Case of Largest Lithuania Cities)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VILNIUS UNIVERSITY LAURYNAS JUKNA METHODOLOGY OF QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE TECHNOGENEITY (CASE OF LARGEST LITHUANIA CITIES) Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Physical sciences, Physical geography (06 P) Vilnius, 2013 The paper was being prepared since 2009 to 2013 in Vilnius University. Scientific supervisor: prof. dr. Darijus Veteikis (Vilnius University, Physical Sciences, Physical Geography – 06P) The doctoral thesis is defended in the Vilnius University board of Geography Science trend: Chairman: prof. dr. Egidijus Rimkus (Vilnius University, Physical Sciences, Physical Geography – 06P); Members: prof. habil. dr. Paulius Kavaliauskas (Vilnius University, Social Sciences, Sociology – 05S); prof. dr. Marija Burinskienė (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Technological Sciences, Civil Engineering – 02T); prof. dr. Inga Dailidienė (Klaipėda University, Physical Sciences, Physical Geography – 06P); doc. dr. Donatas Pupienis (Vilnius University, Physical Sciences, Physical Geography- 06P); Oponents: dr. Darius Jarmalavičius (Nature Research Centre, Institute of Geology and Geography, Physical Sciences, Physical Geography – 06P); prof. dr. Donatas Burneika (The Lithuanian Social Research Centre, Institute of Human Geography and Demography, Social Sciences, Sociology – 05S); The doctoral thesis will be defended in a public meeting of the board of doctoral studies of Geography science trend, which will be held at 14 o’clock on the 31th January, 2014 in the Great auditorium (214) of the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Vilnius University. Address: M. K. Čiurlionio 21, LT-03101, Vilnius, Lithuania. Tel. (+370-5) 2398285; (+370-675) 24937; Fax. (+370-5) 2398285 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract of the thesis sent on the 31th. of December, 2013. The doctoral thesis may be surveyed in the libraries of Vilnius University and the Institute of Geology and Geography. VILNIAUS UNIVERSITETAS LAURYNAS JUKNA KRAŠTOVAIZDŽIO TECHNOGENIŠKUMO KIEKYBINIO VERTINIMO METODOLOGIJA (DIDŽIŲJŲ LIETUVOS MIESTŲ PAVYZDŽIU) Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Fiziniai mokslai, geografija (06 P) Vilnius, 2013 Disertacija rengta 2009 – 2013 metais Vilniaus universitete. Mokslinis vadovas: prof. dr. Darijus Veteikis (Vilniaus universitetas, fiziniai mokslai, fizinė geografija – 06P); Disertacija ginama Vilniaus universiteto, Fizinės geografijos mokslo krypties taryboje: Pirmininkas: prof. dr. Egidijus Rimkus (Vilniaus universitetas, fiziniai mokslai, fizinė geografija – 06P); Nariai: prof. habil. dr. Paulius Kavaliauskas (Vilniaus universitetas, socialiniai mokslai, sociologija – 05S); prof. dr. Marija Burinskienė (Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, technologijų mokslai, statybų inžinerija – 02T); prof. dr. Inga Dailidienė (Klaipėdos universitetas, fiziniai mokslai, fizinė geografija – 06P); doc. dr. Donatas Pupienis (Vilniaus universitetas, fiziniai mokslai, fizinė geografija- 06P). Oponentai: dr. Darius Jarmalavičius (Gamtos tyrimų centras, Geologijos ir geografijos institutas, fiziniai mokslai, fizinė geografija- 06P); prof. dr. Donatas Burneika (Lietuvos socialinių tyrimų centras, Visuomeninės geografijos ir demografijos institutas, socialiniai mokslai, sociologija - 05S). Disertacija bus ginama viešame Fizinės geografijos mokslo krypties posėdyje 2014 m. Sausio 31 d. 14 val., Vilniaus universiteto Gamtos mokslų fakulteto Didžiojoje auditorijoje (214). Adresas: M. K. Čiurlionio 21, LT-03101, Vilnius, Lietuva. Tel. (+370-5) 2398285; (+370-675) 24937; Fax. (+370-5) 2398285 E-paštas: [email protected] Disertacijos santrauka išsiuntinėta 2013 m. Gruodžio 29 d. Su disertacija galima susipažinti Vilniaus universiteto bei Geologijos ir geografijos instituto bibliotekose. INTRODUCTION The relevance of the study In the context of landscape development, humans as an expansive, ecologically plastic and especially destructive species have been aggressively affecting the various elements of natural spheres transforming them and filling the space with new technogenic objects. For a few decades, researchers have been discussing the issue as to how the traces of human activity should be qualified in the context of natural environment or whether the anthropogenically created environment and its objects should be regarded as a part of the nature (Comer, 1997) or a foreign body in the natural environment, i.e. an expression of something artificial and unnatural (Hunter, 1996; Machado, 2003; Angermeier, 2000). The present study upholds the latter view. The choice of this position is based on the ability of humans to consciously perceive the outcomes and extent of their activity and causality of related processes what, incidentally, distinguishes them among other species of biological organisms. For this reason, along with the biosphere, i.e. animate natural sphere, the anthroposphere, referring to humanity with its social, cultural and economic environments, and the outcome of human activity technosphere, the whole of manmade technical devices, constructions and modified natural objects, are distinguished (Balandin, 1978; 1982; Rozanov,1987; 1998; Kavaliauskas, 2011; Kavaliauskas, Veteikis, 2004; Veteikis, 2002; Jankauskaitė; Veteikis, 2005a; 2009; 2012). The elements of the technosphere – the objects of various degree of artificiality or anthropogenic transformation – are unevenly distributed in and produce different impacts on the landscape. For this reason, in different spheres – such as landscape management and planning, conservation of natural territories and assessment of the state of geosystems and ecosystems – the development of methods and indices for determining the naturalness or artificiality of territories and their practical application have not lost its relevance and importance. Nevertheless, there exist a great lot of methods for assessment of artificiality/technogeneity or, conversely, naturalness of landscape. A distinct qualitative preponderance has been gained by bioecological and biological studies. Naturalness/artificiality in the studies of this kind often is only one of the conservation values and only very few studies present precise assessment methods and indices (Macdado, 2003). In some cases, only the theoretical premises for problem solution are mentioned (Anderson, 1991; Angermeier, 2000). Still other studies confine to qualitative assessment alone. Species composition of vegetation, incidence of invasive and indigenous species, potentially natural vegetation, degree of cultivation, etc. are only a part of qualitative indices of naturalness (Ellenberg, 1979; Blume, Sukopp, 1976; Grant, 1995; Edarra,1997 Jalas, 1995; Kovarik, 1999; Sukopp, Hejný, Kovarik, 1990). For unknown reasons, the quantitative evaluation is avoided. Among one of rare examples J. L. Ferma-Almanda‘s indices of naturalness can be mentioned (kilometres, number of roads or buildings per unit area of territories, territory under mature vegetation, area of conserved territories)( Ferman-Almanda, 2001). The given examples of evaluation of naturalness show a rather narrow range of possibilities to apply these methods. The employed indices are effective for evaluation of little anthropogenically affected territories with dominant components of animate nature. Whereas for determining abstractedly the degrees of naturalness or artificiality of anthropogenic territories or technogenic objects these indices are of little help. 5 Landscape geographers and architects in their research follow different approaches. Naturalness often is analysed through the perceptual prism (Ode, fry, 2009; Tveit, Ode, 2006; Palmer, 2004, Lamb, Purcell, 1990) and respondent survey methods are used for analysis of landscapes of different structural composition and anthropogenisation degree. The perceptual approach is based on subjectivity as it depends on the researcher’s or respondent’s opinion. The present study is important and relevant as an attempt to solve the issue of maximal objectivity in determining the artificiality degree using quantitative indices and methods. Objectives and tasks The strategic objective of this study is to develop a methodology for quantitative assessment of the degree of technogeneity of landscape. The main aim is to reveal the spatial distribution patterns of embodied energy as of an indicator of landscape technogeneity. Tasks: 1. To analyse the research trends of energy purposefully targeted at technogenic deformations of environment; 2. To develop a conception of embodied energy in the context of technogenic landscape research; 3. To develop a system of indices for evaluation of the degree of technogeneity of landscape through the amount of embodied energy; 4. To determine the specific distribution patterns of the indices used for assessment of landscape technogeneity degree; 5. To regionalise the landscape technogeneity degree in the reference territories; 6. To show the possibilities for practical and theoretical application of the developed methodology. Research object So far, the developed methods have not been employed for assessment of structurally most complex and technogenically transformed types of anthropogenic landscape such as urban landscape. Undoubtedly, in the urban environment few if any natural elements have survived. Yet there remains an open issue as to the degree of artificiality of newly developed or modified landscape elements, extent of changes in the transformed human living environment, and territorial distribution patterns of artificiality. The objective of the dissertation in a broad sense is: modern landscape embracing