Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldiş”, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii
Vol. 19, issue 2, 2009, pp.359-363
© 2009 Vasile Goldis University Press (www.studiauniversitatis.ro)
GIS ASSESSMENT OF LANDFORM DIVERSITY COVERED BY
NATURAL PROTECTED AREAS IN ROMANIA
Alexandru-Ionuţ PETRIŞOR*
“Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania
National Institute for Research and Development in Spatial and Urban Planning, Bucharest, Romania
ABSTRACT. The richness of the natural heritage of Romania pleads for the need of conserving its
geodiversity and biodiversity. The natural protected areas (reserves) should reflect the national
biogeographical diversity. Geographical Information Systems provide a methodology to assess whether this
conservation goal is met. This paper focuses on employing the GIS methodology to assess whether existing
natural protected areas reflect the national geodiversity, particularly the diversity of landforms. Results
suggest that high regions (mountains, hills and plateaus) are well covered, including over 50% of each type
of reserve, while plains are covered lesser. The expansion of protected areas by declaring new sites is
already a priority of the governmental agenda; nevertheless, plain regions should be considered first when
choosing new sites to constitute a reserve.
Keywords: GIS, natural protected areas, landforms, biodiversity, geodiversity
INTRODUCTION
The rich natural heritage of Romania can be
assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by using two
concepts. Geodiversity refers to the heterogeneity of
landscape features, i.e., geological features (rocks,
minerals, fossils, and structures), geomorphological
features (landforms and processes), and soil (Gray,
2004), while biodiversity embeds the variability of
organisms, populations and ecosystems, including the
systems dominated by the human species (Petrişor,
2008). Numerous studies had underlined the direct
correlation between geodiversity and biodiversity
(Musila et al., 2005; Santucci, 2005), resulting into the
definition of biogeographical regions. Out of the eleven
biogeographical regions identified in Europe, five are
also present in Romania (Petrişor, 2008). The richness
of the geographical and biological heritage of Romania
can be understood by simply counting its components:
five types of landforms - floodplain, plain, hill or
plateau, and mountain (Mâra, 2007; Cazan et al.,
2004); five biogeographical regions - alpine, Black
Sea, continental, pannonian, and steppic (Petrişor,
2008); 900 mineral species from the Carpathians (Papp
and Szakáll, 1996); 10 classes and 39 types of soils
(Ministerul Mediului şi Dezvoltării Durabile, 2008);
over 3,700 higher plant species and more than 33,802
animal species (Vădineanu, 2003); and 783 types of
habitats identified and characterized in 261 areas
analyzed all over the national territory within the
framework of the Coordinated Information on the
European Environment (CORINE) Biotopes Program
(Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable
Development, 2007).
The goals of protecting biodiversity and
geodiversity are achieved by establishing natural
protected areas. The European policy on nature
conservation consists of two pieces of legislation:
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of
wild birds, known as the "Birds Directive" and adopted
in April 1979, and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora, known as the "Habitats Directive" and adopted in
May 1992. At the core of this policy is the creation of a
coherent ecological network of protected areas across
the continent, known as NATURA 2000 and formed by
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) established in order to
conserve the 182 bird species and sub-species listed in
Annex I of the Birds Directive as well as migratory
birds, and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) /
Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) established in
order to established in order to conserve the 253 habitat
types, 200 animal and 434 plant species listed under
the Habitats Directive; the aim is for the network to
cover more than 20% of the territory of the European
Union (Byron and Arnold, 2008). The Special
Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and
Sites of Community Importance were declared in
Romania as a result of joining the Natura 2000
program. The Romanian legislation had established
twelve categories of protected areas (parentheses
indicate the nature of the elements focusing the
conservation goals): scientific reserves (biological),
national parks (biological), natural monuments
(biological and/or geological), natural reserves
(biological and/or geological), geo-parks (geological),
natural parks (biological), biosphere reserves
(biological), wetlands designated as internationally
important under the Convention of Ramsar
(biological), natural sites of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage (biological), Sites of Community
Importance (biological), Special Areas of Conservation
(biological), and Special Protection Areas (biological).
The management of these categories follows the
recommendations of the International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN),
European or other international guidelines, as well as
*Correspondence: Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, str. Academiei, nr. 18-20, sector 1,
cod 010014, Bucharest, Romania, telephone: +4-(021)3077133, fax: +4(021)3123954, e-mail: [email protected]
Article received: August 2009; published: November 2009
Petrişor A.I.
recommendations
established
by
international
conventions, treaties or other similar instruments.
Scientific reserves, national parks, natural monuments,
natural reserves, and natural parks correspond to IUCN
categories I to V (IUCN, 1994).
The establishment of all these protected areas was
also made in accordance with the aim to safeguard for
the future generations ecosystems representative for the
biogeographical space and biodiversity (IUCN et al.,
1980). The coverage of the biogeographical regions in
Romania by natural protected areas had been analyzed
using the Geographical Information Systems - GIS
(Petrişor, 2008). A GIS represents a decision support
system involving the integration of spatially referenced
data in a problem solving environment (Cowen, 1988)
or a collection of computer hardware, software,
geographic data, and personnel designed to efficiently
capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display
all forms of geographically referenced information
(Ioniţă and Moise, 2001). Applications of the GIS
methodology to the conservation included an
assessment whether natural protected areas cover the
biogeographical diversity of wetlands in Romania
(Petrişor, in press).
The purpose of this paper is to use the GIS
methodology to assess the relationship between the
conservation of biodiversity and geodiversity in
Romania in a case study looking at the coverage of
landforms by four types of natural protected areas
declared up to the moment, i.e., national and natural
parks, scientific and natural reserves, natural
monuments, Sites of Community Importance (Natura
2000), Special Areas of Conservation (Natura 2000),
and Special Protection Areas (Natura 2000).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study had integrated two datasets: (1) data on
natural protected areas from Romania, available for
free public download from the website of the
Romanian Ministry of the Environment and
Sustainable Development at the Uniform Resource
Locator(URL):http://www.mmediu.ro/departament_ap
e/biodiversitate/ and (2) landforms, derived from the
digital elevation model (DEM) of Romania, subsampled from the European data available from the
European Environment Agency (EEA) at the URL:
http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/metadetails
.asp?id=650. Both datasets were available in ArcView
GIS format, but some corrections were made to provide
for the compatibility of European data with the
Stereo70 projection used in Romania.
The main methodological issue was related to the
definition of landforms by altitude. Different authors
propose a wide range of altitude limits to discriminate
between landforms: plains - up to 300 m., hills and
plateaus - up to 800 m. (Mâra, 2007); plains - up to 200
m., hills and plateaus - up to 1000 m. (Cazan et al.,
2004). However, even the two works cited above do no
provide a clear limit of separation between hills or
360
plateaus and mountains. Moreover, the two classes
overlap for an interval of approximately 200 m.
altitude. This study proposes the following limits of the
landforms: floodplain - 0 to less than 20 m, plain - 0 to
less than 200 m, hill or plateau - 200 to less than 900
m, and mountain - over 900 m.
The two datasets were overlaid for a visual and
quantitative analysis of information. Quantitative
analyses consisted of using GIS spatial analysis and
geo-processing functions to compute areas of all
reserves belonging to each particular type situated
within a given landform, classified based on the DEM:
the percentage of a certain type of reserve situated in a
particular landform was computed dividing the area of
the specified type of reserve within the given landform
by the total area of reserves of the same type in
Romania, regardless of the landform where they are
situated; in addition, reserves were classified based on
the altitude where they are situated: the percentage of
protected areas at low altitudes was computed as the
sum of protected areas within the floodplain and plain
regions, computed for each type of reserve; and the
percentage of protected areas at high altitudes
represented the sum of protected areas within the hill,
plateau and mountain regions, computed for each type
of reserve.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results are displayed graphically in Figure 1
and numerically in Table 1. The map in Figure 1 also
displays the area subjected to the application of the
Convention on the Protection and Sustainable
Development of the Carpathians, even though this area
cannot be considered a natural protected area in the
true meaning of this concept, as protective actions are
only recommended, but not compulsory within its
perimeter. For this reason, this territory has not been
included in the calculations displayed in Table 1.
Excepting for the aforementioned region, the visual
analysis of Figure 1 suggests that most protected areas
are situated in high altitude regions. This conclusion is
strengthened by the data displayed in Table 1, showing
that regardless of the type of reserve, most protected
areas are situated in the hill, plateau or mountain
regions (over 50% in each case; it is noteworthy
mentioning that over 90% of the Special Protection
Areas are at high altitude).
The results suggest that the mountain areas of
Romania are well covered by natural protected areas.
This is in line with the same concerns that had led to
the adoption of the Convention on the Protection and
Sustainable Development of the Carpathians. At the
same time, costal areas and wetlands are also well
covered, most likely due to the overall contribution of
the size of Danube Delta reserve of the biosphere.
Nevertheless, there is a need to cover other landforms,
such as the plains; the need has already led to a priority
of the governing program (Government of Romania,
2004).
Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldiş”, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii
Vol. 19, issue 2, 2009, pp. 359-363
© 2009 Vasile Goldis University Press (www.studiauniversitatis.ro)
GIS assessment of landform diversity
covered by natural protected areas in Romania
Fig. 1 Position of natural protected areas in Romania based on the landforms. Landforms is displayed using gray shades
(the brighter, the higher the altitude), while protected areas appear as hatched areas, with a different symbol for each
type considered. The image also displays the limits of application of the Convention on the Protection and Sustainable
Development of the Carpathians as a black contour.
Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldiş”, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii
Vol. 19, issue 2, 2009, pp.359-363
© 2009 Vasile Goldis University Press (www.studiauniversitatis.ro)
361
Petrişor A.I.
Table 1
Areas of different types of natural protected areas by landform where they are situated and corresponding
percentages
% at
Hill/plateau Mountain
Floodplain Plain
% at
high
Type of natural protected area
low
altiArea
Area
Area
* Area
*
*
*
alti**
%
%
%
2
2 %
2
2
tudes
***
(km )
(km )
(km )
(km )
tudes
National and natural parks
4233 28 1265 8
36
5112 33 4679 31
64
Scientific and natural reserves, natural monuments 419
18 160 7
25
912
40
799
35
75
Sites of Community Importance (Natura 2000)
5032 16 4593 15
31
9745 31 11762 38
69
Special Areas of Conservation (Natura 2000)
5898 21 6776 24
45
10104 36 5352 19
55
Special Protection Areas (Natura 2000)
47
2
80 4
7
493
26 1251 67
93
* The percentage of a certain type of reserve situated in a particular landform was computed dividing the area of the specified type of
reserve within the given landform by the total area of reserves of the same type in Romania, regardless of the landform where they are
situated.
** The percentage of protected areas at low altitudes represents the sum of protected areas within the floodplain and plain regions,
computed for each type of reserve.
*** The percentage of protected areas at high altitudes represents the sum of protected areas within the hill, plateau and mountain
regions, computed for each type of reserve.
It is important to note that the inclusion of a certain
territory in a particular type of reserve is not exclusive
and does not prevent the inclusion of the same territory
or of its parts in a different type of reserve. This
statement is particularly true for SCIs, SACs and SPAs
(Naumann, 2007); moreover, parts of the Danube Delta
biosphere reserve are enlisted with the RAMSAR
convention, with the Man and Biosphere Program, and
with the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Consequently, the areas computed in Table 1 could be
used to provide for a general image, but should be used
with caution when comparing two types of reserves, as
corrections for overlapping are required in this case for
accurate estimations.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that high regions (mountains,
hills and plateaus) are well covered by natural
protected areas, including over 50% of each type of
reserve, while plains are covered lesser. Therefore, the
expansion of protected areas, in line with governmental
priorities, should give priority to the inclusion of
representative sites situated in the plain areas.
In addition, the study underlined the potential of the
GIS methodology in analyzing the effectiveness of
conservation strategies. Possible limitations might be
due to the definition of landforms by altitude.
Nevertheless, such limitation underlines the flexibility
of GIS as a decision support system, allowing for the
input from different specialists.
REFERENCES
Gray M, Geodiversity - valuing and conserving abiotic
nature. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2004.
Petrişor AI, Levels of biological diversity: a spatial
approach to assessment methods, Romanian
Review of Regional Studies, 4(1), 41–62, 2008.
Musila W, Todt H, Uster D, Dalitz H, Is Geodiversity
Correlated to Biodiversity? A Case Study of the
Relationship Between Spatial Heterogeneity of
362
Soil Resources and Tree Diversity in a Western
Kenyan Rainforest, African Biodiversity,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 405–414, 2005.
Santucci VL, 2005, Historical Perspectives on
Biodiversity and Geodiversity, Geodiversity &
Geoconservation, 22(3), 29–34, 2005.
Mâra L, Elaborarea studiului de analiză strategică de
mediu pentru Planul de Amenajare a
Teritoriului Naţional, Secţiunea a VI-a - Zone
turistice. Faza 1 - Aspecte relevante ale stării
actuale a mediului, caracteristici de mediu, Zone
cu importanţă specială pentru mediu, IPTANAS.A., Bucharest, 2007.
Cazan CM, Cherciu R, Manda M, Creează-ţi mediul!
Dicţionar de termeni, Holcim, Bucharest, 2004.
Papp G, Szakáll S, Mineral species discovered in the
Carpathian area, Herman Ottó Museum,
Miskolc, 1996.
Ministerul Mediului şi Dezvoltării Durabile, Proiect de
Ghid Tehnic privind modalităţile de investigare
şi evaluare a poluării solului şi subsolului,
Bucharest, 2008, available at the URL
http://www.mmediu.ro/pdf/legislatie/ghid_inves
tigare_draft_4_august_2008.doc
Vădineanu A, Rîşnoveanu G, Gheorghe I, Biodiversity
conservation, threats and research in Romania,
BioPlatform e-conference
“Priorities
in
biodiversity conservation and research in the
Acceding and Candidate Countries (ACC) and
their integration in the European Research Area
(ERA)”, 2003.
Byron H, Arnold L, TEN-T and Natura 2000: the way
forward. An assessment of the potential impact
of the TEN-T Priority Projects on Natura 2000.
Final report, The Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds, Scotland, 2008.
IUCN, Guidelines for Protected Area Management
Categories. Gland, Switzerland, 1994.
IUCN, UNEP, WWF, FAO, UNESCO, World
Conservation Strategy: Living Resource
Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldiş”, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii
Vol. 19, issue 2, 2009, pp. 359-363
© 2009 Vasile Goldis University Press (www.studiauniversitatis.ro)
GIS assessment of landform diversity
covered by natural protected areas in Romania
Conservation for Sustainable Development,
Morges, Switzerland, 1980.
Cowen DJ, GIS versus CAD versus DBMS: What Are
the Differences?, Photogrammetric Engineering
& Remote Sensing, 54, 1551–1555, 1988.
Ioniţă A, Moise E, English-Romanian Dictionary for
GIS and TIC, ICI Publishing House, Bucharest,
2001.
Petrişor AI, Using Geographical Information Systems
to assess the coverage of wetland biodiversity
by Natura 2000 sites within the biogeographical
regions of Romania, Environmental Engineering
and Management Journal, in press (estimated
publication: 2010).
Government of Romania, Government Program 20052008, Bucharest, 2004.
Naumann S, Convergence with EU Nature Protection
Policies, Ecologic - Institute for International
and European Environmental Policy, Berlin,
2007.
Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldiş”, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii
Vol. 19, issue 2, 2009, pp.359-363
© 2009 Vasile Goldis University Press (www.studiauniversitatis.ro)
363