You are on page 1of 9

Evaluation of Selected Indicators of Locality „Zlatý Potok“ Care Green, Slovakia Report

Group: B Elaborated by: Abraham Gebreselassie Gebreyes Anda Claudia Stefura Anett Klaudia Kovács Dorin Clipa Kim Thuy Nguyen Jana Opálková Nina Kvasňovská Zuzana Kucbelová

June 2013 Zvolen, Slovakia 1

this area seemed to be in a good condition but during careful field survey several problems were found. Zone of education (private zone) 4. safety. For the first point of view. Zone of high-floor buildings 3. Zone of low-floor buildings 2. Zone of trade and service 5.Introduction The location of our work is house estate Zlatý Potok which is located in northeastern part of Zvolen town. Aims The main aim of this project is evaluating functional zones in the locality. Zone of mixed low-floor and high-floor buildings Source: Group work (2013) 1 . Studied Area The area was divided into 6 zones: 1. Then some suggestions were made. condition of greenery as well as parameters which were included in tasks. Zone of rest with public greenery 6. It was focused mainly on quality.

36 In this area were found 93 woody species. F – Greenery Facilities. 1 A – Naturalness Index. averages and tables. Sunday 23rd and Wednesday 26th.83 In the whole area is missing only one of solved items and it is playground for 14-18 years old children. So the final average 0.24 From 93 species 26 are evergreen woody species which is 24% of a total number.Methodology Our main task was given on Friday 21st. Public Space Playground for small children Playground for 10-13 years old children Playground for 14-18 years old children Sport facilities Parks Recreation public spaces (amenity open space) F (average) Source: Field Survey (2013) Yes/No 1 1 0 1 1 1 0. A = 0. Results Task No. F = 0. Results were done by the whole group. E = 0. For the final results analysis was made descriptively in the form of graphs. Out of the total number 39 (36%) are autochthonous. Field surveys were on following days: Friday 21st.83 is enough as people have an opportunity to spend their time in greenery. E – Evergreen Index.83 2 .

4 0. The worst zone is Zone of rest with public greenery.1 0.floor and high .floor and high . H = 0.floor and high . This requires professional care.floor buildings.43 In accordance with our field surveys the rate of greenery areas to overall area was found as 43%. G = 0.floor buildings Zone of high .25 0.55 Zone Zone of low .5.35 0. Zone of trade and service is in a good condition.55 Value 0.floor buildings Zone of education (private) Zone of trade and service Zone of rest with public greenery Zone of mixed low . For each zone the data are following: Zone Zone of low .43 The zones around both low-floor and high-floor buildings are evaluated as medium perspective.9 0.5 0.5 0.6 0. 3 . Private areas for example schools we were not able to enter so that the data are missing.8 0. Prevailing part of these zones has good long-time perspective with more or less requirement management. where we found many sick trees. It is required only basic management.floor buildings Average Source: Field Survey (2013) H – Parameter of the Greenery Perspective.5 0.floor buildings Zone of education(private) Zone of trade and service Zone of rest with public greenery Zone of mixed low . Similar situation is also in Zone of mixed low . It is the best valuated zone.G – Greenery Balances.floor buildings Average Source: Field Survey (2013) Value 0.floor buildings Zone of high . That is why the parameter is 0.55. Some of trees need an arboristic care. The average parameter of the greenery perspective is 0.

2 The P parameter is quite small. nice and people can feel comfortable and good weather. trash bins and water elements so we made a 12th parameter for those items. open water areas and green walls.16 0.64 64% of the total amount of buildings is up to 5 levels. many weedy perennials and shrubs were seen. etc. P = 0. The most problematic zone was Zone of rest with public greenery.19 0. were considered in this evaluation. especially park. good for resting and walking through the place. V = 0. 4 .floor and high . It has been done mainly because of missing items such as green roofs. out of which 14 of them have more than 5 levels while 25 are up to 5 level. if people can feel comfortable. How can people feel here. Another big issue is that these trees and shrubs are used as a shelter for homeless people.5 As our own selected parameter we decided to evaluate aesthetical point of view.floor buildings Average Source: Field Survey (2013) Value 0.28 0.floor buildings Zone of education(private) Zone of trade and service Zone of rest with public greenery Zone of mixed low .P – Parameter of Permeability. On the other hand there are many tree species which make this area more attractive. X – Aesthetical Index. There are also many excrements and it does not smell good there. In the whole area are many litters.20 Zone Zone of low . especially close to children playgrounds.18 0. In our opinion there are just a few benches.18 0. X = 0. how greenery does look like in general. The place is quiet.floor buildings Zone of high . In whole area there are 39 buildings. V – Verticality Index. Dry trees.

1.floor buildings Zone of education (private) Zone of trade and service Zone of rest with public greenery Zone of mixed low . It is done because of bad quality of trees in the area. for example H parameter is higher. 5 . 1. 2 Zone Zone of low . The unpleasant about this area are leaves shedding and small dry branches.Task No.floor and high .floor buildings Zone of high .floor buildings is not dangerous at all. Some of them are more or less different. Task No.floor buildings Source: Field Survey (2013) Value 4 3 5 4 3 3 Zone of low . Final values which were found during field surveys are in some points similar to optimal values.

Park.floor buildings and as a Zone of mixed low . People do not visit this part because management and maintenance is not done here. It is similar as a Zone of high .There were found some trees which had a branching in a latter V shape in Zone of high . Another reason is homeless people. Zone of trade and service and Zone of mixed low .floor buildings. Task No. Zone of rest with public greenery where is also park is little disturbed.floor buildings are suitable. On the other hand just a few of them are enough old to be so dangerous.floor buildings.floor buildings and Zone of education (private zone) are optimal.floor and high . Private zone is supposed to be safe and optimal as children are there very often. Zone of trade and service was evaluated as not dangerous but unpleasant because there is not enough greenery. These few trees were found also close to public ways.floor buildings Zone of education(private) Zone of trade and service Zone of rest with public greenery Zone of mixed low . would be evaluated as potentially dangerous but in general with the rest of areas the situation is not so bad. These areas are larger but destructions are not so obvious. Quality of this part is not optimal at all. This can be dangerous during strong wind or storms.floor and high . It does not look like a park. chestnut trees in this zone which fruits and seeds fall down and it can be uncomfortable. Zone of high . which is included in Zone of rest with public greenery. 6 . There are also many invasive plants and the value of the park has been lost.floor buildings Zone of high . There are many cherry and wild-cherry trees.floor and high .floor buildings Source: Field Survey (2013) Value 1 2 1 2 3 2 Zone of low . But we were not able to evaluate this part properly because of privacy. The area can be found out as uncomfortable then.floor buildings. 3 Zones Zone of low .

In some of the tall trees the dry branches should be cut on time. The old benches should be repaired and new ones also should be put in some places to reduce the shortage of sitting benches. Few benches were found in the park.Task No. but there is a pub. It is a green place combined with large trees and invasive species of plants. 2. but they are old and need to be repair. 4 Problematic Area of the Whole Estimate Zone of Rest in Public Greenery (The Park Place) The park is found near to the main road way. So the park place should be protected and cleaned by the government through some intervention mechanisms such as giving shelter place or houses to the homeless people. 4. The park place is also used for shelter for homeless people. It has a beautiful weather and is suitable for walking and sitting in a free time for people in different ages. 7 . Few people inside the park place were sleeping in the grass. Treatment should be given for those trees which are affected by diseases. There is no building inside the park. In our field work. 3. The park is vulnerable for homeless people who are living around the trees by constructing their own shelters. we have seen some people crossing through the park to enter into the main residential place. So the municipality should give much more emphasis in providing trash bins around the park place. The park place is not clean as it is full of shrubs and rubbish because of shortage of garbage/waste bins. Recommendations of the Group about the Problematic Area (The Park) Some remedial measures are forwarded by the members of the group to improve the problematic area (the park place). which provides services near to the park. otherwise they may create some potential problems/accidents on the people and the tree itself. which makes the place more uncomfortable for the people who walk and sit in the park. 1.

From that information we got many results. It was also compared with optimal values. 7. The walking way which crosses the park should also be rebuilt. some of them could be also cut down. In order to attract more people to the park place. It is also good to install some taps for drinking water supply for the people. 8 . 8. There is no electric light poles and public toilet around the park place which should be solved by the concerned body. It is also possible to construct playgrounds for children to increase the attractiveness of the park place. For example. It is better to plant beautiful flowers around and inside the park to attract people and to increase the greenery and sightseeing of the park place. These plants are not good and have a very invasive feature. In the task 1 we worked with some coefficients and parameters which held us for making final results. 6. the concerned body should build small shop which is providing some services for the people. The grasses inside the park should be protected and cut on time. Conclusions The main aim of the project which is evaluating the house estate of Zlatý Potok is done. From these results was made a graphic which shows us that the situation in this locality is not optimal. So that these plants should be removed. In task 2 was found out that the area is not dangerous in general. From the field survey result related to task 4 is obvious that some parts (mainly park area) need better management. Because in some parts of the park place the grasses are very tall and found in a disorder way.5. the shop which is selling ice creams for children and young people. Area was divided into 6 zones which were then evaluated one by one according to the tasks. Only one zone of total number was found as little disturbed. maintenance and for many trees is needed arboristic care. most of zones are suitable and optimal in task 3. There are some introduced species in the park.