FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA 2013 (22), LV., pp. 81-94

Pamäte Kultúrnej Krajiny ako Nástroje Jej Hodnotenia

Memories of Cultural Landscape as Tools of Its Assessment

Ján Oťaheľ A*, Róbert Pazúr B

Received: May 10, 2013 | Revised: June 30, 2013 | Accepted: September 10, 2013

A* Institute of Geography SAS, Štefánikova 49, 814 73 Bratislava, Slovakia
otahel@savba.sk (corresponding author)
B Institute of Geography SAS, Štefánikova 49, 814 73 Bratislava, Slovakia
pazurrobert@gmail.com

PDF FULL TEXT

Abstract

Cultural landscape is the legacy and product of long-term land use by our ancestors and their relationship to natural assets and historical conditions (stages) of the landscape. Identifying developmental stages and landscape memory layers enables an assessment of the human relationship to the landscape in the context of appropriate possibilities and proposals for further development. Suitable assessment tools include documents of natural-spatial conditions (geoecological memory) and historical land use patterns. This paper aims to highlight the significance of time-spatial records (documents) concerning the development of cultural landscapes for assessing spatial organization, diversity, stability (persistence) of land use, ecological stability, the character of changes, and human impacts on the landscape in selected regions (districts of Skalica and Prešov).

Key words: Cultural landscape, geoecological and cultural-historical memories, landscape diversity

Summary

Memories of Cultural Landscape as Tools of Its Assessment

Landscape is the result of substance-energy processes and interactions of contacting spheres (from the lithosphere to the atmosphere) around the Earth’s surface, which endow it with its natural character. Humans have modeled, cultivated, and recreated the natural landscape, eventually creating a new landscape sphere referred to as the cultural (humanized) landscape.

The heritage of the cultural landscape is inscribed in memories (documents), which can be differentiated into a sequence of material layers: the substance-energetic base of the natural landscape (geoecological memory) and the time-physical layers of the cultural landscape (historic physical memories). Immaterial effects of the cultural landscape can be identified through socio-economic functions, physiognomic traits of the landscape and their aesthetic effects, the spiritual legacy/message of historical circumstances, and the identity of the landscape (cultural and information memories).

Records of the material condition of the landscape can be verified using relatively objective documents such as maps of the natural landscape base, historical maps of land use, and aerial and satellite images. These documents also serve as effective tools for assessing the spatial organization of the landscape and were applied in the examples of the districts of Skalica and Prešov. Maps of natural landscape types were processed using geoecological methods at regional scales. Historical stages of land use were analyzed based on data layers of Slovakia’s land cover generated by the CLC method at a scale of 1:100,000 for 1990, 2000, and 2006 (CLC 1990, CLC2000, and CLC2006 databases).

Landscape diversity was computed using the Shannon index, based on the occurrence and area size of land cover classes in types of natural landscapes. Results point to the fragmentation (structural diversity) of the landscape, influenced by the diversity of the natural landscape and the ways and rate of its current use. Socio-economic functions, particularly their legal documents, are key regulators of economic plans and the eco-stabilizing capacity of the landscape. Nature and landscape conservation documents, as well as those concerning protective zones for water and medicinal sources, were fully respected when assessing the ecological stability of the cultural landscape in the Skalica district.

The stability of long-term land use was analyzed using forest areas as an example, identifying relatively stable (persistent) areas through the overlay of all data layers (natural landscape, CLC1990, CLC2000, and CLC2006) and comparing them with historical maps. The character of changes was interpreted within the context of methodological procedures, and the identified types were assessed based on the rate of human impact on the landscape. The human impact rate was differentiated into five grades, expressed by graded grey hues on the map, with the most intensive effect (5th grade) represented in black, indicating the irreversibility of changes due to the development of settlements, industrial, or transport areas.

Documents about the development and changes in physical landscape conditions are a primary requirement for validating the results of spatial analysis and assessment. However, planning a region’s development requires knowledge of the cultural memory of the landscape as inscribed in its physical objects, as well as the capacity to correctly decipher the memory information codes.

REFERENCES

  1. Antonson, H. (2009): Landscapes with history: Addressing shortcomings in Swedish EIAs. *Land Use Policy*, Vol. 26, s. 704–714.
  2. Balej, M., Raška, P., Anděl, J., Chvátalová, A. (2010): Memory of a landscape – a formative component of regional identity? In: Anděl, J. et al. (eds.): *Landscape Modelling: Geographical Space, Transformation and Future Scenarios*. Springer Netherlands, Amsterdam, s. 107–121.
  3. Bičík, I., Jeleček, L., Štěpánek, V. (2001): Land-use changes and their social driving forces in Czechia in the 19th and 20th centuries. *Land Use Policy*, Vol. 18, s. 65–73.
  4. Boltižiar, M., Olah, B., Petrovič, F. (2006): Zmeny využitia krajiny vybranej časti Biosférickej rezervácie Tatry v rokoch 1772–2003. In: *Geografické informácie 11*. Fakulta prírodných vied UKF, Nitra, s. 239–256.
  5. Bossard, M., Feranec, J., Oťaheľ, J. (2000): *CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide – Addendum 2000*. Technical Report No. 40, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
  6. Cebecauerová, M. (2007): *Analýza a hodnotenie zmien štruktúry krajiny (na príklade časti Borskej nížiny a Malých Karpát)*. *Geographia Slovaca*, 24, Bratislava: Geografický ústav SAV.
  7. Cílek, V. (2007): *Krajiny vnitřní a vnější*. 2. doplnené vydanie, Praha: Dokořán.
  8. Drdoš, J. (2004): *Geoekológia a environmentalistika. I. časť. Geoekológia/krajinná ekológia, jej environmentálne poslanie a úlohy*. Prešov: FHPV PU.
  9. Drdoš, J., Oťaheľ, J. (2007): Landscape as research subject. In: *Landscape Ecology in Slovakia: Development, Current State and Perspectives*. Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic, Slovak Association for Landscape Ecology, s. 91–96.
  10. Hanušin, J., Oťaheľ, J. (2013): Kultúrna krajina podmalokarpatského regiónu: geoekologická a kultúrno-historická pamäť – problémy, zachovanie a rozvoj. *Geographia Cassoviensis*, Vol. 7, No. 2, s. 13–21.
  11. Hartshorne, R. (1939): *The Nature of Geography*. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Association of American Geographers, 402 s.
  12. Haase, D., Walz, U., Neubert, M., Rosenberg, M. (2007): Changes to Central European landscapes – Analysis of historical maps to approach current environmental issues, examples from Saxony, Central Germany. *Land Use Policy*, Vol. 24, s. 248–268.
  13. Heymann, Y., Steenmans, Ch., Croissille, G., Bossard, M. (1994): *CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide*. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  14. Hromádka, J. (1943): *Všeobecný zemepis Slovenska*. Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied a umení.
  15. Ivanová, M. (2013): *Zmeny krajinnej pokrývky zázemia Zemplínskej šíravy v rokoch 1956–2009*. Prešov: Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej univerzity.
  16. Lukniš, M. (1977): *Geografia krajiny Jura pri Bratislave*. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského.
  17. Feranec, J., Oťaheľ, J. (2001): *Krajinná pokrývka Slovenska*. Bratislava: Veda.
  18. Feranec, J., Cebecauer, T., Oťaheľ, J., Šúri, M. (2002): Methodological aspects of landscape changes detection and analysis in Slovakia applying the CORINE land cover database. *Geografický časopis*, Vol. 54, s. 271–288.
  19. Feranec, J., Oťaheľ, J., Kopecká, M., Pazúr, R. (2013): Možnosti využitia údajov diaľkového prieskumu Zeme pri výskume krajiny. *Životné prostredie*, Vol. 47, No. 1, s. 19–23.
  20. Frondoni, R., Mollo, B., Capotorti, G. (2011): A landscape analysis of land cover change in the Municipality of Rome (Italy): Spatial-temporal characteristics and ecological implications of land cover transitions from 1954 to 2001. *Landscape and Urban Planning*, Vol. 100, s. 117–128.
  21. Jansen, F., Zerbe, S., Succow, M. (2009): Changes in landscape naturalness derived from a historical land register – A case study from NE Germany. *Landscape Ecology*, Vol. 24, s. 185–198.
  22. Jarošová, A., Buzássyová, K. (eds.) (2011): *Slovník súčasného slovenského jazyka. H – L*. Bratislava: Veda.
  23. Jurko, A. (1990): *Ekologické a socioekonomické hodnotenie vegetácie*. Bratislava: Príroda.
  24. Mazúr, E., Krippel, E., Porubský, A., Tarábek, K. (1980): Geoekologické (prírodné krajinné) typy 1:500 000. In: Mazúr, E. (ed.): *Atlas Slovenskej socialistickej republiky*. Bratislava: Slovenská akadémia vied a Slovenský úrad geodézie a kartografie, s. 98–99.
  25. Michalko, J., Berta, J., Magic, D. (1986): *Geobotanická mapa ČSSR. Slovenská socialistická republika*. Bratislava: Veda.
  26. Minár, J. et al. (2001): *Geoekologický (komplexný fyzickogeografický) výskum a mapovanie vo veľkých mierkach*. Bratislava: Prírodovedecká fakulta UK.
  27. Oťaheľ, J. (1996): Krajina – pojem a vnem. *Geografický časopis*, Vol. 48, s. 241–253.
  28. Oťaheľ, J., Poláčik, Š. (1987): *Krajinná syntéza Liptovskej kotliny*. Edícia vedy o Zemi a vesmíre, Bratislava: Veda.
  29. Oťaheľ, J., Feranec, J., Cebecauer, T., Pravda, J., Husár, K. (2004): *Krajinná štruktúra okresu Skalica: hodnotenie zmien, diverzity a stability*. *Geographia Slovaca*, 19, Bratislava: Geografický ústav SAV.
  30. Oťaheľ, J., Husár, K., Feranec, J. (2012): Kartografická interpretácia zmien krajiny na príklade okresu Prešov. In: Feranec, J., Fencík, R., Nemcová, P. (eds.): *Aktivity v kartografii: zborník referátov zo seminára*. Bratislava: Kartografická spoločnosť SR, Geografický ústav SAV, s. 137–151.
  31. Tüxen, R. (1956): Die heutige potentielle natürliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Vegetationskartierung. *Angewandte Pflanzensoziologie*, 13, s. 5–42.
  32. Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M. (2009): Indicators for assessing changing landscape character of cultural landscapes in Flanders (Belgium). *Land Use Policy*, Vol. 26, s. 901–910.
  33. Žigrai, F. (1972): Niekoľko úvah o pojme, definícii a členení kultúrnej krajiny. *Geografický časopis*, Vol. 23, s. 50–62.