My discussion with the authors of the article
Landscape as Connecting Link
by Stella Sofia Kyvelou, Anestis Gourgiotis, Greece
The problem of defining the concept of «landscape» and understanding what underlies it is quite old. Therefore, any work that contains any views on the nature of this phenomenon is valuable. I was interested in this work because the authors claim the possibility of the existence of different interpretations of the concept of «landscape», which is a condition for the further development of landscape science and the so-called landscape planning. My point of view on the landscape is slightly different from that suggested by the authors of the article, so I will comment on the text based on my understanding of this phenomenon. The authors – S.S. Kyvelou and A. Gourgiotis - argue that «the research paper investigates the diverse understandings of «landscape», along with demonstrating the modes of contribution of the European Landscape Convention (ELC) of the Council of Europe (CE) in influencing national spatial planning systems. The paper, interested in considering the efficiency of landscape policy from a territorial perspective, briefly outlines the perception and understanding of landscape as connecting link of nature and culture and conducts a literature review with the aim to support the prospect of a «European model of landscape planning» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 1].
The authors write: «The word “landscape” (landscap in Middle Dutch, landschaft in German, landskap in Old Norse, landskip in a previous formation in English) appeared in English in 1603, designating a “settler’s clearing in the forest with animals, huts, fields, and fences” [1 – 3]. “Landscape” initially meant a man-made construct and the intrinsic cultural values and practices » [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 1].
My comment: But we use this term not only in the case of «man-made construct» options, but also to denote intact lands - steppe, floodplain, mountain, plain, glacial and other options. We can assume that the concept of «landscape» began to take shape under the influence of economic activity, which led to the formation of more expressive land-ordering. Moreover, as A. Berque suggested [Berque, 2000], this meaning generally penetrated into Europe from China, where it was generated by Chinese landscape painters of the 4th - 5th centuries - a version that deserves attention.
Next, the authors refer to the definition of H. Leser and J. Löffler: «Leser in 1997  defined landscapes as ecosystems, i.e., composite systems of biotic (including humans) and abiotic elements» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 1].
My comment: It is difficult to understand why the terms «landscape» and «ecosystem» (as a geocomplex or geosystem that is common among Russian authors) can be synonymous. We should also not forget that the term «ecosystem» does not mean the object itself, but its model, built on a systemic principle.
Let's continue: «Nowadays, the shared understanding of “landscape” complies with and often derives from the definition of the European Landscape Convention (ELC, 2000) as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 1 - 2]. Referring to C. Taylor, the authors note: «This definition is compatible with the landscape theory shift to a cultural-based approach of the landscape , which explicitly condemns the idea that landscape, is a view, scenery, or an object that remained unaltered over the ages. The perception of landscape as embraced by the European Convention echoes also the idea of landscape as a social construction. This new paradigm considers landscape as a social product that is the cultural projection of a society in a particular territory from a tangible, intangible and symbolic viewpoint» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 2].
My comment: Since the authors emphasize the definition of «landscape» contained in The European Landscape Convention (this is a very important document), I will dwell on this definition at once. It is as follows: «"Landscape" means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors» [European Landscape Convention, 2000: 9]. Let's try to analyze this definition.
1. «"Landscape" means an area...» - the word «area» I consider as locality, terrain (locality, place, district, country, ground, ambit, sight - I'm not English and I don't know what the differences are and in what cases they are used). But what's the point of adding another term to denote a place? Landscape is not an area (locality, place, district, country, ground, ambit, sight), it is something else, from my point of view, it is an image of the terrain, a pattern that contains the main features, first of all, the drawing of the day surface in this area, the face of the terrain.
2. «as perceived by people». It turns out that when people do not perceive this area (terrain), the landscape is absent. Then the question arises: is there a landscape or not? The definition does not give an answer! To imagine the landscape of a particular area, it is enough to see only part of it. Moreover, when it comes to familiar places, you do not even need to see them, because our memory preserves the images of these places. The effect is enhanced if a person has experience of traveling in this area.
3. «whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors». It is impossible to separate natural and human factors, because man is a part of nature: man with his productive activity and Nature form a single body - man-natural organics. We should talk about a single landscape-forming process as a result of the integration of many different processes that create the physiography of the area with a special pattern of the day surface. Landscape should be defined as land-orderliness, where «lands» are morphotypes of the day surface that form a complex mosaic. So called «landscape-making process» is the process of ordering.
Therefore, this definition of landscape cannot be considered correct. Based on it, it is impossible to understand what a landscape is and what is not. In the reference documents of the European Landscape Convention we find the statements «development of landscapes», «Believing that the landscape is a key element of individual and social well-being and that its protection, management and planning entail rights and responsibilities for everyone» [European Landscape Convention, 2000: 8], which immediately raises the question: a landscape is an entity that exists in the physical world that can develop? And also: in what relation is such a definition of landscape with other concepts, especially geography, such as the concept of «geographical environment»? Finally, is there a mass-energy exchange between the landscape and the environment?
So the definition of the European Landscape Convention (ELC, 2000) given by the authors should be understood as follows: a landscape is the result of people's perception of a certain area that has certain characteristics. In fact, it is not the area that is perceived, but the structure of the day (not buried) surface (drawing) as a kind of two-dimensional text, and the landscape is manifested as its general meaning. Such perception depends on a number of factors, including those cultural features that are inherent in the perceiving person. This is very important: the landscape (and this is nothing but land orderliness, where land is the morphotype of the day – visible - surface) is a mental image of the terrain, not a material object: it is not a body. Thus, a landscape is a generalized image of a terrain that distinguishes it from a simple view, a scene (a landscape is not a scene) or an object (a landscape is not a material object that can be divided into parts). Therefore, the best metaphor for the landscape is the face, in this case the face of the terrain, which is not the same as the physical surface of the face. Landscape is an image formed on the basis of the perception (and contacts in general) of differences in the pattern of the day surface, which contains the history of its formation as a result of the so-called landscape-forming process (ordering process). From this point of view, the landscape is an organization of differences that are perceived by our consciousness in the process of observation. Thus, landscape-forming is an area with a characteristic type of surface pattern, and areas can be of different scales. The point is that areas of different scales are nested in areas of larger scales, which, in turn, are inserted in areas of even larger scales. It turns out an nested structure that contains a fairly wide range of sizes. A great example is Lake Kliluq (english - Spotted Lake, okan. Kłlil'xᵂ), shown in Fig. 1. If the surface pattern is complex, fractoid, we can identify several areas of different scales, in accordance with which the landscapes will be formed.
Fig. 1. Spotted Lake is a saline endorheic alkali lake located northwest of Osoyoos in the eastern Similkameen Valley of British Columbia, Canada. This is an example of a nested-like structure.
This raises questions about the scale of the terrain as a landscaping area. I will note that we can talk about a fairly wide range of scales (and, accordingly, their patterns). In Fig. 2 shows an example of a small area with an original surface pattern. The island of greenery with flowers contrasts sharply with the surroundings. In Fig. 3 we have an example of a much larger area: it is tundra, different variants of which differ in the nature of the surface patterns, but in general - this is the only pattern. In all cases, we are dealing with areas which features of surface drawings allow you to form a mental image. This applies to our entire planet, which can be observed from Space: it is recognizable because it has its own face.
Fig. 2. That's great, max androsace. It's a great job: an example of a small terrain.
Fig. 3. Type of tundra (one of the options): an example of a large-scale terrain. –
It should be added that the landscape is an informational nature, the result of choice, because there are many transitional options. This means that surfaces with a chaotic or rigidly ordered structure (for example, a drawing of a chessboard) cannot be the basis for their perception as landscapes (Fig. 4). This led me to define the landscape as the organization of the drawing of the day surface, where the organization is connected with the action of the landscape-forming (order-forming) process. On the other hand, the perceived drawing of the surface is organized by the perceiver into a mental image - pattern. The formation of such images is a way to curb complexity, which allows you to better navigate the environment (by the way, this allows us to talk about economic, political, linguistic, human and other landscapes). I agree that «landscape as a social product that is the cultural projection of a society in a particular territory from a tangible, intangible and symbolic viewpoint» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 2]. At the same time, in the structure of the day surface there is a certain internal order, organization, which allows us to talk about the ontolandscape - a hidden order due to the action of the landscape-forming process.
Fig. 4. On the left - a rigidly ordered surface structure (chessboard); on the right - a chaotic drawing of the surface: it is not possible to detect the presence of order of the elements.
Let's move on. The following text answers the question: is the landscape, from the point of view of the authors, tangible, can it be built, transformed; can we talk about landscapes in the absence of human activity? It seems that the authors are in this position.
My comment: But landscapes are not used physically! I do not think that the landscape is material, because it is only an image, a pattern of what we perceive. The day surface is material, so people interact with it, not with the landscape. We also do not photograph or draw the landscape, but the day surface (the science that studies the structure of the day surface and its origin is physiography) or the environment as a whole. It consists of many elements - soil particles, stones, intact rock outcrops, ice, snow, water, thermal springs, plants, animals, various formations associated with human activities. They are somewhat orderly, which allows us to talk about patterns. In the presence of biotic components, we say that the surface is biotized, in the presence of anthropogenic components - anthropotized. Accordingly, such will be the landscapes. I do not consider the expression «cultural landscape» as correct, because then we should also talk about «uncultured landscape». To denote such surfaces and corresponding landscapes, the expression «anthropotized» is quite sufficient.
Referring to F. Berkes, J. Colding and C. Folke, the authors write: «Consequently, landscapes and specifically cultural landscapes can be comprehended as social-ecological systems, in which economic, environmental and social constituents are closely interlinked » [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 2].
My comment: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that these authors consider ecological systems as a natural resource that should be managed. This is an outdated position based on anthropocentrism. Today we perceive Nature not as a resource, but as a source of humanity and its home. Man is a product of Nature and in no way came out of it. From my point of view, Nature created Man for self-knowledge. It is not ecosystems that should be managed, but one's own behavior, not transforming Nature, but adapting to it. A great example is the Nilots, who settled in Africa's largest swamp (Fig. 5). I give several options for settlements in this swamp to show how people fit into the surroundings, becoming an organic part of it. We have an example of a well-balanced existence of people in a sustainable environment. Each case is a terrain (terrains) in a larger terrain; each option allows you to form different patterns. And this is another option: The integration of settlements in the Netherlands has a completely different look (Fig. 6). Although in both cases we are talking about life near water, we have different structures of the day surface, which are the basis for the formation of different landscapes. The number of options for how settlements and elements of economic activity of people fit into the environment is quite large. There are many such examples in different natural conditions, and in all cases traces of human activity will be included in the general patterns of the terrains. They do not violate anything, only slightly enliven the area and make it more attractive.
Fig. 5. Nilots in the Swamp Sudd (they live in the middle of the largest swamp in Africa): settlement options are a reflection of the diversity of conditions.
Fig. 6. In Giethoorn, a typically Dutch village in Overijssel, you can perfectly see how the Dutch love to live with and on the water. In an environment full of lakes, reed beds and forests lies this picturesque village with its many handsome farms with thatched roofs and characteristic wooden bridges. [Giethoorn].
The presence of a person with his economic activity complicates the situation. Therefore, formations that contain human activity should be considered as a continuation of the development of natural formations, as their anthropization. In this consideration, the concept of «Social-Ecological Systems» is not needed. To circumvent these problems, I introduced the concept of geoholon≈geoorg as a continuation of the line «geocomplex» → «geosystem». Geoholon can be abiotic, biotized or anthropotized. This applies to the three main axes, which the authors write below.
2. Materials used and Methods of Assessment
In paragraphs 2 and 3, the authors write about Landscape Zones – «A “Landscape Zone” is defined as an area identified and demarcated on the basis of its distinct personality, taking into account geomorphology and the elements that characterize it. A Landscape Zone is characterized by a dominant function or element (a lake, gorge etc.), which however may extend to neighboring areas with which there is functional spatial dependence» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 3].
My comment: I think we should talk about physiographic areas and zones. This also applies to the landscape map. There are some questions on the 3rd point. There are some questions. There is a question about the concept of «individual landscape». This option is defined as «unique designs for individuals», but any landscape is an individual form of perception of the structure of the day surface. So, this concept does not make sense. Next, in paragraph (6) we read: «value of landscape as a natural resource». But the landscape cannot be a resource!
The authors address the issue of classification of landscapes, but do not classify landscapes, but morphotypes of the day surface.
In paragraph 3, the authors write about spatial plans. I understand that the plans are different, but here we are talking about objects with a clear space component. The authors cite Table 1 - «Number and category of landscapes, in the three Greek regions mentioned above». Of course, maps are not landscape, they are maps of areas: maps of areas on physiological grounds. Scale - Landscape of International Value; Landscape of National Value; Landscape of Regional Value; Particularly Degraded Landscape - looks artificial. I think it was worth making a map of the attractiveness of the area.
The authors used the following criteria to assess what they present as landscapes: «(1) aesthetic and natural beauty, (2) representativeness, (3) recognition, (4) natural character, (5) existing recognized protected elements, (6) value of landscape as a natural resource, and (7) uniqueness-rarity» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 5].
My comment: «natural beauty»: I don't know what «natural beauty» is, it's a very controversial term. Beauty, natural or not, is appreciated by each person individually and is a deep feeling that (this is for sure) is not fully conveyed in words.
«representativeness» is a good indicator, but diversity is more important.
«recognition» - it depends on how knowledgeable and experienced people (observers) are.
«natural character»: I understand that we are talking about the naturalness of the area, the degree of «pollution» by anthropogenic elements or simply their presence. But the above photos show that often their presence enlivens the environment, making it more attractive.
«existing recognized protected elements» - the landscape is an integral image and has no elements.
«value of landscape as a natural resource» - the landscape cannot be considered a resource.
«uniqueness-rarity» - this is an important criterion.
In paragraph 4, the authors write about the priorities in landscape planning. I think we should talk about physiographic planning.
3.1. A Literature Review about Landscape Policy from a Territorial Perspective
A sufficiently complete review of the literature, which, however, is, firstly, limited to ELC-related sources, and secondly, is not critical. This indicates that the authors fully agree with the provisions of the ELC and the authors who discuss these issues in the publications. At that time, there is an issue that would be worth discussing. For example, what is the meaning of the term «landscape considerations»? I understand what mechanistic reasoning, systemic reasoning, and holistic reasoning is, but it's hard for me to imagine how it is possible to think in a landscape way. Next, referring to A. Phillips and R. Clarke, the authors write that «Landscape has come to be viewed as both a natural and cultural resource with a strong appeal to society and a medium through which sustainable development programs can be pursued in the future » [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 5]. But not all authors hold this position.
My comment: First: «a natural and cultural resource». Landscape is not a resource at all, because it is only a form of our perception of the environment, which allows us to curb the complexity that facilitates orientation in the world. Second: Man is a product of the evolution of Nature, everything that people produce is allowed by Nature. This also applies to culture. The era of industrialization has contributed to the spread of the idea of human domination over Nature, but this is a misconception. Over time, such a culture will be developed - geoculture - that will ensure the integration of humanity into Nature. The so-called «sustainable development» (I prefer the term «concerted/coordinated development») really contributes to this.
It seems that we are dealing with a political party «ELC», whose supporters without discussion reject all other options and try to approve a single version as an indisputable fact. This once happened in Soviet geography, when everyone was imposed a single point of view associated with the L.S. Berg’ name.
3.2. Greek Landscapes, between Nature and Culture
Next, I will discuss the points that evoke lamentations. Authors write: «The surrounding Mediterranean basin is a very special natural-geographical space» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 10], «The peculiarities, the complexity and the beauty of these spatial and social formations ...» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 10]. This also applies to the term «spatial formations», which the authors put on a par with social formations, which is not correct.
My comment: The so-called geographical space is a misconception that has taken over the minds of geographers in recent decades. Geographical space does not exist, just as there is no physical space, because the concept of «space» is a pure abstraction, which was formed by the development of human civilization to organize the environment. This also applies to the concept of «time». In the scientific field, space and time are only parameters that are convenient for displaying phenomena and processes. Mathematician H. Minkovski developed a theory of four-dimensional space-time. Adding an organization, we will have a 5-dimensional HoroChronoOrg as an integral whole although the space-time component (dynamics) is already contained in the organization.
Another statement that raises the question: «The landscape traditionally adapted to local socio-economic structures, often governed by the locally diversified power relationships between the different families and social groups and to a great extent was influenced by the action of indigenous people and communities, their values and knowledge, their means of production and the technology they used» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 10].
My comment: I apologize, the landscape does not adapt to anything, it is not a physical (biological, social ...) formation, and it only expresses the general appearance of the day surface as a reflection of the action of certain processes within the area, as seen by the observer. If processes related to human activity are connected, this will be included in the general pattern: we get an anthropogenic landscape.
3.3. The Institutional Approach to Landscape in Greece
This paragraph is very interesting. The attitude towards natural and archeological sites in Greece can be an example for other countries.
On p. 12 authors write: «The choice, due to the great extent of the dichotomy between environmental policy and planning still valid in the country, was to adopt an autonomous framework of tools and actions for the environmental components, independent of that of the spatial components, without direct interconnection and interdependence» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 11].
My comment: I do not understand the term «spatial components»: are these components of space or some components that are marked by spatiality as the most important characteristic? I think both options are incorrect.
In the signature of Fig. 4 and the corresponding table is a statement: «Spatial planning-sustainable development and other provisions» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 12].
My comment: I have already spoken above about the existence of space (and time), but did not consider the so-called «spatial planning». I consider this statement incorrect, it is necessary to speak about territorial planning, and perhaps even about structural-functional planning. The need for change may necessitate structural changes, which entails functional changes (elimination of old or emergence of new functions).
3.4. The Greek Response to the European Landscape Convention, Spatial Planning Implications
The authors write: «The Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for spatial/regional planning (CEMAT) has shown  that well-designed spatial planning policies based on balancing social, cultural, economic and environmental needs are essential in order to ensure sustainable long-term growth and exploit the landscape as a strategic component of citizens’ quality of life, in accordance with the European Landscape Convention» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 11], and especially the following text: «Landscape is considered to be environmental and development planning resource representing the country’s comparative advantage ...» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 11].
My comment: But this suggests that the landscape in this article is seen as a geographical environment that is perceived as a resource that can be managed. It looks weird.
I am overwhelmed by statements like this «sustainable management of landscape as a whole», «key priorities and landscape quality targets for each Landscape Zone» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 13].
My comment: This reminds me of the old days, when it was believed that man can conquer Nature and manage it sustainably. Nature, especially if it contains human activity, is too complex an entity that cannot be managed, it is difficult to manage even one's own behavior!
It also raises the question of whether the landscape consists of elements derived from the phrase «… for the protection of landscape elements» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 14]?
My comment: Landscape is a whole and is not divided into elements.
Below we read: «This initial aspect has, of course, changed, the natural and cultural components of the landscape are understood through the spatial footprint of culture» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 14].
My comment: The landscape does not consist of elements or components. Decomposition into components (or elements) radically changes the essence of the landscape as a whole pattern.
I like the author's view on the problem of the relationship between the natural environment and human activity: «The establishment of high-quality landscapes deriving from the feedback relationship that local communities develop with the natural-geographic features of space in the context of socio-economic relations, as these develop at the local, national and international level, is a requirement of modern times but also a necessity of which we become increasingly aware» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 15].
My comment: We should not talk about high-quality landscapes, but about high-quality (attractive) physiography of areas/terrain. I also can't agree with the phrase «the natural-geographical features of space». The question arises: what properties of space are geographical? Geography is the science of the forms of organization of geographical formations - abiotic, biotized and anthropized, sustained and dynamic modes of which are reflected in the structure of the day surface. Regarding the concept of «space», I have already stated above.
4. Discussion and Recommendations
Could not miss the following phrase: «Such tools could include the establishment of a Greek Landscape Observatory, in order to pinpoint landscape features at the local level and, at the same time, contribute to the sound management of space» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 15].
My comment: Here I will pay attention to «management of space». It is possible to control what can change, and space is just an abstraction, which arose due to the fact that we are in a heterogeneous environment and have a memory. Therefore, «management of space» is meaningless.
This is an important piece of text that allows a clearer understanding of the authors' position on the concept of «landscape»: «This research paper primarily aimed at positioning landscape as a connecting link between nature and culture. Landscapes reconnect symbolically nature and culture, since they developed due to natural processes in continuous interaction with social and cultural interventions and economic pressures and are major sources of a series of ecosystem services including cultural ones (CES), thus being sources of inspiration, cultural and recreational values. Landscapes and especially cultural landscapes are nowadays comprehended as social-ecological systems, in which social, economic, and environmental components are closely interlinked. This consideration, in combination with the evolution of our understanding of conservation, has apparently influenced the definition of landscape as expressed in the European Landscape Convention (ELC) of the Council of Europe. Based on the literature review, a conclusion is that the ELC marks a transition regarding an environmental and territorial understanding of the concept of landscape and the correlated actions of landscape protection, management and planning» [Kyvelou, Gourgiotis, 2019: 16].
My comment: It is difficult to agree with this. Landscape is a holistic image of the environment within the terrain, primarily - the physiography of the day surface. It is here that the processes that form its image as a kind of two-dimensional text unfold. And it does not matter which processes are included in the overall landscape-forming process - abiotic, biotized or anthropotized, interacting, they act together. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the statements of the authors. A landscape is a holistic image of the environment within the area, primarily - the physiography of the day surface. It is here that the processes that form its image as a kind of two-dimensional text unfold. And it does not matter which processes are included in the overall landscape-forming process - abiotic, biotic or anthropic, interacting, they act together: there is human nature and human nature and nothing goes beyond Nature. What the author calls cultural interventions and economic (actually - production) pressure is a sign of insufficient culture. It makes no sense to classify the so-called cultural landscapes (these should be called anthropotized) as socio-ecological systems. Why match two terms to one phenomenon? There is no logic in this. To ask the question of the evolution of the understanding of environmental activities today is an anachronism, today we should ask the question of the evolution of human behaviour in relation to Nature, of which it is a part. I would like to note that the laws adopted in Greece to implement the provisions developed by the ELC are an important direction, but we should not forget that the laws are a system of external restrictions. Therefore, it is much more important to work towards spreading people's culture, because culture is a system of internal constraints. This is what the concept of concerted/coordinated development aims at. It is about the formation and spread of geoculture.
Concluding the review, I note the following. We see that it is not so easy to find common ground with people who cover issues related to the phenomenon of landscape, as well as the problems of interaction of human communities with the natural environment. We need a closer and more active interaction between professionals with different views.
Kyvelou S.S., Gourgiotis A. Landscape as Connecting Link of Nature and Culture: Spatial Planning Policy Implications in Greece // Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 81; doi:10.3390/urbansci3030081, 2019. – 20 p. –
Berque A. Landscape and the overcoming of modernity - Zong Bing’s principle - SG2 – IGU Study Group – THE CULTURAL APPROACH IN GEOGRAPHY – Seoul, August 14-18, 2000, pp. 1 – 8.
European Landscape Convention, 2000 - https://rm.coe.int/16802f80c6
Spotted Lake – https://www.google.com/search?q=spotted+lake+british+columbia+canada&rlz=1C1CHBD_ruUA895UA895&sxsrf=ALeKk014pDb3ll2Ap83TblsmX7bfEzjBnA:1619237235624&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=pdBwQW8dJqOdLM%252CWuvlrAUbYxjYRM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQKYi1dUimJEOuGKw2akv2JnbGOoQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVzPHhgJbwAhXj8LsIHXB6Cw8Q9QF6BAgHEAE&biw=853&bih=609&dpr=1.5#imgrc=pdBwQW8dJqOdLM
Nilots in the Swamp Sudd –
Giethoorn, Holland.com editors.
 The term "fractoid" was introduced by the famous Kharkiv astronomer Yu.G. Shkuratov to denote formations having a structure close to fractal in a limited number of scale levels.