Cl�assi��cation and �ragmentation o� nat�ral�-ant�ropogenic landscapes for the purposes of the balanced spatial
organization of territory
Iryna I. Sc�astnaya
Belarussian State University, �insk. Belarus schastnaya@tut.by
________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract. �ctive anthropogenic i�pact on natural co�plexes has resulted in do�inance of “natural-anthropogenic landscapes” (N�L) in Belarus. �hey include both ele�ents of natural co�ponents and outco�es of anthropogenic activity.
N�L follow in their develop�ent first of all to natural laws. �t the sa�e ti�e attributes of their functioning and dyna�ics are closely connected with social and econo�ic circu�stances. Econo�ic activities of the population in different branches of a national econo�y essentially alter structure of land use. �he direction of econo�ic activity is a �ain indicator of classification of N�L in Belarus. Further�ore, classification of N�L is a source for detection of frag�entation of landscape structure.
�he syste� of classification units of N�L includes three ranks: class - subclass – species (vid). �he highest unit of classification - a class N�L – is defined according to such indicator as the �ain direction of econo�ic activities in different branches of national econo�y. We defined forest, agricultural, recreational, protected, urban and typical for a zone of the �ixed forests – agro-forest class of landscapes. �he proportion of various land use type is an indicator to deter�ine subclass of P�L (arable, forestry-arable and so on). �he species of a landscape considers a type of econo�ic activities within natural co�plex. �he set of species is defined (arable secondary-�oraine, forestry alluvial terracing and so on). �he degree of frag�entation of natural-anthropogenic landscapes is calculated on the basis of developed classification. For assess�ent of frag�entation of N�L the following coefficients were used: an index of division, coefficient of co�plexity, a degree of si�ilarity, a level of frag�entation of landscape contour. �he research has been �ade using Corel�raw10, �rcView GIS 3.2, Excel software, that has allowed to receive co�plex para�eters, which characterize contours of different land use (quantity, average size and the relative abundance within a contours of N�L). �he nu�ber of �aps has been �ade. �he areas with various degree of frag�entation are defined (�axi�u�, high, satisfactory, and �ini�u�). �hese results are a source of data for creation of develop�ent strategy for territory.
Classification of natural-anthropogenic landscapes and assess�ent of their frag�entation gives diverse infor�ation which can be used for develop�ent of alternatives for an opti�u� i�prove�ent of each species of N�L. It for�s a basis for the balanced organization of territory.
key words: natural-anthropogenic co�plexes, landscape diversity, landscape �etrics, frag�entation, spatial planning
Introduction
�he scarcely a landscape anywhere in the world can be found which has not been �odified by hu�an activity.
�nthropogenic, natural-anthropogenic and cultural landscapes are the �ost widely used ter�s for �odified natural landscapes in the result of hu�an i�pact. �ccording to �ilkov (1973) anthropogenic co�plexes should be considered as “new landscapes created by hu�an and also all those natural co�plexes in which any of their co�ponents including vegetation with fauna had influenced by hu�ans”. �ccording to this definition every area in any place of Earth can be considered as anthropogenic. However, the considerable part of the land was Klasyfikacja krajobrazu. Teoria i praktyka. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu. 2008, t. XX. 321-325.
not expoded to deep transfor�ation though the certain influence of econo�ic activity has been tested. Such landscapes, which structure and quality is basically defined by natural preconditions, do are called natural- anthropogenic (N�L). Natural-anthropogenic landscapes do�inate within the territory of Belarus. N�L include both ele�ents of natural co�plexes and anthropogenic ele�ents. Natural-anthropogenic co�plexes follow in their develop�ent first of all to natural laws. �t the sa�e ti�e attributes of their functioning and dyna�ics are closely connected with social and econo�ic circu�stances (�artsinkevich 2002). �he creation of natural- anthropogenic co�plexes results in frag�entation of natural areas.
�he frag�entation of natural territories is a spatial proble� resulted in division of territory on s�aller patterns.
Urbanization, agriculture, industry and transport infrastructure are the �a��or factors which enhances frag�entation. Frag�entation process often results in adverse ecological processes, such as loss of habitats for ani�als; loss of particular species of flora and fauna; occurrence of the barriers reducing possibility of freely
�oving for ani�als between various habitats and etc. �hus, the frag�entation results in reduction of habitats, increase in barriers and raise spatial heterogeneity. �he consequences of the process are the following: negative effect on habitats increases and also quantity of suitable habitats for ani�als and plants is reduced.
�he goal of the study is to investigate the particular features of structure of natural-anthropogenic co�plexes for sustainable organization of the area. �he ob��ect of the study is ad�inistrative region of Belarus (Brest region). �he �ain ai�s of the research are to develop classification of natural-anthropogenic landscapes and to produce the �ap of natural-anthropogenic co�plexes; to �ake assess�ent of frag�entation according to different indexes; to define N�L characterized by various levels of frag�entation and finally, to produce so�e reco��endations how to use natural-anthropogenic co�plexes in touris�.
Data and methods
�he classification of natural-anthropogenic landscapes of Belarus is based on the standard approaches, but also includes so�e differences that reflect regional attributes of territory. �he syste� of classification units of N�L of Belarus includes three steps: class - subclass – species (vid). � class N�L is defined according to such indicator as the �ain direction of econo�ic activities in different branches of national econo�y. We defined forest, agricultural, recreational, protected, urban and typical for a zone of the �ixed forests – agro-forest class of landscapes. �he classification feature of class of N�L is proportion of agricultural and forest areas within landscape (tab. 1).
Econo�ic activities of hu�ans within classes of N�L proceed in several directions. �he basic e�ploy�ent of the population within agricultural landscapes – agriculture and livestock far�ing, forest – forestry and forest regeneration, protected landscapes – the organisation of protected natural territories and realisation of regulations of their protection, recreational landscapes – creation of conditions for rest of the population and preservation of traditional types of nature �anage�ent for people who for a long ti�e live in these territories.
�s a result in each class of N�L the certain structure of land use is organized. �he relative abundance of various type of land use within landscape (arable, forest-arable, etc.) is the indicator for deter�ination of N�L subclasses (tab. 2). For exa�ple, the arable N�L includes areas, where a share of an arable land is �ore than 70%, �eadow-pasture – arable lands occupy 10%, �eadow – 70-90%, and etc. �he species of a landscape considers a type of econo�ic activities within natural co�plex. �he set of species is defined (arable secondary-
�oraine, forestry alluvial terracing, forest-arable �oraine-sandr and so on).
�able 1. �he structure of class of N�L (Schastnaya 2004)Schastnaya 2004)
�he structure of land use(%) use(%)use(%)(%)
�he class of N�L
�gricultural �gricultural-forestry Forestry
�gricultural areas No less than 80 80 30-50
Forestry areas No �ore than 20 20 20-40 70 and �oreand �ore
�he developed syste� of classification units allows �apping the natural-anthropogenic landscapes of territories at a different of scales. �he basic spatial unit to deli�it the natural-anthropogenic landscapes of Brest region is based on the �ap of natural landscapes (fig. 1a). �ll calculation of structure of land use has been �ade within these units.
Calculation of indexes of a landscape diversity of N�L includes �any indexes, first of all (Puzachenko 2002,
�artsinkevich et al. 2005, Jaeger 2000):
1) Area and perimeter of patches, 2) Patch numbers within landscape, 3) Number of land use types,
4) Proportion of different land use type within landscape:
(1)
Si – area of particular land use type, 5) Mean area of patches within landscape:
�able 2. �he criteria of subclasses of N�L according to structure of land use, % (Schastnaya, 2004)�he criteria of subclasses of N�L according to structure of land use, % (Schastnaya, 2004)
�gricultural landscapes
�he structure of land use
Subclasses
�rable �rable-cultural-culturalcultural
�eadows �eadow-arable Pasture-�eadow--�eadow-�eadow--
swa�ps �eadow-pasture
�rable areas >70 30 – 60 50 – 70 < 15 15 10
Forest < 20 20 < 2020 < 20 20 < 20 20 < 20 20
�eadow < 10 10 < 10 10 10 – 40 10 70 – 80
Swa�ps < 10 10 15 – 20 5 – 15 < 80 80 < 15 15
�gro-forestry landscapes
�he structure of
land use Subclasses
Forestry-arable �eadow-forestry-arable �rable-forestry
�rable areas 50 – 70 < 60 60 20 – 50
Forest 20 – 50 25 – 50 50 – 70
�eadow < 10 10 10 – 30 < 10 10
Swa�ps < 10 10 < 10 10 < 10 10
Forest landscapes
�he structure of
land use Subclasses
forestry Forestry bog
�rable areas < 20 20 < 15 15
Forest >70 70
Swa�ps < 10 10 15 – 30
Recreational landscapes
�he structure of land use
Subclasses Forestry-arable-
recreational Forestry-water-
recreational �rable-forestry-
recreational Forestry- recreational
Forestry-
�eadow- recreational
�rable areas >51 55-75 25-45 65-85 40-80
Forest < 49 49 < 20 20 51-70 15-25 < 20 20
�eadow < 5 5 < 10 10 < 2 2 < 10 10 20-40
Water ob��ects < 1 1 15 – 20 - < 5 5 2-5
Swa�ps - - 0.2-0.5 - 1-3
S i i S P =
(2)
n – nu�ber of patches.
�ll previously described indicators have for�ed a basis for the later calculations of indexes of a frag�entation of N�L, such as index of division, coefficient of co�plexity, degree of si�ilarity, level of frag�entation of land use patches within N�L.
�he index of division:
(3)
where: n – nu�bers of patches, S – area of particular species.
�he index characterises a frag�entation of landscape structure, through calculation of quantity of patches within the area of a landscape. � variation of values of the index of division depends on two indicators: nu�ber of patches and area of every patch. �hus, the values of index increase if the area of landscape is getting s�aller and �ore quantity of patches of different land use is increasing.
�he index of co�plexity allows defining a degree of si�ilarity between quantity of patches and the average area of patches within a landscape. High values of index of co�plexity characterise landscapes with a considerable quantity of contours and s�all average area of contours. �he index of co�plexity also allows to esti�ate a frag�entation of landscapes. Low values of an index characterise a high frag�entation of landscapes.
�he index of co�plexity:
(4)
where: S0 - average area:
(5)
�he degree of si�ilarity:
(6)
where: n – nu�ber of patterns within landscape contour, Ai – area of particular pattern,
At – area of N�L contour.
�he level of frag�entation of landscape patches is calculated according to the following for�ula:
(7)
�he level of frag�entation is reciprocal value of the index of si�ilarity. High values of an index indicate high degree of frag�entation of landscape.
n o S S =
S K = n
S0 K = n
n 0 S S =
) 2 n
1 i A A t i
( C ∑ = =
) 2 n
1 i A A t i
( 1
D ∑
− =
=
�he research has been �ade using Corel�raw10, �rcView GIS 3.2, Excel software that has allowed to receive co�plex para�eters, which characterize patches of different land use (quantity, average area and the relative abundance within N�L).
�he nu�ber of �aps has been �ade. �he areas with various degree of frag�entation are defined (�axi�u�, high, satisfactory, and �ini�u�). �hese results are a source of data for �aking develop�ent strategies at regional level.
Results
�he �aps of N�L for Belarus and the set of �aps of key regions, including Brest region, has been �ade (fig.1).
�gricultural, agro-forestry and forest landscapes are widely extended in the Brest region. �gricultural and agro-forestry landscapes do�inate in the study region. �gricultural landscapes are characterized by the large set of subclasses (5) and species (vid) (9). �gro-forestry landscapes also have difficult horisontal structure (3 subclasses and 12 species). Within forest landscapes extended in the south-west of the territory, one subclass
1a 1b
Fig. 1. �he �aps of natural and natural-anthropogenic landscapes of Brest region in Belarus
1a. Natural landscapes of the Brest region in Belarus ((rod): secondary-�oraine landscapes (1,2); fluvial-glacial landscapes (3,4,5,6); landscapes of alluvial terraces (7,8,9,10,11,12,13); landscapes of flood plane (14,15) (Schastnaya, 2006).
1b. Natural-anthropogenic landscapes of the Brest region in Belarus. Subclasses of N�L: agricultural – 1. arable, 2. arable-urban, 3. arable-cultural �eadows, 4. pasture �eadow-swa�ps, 5. – �eadow-pasture, agro-forestry – 6.
forestry-arable, 7. arable-forestry, 8. �eadow-forestry-arable, forest – 8. forestry.
and 12 species are distinguished.
�he classification of natural-anthropogenic landscapes can be used as a basis for the assess�ent of frag�entation (fig. 2).
�he assess�ent of frag�entation of landscapes helps to define N�L with opti�al structure. �hese N�L are the following – agricultural-forestry class of N�L (forestry-arable, arable-forestry, grassland-forestry-arable subclasses of N�L). �he co�parative analysis of all received �aps and sharts on frag�entation indexes has shown that there are areas of an opti�u� frag�entation which can be used for the organisation of protected and recreational territories in territory of the Brest area. �hese are agro-forestry co�plexes.
Fig. 2. �he assess�ent of landscape frag�entation of N�L of the Brest area according to index of co�plexity �he level of frag�entation: 1 – �axi�u�, 2 – high, 3 – sufficient, 4 – �ini�u�
Discussion and Conclusion
�he assess�ent of land use of landscape is widely used in landscape science (Richling 1988, �olyka 1999).
Classification of landscape is i�portant task for study and �apping of anthropogenic landscapes. �any classification of anthropogenic landscape has been developed. �he classification of natural-anthropogenic landscapes of Belarus is based on the standard approaches, but also includes so�e differences that reflect regional attributes of territory. Since �odified under anthropogenic i�pact landscapes are do�inant nowadays, it is worth to �ake assess�ent of landscape diversity not only for natural landscape but also for anthropogenic ones. �herefore, Grodzinsky (1999) proposed the ter� “anthropogenic landscape diversity”. He understands this ter� as diversity of land use types. Nowadays there are �any approaches are developed for landscape
diversity assess�ent, however the �ost popular – calculation of landscape indexes (Gustafson 1998). Each of the landscape indexes reflects certain property of spatial structure of a landscape that allows to describe a landscape structure fro� various aspects. �he assess�ent of landscape diversity is �ade within watershed, ad�inistrative regions and other spatial units. We have �ade assess�ent of landscape diversity within natural- anthropogenic co�plexes. We focus on the assess�ent of frag�entation of N�L. Final results of landscape assess�ent together with data about network of settle�ents and also indicators of touris� and recreational capacity of the region can be used as a basis for develop�ent of the sche�e of spatial organization of touris�
at the regional level. �reas of the �axi�u� and high level of frag�entation, as ele�ents of natural patches of territory, it is possible to use for the creation of protected and recreational territories. It is possible to develop ecological, scientifically-infor�ative and partially recreational and sanitary (health-i�proving) touris� on these territories. �he areas with lower levels of frag�entation can be used for the organization of rural and business, recreational and sanitary (health i�proving) touris� with ele�ents of agricultural touris�.
�hus, the classification and assess�ent of frag�entation of natural-anthropogenic co�plexes provide data to receive �ore infor�ation about the structure of landscapes. �hese data can be used in landscape planning to define certain options for sustainable develop�ent of the territories within each subclass and specie of N�L.
�herefore the results of analysis allow to create �aps of suitability of territories for a certain kind of activity and to reveal areas of the conflict of interests of various types of land use. Landscape indexes can help to �ake a pro�pt choice of a certain strategy for the region develop�ent. However, the set of indexes should be defined according to proble�s addressed within the region. Hence, natural, social and econo�ic indicators of territory should be carefully analysed to produce the strategy of balanced spatial organization of territory.
References
Grodzinski �. �., 1999. �iversity of landscape diversity. Landscape as an integrated concept of 21 centure,
�iiv: 34-35. (in Ukrainian)
Gustafson E. J., 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: What is the state of the art? Ecosyste�s, 1.
143-156.
Jaeger J. �. G., 2000. Landscape division, splitting index and effective �esh size: new �easures of landscape frag�entation. Landscape ecology. Vol. 15. 115-130.
�olyka L., Lipsky Z., 1999. �aps of present landscape. Geographie (Geography) Journal of the Czech Geographical Society, Vol. 104. 161-175 (in Czech).
�artsinkevich G. I., �litsunova N.�., Schastnaya I.I., 2002. Principles of natural-anthropogenic co�plexes classification �yna�ic of landscapes and proble�s and conservation and sustainable develop�ent of biodiversity, Belarusian State Pedagogic University Press. 90-91. (in Russian)
�artsinkevich G. I., Schastnaya I. I., 2005. �he landscape diversity assess�ent of natural and natural- anthropogenic co�plexes Environ�ental �anage�ent, 61. 98-205. (in Russian)
�ilkov F.N., (1973) Hu�an and landscapes. �usl, �oscow. 223. (in Russian)
Schastnaya I. I., 2004. Natural-anthropogenic co�plexes of �ahilew district Geography of �ahilew district.
�ahilew State University Press. �ahilew. 174-180. (in russian)
Schastnaya I. I., 2006. Landscape diversity of Brest region. Natural environ�ent of Palesse region: specific features and perspectives of develop�ent. �cade�y Press, Brest. 379-384. (in Russian)
Natural-anthropogenic co�plexes of �ahilew district Geography of �ahilew district. �ahilew State University Press. �ahilew. 174-180. (in Russian)
Puzachenko Y. G., ���akonov �. N., �lechenko G. �., 2002. �he landscape diversity and �ethods of their assess�ent. 98. (in Russian)
Richling �., Lewandowski W., 1988. �he �ap of landscape use. �iscellanea Geographica. Warszawa.
