Primerjava metodologij ocenjevanja vplivov posegov na območja kmetijskih zemljišč za potrebe umeščanja linijskih objektov v prostor : magistrsko delo

Papler, Urša (avtor), Grčman, Helena (mentor), Ceglar, Andrej (komentor)

Zaradi vse vecje izgube kmetijskih zemljišc kot posledice umešcanja linijskih objektov v prostor, ter pogostim neskladjem med mnenji ministrstva pristojnega za kmetijstvo (MKGP) in ministrstva pristojnega za prostor, je v letu 2012 MKGP podalo predlog za razvoj in implementacijo metodologije za ocenjevanje vplivov posegov na obmocja kmetijskih zemljišc za potrebe umešcanja linijskih objektov v prostor (nova metodologija). Z novo metodologijo je želelo doseci postavitev objektivnih mej sprejemljivosti. Nova metodologija, ki jo je za ta namen razvila Biotehniška fakulteta (Grcman in sod., 2012), temelji na izracunu integralne ocene, ki omogoca primerjavo razlicnih tras med seboj in postavitev mej sprejemljivosti v okviru petstopenjske lestvice, ki jo predvideva okoljska zakonodaja, kar je kljucno v procesu odlocanja o koncni izbiri variante. Namen magistrske naloge je na osnovi analize primerov ugotoviti razlike med metodologijo vrednotenja izgub kmetijskih zemljišc, ki jo uporablja stroka v okoljskem porocilu in študiji variant (obstojeca metodologija) in predlogom nove metodologije. Preucili smo okoljski porocili in študiji variant za primer DC med AC A1 Šentilj-Koper in mejo z Republiko Avstrijo (8 variant%F odsek) in AC Postojna%Divaca%Jelšane (4 variante S koridor in 2 varianti J koridor), ter pridobili integralne ocene po predlogu nove metodologije. Ker okoljska zakonodaja ne predpisuje razvršcanja znotraj ene ocene sprejemljivosti, smo nadgradili obstojeco metodologijo na nacin, da smo lahko dolocili vrstni red variantam, ki so zapadle pod isti razred sprejemljivosti in s tem omogocili primerjavo med vrstnim redom podanim v študiji variant. Rezultati primerjav med obema metodologijama so pokazali, da ni bistvenih razlik v razvršcanju variant, medtem ko so bistvene razlike pri umešcanju v razrede sprejemljivosti. Pri tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da nova metodologija omogoca postavitev objektivnih mej sprejemljivosti in bolje ovrednoti razlike med trasami. Namen naloge je bil tudi dokazati, da so kmetijska zemljišca podrejena drugim vidikom (okoljski, prostorski, funkcionalni in ekonomski), ki se obravnavajo v sinteznem vrednotenju. Na osnovi analize treh primerov sinteznega vrednotenja v študijah variant, navedenega nismo mogli dokazati. Zagotovo pa lahko trdimo, da je pri koncni odlocitvi variante v vseh treh študijah prevladal ekonomski vidik.

• Jezik: Slovenski jezik
• Ključne besede: kmetijska zemljišča, linijski objekti, umeščanje, prostor, metodologija, primerjava, vpliv na izgubo kmetijskih zemljišč, ceste, Slovenija
• Vrsta gradiva: Magistrsko delo
• Tipologija: 2.09 - Magistrsko delo
• Organizacija: BF - Biotehniška fakulteta
• Kraj izida: Ljubljana
• Založnik: [U. Papler]
• Leto izida: 2016
• Št. strani: XVI, 110 f., [105] str. pril.
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-115311
• UDK: 711.73:625.7:534.836:62-783(043.2)=163.6
• COBISS.SI-ID: 4449702
• Datum objave v RUL: 22.04.2020

Sekundarni jezik

• Jezik: Angleški jezik
• Naslov: Comparison of methodologies for impact assessment of interventions in the areas of agricultural land for the placement of linear facilities into space

Izvleček

Owing to the ever growing loss of agricultural land as a result of infrastructure facilities emplacement in the physical space and frequent differences between the opinions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and the ministry responsible for spatial planning, in 2012 the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food put forward a proposal for a development and implementation of a methodology for evaluation the agricultural land loss due to infrastructure emplacement (a new methodology). By the new methodology they wanted objective limits of acceptability to be set. The new methodology which has been developed by the Biotechnical Faculty (Grcman et al., 2012) for this purpose, is based on the calculation of an integral evaluation that enables various routes to be compared between themselves and the limits of acceptability to be set in compliance with the environmental legislation, which is if key importance in the process of making a decision concerning the final choice of a variant. The purpose of the present master's thesis is to establish on the basis of case analysis the differences between the methodology of evaluation of agricultural land losses which is used by the professionals in the environmental report and study of variants (the existing methodology) and the proposal of the new methodology. We have studied the environmental reports and the relevant variant studies for the cases the state road between the MW A1 Šentilj-Koper and the border with the Republic of Austria (8 variants have been dealt with on the section F) and the MW section Postojna Divaca Jelšane (4 variants North corridor and 2 variants South corridor) and acquired integral evaluations according to the proposal of the new methodology. Since the environmental legislation does not prescribe the classification within one acceptability evaluation we have upgraded the existing methodology so that we could determine the classification of the variants which fell under the same acceptability class and thus enabled the comparison between the variants classification. The results of the comparisons between the twoo methodologies have shown that there are no critical differences between the classifications of the variants. However, critical differences come into being between the new and the existing methodology in defining the acceptability classes. It has further been established that the new methodology enables objective acceptability limits to be set and a better assessment of the differences between the routes. The purpose of the present thesis has been to prove that agricultural land is subjected to other aspects (environmental, spatial, functional and economic) which are dealt with within the synthesis evaluation. On the basis of the analysis of three cases in the variant studies we have not been able to prove the above. Surely we can say that the final decision variants in all three studies was dominated by economic aspects.