Comparative landsCape struCture studies for land use planning: przedborski landsCape park Case studyagata Cieszewska

Comparative landsCape struCture studies for land use planning: przedborski landsCape park Case

study agata Cieszewska

department of landscape architecture, Warsaw agricultural university Warsaw, poland

abstract

The optimum land use arrangement is the main subject of spatial planning. Landscape ecology gives theoretical and empirical base to understanding different spatial systems in structural and functional aspects of the landscape. The term „structure” has been considered by landscape ecologist in two ways. Distinguishing spatial land units (geocomplexes) based on abiotic features has been dominated in Central Europe.

Corridor-path-matrix model supported on distribution of matter, energy and spices has been evolved in US. Practical applications of landscape structure analysis use principles from both of the methods. The paper discusses methods of landscape structure studies and its potential application in land use planning.

introduction

An application of the holistic approach of the natural environment into spatial planning has been related to the sustainable development principle as a new base of activities in the landscape. The crucial role in this approach is the space division, determinated by landscape structure. There are different methods of landscape structure identification that inclined the author to undertake the comparative studies to find relations between them. The first section describes basic assumptions of the two landscape structure approaches - geographical and ecological. The following presents the case study - an application of two different methods on the proving ground in Przedborski Landscape Park¹ . The last section contains author’s conclusion concerning strong and weak points of both the methods.

theoretical assumptions

Landscape structure is understood as a group of elements determining and

1 Landscape Park has in Poland similar function as the country park in UK or state park in US

their spatial relationships. These elements may vary, depending on the approach to the landscape essence. There are two main landscape structure formulas in landscape ecology researches:

• geographical - where landscape elements are land units called geocomplexes based mainly on abiotic components;

• ecological - based on the patch - corridor - matrix model - with domination of biotic features.

Geographical approach presents landscape structure as a mosaic of geocomplexes (see Fig 1.). Arrangement of elements is related to the most stable components as relief and lithology, completed by land use. Single land unit called geocomplex is understood as a relatively closed spatial element completed by relationships and processes of its components (Barsh, 1979; Richling, 1992).

In ecological approach landscape structural elements are related to ecological principles (mainly island and methapopulation theories). According to the patch -

Fig. 1. Landscape elements as geocomplexes: 1, 2, ... - types of geocomplexes

Fig. 2. Landscape elements according to patch - corridor - matrix corridor

corridor - matrix model (Forman, Godron, 1986) the main elements composing the landscape are patches connected by corridors and surrounded by matrix background (see Fig.2.). The arrangement of the elements, based on ecosystem differentiation, influences the distribution of energy, materials and species. This order plays the key role in the mosaic, and complete landscape is a synthesis of these three elements.

Nodes understood as points of corridor intersections, or biocentres have supplemented the network.

Despite different assumptions, both approaches aspire to explain landscape structure in research and planning process (Chmielewski, 1988; Dramstad et al 1996; Richling, Solon, 1996; Vink 1983). As a result, different methods of landscape structure delimitation are used for planning needs. Although simultaneously planners expect complete formula to construct simple model of the environment that is based on homogeneous principles of spatial divisions.

first step - assumptions of compared methods

Geographical and ecological approach have a different glance for a landscape formula (see Tab. 1). The differences one notice in the main notion as geo- or ecosystem, as well as underline that they use different categories of the space. Patch - corridor - matrix model function in geodesy space, while geocomplexes are related to geographical space (Wolski - oral information). The main advantage of patch - corridor - matrix model is a functional aspect - it is mostly focused on relations between elements. On the other hand, map of geocomplexes give the spatial dispersion of most components not only land cover.

The main similarities of concepts are assumption of the holistic approach and a component of land cover - mostly simplified to land use. Also both used the same methods by searching: borders, shapes, heterogeneity number and configuration of elements but different elements. Both are applied in planning from local to regional

table i. Comparison of the assumptions Ecological approach Geographical approach

Differences Ecosystem Geosystem

Geodesy space Geographical space

Biotic components Abiotic components

Relations between elements Spatial dispersion of most components

Similarities Holistic approach

Component of land use/ land cover

Directions of research:

borders, shapes, heterogeneity, number and configuration of elements

Application to planning

scale.

These induce the author to define relations between varied approaches of landscape structure.

Simultaneously both approaches have some unclear factors. Geocomplexes as well as patches, matrix and corridors do not have absolute features to distinguish land units and one can differently determine landscape structure, dependentig on overall assumptions of spatial divisions.

second step - the overall assumptions

The spatial division of landscape elements should be subordinated to:

- Context of the area, - Aim of the work, - Scale.

Context of the area.

Independently of the methods we use to mark out the landscape structure, one should study the character of the area. Context of the terrain (if it is wetland or desert, national park or community) influences the features and components considered as a basis for landscape structure delimitation.

aim of the work.

The next basic assumption is the aim of the work - objective that is posed by researcher or the person studieng the landscape. An objective could be cognitive or practical.

Cognitive aim allows assuming almost any principle. For practical needs in that case for planning, one should consider only an operational aspect of landscape structure to precisely render goals of the plan (Pietrzak, 1998). It seems to be crucial for the implementation of the methods for example for conservation plan of national park with the main aim to protect rare species as wolfs, the delimitation process must focus on specie needs.

scale.

The last crucial problem is the scale. The scale modifies processes of the indicating landscape units (Barsh, 1979; Naveh, Liberman, 1984).

the questions

The research aimed at finding answers following questions:

 How does „look” the landscape structure in two different approaches?

 What are the main differences? Which elements will be common?

 What kind of advantages and weak points are in these approaches?

 What are the possibilities and limitations of methods?

 Which approach is „better” to explain the structure?

Case study

Context of the study area

The idea to compare two „drawing” of the landscape structure has been tested on one proving ground in Przedborski Landscape Park. It is one of over 120 landscape parks in Poland. Przedborski Landscape Park is located in central Poland

on the transition between lowlands and uplands with natural features characteristic for both. There are upland features as: range of hills 250 m height built of Mesozoic rocks covered by plant association with Fagus silvatica - Dentario enneaphyllidis Fagetum, falling gradient of main river Pilica is over 0.6 % and one can find mountain species of flora and fauna. Typical lowland features are represented in the Park by flat patterns built of fluvioglacial materials with dunes covered mostly by croplands with some extensive bogs, falling gradient of tributary rivers and streams is about 0.01%. There are 5 existing and 7 proposed reserves. In the ecological network (Econet) the Park was determined as an ecological biocentre - the area of high degree of biodiversity surrounded by buffer zone and connected with other biocentres by ecological corridor of Pilica River.

aim of the work

The main objective to protect Przedborski Landscape Park is to save its natural and landscape values typical for the region by creating the conservation system for reserves and natural monuments, and recreation access. For comparative studies - the cognitive purpose have been applied.

scale

The scale of research - 1:25000, has been related to obligatory scale for Fig.3. Structural elements of Przedborski Landscape Park

conservation plan of landscape parks in Poland. It seems that to fulfill the conservation requirements, construction of the landscape structure should assure the connectivity of natural elements to support the reserves (existing and future relations) as well as opportunity for recreation.

The general structural elements of the park are (see Fig 3.):

- the main axis is the range of hills;

- valleys of main rivers - natural borders of the Park;

- wetland zone parallel to the range of hills.

According to the patch - corridor - matrix model there are not only main corridors - ecological arteries of the Park but also nodes pointed to the intersections of corridors. For the particular sample the local node on the south - connection of arteries - the river corridor, range of hills and wetlands (the area covers a 20 km²) - have been chosen.

landscape structures

In geographical approach the map of geocomplexes have been constructed, based on classic principles (Barsh’ 1979; Richling, 1992; Vink, 1983; Zoneveld, 1990).

The basic components are lithology and land forms completed by land use. The effect is a mosaic of units, where dispersion of elements is not equal (see Fig. 4). Dispersion gradient is an effect of relief and lithology differentiation. The highest gradient, the smallest units - are on hills, while the most linear elements are valleys and slopes.

The patch - corridor - matrix model of the area has been also created basic assumptions (according to Forman, Godron, 1986; Forman 1995) based on ecosystems differentiation and connection between elements. As the matrix an agricultural fields (croplands) have been taken, which is related to the main objectives of the conservation plan - to find connections and relations between natural or seminatural ecosystem. As the result, there are not only landscape elements but also primary relationships (see Fig.5). Ecological values are supported by their connections. Corridors of railways and roads traditionally distinguished as the elements do not influence ecological relationships, they mostly disturb the structure, and act as conditions of patches then functions of the landscape.

Comparison

 The map of geocomplexes seems more detailed, it shows the litho-morpho-logical differentiation of the landscape that is important for the landscape feature as stability and also for the physiognomy.

 Potential of information included in geocomplexes map is crucial. For example the range of organic materials give better base is for the future connections between wetlands patches.

 The map of patches and corridors shows the existing relations and connectivity between elements - it presents the most important biological features of the landscape.

 The similar elements on both maps are connected with water - an obvious result of criteria and should be considered as a dominated skeleton of the landscape structure.

Fig 4. Map of geocomplexes of Przedborski Landscape Park (fragment)

Fig. 5 Patch-corridor-matrix model of Przedborski Landscape Park (fragment):

3. Conclusion

Both methods, that present landscape structure are complementary:

• the map of geocomplexes emphasize the dispersion of elements. It answers the question what is? and presents pure structure;

• the map of patch - corridors and matrix - accents relations and connections, and answers the question how is? It focuses mostly on function.

Because of the common criterion - component of the land use, some borders proceed similar for both maps.

Map of geocomplexes with mosaic of units explains the gradient of heterogeneity of particular patches as well as matrix.

Identification of the landscape structure one can proceed on two hierarchic levels:

(a) functional level - that present the structural skeleton of the elements. It gives the existing relation and main connections in the landscape;

(b) structural level - particular conditions of distinguished units in a landscape skeleton. On this stage the arrangement of elements determined by geocomplexes give detailed, information about potential of the structure i.e.

for improving the structure.

references

barsh H. (1979): W sprawie pojęć dotyczących powłoki ziemskiej i jej przestrzen- nego rozczłonkowania w terminologii nauki o krajobrazie. Przegl. Zagran. Lit.

Geogr.,2.

Chmielewski t.J. (1988b): O strefowo-pasmowo-węzłowej strukturze układów ponad- ekosystemowych, Wiad. Ekol., 34, 2.

dramstad W. e. (1996): Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape Architecture and Land Use Planning. Harvard Univ. Press.

forman e.t.t. (1995): Land Mosaic: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions.

Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, New York.

forman r.t.t., godron m. (1986): Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

naveh z., lieberman a.s. (1986): Landscape Ecology. Theory and Application.

Springer Verlag. New York.

pietrzak m. (1998): Syntezy krajobrazowe - założenia, problemy, zastosowania. Wyd.

Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań.

richling a.: Kompleksowa geografia fizyczna. PWN Warszawa 1996.

richlig a., solon J. (1996): Ekologia krajobrazu. PWN Warszawa.

vink a.p.a. (1983): Landscape Ecology and Land Use. Longman, London and New York.

zonneveld i.s., forman r.t.t. (1990): Changing Landscapes an Ecological Perespective. Springer Verlag, New York.