Object structure


Relationships between human-environment-space of place – The evolution of research paradigms in geography and the challenge of modernity


Geographia Polonica Vol. 87 No. 3 (2014)


Degórski, Marek



Place of publishing:


Date issued/created:



24 cm

Subject and Keywords:

relationship ; environment ; space ; place ; paradigm ; Warsaw Metropolitan Area


This paper presents the evolution of research paradigms in geography related to the study of relationshipsbetween humans, environment and place, and their tenacious role in functional and spatial analyses of the environmentalmegasystem. The author describes ontological, epistemological as well as axiological dimensionsof interdependencies between humans, environment, and place, understood as space in which the integrationof nature and culture takes place, influencing, among other things, human behavior and generation of thequality of human living conditions. Surveys conducted among the inhabitants of the environs of Warsaw revealedhow different the perception and valuation of environmental issues is depending on space of place, itsstructure, and function. The author also emphasized the potential of environment as a value, which presently,in connection with the quality of human life, is perceived in the category of supply and demand.


1. Barkers F., Colding J., Folke C., 2003. Navigating social-ecological system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Boyd J., Banzhaf S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, vol. 63, no. 2–3, pp. 616–626.
3. Brunn S., Leinba ch T., 1991. Collapsing time and space: Geographic aspects of communication. London: Harper Collins Academic.
4. Burkhard B., Petrosillo I., Costanza R. 2010. Ecosystem services – Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 257–259.
5. Buttimer A., 1996. Geography and humanism in the late twentieth century [in:] Companion encyclopedia of geography: The environment and humankind. I. Douglas, R. Huggett, M. Robinson (eds.), London-New York: Routledge, pp. 837-859.
6. Castells M., 1996. The rise of the Network Society. Cambridge-Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
7. Connely S., Richardson T., 2004. Exclusion: The necessary differences between idea land practical consensus. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 3-17.
8. Costanza R. 2008. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 350-352.
9. Costanza R., d’Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O’Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Ras kin G.R., Sutton P., va n den Belt M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, pp. 253-260.
10. Daily G.C., Matson P.A. 2008. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 28, pp. 9455-9456.
11. Degórska B., 2008. Prawidłowości zróżnicowania przestrzennego i zmian struktury poziomej krajobrazu Obszaru Metropolitarnego Warszawy na przełomie XX i XXI wieku. Atlas Warszawy, 10, pp. 9-87.
12. Degórska B., 2012. Spatial growth of urbanised land within the Warsaw Metropolitan Area in the first decade of the 21st century. Geographia Polonica, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 77-95.
13. Degórski M., 2003. Some aspects of multifunctional landscape character in the interdisciplinary environmental study. [in:] K. Helming, H. Wiggering (eds.), Sustainable development of multifunctional landscapes, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer, pp. 53-65.
14. Degórski M., 2006. Środowisko-człowiek versus człowiek-środowisko, dylemat czy ewolucja behawioralnych postaw społecznych [in:] W. Maik, K. Rembowska, A. Suliborski (eds.), Człowiek w badaniach geograficznych. Podstawowe Idee i Koncepcje w Geografii, 2, Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Wyższej Szkoły Gospodarki, pp. 121-138.
15. Degórski M., 2007. Environmental conditions as a driving force of regional development in Poland [in:] A. Kovacs (ed.), Regionality and/ or locality. Discussion Papers, Special Issue, Pécs: Center for Regional Studies of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 67-80.
16. Degórski M., 2008a. Environmental dimension of transboundary spatial development – driving forces in the ecological regionalism: A case study on the Polish-German borderland [in:] M. Leibenath, E. Korcelli-Olejniczak, R. Knippschild (ed.), Cross-border governance and sustainable spatial development. Mind the gaps! Central and Eastern European Development Studies, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer, pp. 161-173.
17. Degórski M., 2008b. Postrzeganie rozwiązań zrównoważonego rozwoju w kontekście rosnącej świadomości ekologicznej ludności na przykładzie wybranych gmin i miast obszaru metropolitarnego Warszawy [in:] E. Rydz, A. Kowalak (ed.), Świadomość ekologiczna a rozwój regionalny w Europie Środkowo-Wschodniej. Słupsk: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pomorskiej, pp. 30-39.
18. Degórski M., 2012. Integrowanie systemu przyrodniczego z systemem społeczno-gospodarczym podstawą nowoczesnego zarządzania regionem. Przestrzeń i Regiony, 1, pp. 7-32.
19. Degórski M., 2013. Zagrożenia zrównoważonego rozwoju obszarów zurbanizowanych w Polsce z punktu widzenia czynników środowiskowych [in:] W. Gaczek (ed.), Dynamika, cele i polityka zintegrowanego rozwoju regionów. Aspekty teoretyczne i zarządzanie w przestrzeni. Poznań: Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 163-174.
20. de Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braa t L., Hein L., Willemen L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 260-272.
21. Domański R. 2008. Przyczynek do modelowania rozwoju zrównoważonego w długim okresie [in:] T. Stryjakiewicz, T. Czyż (eds.), O nowy kształt badań regionalnych w geografii i gospodarce przestrzennej. Biuletyn KPZK PAN, 237, Warszawa: Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN, pp. 203-224.
22. Doran J.W., Sarrantonio M., Liebig M.A., 1996. Soil health and sustainability [in:] D.L. Sparks (ed.), Advances in Agronomy, 56, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 1-54.
23. Dupont R., Baxter T., Theodore L., 1998. Environmental management, problems and solutions. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
24. Galton F., 1855. Notes of modern geography. Cambridge Essays, London: Parker Publishing, pp. 79-109.
25. Gawor A., Głębocka A., 2008. Jakość życia człowieka współczesnego. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
26. Giuliani M.V., Scopelliti M., 2009. Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 375-386.
27. Gunderson L.H., Holling C.S. 2002. Panarchy, understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington DC: Island Press. Holga te S., Samet J., Koren H., Maynard R. (eds.), 1999. Air pollution and health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28. Hollwey G., 1996. An energy policy for the 21st century. Fuel and Energy Abstracts, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 235.
29. Human Development Report, 2011. Sustainability and equity: A better future for all. United Nations Development Programme, New York: United Nations.
30. Iniyan S., Sumathy K., Suga nthi L., Samuel A.A., 2000. Sensitivity analysis of optimal renewable energy mathematical model on demand variations. Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 199-211.
31. John Paul II , 1985. Apostolic letter Dilecti Amici of Pope John Paul II to the youth of the world on the occasion of International Youth Year. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jpii_apl_31031985_dilecti-amici_en.html [12 June 2014].
32. Karlen D., Ditzler C.A., Andrews S.S., 2003. Soil quality: Why and how? Geoderma, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 145-156.
33. Lagendijk A., Cornford J., 2000. Regional institutions and knowledge – tracking new forms of regional development policy. Geoforum, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 209-218.
34. Lambin E., 2005. Conditions for sustainability of human-environment systems: Information, motivation, and capacity. Global Environmental Change, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 177-180.
35. Lenda M., Skórka P., Moroń D. 2010. Invasivealien plant species a threat or an opportunity for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes? [in:] T.H. Lee (ed.), Agricultural economics: New research. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 67-87.
36. Liu Ch., Liu L., Liu T., 2009. A novel three-dimensional autonomous chaos system. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1950-1958. Maa F., Hanna M., 1999. Biodiesel production: A review. Bioresource Technology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1-15.
37. Maik W., 2006. Problematyka człowieka w geografii w świetle tradycji i rozwoju myśli geograficznej [in:] W. Maik, K. Rembowska, A. Suliborski (ed.), Człowiek w badaniach geograficznych, Podstawowe idee i koncepcje w geografii, 2, Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Wyz˙szej Szkoły Gospodarki, pp. 11-26.
38. Meyer B., Degórski M., 2007. Integration of multifunctional goals into land use – the planning perspective [in:] U. Mander, H. Wiggering, K. Helming (eds.), Multifunctional land use: Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services, Berlin-New York: Springer, pp. 153-166.
39. Murphy A.B., 2006. Enhancing geography’s role in public debate. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 96, no. 1, pp. 1-13.
40. Pulinowa M., 1996. Człowiek-ziemia. Relacja zmienna w czasie [in:] Człowiek bliżej Ziemi: O teoretycznych podstawach nauczania geografii i ich praktycznym zastosowaniu, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, pp. 16-27.
41. Redman C.L. 1999. Human impact on ancient environments. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
42. Relph E., 1976. Place and placelessness. Research in planning and design, 1, London: Pion.
43. Sassen S., 1991. The global city: New York. London, Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44. Sedlacek S., Gaube V., 2010. Regions on their way to sustainability: The role of institutions in fostering sustainable development at the regional level. Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 117-134.
45. Sutherland W.J., Armstrong-Brown S., Armsworth P.R., Brereton T., Brickland J., Campbell C .D., Chamberlain D.E., Cooke A.I., Dulvy N .K., Dusic N .R., Fitton M., Freckleton R .P., Godfray H .C., Grout N., Harvey H .J., Hedley C ., Hopkins J.J., Kift N.B., Kirby J ., Kunin W . E ., MacDonald D.W., Markee B., Naura M., Neale A.R., Oliver T., Osborn D ., Pullin A.S., Shardlow M.E.A., Showler D. A., Smith P.L., Smithers R.J., Solandt J.-L., Spencer J., Spray C .J., Thomas C.D., Thompson J ., Webb S.E., Yalden D .W., Watkinson A.R., 2006. The identification of one hundred ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 617-627.
46. TEEB, 2008. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: An interim report. Germany: European Communities, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf [5 July 2014].
47. Tuan Yi-Fu, 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hal.
48. Tuan Yi-Fu, 1977. Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
49. Vejre H., Jensen F.S., Thorsen B.J., 2010. Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscape. Ecological Complexity, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 338-348.
50. von Bertalanffy L., 1973. General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: G. Braziller.
51. Walmsley D., Lewis G., 1984. Human geography: Behavioural approaches. London-New York: Longman.
52. Wilson E.O., 1998. Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
53. Wisserhof J., 1995. Enhancing research utilization for integrated water management. Water Science and Technology, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 311-319.


Geographia Polonica





Start page:


End page:


Resource Type:



File size 2,2 MB ; application/pdf

Resource Identifier:

0016-7282 ; 10.7163/GPol.2014.28


CBGiOS. IGiPZ PAN, call nos.: Cz.2085, Cz.2173, Cz.2406 ; click here to follow the link




Creative Commons Attribution BY 3.0 PL license

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. [CC BY 3.0 PL] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY 3.0 PL license, full text available at: ; -

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

European Union. European Regional Development Fund ; Programme Innovative Economy, 2010-2014, Priority Axis 2. R&D infrastructure