Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, August 2015, Vol. 10, No 3, p. 25 - 36 ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN RURAL AREAS WITH HIGH ANTHROPIC PRESSURE – IMPACT AND PLANNING MODELS Radu-Matei COCHECI1,2, Raluca-Hermina DOROBANŢU1 & Cătălin Niculae SÂRBU2 1Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, [email protected], [email protected] 2Faculty of Urban Planning, University of Architecture and Urbanism „Ion Mincu” Bucharest, [email protected] Abstract: The environment in rural areas contains a great variety of resources. Anthropic transformations of the environment mainly seek to capitalize on these resources in order to ensure economic growth. In spite of the tendency in public policy at EU and national level to regard rural areas from an agricultural viewpoint, there are many rural areas which face specific anthropic transformations – this is the case of rural areas in mining regions or in metropolitan areas of important cities. The objective of this article is to comparatively assess the environmental impact caused by high anthropic pressure in a mining area in Romania (Motru- Rovinari) and an emergent structure (Bolintin-Vale – Mihăileşti area within the Bucharest metropolitan area), while also proposing alternative planning models to cope with these issues. The methodology used relies mainly on indicator analysis of the LAU 2 units in the two study areas, as well as GIS analysis involving CORINE Land Cover datasets and comparative mapping between the 1978 Topographical map of Romania and the 2005 satellite imagery. The planning models proposed cover approaches such as environmental rehabilitation, land use management and social entrepreneurship. The main challenge is represented by the need for a more integrated approach in the planning of rural areas. Keywords: Land use management, environmental rehabilitation, mining in rural areas, emergent structures, environmental impact, sustainable rural development, CORINE Land Cover 1. INTRODUCTION spaces or intensive mining operations (Ianoș et al., 2011). The consequent loss in ecosystem resilience Environmental characteristics and their can lead to irreversible changes in the development constraints on territorial systems can be regarded possibilities which remain open to future generations from two main points of view. On the one hand, the (Arrow et al., 1995). natural subsystem can either impose restrictions on a The environment in rural areas contains a territory’s development potential or favor certain variety of resources, with a great range of potential activities (Iojă, 2008; Montz & Tobin, 2011), as uses (van Leeuwen, 2010). These include resources for environmental conditions can prove to have negative agricultural production, physical space for residential or positive effects on the quality of life (Ferrer-i- use, biological resources for biodiversity or ecosystem Carbonell & Gowdy, 2006). On the other hand, the services like pollution assimilation and nutrient cycling anthropic pressures on natural systems, often caused (Hodge, 2001). Consequently, the evolution of by the desire to reduce the restrictive elements and anthropic processes in rural areas, strongly linked to capitalize on the favorable ones, are considered to be the capitalization of these resources, has led to the driving forces of environmental dynamics pressures reflected in environmental quality – soil (Petrişor et al., 2010). Anthropic interventions with a erosion, air pollution, and degradation of water quality, high ecological footprint can eventually lead to loss in biodiversity or decline in landscape character ecosystem collapse (Wackernagel & Rees, 1998), as (van Leeuwen, 2010). primary eco-energies will be most reduced in Land use and land cover changes can be quantity in the territories with the most profound considered an important indicator of anthropic anthropic transformations – like strongly urbanized pressure (Popovici et al., 2013). Consequently, land 25 use, as “the spatial projection of the historical agriculture in villages with this kind of function interaction between society and nature” (Ianoș et al., (Braghină et al., 2008), often leading to development 2012b), can be analyzed to reveal the dimensions of conflicts (Spasic et al., 2007) and a sense of social the anthropic transformations suffered in recent injustice due to the environmental harm suffered by years by rural areas. After 1990, political and socio- the local population (Morrice & Colagiuri, 2013). economic changes have had a strong impact on land Rural spaces under the influence of large use in Romania, with market forces having an cities represent another specific category. As increased influence in transforming rural landscapes territorial emergent structures which exert a high (Popovici et al., 2013). With the transition from state pressure on the environment (Ianoș et al., 2012a), ownership to private property, supported by Act no. the ecosystems of these rural regions are 18/1991 which encouraged the excessive transformed by two main anthropic processes, the fragmentation of farmland (Bălteanu & Popovici, demand for resources and the generation of urban 2010; Grigorescu et al., 2012), spatial planning waste (Tacoli, 1998), often influenced by population measures failed to control land use changes. This redistribution through internal migration ultimately led to environmental impacts and the (Bilsborrow, 1992). As geographical spaces which alteration of the social and economic structures of experience dynamic patterns of land use change rural communities (Ianoș et al., 2012b). (Niţă, 2012a), the management of the environment In Romania, there is a tendency in public in periurban areas becomes a complex task (Allen, policies to view rural areas especially from an 2003) as the administrative system does not overlap agricultural viewpoint (Sandu, 2005). While the emergent structures (Peptenatu et al., 2012). While environmental impact of agriculture, especially in its the specific environmental impacts of urban sprawl intensive forms, has become a major concern of the in metropolitan areas in Romania have been studied European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy – recently (Grigorescu et al., 2012; Cocheci, 2014), a CAP (Hodge, 2001; Piorr, 2003), the environmental great focus has been put on land use conflicts due to impact of agricultural decline leading to land urbanization (Ianoș et al., 2012b, Iojă et al., 2014). abandonment – with consequences reflected in As in the case of coal extraction, the biodiversity, landscape, soil quality and occurrence environmental impact on agricultural areas is also of natural hazards – tends to be less recognized in significant in the case of urbanization, with high- policy development (MacDonald et al., 2000). quality soils increasingly under the pressure of land Moreover, despite the fact that less-favoured areas demands of growing cities (Szilassi et al., 2010; have been supported through the CAP in order to Curran-Cournane et al., 2014) or subject to the maintain sustainable agricultural activities, in spite incoherent management of metropolitan waste of restrictive factors (Ruben et al., 2007), poor (Ianoş et al., 2012c). Derogatory planning forcing people living in these fragile environments often the on-paper conversion of good quality agricultural have to deal with poverty and resource degradation land to unproductive land in order to allow different issues (Ruben & Pender, 2004). residential projects (Tudor et al., 2014) has also been For poor rural households, land is the most a risk for valuable lands near sprawling cities. With important available natural resource (Reardon & a visible ethics of space deficit reflected in the Vosti, 1995). However, as rural populations tend to pressure exerted on suburban areas (Ianoş et al., be engaged increasingly in non-agricultural activities 2010), it becomes clear that new planning models (Tacoli, 1998), the diversification of activities is are necessary in order to cope with the rising often the result of anthropic processes with strong environmental concerns in emergent rural areas. environmental impacts. Rural development, often regarded as a In the specific case of coal exploitation, the multisectoral task implying both agricultural anthropic pressure on the environment is reflected development and equitably distributed social by processes such as ground stripping, soil erosion development (Gsanger, 1994), is considered or surface subsidence (Liao et al., 2013). Other essential for the environment and quality of life environmental impacts include reduced vegetation- (Rusali, 2013). In post-communist countries, in spite covered areas (Cuculici et al., 2011), increased of the importance of agriculture and the high level of background radiation (Cosma et al., 2009), low rurality, the on-going restructuring of rural stability of rock dumps, due to water from rain economies has received little attention (Chaplin et infiltration (Lazăr & Faur, 2011), or the profound al., 2007). The second pillar of the EU’s CAP has artificial appearance of local geomorphologic tried to support rural regions in Europe that are systems (Titu & Balazsi, 2007). Open-pit coal lagging behind through different rural development mining determines a restrained capacity of measures (Dwyer et al., 2007; Shucksmith et al., 26 2009). Nevertheless, new planning models and The objective of this paper is thus to instruments are needed, with the CAP considered to comparatively assess the environmental impacts of be insufficient