Advertisement

Basic Principles of Sustainable Land Use Management

  • Zita IzakovičováEmail author
  • László Miklós
  • Jana Špulerová
Chapter
Part of the Innovations in Landscape Research book series (ILR)

Abstract

The paper is aimed at the presentation of the integrative approach assessment of environmental land use conflicts. It presents basic principles of sustainable land use management. The changes in land use are reflected not only in changes of land cover. They are also the cause of changes in landscape structure and are the main initiation of many environmental problems. From this aspect, it is important to engage the land structure studies not only in the studies of land use forms and land cover, but also in the studies of position and relation in landscape (cause–consequence). To find the cause and casualties of these changes is very important for implementation of rationale landscape utilization. The basic tool for suitable landscape utilization is integrated landscape management as a major instrument of sustainable development. It must be based on understanding landscape systematically as geosystem. The every point of the landscape is representing the integrating scope, scene in which all natural resources are occurring as layers (geological sources, water and soil sources, climate, biotic sources and morphometric parameters) which are mixing together. It is seen as understanding the space as integration of particular natural sources in given area of landscape. Using one source can negatively affect the quality of other sources. For example, intensive use of soil resources can threaten water resources—negative impacts of chemistry, mechanization, and so on. Therefore, land use needs to be assessed on an integrated basis. From aspect of ‘sustainability’, the target is to define such landscape management, which would regulate socio-economic development in landscape with its natural, human, cultural and historical potential. It is based on matching the supply that is represented by landscape resources and demand that is represented by community needs and community requirements. The discrepancy between supply and demand (not respecting the properties of landscape resources) is the determining factor of formation of the environmental problems. The paper presents evaluation of environmental problems resulting from conflict of interests in the land use and methodology for sustainable land use that is based on the integrative approach to the landscape.

Keywords

Land use Land cover Sustainable development Integrated landscape management Landscape as geosystem Environmental problems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic [No. 2/0078/18 “Research of biocultural values of landscape”].

References

  1. Antrop M (2000) Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agr Ecosyst Environ 77:17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan, Rural Landsc: Process Futur Strat 70:21–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Stryamets N, Johansson KE (2012) Sustainable development and sustainability: landscape approach as a practical interpretation of principles and implementation concepts. J Landsc Ecol 4:5–30.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10285-012-0040-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baessler C, Klotz S (2006) Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on landscape structure and arable weed vegetation over the last 50 years. Agr Ecosyst Environ 115:43–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.12.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barančok P, Barančoková M (2013) Development of sports and recreational activities in the Chopok area (Nízke Tatry Mts.) and protection of important landscape elements. In: Fialová J, Kubíčková H (eds) Public recreation and landscape protection—with man hand in hand: conference proceedings. Mendel Univ, Dept Landscape Management, Brno, pp 27–33Google Scholar
  6. Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecological indicators, challenges of sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Quantif, Model Valuat/Account 21:7–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belcakova I (2016) Approaches to evaluation of landscape scenery—a conceptual contribution. In: Corniello L (ed) World heritage and degradation: smart design, planning and technologies. Scuola Pitagora Editrice, Napoli, pp 480–485Google Scholar
  8. Bell S, Nikodemus O, Penēze Z, Krūze I (2009) Management of cultural landscapes: what does this mean in the former Soviet Union? A case study from Latvia. Landsc Res 34:425–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bender O, Boehmer HJ, Jens D, Schumacher KP (2005a) Analysis of land-use change in a sector of Upper Franconia (Bavaria, Germany) since 1850 using land register records. Landsc Ecol 20:149–163.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-003-1506-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bender O, Boehmer HJ, Jens D, Schumacher KP (2005b) Using GIS to analyse long-term cultural landscape change in Southern Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 70:111–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bezák P, Mederly P, Izakovičová Z, Špulerová J, Schleyer C (2017) Divergence and conflicts in landscape planning across spatial scales in Slovakia: an opportunity for an ecosystem services-based approach? Int J Biodivers Sci, Ecosyst Serv Manag 13:119–135.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1305992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 Pol 18:65–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00047-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biopress—Linking pan-European landcover change to pressures on biodiversity [WWW Document] 2003. URL http://www.creaf.uab.es/biopress/index2.htm. Accessed on 12 June 2018
  14. Bradley P, Yee S (2015) Using the DPSIR framework to develop a conceptual model: technical support documentGoogle Scholar
  15. Brandt J, Primdahl J, Reenberg A (1999) Rural land-use and landscape dynamics-analysis of ’driving forces’ in space and time. Land-use changes and their environmental impact in rural areas in EuropeGoogle Scholar
  16. Braunisch V, Patthey P, Arlettaz RL (2011) Spatially explicit modelling of conflict zones between wildlife and snow sports: prioritizing areas for winter refuges. Ecol Appl 21:955–967.  https://doi.org/10.1890/09-2167.1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bunce RGH, Barr CJ, Clarke RT, Howard DC, Lane AMJ (1996) Land classification for strategic ecological survey. J Environ Manage 47:37–60.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Hojas L, Weel S (2007) 25 years landscape ecology. Scientific principles in practice. In: book of Abstracts. Proceedings of the 7th IALE world congress Part 1 and 2. international association for landscape, Wageningen, p 524Google Scholar
  19. Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N (2004) Driving forces of landscape change—current and new directions. Landsc Ecol 19:857–868.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-0245-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bürgi M, Bieling C, von Hackwitz K, Kizos T, Lieskovsky J, Martin MG, McCarthy S, Muller M, Palang H, Plieninger T, Printsmann A (2017) Processes and driving forces in changing cultural landscapes across Europe. Landsc Ecol 32:2097–2112.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0513-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conway TM, Lathrop RG (2005) Modelling the ecological consequences of land-use policies in an urbanizing region. Environ Manag 35:278–291.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-4067-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. CORINE Land Cover (CLC). Copernicus global land service providing bio-geophysical products of global land surface [WWW Document], 2018. URL https://land.copernicus.eu/global/. Accessed on 12 Apr 2018
  23. Csorba P (1996) Landscape-ecological change of the land use pattern on the east foothill area of the Tokaj Mountains (Hungary). Ekol Bratisl 15:115–127Google Scholar
  24. de Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan, Landsc Sustain 75:175–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Sherbinin A (2002) A CIESIN thematic guide to land-use and land-cover change (LUCC). Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University Palisades, NY, USA, p 68Google Scholar
  26. Demková K, Lipský Z (2015) Changes in non-forest woody vegetation in the south-western part of the white carpathians (1949–2011). Geografie 120:64–83Google Scholar
  27. Dyer J (1994) Land-use pattern, forest migration, and global warming. Landsc Urban Plan 29:77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90019-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. EEA (2018a) Copernicus Land Monitoring Service—Urban Atlas [WWW Document]. European Environment Agency. URL https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/copernicus-land-monitoring-service-urban-atlas. Accessed on 12 June 2018
  29. EEA (2018b) CICES Version 5.1 [WWW Document]. https://cices.eu/. URL https://cices.eu/. Accessed on 10 June 2018
  30. ELI—The European land-use institute [WWW Document], 2018. URL https://www.eli-web.com/. Accessed on 12 June 2018
  31. Falťan V, Krajcirovičová L, Petrovič F, Khun M (2017) Detailed geoecological research of terroir with the focus on georelief and soil—a case study of Kratke Kesy Vineyards. Ekologia (Bratislava) 36:214–225.  https://doi.org/10.1515/eko-2017-0018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, p 640Google Scholar
  33. Frelichova J, Fanta J (2015) Ecosystem service availability in view of long-term land-use changes: a regional case study in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Health Sustain 1:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1890/EHS15-0024.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52:143–150.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052%5b0143:PCAUDF%5d2.0.CO,2
  35. Haddock J, Tzanopoulos J, Mitchley J, Fraser R (2007) A method for evaluating alternative landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation of habitats. Ecol Econ 61:277–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Indic, ChallS Sustain Nat Cap Ecosyst Serv Quantif, Model Valuat/Account 21:39–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ivanova M, Michaeli E, Boltiziar M, Juhascikova J (2011) Analysis of landscape heterogeneity changes on the example of Hlinne, Vysny Zipov, and Zlatnik village (eastern Slovakia) in the period 1826–2006. Ekologia (Bratislava) 30:269–280. https://doi.org/10.4149/ekol_2011_01_269Google Scholar
  38. Izakovičová Z, Miklos L, Drdoš J (1997) Krajinnoekologické podmienky trvalo udržateľného rozvoja. VEDA publishing of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, p 183 (In Slovak)Google Scholar
  39. Izakovičová Z, Mederly P, Petrovič F (2017) Long-term land use changes driven by urbanisation and their environmental effects (example of Trnava City, Slovakia). Sustainability 9:1553.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Izakovičová Z, Miklós L, Miklósová V (2018a) Integrative assessment of land use conflicts. Sustainability 10:3270.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Izakovičová Z, Špulerová J, Petrovič F (2018b) Integrated approach to sustainable land use management. Environments 5:37.  https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5030037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jensen K, Murray F (2005) Intellectual property. Enhanced: intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310:239–240.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1120014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jongman RHG (ed) (1996) Ecological and landscape consequences of land use change in Europe. In: Proceedings of the ECNC seminar on land use change and its ecological consequences. European Centre of Nature Conservation, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  44. Kienast F, Frick J, van Strien MJ, Hunziker M (2015) The swiss landscape monitoring program—a comprehensive indicator set to measure landscape change. Ecol Model, Use Ecol Indic Model 295:136–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kolejka J (1987) Landscape-historical synthesis materials, methods and results. Ekologia CSFR 6:51–62Google Scholar
  46. Kolejka J (2018) Landscape mapping using GIS and google earth data. Geogr Nat Resour 39:254–260.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1875372818030095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. KolejkaJ (2006) Application of digital landscape model in crisis management. Geogr Tech 1:101–109Google Scholar
  48. Mucher CA, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Klijn JA, Koomen, E, Metzger, MJ., Wascher, DM (2003) Identification and characterisation of environments and landscapes in Europe (Scientific report). Alterra, Wageningen, p 119Google Scholar
  49. Kristensen P (2004) The DPSIR framework. In: Paper presented at the 27–29 september 2004 workshop on a comprehensive/detailed assessment of the vulnerability of water resources to environmental change in Africa using river basin approach. Presented at the UNEP Headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya, p 10Google Scholar
  50. Kumar P (ed) (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. UNEP/Earthprint, p 454Google Scholar
  51. Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George PS, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X, Moran EF, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan PS, Richards JF, Skånes H, Steffen W, Stone GD, Svedin U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Change 11:261–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lieskovsky J, Kaim D, Balazs P, Boltiziar M, Chmiel M, Grabska E, Kiraly G, Konkoly-Gyuro E, Kozak J, Antalova K, Kuchma T, Mackovcin P, MojsesM Munteanu C, Ostafin K, Ostapowicz K, Shandra O, Stych P, Radeloff VC (2018) Historical land use dataset of the Carpathian region (1819–1980). J Maps 14:644–651.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2018.1502099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lipský Z (2000) Experience in assessment of landscape character. Ekol (Bratisl)/Ecol (Bratisl) 19:188–198Google Scholar
  54. Lipsky Z, Kopecky M, Kvapil D (1999) Present land use chances in the Czech cultural landscape. Ekol Bratisl 18:31–38Google Scholar
  55. Mander U, Jongman RHG (1999) Ecological and socio-economic consequences of land use changes. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, pp 269–280Google Scholar
  56. Mander U, Murka M (2003) Landscape coherence: a new criterion for evaluating impacts of land use changes. In: Mander U, Antrop M (eds) Multifunctional landscapes, Vol III: continuity and change. Wit Press, Southampton, pp 15–32Google Scholar
  57. Mander U, Palang H, Ihse M (2004) Development of European landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 67:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00025-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miklós L (1996) Landscape-ecological theory and methodology: a goal oriented application of the traditional scientific theory and methodology to a branch of a new quality. Ekol Bratisl 15:377–385Google Scholar
  59. Miklós L, Izakovičová Z(1997) Krajina ako geosystém. VEDA publishing of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, p. 153, (In Slovak)Google Scholar
  60. Miklós L, Kočická E, Izakovičova Z, Kočický D, Špinerová A, Diviaková A, Miklósová V (2019) Landscape as a geosystem. Springer International Publishing, p 157Google Scholar
  61. Miklós L, Miklisova D, Reháková Z (1986) Systematization and automatization of decision-making process in LANDEP method. Ekologia ČSFR 5:203–231Google Scholar
  62. Muchova Z, Leitmanova M, Petrovič F (2016) Possibilities of optimal land use as a consequence of lessons learned from land consolidation projects (Slovakia). Ecol Eng 90:294–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. OECD (2001) OECD Environmental indicators. Towards Sustainable Development. Paris, p 155Google Scholar
  65. Olah B, Žigrai F (2004) The meaning of the time-spatial transformation of the landscape for its sustainable use (a case study of the transition zone of the Poľana Biosphere Reserve). Ekol Bratisl 23:231–243Google Scholar
  66. Oťahel’ J, Feranec J (2001) Landscape structure of Slovakia in the context of sustainability. Ekol Bratisl 20:88–99Google Scholar
  67. Oťahel’ J, Feranec J, Cebecauer T (2004) Landscape changes identified by application of the CORINE land cover databases: case study—Part of the Zahorie lowland. Ekol Bratisl 23:252–263Google Scholar
  68. Palang H, Alumäe H, Mander Ü (2000) Holistic aspects in landscape development: a scenario approach. Landsc Urban Plan 50:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Palang H, Alumäe H, Printsmann A, Rehema M, Sepp K, Sooväli-Sepping H (2011) Social landscape: ten years of planning ‘valuable landscapes’ in Estonia. Land Use Policy 28:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pauditšová E, Slabeciusova, B (2014) The modelling as platform for landscape planing. In: Geoconference on informatics, geoinformatics and remote sensing, vol iii SE International multidisciplinary scientific geoconference-SGEM CT 14th International multidisciplinary scientific geoconference (SGEM), 753–760Google Scholar
  71. Pauleit S (2018) The spatial effect of landscape planning. evaluation. Indicators Trends Raumforsch Raumordn 76:87–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-017-0509-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pauleit S, Golding Y (2005) The spatial impact of urban compaction a fine-scale investigation based on Merseyside. Town Plan Rev 76:143–166.  https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.76.2.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pauleit S, Ennos R, Golding Y (2005) Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change—a study in Merseyside. UK Landsc Urban Plan 71:295–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.03.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pazur R, Otahel’ J, Maretta M (2015) The distribution of selected CORINE land cover classes in different natural landscapes in Slovakia: methodological framework and applications. Morav Geogr Rep 23:45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mgr-2015-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Petrovič F (2006) Changes of the landscape with dispersed settlement. Ekologia (Bratislava) 25:201–211Google Scholar
  76. Piscová V (2011) Zmeny vegetácie Tatier na vybraných lokalitách ovplyvnených človekom. VEDA publishing of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, p 227 (In Slovak)Google Scholar
  77. Poudevigne I, Alard D (1997) Landscape and agricultural patterns in rural areas: a case study in the Brionne basin, Normandy. France J Environ Manage 50:335–349.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1997.0134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Quattrochi DA, Luvall JC (1999) Thermal infrared remote sensing for analysis of landscape ecological processes: methods and applications. Landsc Ecol 14:577–598.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008168910634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Quattrochi DA, Luvall JC (2014) Thermal infrared remote sensing for analysis of landscape ecological processes: current insights and trends. Blackwell Science Publ, Oxford, p 43Google Scholar
  80. RegioResources 21—2018: Global megatrends and landscape, Abstracts.(2018) ILE SAS Bratislava, p 47Google Scholar
  81. Rehackova T, Pauditsova E, Hresko J (2008) The ecological stability and landscape management in Sverzov. Geogr Cassoviensis 2:146–151Google Scholar
  82. Reschke J, Huettich C (2014) Continuous field mapping of Mediterranean wetlands using sub-pixel spectral signatures and multi-temporal Landsat data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 28:220–229.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2013.12.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Romportl D, Chuman T, Lipsky Z (2013) Landscape typology of Czechia. Geografie 118:16–39Google Scholar
  84. Roy PS, Joshi PK (2002) Forest cover assessment in north-east India—the potential of temporal wide swath satellite sensor data (IRS-1C WiFS). Int J Remote Sens 23:4881–4896.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160110114475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roy A, Royer A, Derksen C, Brucker L, Langlois A, Mialon A, Kerr YH (2015) Evaluation of spaceborne L-band radiometer measurements for terrestrial freeze/thaw retrievals in Canada. IEEE J Sel Top Appl Earth Observ Remote Sens 8:4442–4459.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2015.2476358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo M, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter T et al (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe | science. Science 310:1333–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sklenička P (2006) Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect to three contrasting study areas in the Czech Republic. Land Use Pol 23:502–551.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Soliva R (2007) Agricultural decline, landscape change, and outmigration: debating the sustainability of three scenarios for a Swiss mountain region. Mt Res Dev 27:124–129.  https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Špulerová J, Hrnčiarová T, Piscová V, Vlachovičová M, Kalivoda H, Kanka R, Dobrovodská M, Kenderessy P, Miklošová V, Drábová M, Belčáková I (2016) Sustainable tourism development in a selected area of the low Tatras national park—landscape planning versus urban planning. Carpath J Earth Environ Sci 11:485–496Google Scholar
  90. Štefunková D, Hanušin J (2016) Analysis of the spatial and temporal distribution of selected landscape diversity indexes in detailed scale (example of viticultural landscape Svätý Jur). In Landscape and landscape ecology : Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Landscape Ecology (proceedings is indexed in WOS). Institute of Landscape Ecology SAS, Bratislava, pp 185–191. ISBN 978-80-89325-28-3Google Scholar
  91. Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2:14–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tress B, Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Turner MG, Donato DC, Romme WH (2013) Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: priorities for future research. Landsc Ecol 28:1081–1097.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9741-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tzanopoulos J, Mitchley J, Pantis J (2005) Modelling the effects of human activity on the vegetation of a northeast Mediterranean island. Appl Veg Sci 8:27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1658/1402-2001(2005)008%5b0027:MTEOHA%5d2.0.CO,2
  95. UNCSD (1996) Indicators of sustainable development framework and methodologies. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  96. White M, Mladenoff D (1994) Old-growth forest landscape transitions from pre-european settlement to present. Landsc Ecol 9:191–205.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wiggering H, Steinhardt U (2015) A conceptual model for site-specific agricultural land-use. Ecol Model 295:42–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zigrai F (1996) The relationship between basic and applied landscape-ecological research in Slovakia. Ekol Bratisl 15:387–400Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zita Izakovičová
    • 1
    Email author
  • László Miklós
    • 1
  • Jana Špulerová
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations