The article presents a comprehensive ecological and aesthetic assessment of the Parkovyi Stream (Kaliningrad), which can help to substantiate urban planning and environmental decisions for optimizing the recreational environment. The assessment has been conducted across four morphological sections of the stream valley in accordance with the landscape-visual method by J. Eringis and A.-R. Budriūnas, supplemented by an original interval matrix for result interpretation. The research results revealed a pronounced spatial imbalance between the potential landscape value of the territory and its actual state. It has been found that in the upper and middle reaches (Sections I–III), which pass through key recreational zones (Kashtanovyi Park, an urban public square, the Central Park) rich in cultural heritage sites, landscape aesthetics has been rated as “ordinary” (59–68 points) with “satisfactory” landscape approaches. The limiting factor that degrades the quality of landscape approaches to a “satisfactory” level (33–41 points) is the hydroecological condition of the stream. The watercourse receives runoff from at least 14 storm sewer outlets, and the water quality corresponds to Class 4 (“dirty” according to the Specific Combinatory Water Pollution Index). In the lower reaches (Section IV), anthropogenic digression shifts the landscape into the “low-aesthetic” category with a “poor” landscape approach. It has been concluded that the poor quality of the aquatic environment acts as the primary destructor of the recreational potential of the city's historical blue-green infrastructure, demanding urgent measures for the ecological rehabilitation of the watercourse. Similar findings have been obtained from a sociological survey of citizens, which reveals the priority of the visual cleanliness of water bodies. Despite the “satisfactory” condition of the stream according to the respondents, a great many of them complained about the presence of municipal waste in the water and a persistent unpleasant odor.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsupikova et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: