Ecosystems

, 11:614

Cross-border Comparison of Post-socialist Farmland Abandonment in the Carpathians

  • Tobias Kuemmerle
  • Patrick Hostert
  • Volker C. Radeloff
  • Sebastian van der Linden
  • Kajetan Perzanowski
  • Ivan Kruhlov
Article

Abstract

Agricultural areas are declining in many areas of the world, often because socio-economic and political changes make agriculture less profitable. The transition from centralized to market-oriented economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union after 1989 represented major economic and political changes, yet the resulting rates and spatial pattern of post-socialist farmland abandonment remain largely unknown. Remote sensing offers unique opportunities to map farmland abandonment, but automated assessments are challenging because phenology and crop types often vary substantially. We developed a change detection method based on support vector machines (SVM) to map farmland abandonment in the border triangle of Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine in the Carpathians from Landsat TM/ETM+ images from 1986, 1988, and 2000. Our SVM-based approach yielded an accurate change map (overall accuracy = 90.9%; kappa = 0.82), underpinning the potential of SVM to map complex land-use change processes such as farmland abandonment. Farmland abandonment was widespread in the study area (16.1% of the farmland used in socialist times), likely due to decreasing profitability of agriculture after 1989. We also found substantial differences in abandonment among the countries (13.9% in Poland, 20.7% in Slovakia, and 13.3% in Ukraine), and between previously collectivized farmland and farmland that remained private during socialism in Poland. These differences are likely due to differences in socialist land ownership patterns, post-socialist land reform strategies, and rural population density.

Keywords

agricultural abandonment cropland forest transition Carpathians land use and land cover change land reform transition economies change detection support vector machines (SVM) remote sensing 

References

  1. Angelstam P, Boresjo-Bronge L, Mikusinski G, Sporrong U, Wastfelt A 2003. Assessing village authenticity with satellite images: a method to identify intact cultural landscapes in Europe. Ambio 32:594–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ash TN, Wegren SK 1998. Land and agricultural reform in Ukraine. In: Wegren SK, Ed. Land reform in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Augustyn M 2004. Anthropogenic changes in the environmental parameters of the Bieszczady mountains. Biosphere Conserv 6:43–53.Google Scholar
  4. Baldock D, Beaufoy G, Brouwer F, Godeschalk F 1996. Farming at the margins: abandonment or redeployment of agricultural land in Europe. London: Institute for European and Environmental Policy and Agricultural Economics Research Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Baur B, Cremene C, Groza G, Rakosy L, Schileyko AA, Baur A, Stoll P, Erhardt A 2006. Effects of abandonment of subalpine hay meadows on plant and invertebrate diversity in Transylvania, Romania. Biol Conserv 132:261–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benediktsson JA, Swain PH, Ersoy OK 1990. Neural network approaches versus statistical-methods in classification of multisource remote-sensing data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 28:540–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bicik I, Jelecek L, Stepanek V 2001. Land-use changes and their social driving forces in Czechia in the 19th and 20th centuries. Land Use Policy 18:65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowen ME, McAlpine CA, House APN, Smith GC 2007. Regrowth forests on abandoned agricultural land: a review of their habitat values for recovering forest fauna. Biol Conserv 140:273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buksha I, Pasternak V, Romanovsky V. 2003. Forest and forest products country profile Ukraine. UN-ECE/FAO Timber and Forest Discussion Papers. Geneva: UN-ECE/FAOGoogle Scholar
  10. Burges CJC 1998. A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition. Data Mining Knowl Discov 2:121–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coppin P, Jonckheere I, Nackaerts K, Muys B, Lambin E 2004. Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: a review. Int J Remote Sens 25:1565–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cremene C, Groza G, Rakosy L, Schileyko AA, Baur A, Erhardt A, Baur B 2005. Alterations of steppe-like grasslands in eastern Europe: a threat to regional biodiversity hotspots. Conserv Biol 19:1606–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Csaki C, Lerman Z, Nucifora A, Blaas G 2003. The agricultural sector of Slovakia on the eve of EU accession. Eurasian Geogr Econ 44:305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denisiuk Z, Stoyko SM 2000. The east Carpathian biosphere reserve (Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine). In: Breymeyer A, Dabrowski P, Eds. Biosphere reserves on borders. Warsaw: UNESCO. pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
  15. DLG 2005. Land abandonment, biodiversity, and the CAP. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Government Service for Land and Water Management of the Netherlands (DLG).Google Scholar
  16. Dolishniy MI Ed. 1988. Ukrainskiye Karpaty. Ekonomika [Ukrainian Carpathians. Economy]. Kiev, Ukraine: Naukova Dumka (In Russian).Google Scholar
  17. EEA. 2007. EEA glossary—reforestation [online]. Available from: http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/EEAGlossary/R/reforestation. Accessed 20th December 2007
  18. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P. 2007. Implementing sustainable forest management in Ukraine’s Carpathian mountains: the role of traditional village systems. Forest Ecol Manag 249:28–38.Google Scholar
  19. Filer RK, Hanousek J 2002. Data watch—research data from transition economies. J Econ Perspect 16:225–40.Google Scholar
  20. Foody GM 2002. Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 80:185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foody GM, Mathur A 2004. A relative evaluation of multiclass image classification by support vector machines. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 42:1335–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foody GM, Mathur A 2006. The use of small training sets containing mixed pixels for accurate hard image classification: training on mixed spectral responses for classification by a SVM. Remote Sens Environ 103:179–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Friedl MA, Brodley CE 1997. Decision tree classification of land cover from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 61:399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gellrich M, Baur P, Koch B, Zimmermann NE 2007. Agricultural land abandonment and natural forest re-growth in the Swiss mountains: a spatially explicit economic analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. GLP [Global Land Project] 2005. Science plan and implementation strategy. IGBP Report No. 53/IHDP Report No. 19. Stockholm: IGBPGoogle Scholar
  26. Gorz B, Kurek W 1998. Poland. In: Turnock D, Ed. Privatization in rural eastern Europe. The process of restitution and restructuring. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. pp. 251–73.Google Scholar
  27. Grau HR, Aide TM, Zimmerman JK, Thomlinson JR 2004. Trends and scenarios of the carbon budget in postagricultural Puerto Rico (1936–2060). Glob Chang Biol 10:1163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herenchuk KI 1968. Pryroda Ukrayinskykh Karpat [Nature of the Ukrainian Carpathians]. Lviv, Ukraine: Vydavnytstvo Lvivskoho Universytetu (In Ukrainian).Google Scholar
  29. Hill J, Mehl W. 2003. Geo- and radiometric pre-processing of multi- and hyperspectral data for the production of calibrated multi-annual time series. Photogrammetrie-Fernerkundung-Geoinformation (PFG) 2003, 7–14Google Scholar
  30. Huang C, Davis LS, Townshend JRG 2002. An assessment of support vector machines for land cover classification. Int J Remote Sens 23:725–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hunsaker CT, Levine DA 1995. Hierarchical approaches to the study of water quality in rivers. Bioscience 45:193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ioffe G, Nefedova T, Zaslavsky I 2004. From spatial continuity to fragmentation: the case of Russian farming. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94:913–43.Google Scholar
  33. Izakovicova Z, Oszlany J 2007. The Vychodne Karpaty, a forgotten landscape. Environmental and cultural values as starting points for sustainable development. In: Pedroli B, van Doorn A, de Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D, Bunce, F, Eds. Europe’s living landscapes. Zeist: KNNV Publishing. pp. 277–93.Google Scholar
  34. Janz A, van der Linden S, Waske B, Hostert P. 2007. imageSVM—a user-oriented tool for advanced classification of hyperspectral data using support vector machines. In: Proceedings of the EARSeL SIG Imaging Spectroscopy, Bruges, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  35. Kozak J, Estreguil C, Troll M 2007. Forest cover changes in the northern Carpathians in the 20th century: a slow transition. J Land Use Sci 2:127–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Perzanowski K, Radeloff VC 2006. Cross-border comparison of land cover and landscape pattern in Eastern Europe using a hybrid classification technique. Remote Sens Environ 103:449–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC, Perzanowski K, Kruhlov I 2007. Post-socialist forest disturbance in the Carpathian border region of Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Ecol Appl 17:1279–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lambin EF, Geist HJ Eds. 2006. Land use and land cover change. Local processes and global impacts. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Lepers E, Lambin EF, Janetos AC, DeFries R, Achard F, Ramankutty N, Scholes RJ 2005. A synthesis of information on rapid land-cover change for the period 1981–2000. Bioscience 55:115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lerman Z 1999. Land reform and farm restructuring in Ukraine. Probl Post Communism 46:42–55.Google Scholar
  41. Lerman Z, Csaki C, Feder G 2004. Evolving farm structures and land-use patterns in former socialist countries. Q J Int Agric 43:309–35.Google Scholar
  42. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Lazpita JG, Gibon A 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manag 59:47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MASR [Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic]. 2003. Report on Forestry in the Slovak Republik 2003 (Green Report). Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic, Bratislava, SlovakiaGoogle Scholar
  44. Mathijs E, Swinnen JFM 1998. The economics of agricultural decollectivization in East Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Econ Dev Cult Change 47:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGarigal KMBJ 1994. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Corvallis: Program documentation. Oregon State University.Google Scholar
  46. Melgani F, Bruzzone L 2004. Classification of hyperspectral remote-sensing images with support vector machines. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 48:1778–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Müller D, Munroe DK. 2008. Changing rural landscapes in Albania: agricultural abandonment and forest degradation in the transition. Ann Assoc Am Geogr (in press)Google Scholar
  48. Müller D, Sikor T 2006. Effects of postsocialist reforms on land cover and land use in South-eastern Albania. Appl Geogr 26:175–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nijnik M, Van Kooten GC 2000. Forestry in the Ukraine: the Road Ahead? For Policy Econ 1:139–51.Google Scholar
  50. Nikodemus O, Bell S, Grine I, Liepins I 2005. The impact of economic, social and political factors on the landscape structure of the Vidzeme Uplands in Latvia. Landsc Urban Plan 70:57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmunt B, Christensen SW, Dale VH, Graham RL 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1:153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oetter DR, Cohen WB, Berterretche M, Maiersperger TK, Kennedy RE 2001. Land cover mapping in an agricultural setting using multiseasonal Thematic Mapper data. Remote Sens Environ 76:139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pal M, Mather PM 2005. Support vector machines for classification in remote sensing. Int J Remote Sens 26:1007–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pal M, Mather PM 2006. Some issues in the classification of DAIS hyperspectral data. Int J Remote Sens 27:2895–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Palang H, Printsmann A, Gyuro EK, Urbanc M, Skowronek E, Woloszyn W 2006. The forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landsc Ecol 21:347–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peterson U, Aunap R 1998. Changes in agricultural land use in Estonia in the 1990s detected with multitemporal Landsat MSS imagery. Landsc Urban Plan 41:193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poyatos R, Latron J, Llorens P 2003. Land use and land cover change after agricultural abandonment—the case of a Mediterranean mountain area (Catalan Pre-Pyrenees). Mt Res Dev 23:362–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ramankutty N, Foley JA, Olejniczak NJ 2002. People on the land: changes in global population and croplands during the 20th century. Ambio 31:251–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rudel TK 1998. Is there a forest transition? Deforestation, reforestation, and development. Rural Sociol 63:533–52.Google Scholar
  60. Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Xu JC, Lambin E 2005. Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Glob Environ Change 15:23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seto KC, Liu WG 2003. Comparing ARTMAP neural network with the maximum-likelihood classifier for detecting urban change. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 69:981–90.Google Scholar
  62. Silver WL, Ostertag R, Lugo AE 2000. The potential for carbon sequestration through reforestation of abandoned tropical agricultural and pasture lands. Restor Ecol 8:394–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slater JA, Garvey G, Johnston C, Haase J, Heady B, Kroenung G, Little J 2006. The SRTM data “finishing” process and products. Photogrammetric Eng Remote Sens 72:237–47.Google Scholar
  64. Song C, Woodcock CE, Seto KC, Lenney MP, Macomber SA 2001. Classification and change detection using Landsat TM data: when and how to correct atmospheric effects? Remote Sens Environ 75:230–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. SOR [Statistial Office in Rzeszow]. 2002. Population in the Carpathian ecoregion 1998–2000. Rzeszow, Poland: Statistial Office in RzeszowGoogle Scholar
  66. Swinnen JFM, Buckwell A, Mathijs E. Eds. 1997. Agricultural privatization, land reform and farm restructuring in central and eastern Europe. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  67. Tasser E, Mader M, Tappeiner U 2003. Effects of land use in alpine grasslands on the probability of landslides. Basic Appl Ecol 4:271–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U, Teutsch A, Noggler W 2007. Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the eastern Central Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Trzeciak-Duval A 1999. A decade of transition in central and eastern European agriculture. Eur Rev Agric Econ 26:283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Turner MG, Gardner RH 1991. Quantitative methods in landscape ecology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  71. Turnock D 1998. Introduction. In: Turnock, D, Eds. Privatization in rural eastern Europe. The process of restitution and restructuring. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
  72. Turnock D 2002. Ecoregion-based conservation in the Carpathians and the land-use implications. Land Use Policy 19:47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Dijk T 2003. Scenarios of central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy 20:149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Verburg PH, Schulp CJE, Witte N, Veldkamp A 2006. Downscaling of land use change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Webster R, Holt S, Avis C. Eds. 2001. The status of the Carpathians. A report developed as a part of the Carpathian ecoregion initiative. Vienna: WWF.Google Scholar
  76. Yeloff D, van Geel B 2007. Abandonment of farmland and vegetation succession following the Eurasian plague pandemic of ad 1347–52. J Biogeogr 34:575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zarzycki K, Glowacinski Z 1970. Bieszczady. Przyroda Polska. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna (in Polish).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Kuemmerle
    • 1
  • Patrick Hostert
    • 1
  • Volker C. Radeloff
    • 2
  • Sebastian van der Linden
    • 1
  • Kajetan Perzanowski
    • 3
  • Ivan Kruhlov
    • 4
  1. 1.Geography Department, Geomatics LabHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Forest and Wildlife EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Applied EcologyCatholic University of LublinLublinPoland
  4. 4.Geography DepartmentIvan-Franko UniversityLvivUkraine

Personalised recommendations