Landscape Ecology

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 611–628 | Cite as

An integrative approach for analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated and natural mountain areas

  • Erich Tasser
  • Flavio V. Ruffini
  • Ulrike Tappeiner
Research Article

Abstract

Our landscape can be regarded as a development process that is affected and subsequently shaped by a series of different environmental and human-induced factors. However, to date, concrete data about the impact of each of these factors are still missing. One key reason for this is that methods of acquisition and evaluation of these factors inherently have differences, thereby preventing meaningful comparative analyses. This study presents an integrative methodical approach that bridges many of these gaps. Our approach also has the advantages of being generally applicable while delivering easily interpretable results that also allow comparisons between diverse geographical regions. The indicators used enable all major features of landscape change, e.g. changes in land use, landscape structuring, habitat settings, and urban sprawl, to be accurately monitored and provide high-quality realistic results that were validated in our study site, South Tyrol (North Italy). Indicators were selected for both their further subdivision, e.g. monocrops and different features of mixed crops, and their easy to ascertain hierarchically structured feature classification, e.g. land cover. Furthermore, our use of ecoregions enables better comparison of aspects of landscape development for geographical regions having diverse socio-economic and ecological conditions. Our methodical approach can be used as a basis not only for creating landscape change scenarios, but also for determining the environmental and human-induced factors involved and being able to list them in order of importance. Further the detected striking difference between the mapped land-use data and the official census data suggests a validation of the methodical approach in context of the national agriculture census.

Keywords

Agriculture Habitat diversity Landscape structuring Land-use changes Mixed land-use forms Urban sprawl 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank C. Mayer, S. Rieder, K. Schellenberg, A. Stoinschek, and D. Trojer for their help with the inventories of landscape. Special thanks also go to S. Gamper and G. Leitinger for their useful suggestions on earlier drafts of the paper. We also thank Ruth Willmott (Bioscript) for editing the English text. Some present analyses were jointly funded by the INTERREG IIIA-Project MASTA and the 4th framework of the EU project SUSTALP (ENV4-CT97-0442).

References

  1. Antrop M (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 67(1–4):9–26. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelsson A-L, Ostlund L (2001) Retrospective gap analysis in a Swedish boreal forest landscape using historical data. For Ecol Manag 147(2–3):109–122. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00470-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolliger J, Kienast F, Soliva R, Rutherford G (2007) Spatial sensitivity of species habitat patterns to scenarios of land use change (Switzerland). Landscape Ecol 22(5):773–789. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9077-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brabec E, Smith C (2002) Agricultural land fragmentation: the spatial effects of three land protection strategies in the eastern United States. Landsc Urban Plan 58(2–4):255–268. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00225-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt JJE, Bunce RGH, Howard DC, Petit S (2002) General principles of monitoring land cover change based on two case studies in Britain and Denmark. Landsc Urban Plan 62(1):37–51. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00095-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown DG (1998) Classification and boundary vagueness in mapping presettlement forest types. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 12(2):105–129. doi: 10.1080/136588198241914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruns D, Ipsen D, Bohnet I (2000) Landscape dynamics in Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 47(3–4):143–158. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00083-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burel F, Baudry J (1990) Structural dynamic of a hedgerow network landscape in Brittany, France. Landscape Ecol 4(4):197–210. doi: 10.1007/BF00129828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cissel JH, Swanson FJ, Weisberg PJ (1999) Landscape management using historical fire regimes: blue river, Oregon. Ecol Appl 9(4):1217–1231. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[1217:LMUHFR]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dudley N, Baldock D, Nasi R, Stolton S (2005) Measuring biodiversity and sustainable management in forests and agricultural landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1454:457–470. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1593 Google Scholar
  11. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2002) Measuring sprawl and its impacts. Smart Growth America, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrow A, Winograd M (2001) Land use modelling at the regional scale: an input to rural sustainability indicators for Central America. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85(1–3):249–268. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00192-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Environmental Agency (2004) CORINE land cover 2000 in Germany and Europe and its use for environmental applications. Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzsimmons M (2003) Effects of deforestation and reforestation on landscape spatial structure in boreal Saskatchewan, Canada. For Ecol Manag 174(1–3):577–592. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00067-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Food and Agriculture Organisation UN (2000) International year of mountains: concept paper. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. Galster G (2000) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Hous Policy Debate 12(4):681–717Google Scholar
  17. Gautam AP, Webb EL, Shivakoti GP, Zoebisch MA (2003) Land use dynamics and landscape change pattern in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Agric Ecosyst Environ 99(1–3):83–96. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00148-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffith JA, Stehman SV, Loveland TR (2003) Landscape trends in mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States ecoregions. Environ Manag 32(5):572–588. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-0078-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grossi J-L, Chenavier L, Delcros P, Brun J-J (1995) Effects of landscape structure on vegetation and some animal groups after agriculture abandonment. Landsc Urban Plan 31(1–3):291–301. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)01054-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gulinck H, Mugica M, de Lucio JV, Atauri JA (2001) A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 55(4):257–270. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00159-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamre L, Domaas S, Austad I, Rydgren K (2007) Land-cover and structural changes in a western Norwegian cultural landscape since 1865, based on an old cadastral map and a field survey. Landscape Ecol 22:1563–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hehl-Lange S (2001) Structural elements of the visual landscape and their ecological functions. Landsc Urban Plan 54(1–4):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hellawell JM (1991) Development of a rationale for monitoring. In: Goldsmith FB (ed) Monitoring for conservation and ecology. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  24. Jelinski DE, Wu J (1996) The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 11:129–140. doi: 10.1007/BF02447512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenerette GD, Wu J (2001) Analysis and simulation of land-use change in the central Arizona—Phoenix region, USA. Landscape Ecol 16(7):611–626. doi: 10.1023/A:1013170528551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jongman RHG, Bunce RGH (2000) Landscape classification, scales and biodiversity in Europe. In: Mander U, Jongman RHG (eds) Consequences of land use changes. Wit Press, Southampton, pp 11–38Google Scholar
  27. Klein (2006) Historisches Ortslexikon von Südtirol. http://www.oeaw.ac.at/vid/download/histortslexikon/Ortslexikon_Suedtirol.pdf
  28. Leyk S, Zimmermann NE (2004) A predictive uncertainty model for field-based survey maps using generalized linear models. In: Egenhofer MJ, Freksa C, Miller HJ (eds) Geographic information science. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Loibl W, Toetzer T (2003) Modeling growth and densification processes in suburban regions–simulation of landscape transition with spatial agents. Environ Model Softw 18(6):553–563. doi: 10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loveland TR, Sohl TL, Stehman SV, Gallant AL, Sayler KL, Napton DE (2002) A strategy for estimating the rates of recent United States land-cover changes. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 68(10):1091–1099Google Scholar
  31. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J, Gibon A (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manag 59(1):47–69. doi: 10.1006/jema.1999.0335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mander U, Muller F, Wrbka T (2005) Functional and structural landscape indicators: upscaling and downscaling problems: functional and structural indicators: upscaling and downscaling problems. Ecol Indic 5(4):267–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manies KL, Mladenoff DJ, Nordheim EV (2001) Assessing large-scale surveyor variability in the historic forest data of the original U.S. Public Land Survey. Can J For Res 31(10):1719–1730. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-31-10-1719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mather AS, Fairbairn J, Needle CL (1999) The course and drivers of the forest transition: the case of France. J Rural Stud 15:65–90. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00023-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Messerli B, Grosjean M, Hofer T, Nunez L, Pfister C (2000) From nature-dominated to human-dominated environmental changes. Quat Sci Rev 19(1–5):459–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer BC, Hirt U, Mewes M (2003) Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle GmbH, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohaupt-Jahr B, Keil M (2004) The CLC 2000 project in Germany and environmental applications of land use information. In: Federal Environmental Agency (ed) CORINE land cover 2000 in Germany and Europe and its use for environmental applications. Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt), BerlinGoogle Scholar
  38. Nagasaka A, Nakamura F (1999) The influences of land-use changes on hydrology and riparian environment in a northern Japanese landscape. Landscape Ecol 14(6):543–556. doi: 10.1023/A:1008164123102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nagendra H, Munroe DK, Southworth J (2004) From pattern to process: landscape fragmentation and the analysis of land use/land cover change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 101(2–3):111–115. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nohl W (2001) Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 54(1–4):223–237. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00138-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nusser M (2001) Understanding cultural landscape transformation: a re-photographic survey in Chitral, eastern Hindukush, Pakistan. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3–4):241–255. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00207-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palang H, Mander U, Luud A (1998) Landscape diversity changes in Estonia. Landsc Urban Plan 41(3–4):163–169. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00055-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pan D, Domon G, de Blois S, Bouchard A (1999) Temporal (1958–1993) and spatial patterns of land use changes in Haut-Saint-Laurent (Quebec, Canada) and their relation to landscape physical attributes. Landscape Ecol 14(1):35–52. doi: 10.1023/A:1008022028804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peiser R (2001) Decomposing urban sprawl. Town Plan Rev 72:275–298Google Scholar
  45. Piussi P, Farrell EP (2000) Interactions between society and forest ecosystems: challenges for the near future. For Ecol Manag 132(1):21–28. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00376-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plewe B (2002) The nature of uncertainty in historical geographic information. Trans GIS 6(4):431–456. doi: 10.1111/1467-9671.00121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Romero-Calcerrada R, Perry GLW (2004) The role of land abandonment in landscape dynamics in the SPA ‘Encinares del rio Alberche y Cofio, Central Spain, 1984–1999. Landsc Urban Plan 66(4):217–232. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00112-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ruffini FV, Brutti E, Martellato L, Kammerer A, Oberlechner D (2004) Natura 2000 in Südtirol. Leitfaden für die Ausführung der Managementpläne. Europäische Akademie Bozen, BozenGoogle Scholar
  49. Saarinen K, Jantunen J, Saarnio S, Kuitunen K, Marttila O (2001) Effects of land use changes on the landscape composition: a comparison between Finnish and Russian Karelia. Environ Dev Sustain 3(4):265–274. doi: 10.1023/A:1020819118304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmucki R, de Blois S, Bouchard A, Domon G (2002) Spatial and temporal dynamics of hedgerows in three agricultural landscapes of southern Quebec, Canada. Environ Manag 30(5):651–664. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2704-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Steinnocher K, Gangkofner U, Hoffmann C, Köstl M, Petrini-Monteferri F, Tötzer T (2005) Spatial planning indicators—the geoland approach. In: Schrenk M (ed) CORP2005: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in urban Planning and Spatial Development and Impacts of ICT on Physical Space. Vienna, pp. 185–191Google Scholar
  52. Swetnam RD (2007) Rural land use in England and Wales between 1930 and 1998: mapping trajectories of change with a high resolution spatio-temporal dataset. Landsc Urban Plan 81(1–2):91–103. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taillefumier F, Piegay H (2003) Contemporary land use changes in prealpine Mediterranean mountains: a multivariate GIS-based approach applied to two municipalities in the Southern French Prealps. Catena 51(3–4):267–296. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(02)00168-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tappeiner U, Tappeiner G, Hilbert A, Mattanovich E (2003) The EU agricultural policy and the environment. Blackwell, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  55. Tappeiner U, Lechner O, Tappeiner G (2007) Sustainable south Tyrol? Indicators for environment, society, economy. Athesia, BozenGoogle Scholar
  56. Tasser E, Sternbach E, Tappeinera U (2008) Biodiversity indicators for sustainability monitoring at municipality level: an example of implementation in an alpine region. Ecol Indic 8:204–223. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tjallingii SP (2000) Ecology on the edge: landscape and ecology between town and country. Landsc Urban Plan 48(3–4):103–119. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00035-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Eetvelde V, Antrop M (2004) Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional landscapes–two examples from Southern France. Landsc Urban Plan 67(1–4):79–95. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vos W, Meekes H (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc Urban Plan 46(1–3):3–14. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weiers S, Bock M, Wissen M, Rossner G (2004) Mapping and indicator approaches for the assessment of habitats at different scales using remote sensing and GIS methods. Landsc Urban Plan 67(1–4):43–65. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00028-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weinstoerffer J, Girardin P (2000) Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator. Ecol Model 130(1–3):95–109. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00209-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilhalm T, Niklfeld H, Gutermann W (2006) Katalog der Gefäßpflanzen Südtirols. Folio, WienGoogle Scholar
  64. Yli-Viikari A, Hietala-Koivu R, Huusela-Veistola E, Hyvonen T, Perala P, Turtola E (2007) Evaluating agri-environmental indicators (AEIs)—use and limitations of international indicators at national level. Ecol Indic 7(1):150–163. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erich Tasser
    • 1
  • Flavio V. Ruffini
    • 1
  • Ulrike Tappeiner
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.European Academy Bolzano/BozenBozen/BolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Institute of EcologyUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations