Roman KULACHKOVSKYY, Ivan KRUHLOV

VIEWSHED GEOECOSYSTEMS OF THE SIAN HEADWATERS BASIN.

The Sian Headwaters Basin (SHB) has an area of 1,190 km2, embraces low and middle mountains at the western periphery of the East Carpathians, and is a popular tourist destination. A viewshed geoecosystem (VGES) is interpreted as a geospatial socio-ecological model of a real landscape, which reveals relationships between the aesthetic value of the landscape view from an observation point and the morphogenic structure of the landscape within the visibility zone. Raster geographic information system (GIS) was applied to delineate eleven VGES using the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission elevation data, as well as landform and land cover geodata sets, which were obtained during previous studies. Firstly, morphogenic landscape units (microecochores) were generated via overlay of landform and land cover classes. The metrics were derived describing the variety and contrast of the morphogenic units within the circular neighborhood of 500 m radius. Secondly, outstanding landscape objects, which increase the aesthetics value of VGES were singled out – these are highest ridgetops and the lake. Thirdly, the viewsheds were delineated, and their extent was limited to a 12 km visibility zone. The visibility deterioration was considered as a linear function of proximity to the observation point. The integral aesthetic attractiveness (IAA) was calculated as a multiplying overlay of the morphogenic structure variety and contrast values with the visibility values within the visibility zones. The obtained results were increased by 5-10 % per each outstanding landscape object in the viewshed and standardized. To derive the specific IAA, the obtained results were divided by the visibility zone area and standardized. The highest variety and contrast of landforms and land cover were revealed in the northern part of the SHB occupied by low mountains of Sian-Rika Verkhovyna. The outstanding landscape objects are represented by the highest ridges of the northern part of the study area belonging to Polonyny medium mountains, as well as by the Solinske Lake. The largest visibility zone of 115 km2 has the VGES of Polonyna Tsarynska Mnt., while the smallest – of Besiada Mnt (41 km2). The highest absolute and specific IAA has the viewshed of Yavir Mnt located in the low-mountain northern part of the SHB. The lowest IAA values are obtained for the viewshed of Ravka Mnt located at the southern periphery of the study area in the medium mountains. It turned out that low-mountain viewsheds are more aesthetically attractive than those of the medium mountains.

Key words: geographic information systems, visibility zone, land cover, landforms, integral aesthetics attractiveness.

References:

  1. Hnylko O. M. Tektonichne raionuvannia Karpat u svitli tereinovoi tektoniky / O. M. Hnylko // Heodynamika.– 2011. – # 1 (10). – S. 47–57.
  2. Hrodzynskyi M.D. Estetyka landshaftu: Navchalnyi posibnyk. / M.D. Hrodzynskyi, O.V. Savytska. – K.: Vydavnycho-polihrafichnyi tsentr “Kyivskyi universytet”, 2005. – 183 s.
  3. Klapchuk V. M. Peizazhna otsinka Ukrainskykh Karpat (na prykladi okremykh pryrodnykh obiektiv) / V. M. Klapchuk, I. Yu. Brodiak // Karpatskyi krai. – 2013. – # 1. – S. 58-77.
  4. Korol O.D. Otsinka potentsialu pryrodno-rekreatsiinykh resursiv / O.D. Korol, Zh.I. Buchko // Problemy heohrafii ta menedzhmentu turyzmu. – Chernivtsi: Ruta, 2006. – S.153-165.
  5. Kruhlov I. Pryrodni heoekosystemy Baseinu Verkhnoho Zakhidnoho Buhu /I.S. Kruhlov //. Nauk. zap. Ternopil. ped. un-tu. Seriia: heohr. – 2015. – # 39. – S. 165–173.
  6. Kruhlov I. Delimitatsiia, metryzatsiia ta klasyfikatsiia morfohennykh ekorehioniv Ukrainskykh Karpat/ I.S. Kruhlov // Ukr. heohr. zhurn. – 2008. – # 3. – S. 59–68.
  7. Kruhlov I. Landshaft yak heoekosystema / I.S. Kruhlov // Visnyk Lviv. un-tu. Seriia heohr. – 2006. – # 33. – S. 186–193.
  8. Kruhlov. I.S. Heoekolohiia yak transdystsyplinarna nauka pro heoekosystemy / I.S. Kruhlov // Fiz. heohr. ta heomorf. – 2005. – # 47. – S. 100–107.
  9. Kulachkovskyi R.I. Napivavtomatyzovana delimitatsiia prostorovoho karkasu pryrodnykh morfohennykh heoekosystem okolyts Biosfernoho rezervatu “Skhidni Karpaty.” /R.I. Kulachkovskyi, I.S. Kruhlov // Heodeziia, kartohrafiia i aerofotoznimannia. – 2008. – # 70. – S. 51–58.
  10. Rozhko I. M. Rekreatsiina otsinka hirskykh pryrodnykh terytorialnykh kompleksiv dlia potreb turyzmu (na prykladi Ukrainskykh Karpat):avtoref. dys. na zdobuttia nauk. stupenia kand. heohr. nauk. /I.M. Rozhko. Lviv, 2000. – 21 s.
  11. Bagstad K.J. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services /[ K.J. Bagstad, G.W. Johnson, B. Voigt, F. Villa ]// Ecosystem Services, Special Issue on Mapping and Modelling Ecosystem Services. – 2013. – 4. – P. 117–125.
  12. Bourassa S.C. The aesthetics of landscape / S.C. Bourassa. – London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1991. – 256 p.
  13. Casado-Arzuaga I. Mapping recreation and aesthetic value of ecosystems in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt (northern Spain) to support landscape planning /[I. Casado-Arzuaga, M. Onaindia,I. Madariaga, P.H. Verburg ]// Landscape Ecol. – 2013. – 29. – P. 1393–1405.
  14. Chang, K.-T. 2013. Introduction to Geographic Information Systems / Kang-Tsung Chang . – New York: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering, 2013. – 425 p.
  15. Duda-Gromada, K. Charakterystyka ruchu turystycznego wokół wybranych zbiorników retencyjnych w Polsce. /K. Duda-Gromada // Prace Geograficzne, 2009. – 121. – S. 87–95.
  16. Forczek-Brataniec U. Krajobraz widziany z bieszczadzkich dróg. Studium i koncepcja ochrony walorów widokowych / U. Forczek-Brataniec, P. Nosalska // Roczniki bieszczadzkie, 2011. – 19. – S. 355–370.
  17. Ecosystem services – concept, methods and case studies /[ K. Grunewald, O. Bastian (Editors)]. – Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2015. – 312 p.
  18. Jarvis A. Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4 [Electronic resource]/[ A. Jarvis, H.I. Reuter, A. Nelson, E. Guevara]. – 2008. – [Cited 2008, 2 Mar.]. – Available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.
  19. Kuemmerle T. Cross-border comparison of land cover and landscape pattern in Eastern Europe using a hybrid classification technique /T. Kuemmerle, V.C. Radeloff, K. Perzanowski, P. Hostert // Remote Sensing of Environment, 2006. – 103. – P. 449–464.
  20. Löffler J. Landscape complexes /J. Löffler // Development and Perspectives of Landscape Ecology; O. Bastian & U. Steinhardt (Eds.). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer, 2002. – P. 58—68.
  21. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. – 2 edition –. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. – 137 p.
  22. Poudyal N.C. Realizing the economic value of a forested landscape in a viewshed /[ N.C. Poudyal, D.G. Hodges, J. Fenderson, W. Tarkington ]// Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 2010. – 34. – P. 72–78.
  23. Uuemaa E. Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review / E. Uuemaa, Ü. Mander, R. Marja // Ecological Indicators, 2013. – 28. – P. 100–106.
  24. Winnicki T. Przyroda Bieszczadzkiego Parku Narodowego. XXX lat Bieszczadzkiego Parku Narodowego 1973–2003 / T. Winnicki, B. Zemanek. – Ustrzyki Dolne, 2003. – 176 s.
Full text:

PDF