Landscape texture in anthropogenically transformed regions: The example of Upper Silesia and the Dąbrowa Coal Basin (southern Poland).

Pukowiec-Kurda, Katarzyna

doi:0016-7282 (print)

- ris
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Csv

Landscape texture in anthropogenically transformed regions: The example of Upper Silesia and the Dąbrowa Coal Basin (southern Poland). Pukowiec-Kurda, Katarzyna

Object structure

Landscape texture in anthropogenically transformed regions: The example of Upper Silesia and the Dąbrowa Coal Basin (southern Poland).

Geographia Polonica Vol. 91 No. 4 (2018)

Pukowiec-Kurda, Katarzyna : Autor

landscape texture ; landscape openess indicator ; open landscape ; mosaic landscape ; enclosed landscape

In recent years, we see growing importance of research on landscape texture, which enables scientists to assess landscape as to its esthetic (visual), planning, as well as ecological aspects. Analyses of landscape texture result in identification of landscape zones, classified according to their habitability, recreational potential and suitability for industry, which plays a crucial role for work on planning and strategic documents. The study area covers 12 selected municipalities of Upper Silesia and the Dąbrowa Coal Basin, which are highly industrialized regions. Combining an analysis of the degree of landscape enclosure/openness with an analysis of morphological diversity in the study area, the author identifies landscape texture units in accordance with the new, more detailed typology. This results in the emergence of 36 landscape texture types that take into account the land relief forms in the study area. For the needs of further analyses, these types are classified into three groups: open, mosaic and enclosed landscapes.

1. Antrop M. 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 67, no. 1-4, pp. 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4
2. Bell S., 2004. Elements of visual design in the landscape. London: Spon Press.
3. Bogdanowski J., 1999. Metoda jednostek i wnętrz architektoniczno- krajobrazowych (JARK-WAK) w studiach i projektowaniu. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Krakowskiej.
4. Brossard T., Joly D., 1996. Mapping the visual content of landscape: A regional approach by means of Corine Land Cover and digital elevation model. IALE International Conference "Landscape transformation in Europe. Practical and theoretical aspects" 12 October 1996 Warsaw.
5. Chmielewski T.J., Butler A., Kułak A., 2018. Landscape's physiognomic structure: Conceptual development and practical applications. Landscape Research, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 410‑427. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1314454
6. Chmielewski T.J., Chmielewski Sz., 2015. Podstawowe przyrodnicze jednostki przestrzenne, a spójność i stabilność ekologiczna systemów krajobrazowych. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 40, pp. 145-160.
7. Chmielewski T.J., Sowińska-Świerkosz B., Kułak A., Chmielewski Sz., 2014. Krajobrazy Roztocza: Dziedzictwo natury i kultury. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego, Agencja Wydawniczo-Reklamowa Magic.
8. Coeterier J.F., 1996. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9
9. Collinge S.K., 2009. Ecology and fragmented landscapes. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
10. Cömertler S., 2007. Rola terenów otwartych w podnoszeniu atrakcyjności i jakości życia miejskiego. Czasopismo Techniczne, vol. 104, no. 1-A, pp. 25‑34.
11. Dąbrowska-Milewska G., 2010. Standardy urbanistyczne dla terenów mieszkaniowych – wybrane zagadnienia. Architecturae et Artibus, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17‑31.
12. De Veer A.A., Burrough P.A., 1978. Physiognomic landscape mapping in The Netherlands. Landscape Planning, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(78)90015-1
13. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D.B., Montague-Drake R., 2008. The role of landscape texture in conservation biogeography: a case study on birds in south-eastern Australia. Diversity and Distributions, vol. 14, pp. 38‑46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00411.x
14. Hennig E.I., Schwick C., Soukup T., Orlitová E., Kienast F., Jaeger J.A.G., 2015. Multi-scale analysis of urban sprawl in Europe: Toward a European de-sprawling strategy. Land Use Policy, vol. 49, pp. 483‑498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.001
15. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Brown T., 1989. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 509‑530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001
16. Kondracki J., 2011. Geografia regionalna Polski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
17. Marcinkowski R., 2016. Intensywna zabudowa a ochrona walorów krajobrazu. Czasopismo Inżynierii Lądowej, Środowiska i Architektury, vol. 33, no. 63, pp. 263‑270. https://doi.org/10.7862/rb.2016.209
18. Miller D.R., Law A.N.R., 1997. The mapping of terrain visibility. The Cartographic Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 87‑91. https://doi.org/10.1179/caj.1997.34.2.87
19. Plit J., Myga-Piątek U., 2014. The degree of landscape openness as a manifestation of cultural metamorphose. Quaestiones Geographicae, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 145‑154. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0036
20. Plit J., Myga-Piątek U., 2016. Investigating openness of the cultural landscape – a methodological proposal. Geographia Polonica, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 129-140. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0050
21. Plotnick R.E., Gardner R. H., O'Neill R.V., 1993. Lacunarity indices as measures of landscape texture. Landscape Ecology vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00125351
22. Richling A., 1992. Podstawy metodyczne oceny wizualnej atrakcyjności krajobrazu [in:] A. Richling (ed.), Metody oceny środowiska przyrodniczego, Gea 2, Warszawa: Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych UW, pp. 45‑46.
23. Rogge E., Nevens F., Gulinck H., 2007. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 159-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006
24. Schmiedel I., Culmsee H., 2016. The influence of landscape fragmentation, expressed by the 'Effective Mesh Size Index', on regional patterns of vascular plants species richness in Lower Saxony, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 153, pp. 209‑220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.012
25. Solon J., Chmielewski T.J., Myga-Piątek U., Kistowski M., 2015. Identyfikacja i ocena krajobrazów Polski – etapy i metody postępowania w toku audytu krajobrazowego w województwach. Problemy Ekologii Krajobrazu, vol. 40, pp. 55-76.
26. Szulczewska B., Kaliszuk E., 2005. Koncepcja systemu przyrodniczego miasta: Geneza, ewolucja i znaczenie praktyczne. Teka Komisji Architektury, Urbanistyki i Studiów Krajobrazowych – OL PAN, vol. 1, pp. 7-24.
27. Śleszyński P., 2007. Ocena atrakcyjności wizualnej mezoregionów Polski. [in:] Z. Mikulski (ed.), Znaczenie badań krajobrazowych dla zrównoważonego rozwoju. Profesorowi Andrzejowi Richlingowi w 70. rocznicę urodzin i 45-lecie pracy naukowej, Warszawa: Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych UW, pp. 697‑714.
28. Ulrich R.S., 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397908705892
29. Ward Thompson C., 2011. Linking landscape and health. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 99, pp. 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.10.006
30. Wascher D. (ed.), 2005. European landscape character areas: Typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Wageningen: Landscape Europe, Alterra-rapport 1254.
31. Weitkamp G., 2010. Capturing the view. A GIS based procedure to assess perceived landscape openness. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor. Wageningen: Wageningen University.
32. Weitkamp G., Bregt A., Van Lammeren R., 2011. Measuring visible space to assess landscape openness. Landscape Research, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2010.549219