prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 1-2/2020 str. 62     <-- 62 -->        PDF

In the Recreation domain, the great impact was from indicators: Diversity of tree species – aesthetic point of view, Noise – the object is located in the centre of an urbanized space, and Development level – availability of equipment for active and quiet leisure. Indicators of low impact to the final result included: Waste, Accessibility, Quality, and Water sources. The quantitative value of C-recreation is shown in Figure 4.
In general, the state of the urban forest “Horský park” according to the assessment system, has recreational value of I (1%), II (75.9%) and III (23.1%) classes. (Fig. 5)
Urban forests and other parts of the green infrastructures are the most popular outdoor recreation environments for residents and visitors of city agglomerations in Europe (Konijnendijk 2003).
The fundamental forest recreation related research in Russia is mainly based on the study of the biological stability (tolerance) of forest ecosystems and their components. Recreation in urban forests of Moscow city is discussed in detail by Rysin (2003). The author has identified 29 indicators divided into three domains: Attractiveness of the area, Comfort for recreation and Resistance (stability) to the influence of recreation. Similar indicators were used by Lepeshkin (2007), which included “Visibility” to attractiveness, increasing the total number of indicators to 30. Rysin et al. (2015a) published a revised methodological approach. The original concept of the three domains of indicators was regrouped and the total number of indicators decreased to 19. The number of indicators was reduced in order to simplify the practical use of the methodological approach. In contrast to Rysin et al. (2015a), our method contains two domains of indicators (Forest and Recreation). We merged the Attractiveness and Comfort domains, which include the interests and requirements of recreation, into the Recreation domain. Now, the Forest domain contains forest environment status indicators only. Additionally, we adapted the content of the indicators. We blended “Age of trees” and “Height of trees” into the Quality indicator, which is a measure of the production capacity of the tree in the assessed area (the basic quality indicator is the average height and age of trees). We replaced the indicators of “Walk trail” and “Roads density” (including bicycle paths), due to the often high number of walkways and roads in the urban forest. The indicator no longer evaluates only the existence or absence of a road network but it determines by the share of the area of the road network the total assessed area. In order to simplify the methodological approach, we dropped the indicators of “Stability of lower layers of vegetation” and “Species representation” (Rysin et al. 2015a) because they require botanical knowledge. These indicators are partially replaced by the Diversity of tree species and Vertical structure indicators of vegetation. For the first time the Objects of interest and Development level indicators are used in the proposed methodological approach. The Objects of interest includes a natural object (caves, waterfalls, etc.), and Development level includes places equipped with benches, playgrounds, dustbins, etc. The list of domains and indicators is shown in Table 1.
A higher number of indicators have the potential to increase the objectivity of the evaluation results, but it cannot make the proposed methodological approach simpler and more versatile.
The number of indicators is also dependent on the surface area. According to Rysin et al. (2015b), it is necessary to reduce the number of indicators in areas with a surface area of more than 1 000 ha, due to the high demand and hence the high fieldwork costs. This reducing approach was tested by Kutilin (2014) in the Losi Island National Park (an area in the north-eastern part of Moscow). The reduction in the number of indicators did not have an appreciable negative impact on the accuracy of the evaluation of the recreational potential of a forest. Eskandari and Ghadikolaei (2013) pointed out that not only ecological parameters are very important, but also socio-economic factors, with an emphasis on visitors’ recreational requirements. This data has key importance in terms of influencing both the species and spatial structures of urban forests, as well as their