Evaluation of landscape aesthetic properties for the managing of areas of outstanding natural and culture-historical value

Restoration of historic cultural landscapes, becoming more common in developed countries, brought to life two non-alternative practices: special package of measures for the reconstruction and maintenance of the landscape («management plans for territories») and assessing the acceptability of impacts on the visual properties of the landscape (so called «Visual Impact Assessment»). The development of management plans for areas is associated with a concept of the target state in which the landscape, preserving its functionality, includes the characteristics of the historical «reference landscape». The search for such signs is carried out within the reconstruction of landscape history using geographic information systems and old cartographic sources. Implementation of Visual Impact Assessment requires a preliminary modeling of the structure of visual space relative to inside observers, photographic images, identification of the role of individual components in shaping landscape scenes, as well as the definition the visual deformations changing unfavorable aesthetic qualities of the landscape. An unwanted change of aesthetic properties can occur as a result of new human impacts, and as a result of the natural landscape dynamics including the «wilderning» (overgrowing of abandoned arable lands and hay meadows). Creation of three-dimensional computer model of cultural landscape in combination with the step-by-step parameterization of various aspects of expected changes allows objectifying the whole process of assessment the validity of impact on aesthetic qualities and also uses it to solve the conflicts of development in the territories with high historical, cultural and natural value. The experience of such a study, realized for state historic-architectural and ethnographic culture preserve «Kizhi», is regarded.

historical cultural landscape, aesthetics properties and visual structure of the landscape, the target state of the landscape, landscape restoration, visual impact assessment, culture preserve «Kizhi»

1. Богданова M. С., Потахин С. Б. Использование карт межевания в историко-ландшафтных исследованиях (на примере острова Кижи) // Актуальные проблемы развития музеев-заповедников. Петрозаводск: ФГУК ГИАЭМЗ, 2006. С. 57-74.

2. Веденин Ю. А. Искусство как один из факторов формирования культурного ландшафта // Изв. АН СССР. Сер. геогр. 1988. № 1. С. 49-56.

3. Исаченко Г. А. «Окно в Европу»: история и ландшафты. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ, 1998. 476 с.

4. Калуцков В. Н. Ландшафт в культурной географии. М.: Новый хронограф, 2008. 320 с.

5. Климанова О. А., Колбовский Е. Ю. К вопросу о полимасштабности культурных ландшафтов: типология и картографирование на разных территориальных уровнях // Изв. РАН. Сер. геогр. 2015. № 2. С. 28-38.

6. Колбовский Е. Ю., Брагин П. Н., Медовикова У. А. Оценка антропогенного воздействия на эстетические качества ландшафтов // Ярославский педагогический вестник. 2012. № 1. Т. III (Естественные науки). С. 169-178.

7. Колбовский Е. Ю. Методы работы с ландшафтным наследием. ГИС-моделирование для оценки визуальных качества ландшафта и управления // Сельские культурные ландшафты: рекомендации по сохранению и использованию. М.: Экоцентр «Заповедники», 2013. С. 68-93.

8. Нефедова Т. Г. Сельская Россия на перепутье: географические очерки. М.: Новое издательство, 2003. 408 с.

9. Резников А. И. Проектирование обустройства особо охраняемых природных территорий Санкт-Петербурга на ландшафтно-динамической основе // Изв. РГО. 2008. Т. 140, вып. 6. С. 15-25.

10. Филин В. А. Видеоэкология. Что для глаза хорошо, а что - плохо. М.: Московский центр «Видеоэкология», 2001. 310 c.

11. Эрингис К. И., Будрюнас А. Р. Сущность и методика детального эколого-эстетического исследования пейзажей // Экология и эстетика ландшафта. Вильнюс: Минтис, 1975. С. 107-170.

12. Antrop M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2005. 70. P. 21-34.

13. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape. London: John Wiley, 1975. 296 p.

14. Appleton J. Running before we can walk: are we ready to map «beauty»? // Landscape Research 19, 1994. P. 112-119.

15. Arriaza M., Canas-Ortega J. F., Canas-Madueno J. A., Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004. 69. P. 115-125.

16. Aston M. Interpreting the landscape. Landscape Archaeology and Local History. London and New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002. 168 p.

17. Bell S. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. London and New York: Spon Press, 2004. 220 p.

18. Carlson A. Nature and Landscape: An Introduction to Environmental Aesthetics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. 348 p.

19. Cooke B., Lane R. How do amenity migrants learn to be environmental stewards of rural landscapes? // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015. 134. P. 43-52.

20. Crawford O. G. S. Archaeology in the Field, Phoenix House. First Edition edition, 1953. 280 p.

21. Daniel T. C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. 54. P. 267-281.

22. Dramstad W. E., Tveit M. S., Fjellstad W. J., Fry G. L. A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2006. 78. P. 465-474.

23. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment / The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management. London and New York: Spon Press & Taylor and Francis group, 2004. 166 p.

24. Hehl-Lange S. Structural elements of the visual landscape and their ecological functions // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. 54. P. 105-113.

25. Hunziker M. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural landscapes: perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists // Landscape and Urban Planning. 1995. 31. P. 399-410.

26. Krause C. L. Our visual landscape. Managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspect // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. 54. P. 239-254.

27. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning. 1999. 44. P. 77-198.

28. Moreira F., Queiroz A. I., Aronson J. Restoration principles applied to cultural landscapes // Journal for Nature Conservation. 2006. 14. P. 217-224.

29. Nassauer J. I. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology // J.I. Nassauer (ed.). Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997. P. 67-83.

30. Palmer S. E., Gardner J. S., & Wickens T. D. Aesthetic issues in spatial composition: Effects of position and direction on framing single objects // Spatial Vision. 2008. 21. P. 421-449.

31. Parsons R., Daniel Т. C. Good Looking: In Defense of Scenic Landscape Aesthetics // Landscape and Urban Planning. 2002. 60. P. 43-56.

32. Rayner K., & Pollatsek A. Eye movements and scene perception // Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1992. 46. P. 342-376.

33. Sevenant M., Antrop M. Landscape representation validity: a comparison between on-site observations and photographs with different angles of view // Landscape Research. 2011. 36 (3). P. 363-385.