×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Original scientific article

GEOECOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF BELGRADE AND ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF REST AND RECREATION

By
R. Milovan Pecelj ,
R. Milovan Pecelj
Contact R. Milovan Pecelj

Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade , Belgrade , Serbia

Nemanja Vagić ,
Nemanja Vagić

Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade , Belgrade , Serbia

Milica Pecelj ,
Milica Pecelj

Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade , Belgrade , Serbia

Dijana Đurić
Dijana Đurić

Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade , Belgrade , Serbia

Abstract

With this work we want to affirm geoecological evaluation, planning and landscape management. Geoecological evaluation of the Belgrade region, for the purpose of rest and recreation, was performed with quantitative method of diversity (V-Wert Methode) of Hans Kiemstedt. The method is suitable for the determination of potential locations suitable for rest and recreation, with various forms of relief (edge of forest and water, then climate and relief). Due to the surface of the evaluated area and the amount of data that had to be processed, the benefits of geographic information systems are expressed. According to this geoecological analysis favorable and very favorable areas for recreation are tied exclusively to the river flows of Sava and Danube. Each of the four raster units, which are marked as very favorable for recreation, include items of river islands (Baric river island, River island Ciganlija, River island Grocanska, Batkov river island and River island Brestovacka), which have high values of the length of the edges of the water.

References

1.
Ђорђевић Д. Увод у теорију планирања. In: Географски факултет Универзитета у Београду. 2004. p. 15–6.
2.
Пецељ МР, Пецељ-Пурковић Ј, Пецељ М. Геоекологија. In: Београд: Уневерзитет у Београду - Географски факултет. 2015. p. 1–315.
3.
Пецељ МР. Геоекологија-теоријска и методолошка поставка. In: Бања Лука Трећи Конгрес српских географа, књига 1. 2011. p. 115–26.
4.
Пецељ М. Геоекологија и просторно планирање – методологија вредновања предела. In: Бања Лука, АНУРС, Одјељење природно-математичких и техничких наука, Научни скупови, књига 25. 2015. p. 155–73.
5.
Pecelj J, Pecelj MM, R PM. Mogućnost primene geoekologije u prostornom planiranju.Beograd. Planska i normativna zaštita prostora i životne sredine. 2011;401–6.
6.
Kuzmanović D, Banja Luke. Banja Luka DDG. Fond stručne dokumentacija grada Banja Luka.
7.
Pecelj MR, Purković-Pecelj J. Značaj geoekologije u vrednovanju zemljišta-semantičko značenje i modeli vrednovanja. In: Beograd Upravljanje zemljištem, Asocijacija prostornih planera Srbije, Univerzitet u Beogradu – Geografski fakultet, Lokalna samouprava u planiranju i uređenju prostora i naselja. 2014. p. 153–61.
8.
Kiemstedt H. ZurBewertungderLandschaftfürdieErholung. 1967.
9.
Kiemstedt H. Erfahrungen und Tendenzen in der Landschaftsbewertung. In: Hannover, In: Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, 76 Jänecke. 1972. p. 36.
10.
Упоредни преглед броја становника 1948-2011.Београд.Попис становништва, домаћинстава и станова у. 2011;
11.
Београд Г. Служба за информисање.
12.
Agency EE. Corine Land Cover 2012. 2012;
13.
N.A.S.A. N44E020.SRTMGL1 (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission – SRTM. 2000;
14.
Hoffmann G. Tourismus in Luftkurorten Nordrhein – Westfalens. Bewertung und perspektiven, Disertation. 1999;1–220.
15.
Kiemstedt H. Bewertung natürlicher Landschaftselemente für die Planung von Erholungsgebieten. In: Technische Hochschule Hannover, Fakultät für Gartenbau und Landeskultur, Dissertation. 1967. p. ,149.

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.