Evaluation of the spatial policy of a commune with regard to planned land use

• Autorzy: Heldak M. , Raszka B.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Our study focuses on the subject of planning spatial development of communes within the context of protecting and using ecosystems. For the purpose of this article, within the context of planning the future spatial development of the commune, the following areas have been chosen: ones within which the ecosystem provides terrain for the benefit of humans, ones that people use as open landscape (altering them to a small degree or leaving them unaltered), and ones that people use in a way that compensates for the seizure of noninvested terrain and the alteration of its purpose toward terrain seizure. Research involved an analysis of planning documents determining the spatial policy of each commune with regard to the functions ascribed to the areas within each commune, as well as a statistical analysis of the results. Prior to research, a classification of commune terrain with regard to its current state of development was performed. Within communes in Poland’s Wrocław district the following planned function zone categories have been selected: Zone I – areas delineated for use by humans, whose development is related to soil sealing Zone II – areas protected from investment, often used in an extensive manner Zone III – areas in which humans undertake preventive and retardant actions for the benefit of the ecosystem.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2013
• Tom: 22
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.125-130,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Heldak M.

• Department of Spatial Management, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

autor

Raszka B.

• Department of Spatial Management, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. SOLON J. The “Ecosystem Services” concept and its application in landscape–ecological studies. The Problems of Landscape Ecology XXI: 25-44, Warsaw, 2008 [In Polish].
• 2. COSTANZA R., D’ARGE R., DE GROOT R., FARBERK S., GRASSO M., BRUCE HANNON B., LIMBURG K, NAEEM S., O’NEILL R.V., PARUELO J., RASKIN R.G., SUTTONKK P., VAN DEN BELT M. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253, 1997.
• 3. DE GROOT R.S., WILSON M.A., BOUMANS R.M.J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393, 2002.
• 4. DAILY G.C. (Ed.) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC, 1997.
• 5. CORK S.J. Ecosystem services. The many ways in which biodiversity sustains and fulfills human life. [In:] Food for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet, Internet conference organized by the Nature and Society Forum, 2001.
• 6. KREMEN C. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol. Lett. 8, 468, 2005.
• 7. LYONS K.G., BRIGHAM C.A., TRAUT B.H., SCHWARTZ M.W. Rare Species and Ecosystem Functioning. Conserv. Biol. 19, (4), 1019, 2005.
• 8. MAASS J., BALVANERA P., CASTILLO A., DAILY G.C., MOONEY H.A., EHRLICH P., QUESADA M., MIRANDA A., JARAMILLO V.J., GARCÍA-OLIVA F., MARTÍNEZ-YRIZAR A., COTLER H., LÓPEZ-BLANCO J., PÉREZ-JIMÉNEZ A., BÚRQUEZ A., TINOCO C., CEBALLOS G., BARRAZA L., AYALA R., SARUKHÁN J. Ecosystem services of tropical dry forests: insights from long-term ecological and social research on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Ecology and Society 10, (1), 17, 2005. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art17/
• 9. BRENNER-GUILLERMO J. Valuation of ecosystem services in the Catalan coastal zone. Doctorate dissertation. Marine Engineering Laboratory of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona. pp. 178, 2007 [http://www.tdx.cesca.es]
• 10. SINCLAIR R. Von Thünen and Urban sprawl. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57, 72, 1967.
• 11. BRUECKNER J., FANSLER D. The economics of urban sprawl: Theory and evidence on the spatial sizes of cities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 55, 479, 1983.
• 12. LOWRY I. Planning for urban sprawl. Transportation Research Board Special Report 220, 275-312, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. 1988.
• 13. HASSE J., LATHROP R.G. Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl. Applied Geography 23, 159, 2003.
• 14. CLAWSON M. Urban sprawl and speculation in urban land. Land Econ. 38, 99, 1962.
• 15. PEISER R. B. Density and urban sprawl. Land Econ. 65, (3), 193, 1989.
• 16. WEITZ J., MOORE T. Development inside urban growth boundaries: Oregon’s empirical evidence of contiguous urban form. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 64, (4), 424, 1998.
• 17. CARRUTHERS J.I., ULFARSSON G.F. Fragmentation and sprawl: Evidence from interregional analysis. Growth Change 33, 312, 2001.
• 18. HEIM C.E. Leapfrogging, urban sprawl, and growth management: Phoenix, 1950-2000. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 60, (1), 245, 2001.
• 19. BURCHFIELD M., OVERMAN H.G., PUGA D., TURNER M.A. Causes of sprawl: A portrait from space. Q. J. Econ 121, (2), 587, 2006.
• 20. Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil saling. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, Brussels, 12.4.2012, SWD(2012) 101 final, 2012.
• 21. STACHERZAK A., HEŁDAK M., RASZKA B. Planning Documents and Sustainable Development of a commune in Poland. Environmental Impact. Wit Press, Southampton, Boston. pp. 23-34, 2012.
• 22. HEŁDAK M., RASZKA B. Ecosystem Services in the Spatial Policy of Environmentally Protected Communes. Environmental Impact. Wit Press, Southampton, Boston. pp. 53-61, 2012.
• 23. HEŁDAK M. Planning Documents and Sustainable Development of a Commune. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 18, (3A), 100, 2009.
• 24. HEŁDAK M., RASZKA B. Prognosis of the Natural Environment Transformations Resulting from Spatial Planning Solutions. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 20, (6), 1513, 2011.