Cultural Landscape Essay
A cultural landscape is a piece of land that possesses natural and cultural resources related to an historic event. individual. or group of people. They are normally semisynthetic lexis of relationships with the nature and/or society or civilization. These can include expansive estates. public gardens and Parkss. educational establishments. graveyards. main roads. and industrial sites. Cultural landscapes are besides humanist plants of art. texts and narrations of civilizations that express regional and cultural individuality.
They besides present relationship to their ecological position. Human activities have turned out to be a major cause of determining most cultivated landscapes on the surface of Earth. Human. animate being and machine labour expended in utilizing the land can make outstanding cultural landscapes with high aesthetic. cultural and ecological value such as the paddy-field rice patios of south-east Asia. but may every bit good consequence in land debasement as is the instance in some parts in the Mediterranean.
The distribution of landforms such as steep inclines. fertile fields. inundated vales in a landscape sets the frame for land usage by finding factors such as handiness. H2O and alimentary handiness. but may over long periods of clip besides be changed through land usage. On the other manus. land usage serves distinguishable socio-economic intents: land may provide stuffs and energy through runing. agribusiness or forestry. it may host substructure. or it may be needed to absorb waste and emanations ( Haberl et al.
. 2004 ) . Landscapes can be seen as the contingent and historically variable result of this interplay between socio-economic and biophysical forces. During the development of cultural landscapes throughout the universe. worlds have developed adaptative land-use techniques and created specific forms of Fieldss. farmsteads. remnant woodlots and the similar that depended on both natural and socio-economic conditions.
In European agricultural landscapes. the long history of land transmutation has led to regionally distinct regular forms of geometrically arranged landscape elements. reflecting the historical and cultural background of the predominating land-use system of a part ( Bell. 1999 ) . The spacial distribution of ecotopes. the alleged landscape construction. has hence frequently been regarded as a mosaic of ‘frozen processes’ ; i. e. landscape construction assumedly mirrors the procedures which had been traveling on in a landscape.
This perceptual experience has even become a cardinal paradigm in modern landscape ecology. While many ecosystem procedures are hard to detect straight. landscape construction can be derived from function every bit good as from remote-sensing informations ; hence. landscape construction was frequently non merely used to measure the ecological value of landscapes. but besides to judge ecological facets of the sustainability of land-use forms ( Wrbka et al. . 1999b ) . The Influence Of Land Form On The Intensity Of Land Use Cultural landscapes have. in contrast to natural and semi-natural landscapes. particular features.
The perturbation government every bit good as the major stuff and energy fluxes in these transformed landscapes is controlled to a big extent by worlds. This is done by the different land-use patterns applied for hayfields. cultivable land or woods. Decisions about land usage are made harmonizing to the local agro-ecological features which are nested in a hierarchy of societal. economical and proficient restraints. Cultural landscapes can therefore merely be understood by analysing the interplay between biophysical and socioeconomic forms and procedures. Landscape Structure And Intensity Of Land Use
Odum and Turner ( 1989 ) found that the landscape elements of the Georgia landscape in the early 1930s had a higher fractal dimension than the elements of the same part in the 1980s. During the same period of clip the usage of fertilisers. pesticides and other agrochemicals increased dramatically. This illustrates that the turning human impact on the land may ensue in a landscape with diminishing geometrical complexness. Human activities introduce oblongness and rectilinearity into landscapes. bring forthing regular forms with consecutive boundary lines ( Forman. 1999 ; Forman and Moore. 1992 ) .
Assorted surveies suggest that the rate of landscape transmutation is a map of land-use strength ( Alard and Poudevigne. 1999 ; Hietala-Koivu. 1999 ; Mander et Al. . 1999 ; Odum and Turner. 1989 ) . and that the geometric complexness of a landscape in peculiar lessenings with increasing land-use strength accompanied by a lessening of habitat heterogeneousness and an addition of production units. Using the thermodynamic Torahs to landscape construction. Forman and Moore ( 1992 ) suggested that the concentrated input of energy ( e. g.
. by tractor plowing. works production. wildfire ) decreases the information of spots compared to adjacent countries and green goodss directly and disconnected boundaries. In other words. energy is required to change over natural curvilineal boundaries into consecutive lines and energy is required to keep them. The decrease of the energy input additions entropy and revegetation convolutes and softens landscape boundaries. This means that the ‘landscape structure’ . in the sense of Forman and Godron ( 1986 ) . can be regarded as ‘frozen processes’ . Landscape Structure And Biodiversity
Many studies show that species profusion of vascular workss and nonvascular plants usually decreases with land-use strength ( Luoto. 2000 ; Mander et Al. . 1999 ; Zechmeister and Moser. 2001 ; Zechmeister et Al. . 2003 ) . As the nexus between landscape construction and land-use strength could be established. form complexness as a step of land-use strength seems to be besides a good forecaster of species profusion ( Moser et al. . 2002 ; Wrbka et Al. . 1999a ) . Consequently. higher species richness in countries with high LD and profusion values can be expected.
The usage of form complexness indices as indexs for works species profusion is based on an false correlativity between geometric landscape complexness and biodiversity ( Moser et al. . 2002 ) . Obviously. this correlativity is non mechanistic but it is supposed to be due to congruous effects of land-use strength on landscape form complexness and species profusion. Moser et Al. ( 2002 ) gives a good literature overview about the drive factors responsible for the lessening of landscape complexness with increasing land-use strength. which resulted in the undermentioned cardinal findings:
* The bulk of landscape elements in agricultural landscapes are designed by worlds as rectangles with consecutive and distinguishable boundaries ( Forman. 1999 ) . * Outside boundaries of semi-natural or natural spots are straightened by neighbouring cultivated countries ( ) . * Increasing land-use strength is accompanied by a lessening of semi-natural and natural countries ( Alard and Poudevigne. 1999 ; Mander et Al. . 1999 ) . ensuing in a lessening of natural curvilineal boundaries.
* Intensification in agribusiness tends to increase the size of production units ( Alard and Poudevigne. 1999 ; Hietala-Koivu. 1999 ) . In add-on to that intensification of land usage on the production unit. e. g. . by fertilising or increased mowing strength. besides leads to a dramatic lessening of the species profusion ( Zechmeister et al. . 2003 ) . The description of the debasement of semi-natural and agricultural landscapes shows clearly the mutuality of biodiversity and landscape heterogeneousness. induced by closely interlacing ecological. demographical. socio-economic and cultural factors.
For an effectual preservation direction of biodiversity and landscape eco-diversity. a clear apprehension of the ecological and cultural procedures and their disturbances is indispensable. Intermediate perturbation degrees lead to a extremely complex and diverse cultural landscape which can host many works and carnal species. Landscapes. with ‘eco-diversity hotspots’ . can be regarded as intimation for ‘biodiversity hotspots’ . Landscape pattern indexs hence play an of import function for landscape preservation planning. The apprehension of landscape procedures is important for the preservation of both. landscape eco-diversity and biodiversity.
Decisions From a preservation biological science point of position. the on-going procedure of familial eroding and biodiversity loss every bit good as the replacing of specific recognizable cultural landscapes by humdrum ubiquistic production sites will go on. The biophysical features and natural restraints of the investigated landscapes are interwoven with the regional historic and socio-economical development. This interplay is the background for the development of a assortment of cultural landscapes which have their ain specific features. Geo-ecological land-units provide one solution.
This is of particular importance when the relationship of landscape forms and implicit in procedures is under probe. Works Cited Alard. D. . Poudevigne. I. Factors commanding works diverseness in rural landscapes: a functional attack. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999: 46. 29–39 Bell. S. . Landscape—Pattern. Perception and Process. E. & A ; F. N. Spon. London. 1999 Forman. R. T. T. . & A ; Godron. M. Landscape Ecology. Wiley. New York. 1986. Forman. R. T. T. . & A ; Moore. P. N. Theoretical foundations for understanding boundaries in landscape mosaics.
In: Hansen. F. J. . Castri. F. ( Eds. ) . Landscape Boundaries. Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows. Springer. New York. 1992. pp. 236–258. Forman. R. T. T. Horizontal processes. roads. suburbs. social aims in landscape ecology. In: Klopatek. M. . Gardner. R. H. ( Eds. ) . Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications. Springer. New York. 1999. pp. 35–53. Haberl. H. . Wackernagel. M. . Krausmann. F. . Erb. K. -H. . Monfreda. C. Ecological footmarks and human appropriation of net primary production: A comparing.
Land Use Policy. doi:10. 1016/ j. landusepol. 2003. 10. 008. . 2004 Hietala-Koivu. R. Agricultural landscape alteration: a instance survey in Y lane. Southwest Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999: 46. 103–108. Luoto. M. . Modelling of rare works species richness by landscape variables in an agribusiness country in Finland. Plant Ecology. 2000: 149. 157–168. Mander. U. . Mikk. M. . Ku. lvik. M. . Ecological and low strength agribusiness as subscribers to landscape and biological diverseness. Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999: 46. 169–177.