction

Today, in undertaking the creation of a plan for the development of a new land territory, emphasis, for most part, is placed first on satisfying human needs. In the process, not sufficient attention is being paid to ecological considerations. (Leitao, Ahern 2002). It can now be said without hesitation that to work up an all encompassing development plan and not to place proper emphasis or importance on its ecological as- pects, should be considered a distinct misuse of an opportunity, – a method that is unprofessional and, in the long term, will produce undesirable consequences.

Consequently, with an ever increasing frequency, strong emphasis is being placed on more stringent global environmental protection issues. A broad list of measures has to be born in mind in order to assure a territory’s successful long term development. In the process, the ecological landscape principles or

(2)

factors must be born in mind to govern the approach and must be scientifically applied in order to assure a general and long term success of the planning document.

Appropriate ecological plans have been devised for a number of types of landscapes. Here we can mention three examples: wetlands (Musacchio, Coulson 2001), forestry areas (Karvonen 2000, Pitkanen et all, 2000, Bell 2003) and urban areas (Opdam 2003).

Throughout the world, over a considerable period of time, a large number and a large variety of landscape ecological planning methods have been devised and applied. They, decidedly, are not in conflict with each other – their differences lie mostly in the inherent diversified territorial landscape characteristics and a large variety of ecosystem dimensions, which have been employed (Almo Farina 2006). The chief aims of a large variety of landscape ecological plans are that they provide biological diversity (Sanderson 2002); ecological sustainability (Mörtberg 2007); square management activities (Pitkänen et al., 2000) or proposals for ecologi- cally optimized spatial organizations and functional land use. In the realm of landscape ecology, up until now, considerable attention has been devoted to landscape metrification, however, quite frequently further action processes are not indicated – such as: devising guidelines, practical recommendations for landscape man- agement, etc. These afore mentioned aspects appear pronounced in countries, where human-altered land- scapes dominate and it is considered essential to restore or conserve natural landscapes (Opdam 2001).

Studies of scientific literature reveal that landscape ecological plans are rarely created in territories with dominance of mosaic culture-landscape, which structures, over the years, have developed in interaction between humans and nature. The landscape structures of Latvia were shaped in the last century (Mel- luma 1994, Peneze 2009), but today their transformations are still relevant, mainly due to considerable polarization and marginalization processes (Nikodemus 2005, Peneze 2009). The transformations of landscape structures, including overgrowing of agricultural lands and forest fragmentation, have been significant influences in the biological diversification of the landscape (Bergmanis 1999).

In this paper we generalize our experience of landscape ecological planning from elaboration of the Landscape Ecological Plan (LEP) for the North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve (NVBR). The aim of LEP was to ensure biodiversity conservation and heritage protection in NVBR. Its immediate objective was to en- sure the conservation of globally significant biodiversity in the NVBR by implementing a set of initiatives required to integrate biodiversity conservation principles and practices into the planning, management, and sustainable use of the Biosphere reserve.

We have focused on the overall landscape development aspects, but especially on the protection of biodiversity. The main problems, which we had to consider in the planning process, were related to data availability and their conformity to the selected scale, legal status of landscape ecological plans, defining of desired landscape structures and involvement of inhabitants and stakeholders, as well as a combina- tion of all of the aforementioned.

Materials and Methods

Research and Planning Area

The research and planning process was carried out in the NVBR, which is situated in the northern part of Latvia (see Figure 1). The NVBR was the first large area in Latvia, for which the landscape ecological plan was developed. The NVBR, established in 1997, was the only Biosphere Reserve in Latvia. The area of the Reserve is 4576 sq. km, which amounts to almost 7% of Latvia’s total land area. The NVBR is

(3)

adjoining the international border with Estonia, where it shares important wetland areas. The Reserve is inhabited by approximately 80 000 people. The Reserve was established to protect a biodiversity rich area. The territory includes the basin of the River Salaca with its tributaries including Lake Burtnieks, as well as a marine area to the depth of 10 m, along 60 km of the Gulf of Riga’s Vidzeme’s coast. The River Salaca is the fourth most important natural spawning place of the Baltic Sea salmon. The NVBR territory comprised to two independent spatial planning authorities, three administrative districts, two forest authori- ties, and 44 municipalities, at that time, each of them having its own development plan. The NVBR repre- sents two natural regions of Latvia – the Coastal Lowland and the Middle Latvia’s Lowland. The highest elevation in the reserve is 127 m above sea level with a landscape characterized by forests, moraines, drumlins, lakelands, rivers, wetlands, raised bogs, semi-natural grasslands, coastal meadows, and agri- cultural lands. Forests cover more than 45% of the Biosphere Reserve, and 15 % are wetlands. Also within the Reserve, there are 63 lakes greater than 3 ha in size.

Fig. 1. Location of NVBR

Ecological Planning Process and Methodology of the Landscape

The aim of the NVBR landscape ecological plan is to enhance the territory’s economic development, at the same time guarantying assurances to protect and preserve the biological and culture/historical values and treasures.

As bases of the planning process was taken the approach from “Forest Analysis and the Methodlogy Design” (Diaz and Apostol, 1992). The mentioned planning methodology was acquired and integrated in Latvia (Bell and Nikodemus, 2001), in developing the county management’s landscape ecological plan (see Figure 2). The landscape’s ecological planning process consisted of the following steps:

1. analyzing the existing landscape’s structures,

2. establishing the landscape’s biological, esthetical, cultural/historical and the economical value defini- tions and much treasured landscape categorization,

3. landscape’s flow analyses and planning of ecological divergence and networks,

4. landscape dynamics, assessment of ecological successions (those brought on by human intervention as well as those caused by nature),

5. utilizing the results gained from heretofore carried out research and landscape’s present functional analysis,

6. one or several desired future condition (DFC) structurizations,

(4)

7. opportunity, limitation and various development scenario analysis; structuring of an ecological plan for the landscape;

8. action-plan for construation in order to make the implementation of an ecological plan possible.

In the landscape ecological planning process, a wide selection of society’s interest groups, nature pro- tection societies, local administrations associations, forest protection agencies and others were invited to participate. Similarly GIS was widely used due to huge quantity of data and to provide interoperability of them.

Fig. 2. The process of landscape ecological planning

Structural Analyses of Landscapes

In Latvia as consequence of complicated mosaic landscape structures, matrices, patches, corridors and spot-types it is possible to separate the elements when working in 1 : 10 000 to 1 : 25 000 scale. In per- forming landscape mapping to the scale of 1 : 50 000, the landscapes were possible to separate basing them on the main matrices or a composite of matrices, not showing separate landscape patches. In the landscape structures were reflected landscape abiotical, ecological and socio-economical aspects.

In the case of landscape structures, the mapping was performed to the scale of 1 : 50 000, basing it on the land cover, land use, geomorphological and silt mapping figures. Basing them on land cover charac-

(5)

teristics, the soil fundamental landscape type characteristics were separated, for example: by forest, agricultural, mosaic, swamp and other landscape characteristics. In further research work, taking in con- sideration vegetation, geological deposit types of landscapes were divided into 34 separate landscape subtypes.

The Landscape Biological, Estetical, Culture/historical and Esconomic Value Definitions and Valuable Landscape Categorization

The categorization of highly valued landscapes was performed by a group of wildly qualified experts. In the ecological planning process, 33 index species of vascular plants, invertebrates, fishes, birds and mammals were selected. Knowing the acceptable specific environmental conditions for each species, and applying geographical information systems and utilizing forest taxation data bases, hydrological informa- tion, and available database relative to one or several other species distribution, landscapes or landscape structures were separated, which would assure biological diversity in the territory.

Landscape’s esthetic and cultural values are a significant landscape’s resource, which also assures a agricultural territory’s sound socioeconomic development. As the chief landscape esthetical sensitivity evaluation criteria was highly dependent on the quality of the landscape, the visual overall impressionabil- ity, and the landscape’s accessibility was identified (Bells, Nikodemus, 2001).

The culture/historical value determination was based on thorough research of the historical elements, characteristics of the landscape and the assessment of its present condition.

Landscape’s Flow Analysis and Its Ecological Network Planning

As the experience attained in a number of countries has shown, the ecological network has a number of purposes, for example: assuring landscape’s ecological stability, protecting species migration and others (Jongman et al., 2004). In the NVBR, as a primary aim in securing the ecological network was given prime importance to the species migration assurances.

Moving the aforementioned goal to the forefront was dictated by a variety of observed processes occur- ring in the landscapes: forest harvesting and fragmentation; reparation work on highways; wide introduc- tion of agricultural land monoculture development; all hindering free migration of the species.

Motivated by the results evidenced by the biologically valuable land dispersments; various landscape structural analysis; and the patterns observed from various animals relocations, a proposal was worked up for the creation of a two level (international and regional) ecological network.

Dynamics Analysis of a Landscape

In the interest of justifying a landscape’s multifaceted development and possible creation of a scenario development model, for the ecological planning purposes, a landscapes’ development investigation was analysed the results from under the research about forest areas (Tērauds et al., 2008) and utilizing a landscape metrix and natural disturbance (GAP) analysis, a 1930 and 2002 landscape structure compari- son was performed. In the same way, was analysed the subsidy payments of agricultural activities.

(6)

Analysis of the Functionality of a Landscape

Making use of the heretofore mentioned investigation results and consolidating the information concern- ing the economic activity (agriculture, forestry, hunting endevours, fishing, tourism, etc) and the population patterns and characteristics, a pattern emerges underlining the chief problems connected with the sound functioning of landscapes, preserving their positive values and enhancing their sound development in the future.

The Most Desired Future Condition Construation

All the steps taken with respect to performing optimum landscape analysis, for most part were directed toward defining the best possible and most desirable future landscape condition. That included landscape characterization considered as ideal for the specific case. The desired landscape condition can also be defined basing it on the expert opinion, on surveys conducted among local inhabitants, basing them on the judgments of the parties involved (Sanderson, 2002), and analyzing the possible landscape develop- ment scenarios, as well as also utilizing earlier established territory’s inventarization data. In defining North Vidzeme’s most desirable landscape’s structure, consideration was given to the ecological, cul- ture/historical, socioeconomic and area development interests. In the event some interests were in conflict with others, then priority was give to the ecological considerations.

Opportunity, Limitation and Various Development Scenario Analysis:

Landscape Ecological Plan Creation

In the landscape’s ecological planning period’s concluding stage, taking in consideration various legal, socioeconomic, ecological and other aspects, a desired or most suitable state scenarios were evaluated and prepared a proposal for the optimal solution in the landscape development. In order to take balanced decisions with respect to landscape’s management, also an evaluation of economic gain, profit and loss calculations, were carried out. The optimal solution in the landscape development was indicated in the map to the scale of 1 : 50,000 and also described each development zones development goals and action to attain it.

Developing an Action Plan for Implementation an Ecologically Sound Landscape Plan

In view of the fact, that in Latvia’s rules and regulations, there is no provision for working out ecological plan, in the planning process guidelines for the introduction of an ecological plan in the territotrial admini- stration area plans, especially in the nature protection plans and forest management plans, were pre- pared. Summarizing all steps of Landscape ecological planning process we divided territory in 42 land- scape units, which are classified in seven categories (see Figure 3).

(7)

Fig. 3. Categories of landscape units – 1 biocenters of international importance, 2 zones of the corridors of interna- tional importance, 3 zone of the biocenters of national importance, 4 zones of the inland waters and wetlands corri- dors of national importance, 5 the landscape zones with the high heritage value and aesthetics, 6 landscape zones with special requirements regarding environmental protection, 7 the landscape zones with the dominance of the landscape types without special requirements regarding environmental protection.

Discussion

The protection of biodiversity in Latvia as in the EU is mainly being implemented through Natura 2000 network. However, our ecological analysis based on the indicator species detection method showed that Natura 2000 does not ensure overall protection of the biodiversity of the territory. Protection of many species nowadays is focused on their habitats, paying less attention, for example, to abiotic factors or feeding conditions (Sanderson 2002, Naughton-Treves 1998). The categorization of highly valuable land- scapes was based on the realization that assuring the protection of biological many-sided protection un- dertakings on the level of landscapes. One optimal approach to the solutions, which would suit all species, would not be possible, the reason being, that each species has its own specific demands, because indica- tor species were selected or chosen from the main or focal species. Protecting these, concurrently also are assured the protection of other species (Lambeck 1997, Sanderson et al. 2002, Hawkins and Selman, 2002). During the territory’s assessment process, analyzing different aspects, we have come to the con- clusion that the landscape structure for areas with dominance of mosaic landscape is optimal for the protection of biodiversity, however, additional attention must be paid to the quality of the landscape struc-

(8)

ture (age of the forest stands, management of the agricultural lands, etc). An important problem for eco- logical functionality is the overgrowing of agricultural patches and river valleys, which management should enable.

In carrying out en all encompassing landscape analysis, not infrequently, contradictions between land- scape visual and ecological values and their preservation result (Frya 2009). In the NBBR serious contra- dictions in this regard were not observed, because the most important biological values in these in- stances, are associated with old forests and river basins and in many instances precisely the meadow preservation in river floodplane landscapes.

The research proved that EU agricultural policy played an important role in the change intensity and di- rection of the landscape, similarly as in other countries (Kleijn; Sutherland 2003); however, after analyzing the subsidy payments, one could conclude that values here are closely connected with the old forests and river basins and that landowners do not use available subsidies for the management of agricultural lands.

In the same way, rapid changes in the real estate ownership distribution facilitate the transformation of landscape and the decrease of the traditional landscape awareness (Palang et al 2006). We concur with Palang (2006) in the mentioned article that the biggest problem in the landscape preservation is to pre- serve the inhabitants in their places of habitat, assuring them adequate living resources and to assign functional significance to the landscape, which would offer economic benefits to the local residents and recreational possibilities to the visitors.

In the landscape ecology one must make an effort to achieve to the maximum extent possible, more in- tegrated approaches encompassing a variety of aspects (Tress 2005), therefore, residents and interested parties were included in the process of preparation of an ecological plan.

Within the context of the prepared landscape’s ecological plan, the survey conducted among the local residents, showed that the opinions in many instances deviated from the opinions of the specialists in- volved in the planning process. The most significant contradictions emmerged in connection with the attempts to enlarge the forest territories at the expense of arable land, which most local residents valued negatively.

However inhabitants constructively expressed their opinion about the ongoing landscape processes, problems and the desired state of the landscape in the inquiry, but some parts of its involvement in the planning process was extremely controversial. Contrary to the expectations, the inhabitants’ participation level at public hearings held within LEP was rather low, using as an argument “non-legality” (just recom- mendation) and the scale of the planning document. Different interested parties (forest companies, mu- nicipalities etc.) were more active in this process, however, concentrating mainly on their own sector and territory of operations.

One of the most complicated and, therefore, also one of the most challenging steps in working up the proper ecological plan was defining the desired aspect of the landscape condition. Even though the opti- mal landscape should reflect the common parameters specified by all of the interested groups, in practice, such a landscape condition is unattainable as common goals normally do not exist (Kaur 2004). The NVBR landscape ecological development plan also attested to this and, therefore, in this situation, a number of desired landscape optimal conditions were defined, and condition, which would insure im- provement to environment’s ecological quality levels and the improvement in the socioeconomic condi- tions was defined as a priority, since the ecological state’s analysis showed, that in many instances the deterioration of the socio-economic state, produced serious threats to the landscape’s multifacetdness.

An analysis of the opportunities and limitations was based on the existing actual legal document – the law, regulations and the local administration regulation analysis. Currently, the landscape protection and

(9)

development provisions in Latvia are being implemented mainly through spatial plans, since they are being approved as binding regulations.

Three level territorial plans were evaluated for the NVBR: planning region, district and local municipality plan. The research proved that the landscape protection aspects were being reduced or even made com- pletely disappear by each level downwards. Likewise, in order to accept weighted out decisions with re- spect to the landscape resource management, an economic gain and profit and loss calculations were carried out.

As we concluded, one of our goals was to develop guidelines for the enforcement of the landscape eco- logical cognitions and principles. The Landscape Ecological Plan was formulated to reduce the fragmenta- tion (Girvetz et al 2009) of the combined ecosystems and the disparity of planning throughout the territory and to promote the vision of the NVBR as a unified territory. Also, the reviewing the present zoning sys- tem of the reserve was an important task and part of the LEP, since the initial landscape planning and ecological zoning for the NVBR was performed as far back as in 1997.

The territorial evaluation carried out in the landscape ecological plan confirmed the existing present zoning structures, which previously had been developed without a detailed scientific study, yet, now, it significantly and in great detail confirmed the boarders of the functional zones.

In conclusion, we would like to state that the landscape’s ecological planning approach ensures a com- prehensive analysis of the landscape and its functions. The elaboration process of the Landscape Eco- logical Plan shows that the knowledge of landscape ecology is necessary and should be integrated into the practice of land management.

Acknowledgements

In this paper we have generalized the experience gained from developing the Landscape Ecological Plan for the North Vidzeme’s Biosphere Reserve, which was accomplished during the years 2006–2007 within the scope of the UNDP/GEF project Biodiversity Protection in North Vidzeme Biosphere Re- serve. The article includes the results of our further research with respect to the implementation of landscape ecological knowledge in practice, carried out with the support of a grant from the European Social Fund.

References

Ahern J. 1999. Integration of Landscape Ecology and Landscape Design: An Evolutionary Process. In:

Issues in landscape Ecology: 1999. Weins, J.A. and Moss, M.R. (eds). International Association for Landscape Ecology, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, p. 119–123.

Bell S. 2003. The Potential of Applied Landscape Ecology to Forest Design Planning. Forestry commis- sion, Edinburgh.

Bell S., Nikodemus O. 2001. Landscape Ecological Planning in Latvia. Riga: University of Latvia, p. 68.

Bergmanis U. 1999. Taxonomy, distribution, quantity and ecology of the Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina C.L. Brehm in Latvia. Doctor’s dissertation, University of Latvia, Riga.

Bonan, G.B. 2000. The microclimates of a suburban Colorado (USA) landscape and implications for plan- ning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning 49: 3–4, p. 97–114.

(10)

Botequilha Leitão, A., Ahern, J. 2002. Applying Landscape Ecological Concepts and Metrics in Sustaina- ble Land Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59, p. 65–93.

Diaz, N., Apostol, D., 1992. Forest Landscape Analysis and Design: A process for implementing land management objectives for landscape patterns. R6 ECO-TP-043-92, USDA Forest Service, NW Pacific Region, Portland, Oregon.

Farina, A. 2006. Principles And Methods in Landscape Ecology: Towards a Science of Landscape. Kluwer Academic Pub.

Forman, R.T.T., Gordon, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Frya, G., Odeb, T.Å. Velardec, M.D. 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9: 5, p. 933–947.

Girvetz E.H., Thorne J.H., Berry A.M., Jaeger J.A.G. Integration of landscape fragmentation analysis into regional planning: A statewide multi-scale case study from California, USA. 2009. Landscape and urban planning, 86, 205–218.

Hawkins, V., Selman, P. 2002. Landscape scale planning: exploring alternative land use scenarios. Land- scape and Urban Planning 60: 4, p. 211–224.

Hoare, R.E. 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of applied ecol- ogy 36: 5, p. 689–700.

Jongman R.H.G., Kûlvik M., Kristansen Ib., 2004. European ecological networks and greenways. Land- scape and Urban Planning 68, p. 305–319.

Karvonen L. 2000. Guidelines for Landscape Ecological Planning. Forestry Publications of Metsähallitus.

Kaur, E., Palang, H., Sooväli, H. 2004. Landscapes in change – opposing attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia.

Landscape and Urban Planning 67: 1–4, p. 109–120.

Kleijn D., Sutherland W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology, Volume 40, Number 6, December 2003, p. 947–969.

Lambeck R., 1997. Focal species: A mult-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology.

11 (4) pp. 849–856.

Lakovskis, P., Nikodemus, O., Beikulis O. 2007. Geographic information systems (GIS) – effective solu- tion in landscape ecological planning. International conference “Research and conservation of bio- logical diversity in the Baltic region”. University of Daugavpils Academic Press “Saule”, Daugav- pils, 64. lpp.

Melluma, A. 1994. Metamorphoses of Latvian Landscapes during Fifty years of Soviet Rule. GeoJournal 33: 1, p. 55–62.

Mörtberg, U.M., Balfors, B., Knol, W.C. 2007. Landscape ecological assessment: A tool for integrating biodiversity issues in strategic environmental assessment and planning. Journal of Environmental Management 82: 4, p. 457–470.

Musacchio, L.R., Coulson, R.N. 2001. Landscape ecological planning process for wetland, waterflow and farmland conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 56: 3–4, p. 125–147.

Naughton-Treves. L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12: 1, p. 156–168.

Nikodemus, O., Bell, S., Grine, I., Liepins, I. 2005. The impact of economic, social, and political factors on the landscape structure of the Vidzeme uplands in Latvia. Landscape and Urban Planning 70:

1–2, p. 57–67.

(11)

Nikodemus, O., Lakovskis, P. 2007. Landscape ecological plan of the North Vidzeme Biosfere Reserve.

University of Latvia.

Opdam, P., Foppen, R., Vos, C. 2001. Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning in land- scape ecology. Landscape Ecology 16: 8, p. 767–779.

Opdam, P., Verboom, J., Pouwels, R. 2003. Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecology 18: 2, p. 113–126.

Palang, H., Printsmann, A., Konkoly Gyuró E., Urbanc, M., Skowronek, E., Woloszyn, W. 2006. The forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe, Landscape Ecology. Volume 21, Num- ber 3, p. 347–357.

Peneze, Z. 2009. Transformations of the Latvian Rural landscape in the 20th and 21st Centuries. PhD Thesis, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia.

Pitkänen, E., Eisto, K., Toivanen, A., Kammonen, A., Mustonen, S. 2000. Landscape Ecological Plan for the State owned Forests in Valtimo. Metsähallitus – Forest and Park Service Vantaa, Finland.

Sanderson, E.W., Redford, K.H., Vedder, A., Coppolillo, P.B., Ward, S.E. 2002. A conceptual model for conservation planning based on landscape species requirement. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, p. 41–56.

Terauds A., Nikodemus O., Rasa I., 2008. Analysis of the landscape structure in the North Vidzeme Bios- phere Reserve, Latvia. Economic, social and cultural aspects in biodiversity conservation, Proo- ceedings of the 1st North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve international scientific conference of 23 No- vember 2006. p. 111–121.

Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20, p. 171–197.

Tress, G., Tress, B., Fry, G. 2005. Clarifying Integrative Research Concepts in Landscape Ecology. Land- scape Ecology 20: 4, p. 479–493.

(12)

Cytaty

Powiązane dokumenty

Non built-up areas (a) and together with areas of special conditions for buildings and development (b) in Poznań Source: Study of conditions and directions of spatial development

The paper shows recent development trends in landscape planning and management in the context of integration of landscape ecology knowledge into the spatial planning and

The analyzed guidelines for the land consolidation plan include directives with respect to terrain desig- nation, shaping of spatial order and land development, principles of

A more specific assessment can be obtained by means of sensitivity tests, which not only can contribute to focus the results on specific landscape eco- logical conditions, but also

The final product of characterisation usually consists of a map of landscape types and/or landscape areas together with relatively value- free descriptions of their character

It concludes the settle�ents with less density of people, lower concentration of industry and lower load of traffic lines. �he �ost significant negative i�pact is the �ining

is the chemical element danger (toxicity) index (according to the class of danger: 4,1 and more - 1 class; 2.6 - 4 - 2 class; 1 - 2,5 - 3 class); 1) Tf is a translocations index of

As examples - extension of the area of arable land in the Late Bronze Age caused by a relative overcrowding and accompanied by the accelerated soil erosion and