OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS OTEPÄÄ. ESTONIA NOV 2012. ILONA FEKLISTOVA. ANNA PAVLOVA. LAURE RIHN. ROMET VIRKUS. AVELY KALDOJA. HANNAH RUFFELL.
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
I N T R D U C T I O N
Introduction and Objectives: This report combined with the Landscape Character Assessment looks to thoroughly analyse the municipality of Otepää in Estonia. Compiling information gathered by four Tartu University groups on geomorphology, ecology, cultural/heritage sites and recreational trails and points in the area we compared it with Edinburgh College of Art work on landscape character. Each municipality was divided into areas using the landscape character types created by systematically looking at a range of features that form the landscape, such as; topography, soil types, hydrology, land usage and vegetation, settlement and development and connections e.g. roads. These were then divided further into areas (ie. 1a, 1b, etc) so that we could analyse the areas more precisely dependent on their contents. This combined information formed a sensitivity map and pressure map which then enabled us to calculate the capacity and suitability different areas in Otepää had for a range of seasonal recreation with different requirements.
Regional Names of the Landscape Area Types: Devision of the landscape types: 1a Magestiku 1b Sihva 1c Käariku/Sihva/Mardi 1d Nüpli/Vidrike/Pilkuse/Truuta 1e Kolgü 2a Magestiku/Pedajamäe/Kostalatsi 2b Vana Otepää 2c Pilkuse 2d Nüpli 2e Märdi/Kassiratta/Töutsi 3 Kastolatsi/ Vana Otepää 4 Vana Otepää 5a Vana Otepää/Otepää 5b Pedajamäe 5c Märdi/Sihva 5d Pilkuse 6a Pedajamäe/Kostalatsi/Vana Otepää 6b Pilkuse 6c Vidrike 6d Töutsi/Kaurutoots 6e Märdi
6f Arula 6g Nüpli 7 Pilkuse 8 Pühajärve 9 Otepää/Pühajärve 10 Otepää 11 Pilkuse and Nüpli Area 12 Mäha and Kääriku/Sihva and Vidrika Area 13a Arula/Mäha/Sihva/ Pühajärve 13b Nüpli and Nüpli/Pilkuse 13c Pilkuse 14 Pühajärve/ Nüpli 15 Sihva/ Pühajärve/ Nüpli 16 Raudsepa 17 Vidrike/Truuta/Kaurutoots/ Kolgo 18 Ilmjärve/ Töutsi
OTEPĂ„Ă„ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Calculating Sensitivity:
Sensitivity was calculated under three categories: ecology (including relevant physical attributes such as geomorphology, hydrology etc.) culture/heritage and quality/aesthetics. Using the landscape character types and the already compiled mapping, each area was given a score 1-3 (3 being the highest 1 being the lowest) which was then used to calculate the areas sensitivity under these factors. Weighting the priorities of ecology as the most sensitive, followed by quality and aesthetics then cultural sites the sensitivity average was created using the following formula: (Ex3)+ (Qx2)+ (Cx1) /3= Total Average after Weighting.
L A N D S C A P E S E N S I T I V I T Y M A P
Ecology Map. Showing conservation areas and protected species
Calculated Area Scores:
Value Map. Showing average quality scored from criteria such as; genius loci, picturesquness, diversity, unity, mystery, calmess and colour.
Key: Ecology Quality Culture/Heritage
Culture Map. Showing heritage points.
Low Sensitivity (score 2-3.33) Medium Sensitivity (score 3.34- 4.66) High Sensitivity (score 4.67- 6)
OTEPĂ„Ă„ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Calculating Pressure:
L A N D S C A P E P R E S S U R E
Pressure was calculated considering five main factors; development, land management (including agriculture and forest management), tourist facilities and soft and hard recreation. Recreation was divided into two titles, hard and soft recreation, sports such as skiing, motorbiking etc were classed as hard recreation in comparison to softer sports like hiking, cross country skiing or cycling which assert less pressure on the landscape. Like the sensitivity mapping these factors were overlay with the landscape character types then areas were given a score 1-3 (3 being the highest 1 being the lowest) which was then used to calculate the pressure each area faced under the five factors. Development was weighted as the highest as it asserts the most pressure on the landscape therefore was multiplied by four. Land management was considered to be next important and scores were multiplied by three, then tourist facilities (such as accommodation) and hard recreation scores were doubled then soft recreation was considered Development Map. Showing to provide the least pressure on the landscape so was multiplied by just one. settlement. The sensitivity average was created using the following formula: (Dx4)+ (LMx3)+ (Tx2)+ (HRx2)+ (SRx1) /5= Total Average Pressure after Weighting.
Calculated Area Scores:
Land use map. Showing agricultural areas and forest.
Tourism Map. Showing hotels and tourist accommodation.
M A P
Key:
Recreation Map. Showing trails around the municipality.
Development/ Settlement Land Management Tourist Facilities Hard Recreation Soft Recreation Low Pressure (score 2.4-4) Medium Pressure (score 4.1- 5.6) High Pressure (score 5.7- 7.2)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Calculating Capacity:
L A N D S C A P E C A P A C I T Y M A P
Capacity was calculated for the areas of Otepää by looking at the individual areas and how the average sensitivity score related to the average pressure score, after the weighted formulas were used. Under the categories of sensitivity and pressure the areas had been awarded a ‘high,’ ‘medium’ or ‘low’ score. This are represented on the capacity map with an initial, the first being the pressure score the second being the sensitivity. By colour coding high, medium and low with the three primary colours the table below shows how the initial capacity was calculated by mixing the two colour to highlight areas with a similar possibility for capacity. For example area 1a has a low average pressure and high average sensitivity so the capacity is shown as purple and we can compare it to other areas. Red = Low Capacity Orange = Medium/Low Capacity Purple and Yellow= Medium Capacity Green =Medium/High Capacity Blue = High Capacity This table and corresponding map can be then used to calculate the suitability each area has for different recreation.
Comparative Pressure and Sensitivity Scores Creating Capacity Colours: Lower Capacity
Key:
High Pressure or Sensitivity Medium Pressure or Sensitivity Low Pressure or Sensitivity
Higher Capacity
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Mapping Suitability:
L A N D S C A P E S U I T A B I L I T Y M A P
This map uses the information shown on the capacity map to depict the suitability each area has for different types of recreation. Recreation has been split into five main categories ‘High,’ ‘Medium/High’ ‘Medium,’ ‘Medium/Low’ and ‘Low,’ showing how different activites can impact the landscape. A list of some of the common activities that take place in Otepää can be found in the table below showing an example of the type of recreation that falls under each boundary. For instance skiing and all the facilities it requires has been categorised as high impact whereas hiking which utilises the natural features of the landscape has been listed as a low impact activity. This mapping draws on the information gathered from all three maps on the previous pages, showing what type of recreation an area might suitably cope with. For example area 1e on the South-East edge of the municipality has been scored to have low sensitivity and to currently have a low amount of pressure asserted on it by development, tourism, recreation, etc, so it therefore could withstand the introduction of highimpact activities. The next few pages act to summaries each landscape character type and its separate areas in relation to sensitivity, pressure, calculated capacity and suggest some of the possible activities that could be developed there.
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 1a-1e Synopsis:
Medium Capacity
A R E A
Medium/High Capacity
S Y N O P S I S
Medium Capacity
Medium/High Capacity
High Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Driving a snowmobile Driving ATV VMX Snowboarding Downhill skiing Golf Skating/ Roller Roller Skiing Tennis C=Culture)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 2a-2e Synopsis:
Medium Capacity
A R E A
Medium Capacity
S Y N O P S I S
Medium/High Capacity
Medium Capacity
Medium Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Horse Riding Cycling C.C Skiing Hiking/Running Canoe Trips Swimming Fishing C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing C=Culture)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 3-5c Synopsis:
Medium Capacity
A R E A
Medium Capacity
S Y N O P S I S
Medium Capacity
Medium Capacity
Medium/ Low Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing C=Culture)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 5d-6d Synopsis:
Medium/ Low Capacity
A R E A
Medium Capacity
S Y N O P S I S
Medium/High Capacity
Medium/High Capacity
High Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Horse Riding Cycling C.C Skiing Hiking/Running Canoe Trips Swimming Fishing Driving a snowmobile Driving ATV VMX Snowboarding Downhill skiing Golf Skating/ Roller Roller Skiing Tennis C=Culture)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 6e-8 Synopsis:
Medium/ Low Capacity
A R E A
Low Capacity
S Y N O P S I S
Medium/High Capacity
Medium/High Capacity
Medium/ Low Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing C=Culture)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 9-13a Synopsis:
Medium/High Capacity
A R E A
Medium/ Low Capacity
S Y N O P S I S
Medium/ Low Capacity
Medium Capacity
Medium Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling Skating Roller Skating Roller Skiing
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
C=Culture)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 13-16 Synopsis:
Medium Capacity
A R E A
Medium/High Capacity
S Y N O P S I S
Medium Capacity
Medium Capacity
High Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing Driving a snowmobile Driving ATV VMX Snowboarding Downhill skiing Golf Skating/ Roller Roller Skiing Tennis C=Culture)
OTEPÄÄ LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Areas 17-18 Synopsis:
Medium/ Low Capacity
A R E A S Y N O P S I S
Medium/High Capacity
(D= Development
LM= Land Management
T= Tourist Facilities
HR= Hard Recreation
SR= Soft Recreation
E= Ecology
Q= Quality
C.C.Skiing Hiking Archery Running Canoeing Swimming Fishing
Horse Riding Hunting Snowtubing Cycling Skating Roller Skating Roller Skiing C=Culture)