ACTAGEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA 2019 59 2 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-2 • 2019 Contents Drago PERKO, Rok CIGLIČ, Mauro HRVATIN The usefulness of unsupervised classification methods for landscape typification: The case of Slovenia 7 Vladimir M. CVETKOVIĆ, Kevin RONAN, Rajib SHAW, Marina FILIPOVIĆ, Rita MANO,Jasmina GAČIĆ, Vladimir JAKOVLJEVIĆ Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities 27 Iwona CIEŚLAK Spatial conflicts: Analyzing a burden created by differing land use 43 Ivan PAUNOVIĆ, Verka JOVANOVIĆ Sustainable mountain tourism in word and deed: A comparative analysis in the macroregions of the Alps and the Dinarides 59 Nikola Darko VUKSANOVIĆ, Dragan TEŠANOVIĆ, Bojana KALENJUK, Milijanko PORTIĆ Gender, age and education differences in food consumption within a region: Case studies of Belgradeand Novi Sad (Serbia) 71 Special issue – Franciscean cadaster as a source of studying landscape changes Matej GABROVEC, Ivan BIČÍK, Blaž KOMAC Land registers as a source of studying long-term land-use changes 83 Ivan BIČÍK, Matej GABROVEC, Lucie KUPKOVÁ Long-term land-use changes: A comparison between Czechia and Slovenia 91 Lucie KUPKOVÁ, Ivan BIČÍK, Zdeněk BOUDNÝ Long-term land-use / land-cover changes in Czech border regions 107 Drago KLADNIK, Matjaž GERŠIČ, Primož PIPAN, Manca VOLK BAHUN Land-use changes in Slovenian terraced landscapes 119 Daniela RIBEIRO, Mateja ŠMID HRIBAR Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenianrural landscapes 143 Mojca FOŠKI, Alma ZAVODNIK LAMOVŠEK Monitoring land-use change using selected indices 161 ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 2019 ISSN: 1581-6613 COBISS: 124775936 UDC/UDK: 91© 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Internationaleditorialboard/mednarodniuredniškiodbor: DavidBole(Slovenia),MichaelBründl(Switzerland),RokCiglič(Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), BlažKomac (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCharty (United Kingdom), SlobodanMarković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Nika Razpotnik Visković(Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) Editor-in-Chief/glavni urednik: Blaž Komac; blaz@zrc-sazu.si Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko; drago@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for physical geography/glavni urednik za fizično geografijo: Matija Zorn; matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for human geography/glavna urednica za humano geografijo: Mimi Urbanc; mimi@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for regional geography/glavni urednik za regionalno geografijo: Drago Kladnik; drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for spatial planning/glavni urednik za regionalno planiranje: Janez Nared; janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si Chiefeditorforruralgeography/glavnaurednicazageografijopodeželja:NikaRazpotnikVisković;nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for urban geography/glavni urednik za urbano geografijo: David Bole; david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for geographic information systems/glavni urednik za geografske informacijske sisteme: Rok Ciglič; rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for environmental protection/glavni urednik za varstvo okolja: Aleš Smrekar; ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Editorial assistant/uredniški pomočnik: Matjaž Geršič; matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZUPublished by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/Naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija The papers are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznike, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove. Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznike, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove. Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Tiskarna Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 450 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia coreresearchprogramme(P6-0101)/revijaizhajaspodporoJavneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnostRepublikeSlovenijein nastajav okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,Geoscience e-Journals, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google scholar,and CrossRef. Oblikovanje/Design by: Matjaž Vipotnik Front cover photography: Exploration of the collapse dolines, such as the one at the Small Natural Bridge in RakovŠkocjan, has enabled a deeper understanding of karst processes in recent years (photograph: Matej Lipar).Fotografija na naslovnici: Raziskave udornice, kot je ta pri Malem Naravnem mostu v Rakovem Škocjanu, so v zadnjihletih omogočile globlje razumevanje kraških procesov (fotografija: Matej Lipar). MONITORINGLAND-USECHANGE USINGSELECTEDINDICES Mojca Foški, Alma Zavodnik Lamovšek Vineyards as the prevailing land use in the Lendavske gorice Hills. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.5276 UDC: 711.14(497.4)(091) COBISS: 1.01 Monitoring land-use change using selected indices ABSTRACT:Thisarticlepresentsvariousindicesfordescribingthecharacteristicsoflanduseandmonitoring land-use change in various periods. These indices were either developed by the authors or were derived fromlandscapemetrics.Theywerecalculatedforfiveselectedsitesofagriculturalland(sites)forthetime when the Franciscean Cadaster was introduced and for 2015. A comparison of the values of the indices revealedthechangesintheselectedsites,andtheconclusionspresentanopinionontheirsuitability.Itwas foundthatthenumericalvaluesoftheindicesreflectvisuallydetectedchangesinthegraphicrepresentation of land use, and they could therefore be introduced into the system for monitoring land-use changes. KEY WORDS: land use, index, landscape metrics, Franciscean Cadaster, Slovenia Spremljanje sprememb rabe zemljišč z izbranimi indeksi POVZETEK: V prispevku predstavljamo indekse za opisovanje značilnosti rabe zemljišč in spremljanje spremembrabevrazličnihčasovnihobdobjih. Indeksesmooblikovalisamostojnoalijihprevzeliizkrajinske metrike. Izračunali smo jih za pet izbranih območij kmetijskih zemljišč (polja) v času nastanka franciscejskegakatastrainvletu2015.Sprimerjavovrednostiindeksovsmonaizbranihpoljihugotavljali spremembe, v zaključku pa podali mnenje o njihovi ustreznosti. Ugotovili smo, da številčne vrednosti indeksovodražajospremembe,kijihvizualnozaznavamotudiprigrafičniupodobitverabe,zatomenimo, da bi jih lahko vpeljali v sistem spremljanja sprememb rabe zemljišč. KLJUČNE BESEDE: raba zemljišč, indeks, krajinska metrika, franciscejski kataster, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on September 29th, 2017. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 29. septembra 2017. Mojca Foški, Alma Zavodnik Lamovšek University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering mfoski@fgg.uni-lj.si, alma.zavodnik@fgg.uni-lj.si 1 Introduction Landuseandland-usechangesareareflectionofeconomic,political,andsocialconditions(Bičík,JelečekandŠtepánek2001;Antrop2005). Landuseisidentifiedusingvariousmethods:fieldwork,identification basedonavailabledata,and,inrecentdecades,automatedclassificationofremotesensingimages(Kokalj andOštir2005).Determinationofland-usechangesrequiresdataonlanduseovertime.Thefirstrecords onlanduseinSloveniadatebacktotheTheresianCadaster(1774–1754),whereastheFrancisceanCadaster (establishedbetween1818and1827)andtheRevisedCadaster(1869)aremostfrequentlyusedforstudy­ingland-usechanges.Theyalsodepictlandusesinagraphicsection,offeringbetterrepresentationoftheir spatial distribution (Petek and Urbanc 2004). Tax assessment prompted rather detailed consideration of agricultural land use; specifically, at the plot level (Ribnikar 1982). The Franciscean Cadaster as a source for studying land-use changes has been used by Petek (2005; 2007), Kladnik and Petek (2007), Verderber (2013), Golob (2014), Harvey, Kaim and Gajda (2014), Bičík et al. (2015), Gabrovec and Kumer (2019), and many others. The FrancisceanCadasterwas alsoused asasourceto studyland-usechangesinthisstudy. Land-use changesinselectedsiteswerecheckedusingindices,whichweredevelopedeitheronourownorwerederived from landscape metrics. Index development depends on the study purpose, scale of observation, size of thestudyarea,andtypeofdata(rasterorvector).Thisarticleshowshowtheindicatorsdevelopedaresuit­able for describing land-use changes, and that the numerical values obtained reflect changes detected by visuallycomparingmappedlandusesintwotimeperiods(atthetimetheFrancisceanCadasterwasintro­duced and in 2015 using Land Use data base (Evidenca dejanske…2015). Landscapemetrics(LSM) begantotakerootafter1995 for analyzingthesituationandchangesinthe landscape and ecological spatial characteristics. This is a successful method for determining the hetero­geneityoflandcover(Turneret al. 2003)aswellasforidentifyingchanges. Landscapemetricsindicesfor quantifyinglandscapeelementsandlandscapecompositionsweredevelopedbyMcGarigalandMarks(1995), McGarigal(2002)andfurtherimproveduntilthemostrecentversionofthesoftwareprogramFRAGSTATS 4.4(McGarigal2015).Assoftware,PatchAnalyst(anextensiontotheArcGISsoftware;SushantandYuan 2012; Rempel, Kaukinen and Carr 2012) is commonly used, whereas Polenšek and Pirnat (2018) used Graphab 1.1 for spatial analysis of forest patches. The landscape metrics method is most commonly used in ecology, where the diversity, spatial distri­bution, size, and shape of patches are relevant (Alberti 2005), but other sciences also benefit from its use. Irwin and Bockstael (2007), Clark et al. (2009), Shrestha et al. (2012), and Zhang et al. (2013) used this method to study interactions between urbanization and changes in parcel shape and size. Sivrikaya et al. (2007), Pijanowski and Robinson (2011), and Shoyama and Braimoh (2011) used it to analyze land-use changes across various periods. The basic observation unit in landscape metrics is a »patch« (Polenšek and Pirnat 2018; Foški 2017). Forthepurposeofthisstudy,apatchisunderstoodinthesamewayasitwasdefinedbyIrwinandBockstael (2007, 20673) and Shrestha et al. (2012); namely, as a contiguous area of the same land use. This method is most commonly used with raster data, particularly when study areas are large (Wu et al. 2002). When comparingareas,onemustfirstallowforequalqualityofinputdataorraster-to-vectorconversionunder the same conditions and at the same scale (Wu et al. 2002). The use of indices at different levels and at different scales is reasonable using vector data. McGarigal (2015) identified six groups of indices and, within each group, indices may be defined at thepatch level (defined for individual patches), class level (all the patches of a given type), andlandscape level(allpatchesinthestudyarea),asshowninTable1.Basedontheirmeaning,onecandistinguishbetween agroupofindicesthatexpressland-usecomposition(e.g.,thenumberofdifferentlanduses,land-usepro­portions,orthenumberofpatches)andagroupofindicesexpressingthecharacteristicsofaspatialpattern (Ramezani et al. 2013). Atthelevelofthestudyarea,land-usediversityindicesareparticularlyinteresting(Table1,grayfield), which can be divided into three groups: 1) indices of patch number and density, three indices, 2) land-usediversityindices,threeindices,and3)indicesofland-usedistributioninthearea,threeindices(McGarigal 2015,164-171;Foški2017).Theindicescanbeusedformonitoringland-usechangesacrosstime.Shannon’s diversityindexandSimpson’sdiversityindexaremostcommonlyused(Robič2004;PijanowskiandRobinson Table 1: Number of indices of landscape metrics based on McGarigal (2015) for individual characteristics at the patch, class, or landscape level (authors’own classification). Index groups Patch (number of indices) Class (number of indices) Landscape (number of indices) Area and edges 3 7 6 Shape 5 7 7 Compactness 3 7 6 Contrast 1 3 3 Aggregation 3 16 15 Diversity 0 0 9 2011;RamezaniandHolm2011;ComerandGreene2015).Acomparisonofindices(LoPapa,Palermoand Dazzi2011,340)showedthatfordescribingland-usediversityitisenoughtochooseasingleindex,either from the second group or from the third. For the purpose of this study we also used some landscape metrics indices; the patch richness index (PR),thenumberofpatches(Nz),therelativeland-usediversityindex(RPR),andSimpson’sdiversityindex (SIDI),asdevelopedbyMcGarigalandMarks(1995)andMcGarigal(2015).WedevelopedtheUseProportion Index (IDr) and the Index of Shape and Size of Patches (IOVz) ourselves (Foški 2017). A combination of indices was used to analyze land use in selected sites (enclosed arable land) at the time the Franciscean Cadasterwasintroducedandin2015.Ourthesiswasthatnumericalvalues(indices)candescribethechar­acteristics of land use in two time periods and that the changes in index values are alsoreflected visually; that is, on graphic representations of land use in two time cross-sections. To that end, this article graph­ically presents land use in two time cross-sections, whereas values and changes in indices are expressed numerically and with graphs. 2 Working method and data Theworkingmethodconsistsofthreesteps:1)developmentandselectionofindices,2)calculationofindices for selected test areas in two time cross-sections, and 3) evaluation of results. Theindicesweredeterminedbasedontheliteratureandland-usecharacteristicsinSlovenia.Forthis, the following data are required: • Land-use diversity in the study area (patch richness and the number of all patches); • Distributionofland-useproportionsinthestudyarea(theratiobetweentheproportionsoflanduses); • Characteristicsofpatches(shapeandsize)inthestudyarea(contiguityandthesizeofindividualpatches); and • Relationships between all land uses. Theindiceswereselectedand developed (Table2) sothattheyare computableusingvector data. The patch richness index (PR) and the number of all patches are greater than 1, and all other indices range from 0 to 1. The extension FK was added to the indices calculated from the Franciscean Cadaster data (e.g., PR_FK). Five sites were selected as areas of observation: Zatolmin, Vinjole, Predoslje, Kleče and Podgora, and Pernice (Figure 1). These differ in terms of arable land division (Ilešič 1950), land-use diversity, size of contiguous areas of one land use, land-use fragmentation, and different landscape types (Perko, Hrvatin andCiglič2015).Vinjole(arablelanddivisionintoirregularblocks)isnotanindependentsettlementbut instead a hamlet of Lucija; it was selected because of its mix of olive and grape patches, significant over-growth,andsmall-sizepatches.InZatolmin(arablelanddivisionintoirregularblocks),fieldsandgrassland intermix;thefieldsareasarulesmallandinsidemeadows,andthereislittleovergrowth.InPredoslje(arable landdivisionintofurlongs)andKlečeandPodgora(arablelanddivisionintocontinuousstrips),openfields in large patches prevail, and land-use diversity is small. Agricultural land was consolidated in Predoslje. At Pernice (arable land division into enclosures) there is a mix of various uses in large and small patches, the area is undulating, and agricultural land is surrounded by forests. Table2:Selectedindicesforland-usecharacteristics. Indextypename Equation;Range Briefdescription Diversityoflanduse Patchrichnessindex PR=m m=numberofdifferentlanduses PR.1 Nz=numberofallpatches. Numberofall Nz mmax =maximumnumberofpossiblelanduses. Patches Nz.1 m =25 max IndexoftheRelative m=25 maxPR NumberofLandUses Land-useproportion Land-useproportion Ri=areaofasinglelanduse;thisisthesum distribution index ofareasofallpatchesoflanduser. A0=areaofthesite. Thesumofproportionsofalllandusesinasiteis1. Ifasinglelanduseexists,theindexvalueis1. Thevalueof0isunattainable. Characteristicsof Indexofshapeandsize Thisdescribestheshapeandsizeofapatch patchesofasingle ofpatches A=areaandP=perimeter landuse Ivel wasobtainedwithlinearstandardizationof patchareasusingthefollowingequation: Landuseratios Simpson’sdiversityindex Adi=proportionalpartoflanduseinthestudy area,wheretherearemdifferentlanduses. SIDI=0,whenthereisasinglelanduse, approaching1byincreasingthenumberand evennessofdistributionofland-useproportions. The land divisions were based on geographical dividing lines (to a stream, road, forest, or village) or thecadastralmunicipalityboundary.Weselectedacontiguousareaoflandshowingthecharacteristicsof arable land division (Ilešič 1950; Foški 2017). For Zatolmin and Predoslje, all of the agricultural land is consideredwithinacadastralmunicipality.ForKlečeandPodgora,theagriculturallandbetweenPodgora and Kleče that is still divided into strips is considered; furthermore, nine contact enclosures within the cadastral municipalityofPerniceareconsidered. InVinjolewe addressthe geographically coherentareas ofahamletbasedongeographicaldivisions(i.e.,stream,ridge,forest,orroad).Thesiteswerenamedafter theclosestsettlementorhamlet.Theanalysisoflandusein2015wascarriedoutusingdatafromtheLand Usedatabase(Evidencadejanskerabe…2015).Usinggraphiccross-sections,theLandUsedatabasedata weretrimmedtotheareaofthesites.Allpatchessmallerthan20m2,whichareaconsequenceofthegraph-iccross-sectionoftheLandUsedatabasewiththeareaofasiteandwhichareattheedgesofanarea,were aggregated with contiguous land use. ForallselectedsitesweobtainedcadastralmapsoftheFrancisceanCadasterfromtheArchivesofthe Republic of Slovenia (Franciscejski kataster za Kranjsko 1825; 1826; Franciscejski kataster za Primorsko1822;FranciscejskikatasterzaŠtajersko1825)ortheStateArchivesinTrieste(Catastofranceschino1818) andgeoreferencedthemusingaffinetransformationinArcGIS10.3basedonthetiepointsfromtheland Figure1:DistributionoftestsitesbyvariouslandscapetypesofSlovenia.p p.166 cadaster depiction (Zemljiški kataster 2015). Vectorization was carried out and the data were topologi­callysorted.BasedontherecordsandtheassociatedkeyoftheFrancisceanCadaster(FranciscejskikatasterzaŠtajersko1823–1869;Čuček1979;Čuček-Kumelj1983),thelanduseatthetimetheFrancisceanCadaster was introduced was classified into twenty-five classes: field, vegetable garden, fruit garden, hop planta­tion,fieldwithfruittrees,fieldwitholivetrees(olivegrove),vineyard,vineyardwitholivetrees,drymeadow, wetmeadow,meadowwithscrubland,meadowwithfruittrees,pasture,pasturewithtrees,wetland,wet­landwithrushes,deciduousforest,coniferousforests,mixedforest,grove,shrubs,built-upland(occupied bystructuresandtracks),water,quarry,claypitorrockandother.Somecategories,suchassaffron,chest­nutplantations,paddyfields,andsoon,werenotincludedinthetotalsumoflandusesbecauseweassumed thattheyarenotfoundinSlovenianterritory.Altogether,theLandUsedatabasecontainstwenty-fiveland uses (Interpretacijski ključ 6.2.2014). Theanalysis(calculationsofindicesandgraphicrepresentations)wasperformedinArcGIS10.3(Esri); Microsoft Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS 23 software were used for calculations and statistical processing. 3 Results Figure 2 shows land uses in selected sites for 2015 and for the time when the Franciscean Cadaster was introduced. Table 3 shows the calculated values of indices (PR, Nz, RPR, IDrmax, SIDI) and the IDr dis-tribution.TheUseProportionIndex(IDr)isshowninthelastcolumnofTable3asagraph.Foreachland useitsproportionisshown,andthegraphicrepresentationshowstherelationshipsbetweenland-usepro-portions in two time periods. For example, in Pernice there are ten different land uses identified today (PR=10), but only two land uses stand out in terms of proportion (Table 3, the last column). There were fivelanduses(PR=5)thereatthetimetheFrancisceanCadasterwasintroduced,buttheyweremoreeven­ly distributed (Table 3, last column). Figure3showsthecaseofVinjolewithagraphicdepictionoftheIOVzandIOVz_FKvalues,andFigure4 shows the distribution of values IOVz and IOVz_FK in the histogram with ten equally sized classes. The same methodology was used to analyze all other selected sites; the analysis results are available in Foški (2017, 187–202). The number of various land uses (i.e., richness; Table 3, column 1) increased in all sites, the most at Vinjole (i.e., from three during the establishment of the Franciscean Cadaster to twelve land uses in the LandUsedatabase). InVinjole,thenumberofpatches(Nz)increasedsignificantlyaswell,fromeighteen to 464. The number of patches remained almost the same in Predoslje, whereas the prevailing land-use proportion changed (IDrmax). Interestingly, during the establishment of the Franciscean Cadaster, fields prevailed(IDrFK=0.93)withmuchlargerareasthanthosetoday(IDr=0.49),eventhoughagri- max_ max culturallandconsolidationwasundertakeninthearea.Asimilartrendofadecreasingproportionofarable landisobservedinKlečeandPodgora(IDrFK=0.93;IDr=0.62).InZatolmin,meadowswithtrees max_max prevailedatthetimetheFrancisceanCadasterwasintroduced,whereastodaymeadowsprevail(land-use code1300fromtheLandUsedatabase).InVinjole,olivegrovesstillprevail,buttheirproportiondecreased substantially(IDrFK=0.97,IDr=0.26);atpresent,olivegrovesareidentifiedonlywhentheyare max_max theprevailing land usein anarea larger than 500m2 (Interpretacijskiključ 6.2 2014). Forest landprevails in Pernice, whereas pastures with trees prevailed when the Franciscean Cadaster was introduced. Land-use changes can be identified using Simpson’s Diversity Index. At Vinjole, Simpson’s diversity index changed from 0.07 during the introduction of the Franciscean Cadaster to 0.99 in 2015. An index close to 0 suggests the prevalence of a single land use, as is evident in Figure 2 (Vinjole in 1818), where­as an index value close to 1 suggests an equal distribution ofa larger number of landuses, as isevident in Figure2(Vinjolein2015).Importantly,whentheFrancisceanCadasterwasestablished,thelanduse»vine­yard with olive trees« was registered for almost all of Vinjole, whereas today mixed uses are no longer in place and the land uses »vineyard« or »olive grove« are registered separately if they cover an area greater than500m2(Interpretacijskiključ6.22014).Land-usediversityinsideindividualparcelsduringtheestab­lishmentoftheFrancisceanCadasterwasgreater,whereastodayland-usediversityintheentirestudyarea ofVinjoleisgreater(PR=12).ThesamevaluesofSIDIandSIDI_FKforPredosljeandforKlečeandPodgora Figure 2: Land use in 2015 and at the time the Franciscean Cadaster was introduced. p p. 168–169 Zatolmin 2015 1822 " "" "" " " "" """" "" " "" """ """ " "" """" " " """ " """ " "" "" " "" " " " " "" " " " " "" "" " "" "" "" " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " "" "" """ " " " """" " " " "" " "" "" " " " " "" "" " " " " "" " "" "" "" "" "" "" "" " "" " " "" "" "" "" """" "" " "" " " " " """"" " " " "" " " " "" " "" "" " " " " Vinjole 2015 1818 Predoslje 2015 1826 168 KlečeandPodgora 2015 " 1825 " "" " " "" " " " " "" " " " " " " " """ " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " "" " " " " " " "" "" "" "" " " " " " "" " "" Pernice " 2015 1825 " " " " " " " " "" " " Legendlanduse 2015 Legendlanduse1818–1826 Objects Objects Arableland Arableland Vineyards Vegetablegarden Extensive orchards Vineyards Meadowsand pastures Vineyard with olive groves Olive groves Dry meadows Overgrownareas Meadowswithorchards Forest trees onagriculturalland Pasture/Pasturewithtrees Riparianovergrowthandforest hedges Coniferousforest Forest Deciduousforest Built–up areasandrelatedsurfaces Waters 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 km Content andmapby:MojcaFoški Source:Catastofranceschino 1818;Franciscejski kataster1822–1826; Evidenca ...2015 © ULFGG 169 show a similar trend of changes. A similar value of SIDI (close to 0.55) is found in Zatolmin, Predoslje, Kleče and Podgora, and Pernice; two land uses prevail, as illustrated in the graphs (Table 3, last column). The proportion of prevailing land use (IDrmax) at the time the Franciscean Cadaster was established and that of today suggests that prevailing land use has changed. Table 3: Land-use fragmentation for selected sites in 2015 and at the time the Franciscean Cadaster was introduced. LAND USE distribution IDr PR Nz RPR SIDI Field max (IDrmax)chart IDr Zatolmin 11 190 044 . 065 . meadows 053 . 4 128 016 . 051 . pasture 062 . Zatolmin FK Vinjole 12 464 048 . 026 . olive groves 099 . vineyard with Vinjole FK 3 18 012 . 097 . 007 . olive groves Predoslje 8 113 032 . 049 . arable land 054 . Predoslje FK 4 106 016 . 093 . arable land 013 . Kleče and Podgora 9 137 036 . 062 . meadows 054 . Kleče and Podgora 4 49 016 . 093 . arable land 013 . FK Pernice 10 271 04. 063 . forest 0 51 . pasture with Pernice FK 5 124 02. 036 . 071 . trees 2015 1818 " "" " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" "" " " " " Legend Content and map by: Mojca Foški 0.0–0.1 0.2–0.3 0.4–0.5 0.6–0.7 0.8–0.9 Source: Catasto franceschino; 0.1–0.2 Evidenca ... 2015 © UL FGG 0.3–0.4 0.5–0.6 0.7–0.8 0.9–1.0 Figure 3: Index of Shape and Size of Patches (IOVz) for Vinjole. Thechangesinindicesarealsoevidentinvisualdepictionsoflanduseintwotimecross-sections(Figure2). As a rule, the graphic representation fails to show the entire extent of land-use diversity because the pro­portions of land uses are rather small. The changes in prevailing land uses (Table 3, IDrmax, graph) and the distribution of land uses in a site are clearly evident (Table 3, SIDI, graph). Figure 4: Distribution of values IOVz for Vinjole. TheIndexofShapeandSizeofPatches(IOVz)showstherelationshipbetweensmallandlargepatch-es.Theindexiscalculatedforeachpatchseparately,whereasthesituationfortheareaofasite(allpatches) is best illustrated using a histogram in ten equal classes (Figure 4, the case of Vinjole). The large number of patches in lower classes (0.0.0.1; 0.1.0.2; 0.2.0.3) suggests large land-use fragmentation, particularly iftheproportionofthelanduseinquestioninthesiteislarge.ThehistogramforthecaseofVinjole(Figure 4)showsthatmanypatchesareinthefirstthreeclasses,whichtogethermakeup88.93%ofthestudyarea, whereas a detailed land-use structure is also visible in Figure 2 (the case of Vinjole). The large number of patches in higher classes (0.7.0.8; 0.8.0.9; 0.9.1.0) suggests large contiguous areas of land use, particu­larly when the proportion of these land uses is large. The two patches in the 0.7–0.8 class shown on the histogram (Figure 4) correspond to a full 89.27% of the area, and land-use contiguity is also evident in Figure 2 (the case of Vinjole). Because of mixed land use at the time the Franciscean Cadaster was intro­duced, in the area there was an even mix of vineyards and olive trees, whereas today the large number of patches in the area (Nz=464) and their land-use diversity suggest a much higher landscape diversity of the area. The working methodology for capturing land use in the Land Use data base should be empha­sized, where the number of polygons increases with each new revision of data, despite the fact that the spatial situation has not changed (Foški 2018). 4 Discussion Generally,asingleindexcandescribeoneland-usecharacteristic;theillustrationofvariousland-usechar­acteristicsrequiresalargersetofindices,forwhichitisimportantthattheybeindependentandthattheir numbernotbetoolarge. Theselectionof indicesfordescribinglanduseinasite wasrecognizedasbeing sufficient. Because there were a maximum of twenty-five land uses both during the introduction of the FrancisceanCadasteraswellasin2015,theindexoftherelativenumberoflanduseswasfoundtobeless useful.Nevertheless,thiscorrespondenceinthenumberofvariouslandusesispurelyaccidental.Thenum­berof land usesinthe Franciscean Cadasteris, in fact,larger,butweonlytookinto account thelanduses foundinSlovenianterritory. Itsapplicabilitywouldincreaseifthenumberoflandusesintwotimecross­sections varied. In any case, the number of different land uses in two time periods does not say anything about the comparability of individual categories. We are also unable to precisely determine the relation­ship between the individual categories in the past and today due to the various criteria and the purpose of determining land uses. At the time the Franciscean Cadaster was established, a distinction was made between a meadow with scrubland, a meadow with fruit trees, a pasture, and a pasture with trees. Today, onthebasisofInterpretationKey(Interpretacijskiključ6.22014),weregisterextensiveorchards,permanent meadows,andmarshymeadows.PastureswithtreesprevailedinPerniceatthetimetheFrancisceanCadaster wasintroduced,whereastodaythiscategoryisoftendividedintopermanentgrasslandandovergrownareas. Even at the level of a meadow one cannot equate the land use at the time the Franciscean Cadaster was introduced with the categories used today. Today the land use in Vinjole (mixed land use at the time the Franciscean Cadaster was introduced) is classified into vineyards and olive groves separately. Some authors (Petek 2005; Verderber 2013; Gabrovec and Kumer 2019) made a comparative table of landusesatthetimetheFrancisceanCadasterwasintroducedandintheLandUsedatabase,respectively, but they combined some of the categories (e.g. field, meadow, forest, and vineyard), which was suitable for the purpose of their work, whereas the information on land-use diversity in various time periods was lost. Duetothe incomparabilityofthecategories,theinformationonland-userichnesscan besomewhat misleading. Thiscanbeavoidedifoneisfamiliarwithallthecharacteristicsofidentifyinglanduseacross different time periods. Acomparison ofdata fromtwotime periodsis possibleifthedatausedareof equal quality(Wuetal. 2002) – which, however, cannotbesaid for the data onland useat thetimethe Franciscean Cadaster was introducedandtheLandUsedatabasein2015.Theminimummappingunit,workingmethodology,pre­cision and accuracy of data, and data maintenance vary. We believe that such differences in data fail to impact the key findings and the checking of indices’ usefulness, and that the data from the Franciscean Cadaster,particularlywithvectorizationinplace,arehighlyusefulforidentifyingland-usechanges,which isinagreementwiththefindingsbyPetekandUrbanc(2005),Harvey,Kaim,andGajda(2014),Bičíket al. (2015), and Gabrovec and Kumer (2019). The time interval (approximately 180 years) is large enough to make the changes obvious so that they are reflected in the indices. The number of land-use types present, or patch richness (PR), increased in all sites compared to the timewhentheFrancisceanCadasterwasintroduced.Theincreasednumberofpatches,thedecreasednum­ber of large enclosed patches (IOVz), and the decreased prevailing land-use proportion (IDrmax) suggest land-usefragmentationandlargerdiversityofvegetationcover.Thisfindingcontradictssomestudies,which suggest a decrease in land-use diversity and particularly an increase in contiguous areas of a single land use,usuallyforests(Munroe,CroissantandYork2008;HansenandAdhikari2018).Suchfindingsareoften the result of analyses ofraster data (pixel size) and in large territorial areas (data generalization; Wu et al. 2002). By studying land use in small spatial units, using vector data, one can see the changes that can be lost because of the type of data and the scale (Wu 2004). The cases of studying characteristics of land use at themicro levelare essentialforunderstandinglandscapeecology (Fischer,Hanspach andHartel2011) and can contribute to the understanding of global problems. Some authors (Plieninger et al. 2016) also emphasize that researchers all too frequently focus on studying land-use changes rather than land-use sta­bility.Infact,in30.1%oftheEU-27memberstates’areathereisnoindicationofanincreaseinfragmentation (Meiner and Pedroli 2017). The large number of land uses is often visually not detected, particularly if the study area is not large orwhentheland-usestructureisveryfine.Thisiswhyusingindicesismoreappropriatethanvisualcom­parisons of land-use maps. The index can be calculated for the data in various time cross-sections, and theinterpretationofthevaluesinatimeseriesallowscontinuousmonitoringoftheland-usesituationand itschanges.Thereforeindicescouldbeintroducedintosystematicland-usemonitoringinallspatialunits. TheSIDIindexiseasytocalculate,anditsvalueisagoodindicationofland-usedistributionandfrag-mentation.Itdependsontheprevailingland-useproportion(IDrmax)andthepatchrichness(PR).Values upto0.5showlowfragmentation(thecaseofPredoslje,andKlečeandPodgoraatthetimetheFranciscean Cadaster was established), whereas above 0.7 the land use is fragmented (e.g., Vinjole) because the share ofprevailinglanduseisbelow40%. Thisindex isthebasicindicatorofland-usefragmentation. Basedon the available, regularly updated vector land-use data (the Land Use data base), we see great applicability of the SIDI index in systematic monitoring of the situation and land-use changes. 5 Conclusions Land-usechangesareamongtheindicatorsofsocialprocesses,andknowledgeofthesechangesiscrucial formanyfieldsofresearch.Thisarticleproposedamethodforanalyzingandmonitoringland-usechanges usingindices.Usingtheindices,wepointedoutchangesthatareoverlookedatsmallerscalesandwedrew attentiontoland-usefragmentationandtheincreasingnumberofpatches.Theindicesincreasetheobjec­tivityofresearchworkandfacilitatesystematicmonitoringoftheland-usesituation.Indiceshavecommonly beenusedforidentifyingland-usecharacteristicsabroad,andwerecommendtheiruseinSloveniaaswell. 6 References Alberti,M.2005:Theeffectsofurbanpatternsonecosystemfunction.Internationalregionalsciencereview 28-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017605275160 Antrop,M.2005:Whylandscapesofthepastareimportantforthefuture.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning 70, 1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002Bičík, I., Jeleček, L., Štepánek, V. 2001: Land-use changes and their social driving forces in Czechia in the 19th and 20th centuries. Land Use Policy 18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00047-8 Bičík,I.,Kupková,L.,Jeleček,L.,Kabrda,J.,Štych,P.,Janoušek,Z.,Winklerová,J.2015:LandUseChanges intheCzechRepublic1845–2010.Cham,Heidelberg,NewYork,Dordrecht,London.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-17671-0_1 Catastofranceschino,DistrettodiPirano,ComunediPirano,347.ArchiviodiStatodiTrieste,Trieste/Državni arhiv v Trstu, Trst. 1818. Clark, J. K., McChesney, R., Munroe, D., Irwin, E. G. 2009: Spatial characteristics of exurban settlement pattern in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 90, 3-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2008.11.002 Comer,D.,ScottGreene,J.2015:ThedevelopmentandapplicationofalandusediversityindexforOklahoma City. Applied Geography 60-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.02.015 Čuček,I.1979:Instrukcijazaizvršitevdeželneizmerezanamensplošnegakatastra1824.Inštitutzageodezijo in fotogrametrijo. Ljubljana. Internet: https://www.geovrata.si/geoblog/files/5491d016b6e91e12c5_ Instrukcija_za_izvrsitev_dezelne_izmere_za_namen_splosnega_katastra_1-2.PDF (20.6.2017). Čuček-Kumelj,M.1983:Uporabastarihtopografskihnačrtovinkartprirazličnihštudijahrazvojapokrajine, naselij itd. Raziskovalna naloga. Fakulteta za arhitekturo, gradbeništvo in geodezijo. Ljubljana. Evidenca dejanske rabe kmetijskih in gozdnih zemljišč 2015. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano. Ljubljana. Internet: https://rkg.gov.si/ GERK (10.5.2015). Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Hartel, T. 2011. Continental-scale ecology versus landscape-scale case studies. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9-8. Foški,M.2017:Določanjeparcelnihvzorcevinanalizanjihovegaspreminjanjavslovenskempodeželskem prostoru. Ph.D. thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo in geodezijo. Ljubljana. Foški,M.2018:The(non)usefulnessoftheregisterofexistingagriculturalandforestlanduseformonitoring theprocessesinurbanareas.ActageographicaSlovenica58-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1805 Franciscejski kataster za Kranjsko, SI AS 176, k.o. Dol, L147. Arhiv Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana. 1825. FranciscejskikatasterzaKranjsko,SIAS176,k.o.Predoslje,L215.ArhivRepublikeSlovenije,Ljubljana. 1826. FranciscejskikatasterzaPrimorsko,SIAS179,k.o.Zatolmin,G230.ArhivRepublikeSlovenije,Ljubljana.1822.FranciscejskikatasterzaŠtajersko,SIAS177,k.o.Pernice,M455.ArhivRepublikeSlovenije,Ljubljana. 1825. Franciscejski kataster zaŠtajersko,SI AS177, Legenda. Arhiv Republike Slovenije,Ljubljana. 1823–1869. Gabrovec, M., Kumer, P. 2019: Land-use changes in Slovenia from the Franciscean Cadaster until today. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS4892 Golob,G.2014:AnalizakatastrskerabevK.O.Šentrupert –odfranciscejskegakatastradodanes.Diploma thesis. Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo in geodezijo. Ljubljana. Hansen, A. J., Adhikari, A. 2018: Land use change and habitat fragmentation of wildland ecosystems of theNorthCentralUnitedStates.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning177-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2018.04.014 Harvey,F.,Kaim,D.,Gajda,A.2014:AnalysisofhistoricalchangeusingcadastralmaterialsintheCarpathian foothills. European Journal of Geography 5-3. Internet:https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/ item/10331/harvey_kaim_gajda_analysis_of_historical_change_using_cadastral_materials.pdf?sequence= 1&isAllowed=y (21.6.2018). Ilešič, S. 1950: Sistemi poljske razdelitve na Slovenskem. Dela 2. Interpretacijski ključ 6.2. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, gozdarstvo in prehrano, Direktorat za kmetijstvo. Ljubljana, 2014. Irwin, E. G., Bockstael, N. E. 2007: The evolution of urban sprawl: Evidence of spatial heterogenity and increasing land fragmentation. ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStates of America 104-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705527105 Kladnik,D.,Petek,F.2007:KmetijstvoinspreminjanjerabetalnaLjubljanskempolju.Geografskivestnik 79-2. Kokalj,Ž.,Oštir,K.2005:Ugotavljanjepokrovnostiizsatelitskihposnetkovinvrednotenjepokrajinskoekoloških tipov Slovenije. Geografski obzornik 52-4. Lo Papa, G.,Palermo, V.,Dazzi,C. 2011:Island-use changea causeoflossofpedodiversity? The caseof the Mazzarronestudyarea,Sicily.Geomorphology135,3-4.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.02.015 McGarigal, K. 2002: Landscape pattern metrics. Internet: https://www.umass.edu/landeco/pubs/ mcgarigal.2002.pdf (20.12.2015). McGarigal, K. 2015: FRAGSTATS HELP. Amherst. Internet: https://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/ fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf (20.12.2015). McGarigal,K.,Marks,B.J.1995:FRAGSTATS:SpatialPatternAnalysisProgramforQuantifyingLandscape Structure.GeneralTechnicalReport.WashingtonD.C.DOI:https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-351 Meiner,A.,Pedroli,B.2017:Landscapesintransition.Anaccountof25yearsoflandcoverchangeinEurope. Luxemburg. Internet: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscapes-in-transition (1.6.2018). Munroe,D.K.,Croissant,C.,York,A.M.2005:Landusepolicyandlandscapefragmentationinanurbanizing region: Assessing the impact of zoning. Applied Geography 25-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apgeog.2005.03.004 Perko,D.,Hrvatin,M.,Ciglič,R.2015:MetodologijanaravnepokrajinsketipizacijeSlovenije.Actageographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1938 Petek, F. 2005: Spremembe rabe tal v Slovenskem alpskem svetu. Geografija Slovenije 11. Ljubljana. Petek, F. 2007: Spreminjanje rabe tal v severnih Goriških brdih. Geografski vestnik 79-1. Petek,F.,Urbanc,M.2004:Franciscejskikatasterkotključzarazumevanjekulturnepokrajinev19.stoletju. Acta geographica Slovenica 44-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS44104 Pijanowski, B. C., Robinson, K. D. 2011: Rates and patterns of land use change in the Upper Great Lakes States, USA: A framework for spatial temporal analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning 102-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.014 Plieninger,T.,Draux,H.,Fagerholm,N.,Bieling,C.,Bürgi,M.,KizosT.,Kuemmerle,T.,Primdahl,J.,Verburg, P.H.2016:ThedrivingforcesoflandscapechangeinEurope:asystematicreviewoftheevidence.Land Use Policy 57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040 Polenšek, M., Pirnat, J. 2018: Forest patch connectivity: the case of the Kranj-Sora basin, Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 58-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.3001 Ramezani, H., Holm, S. 2011: Sample based estimation of landscape metrics; accuracy of line intersect samplingforestimatingedgedensityandShannon’sdiversityindex.EnvironmentalEcologyStatistics 18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10651-009-0123-2 Ramezani,H.,Holm,S.,Allard,A.,Stahl,G. 2013:Areviewofsampling-basedapproachesforestimating landscape metrics. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 67-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2013.784800 Rempel, R. S., Kaukinen, D., Carr, A. P. 2012: Patch Analyst and Patch Grid. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Thunder Bay, Ontario. Internet: https://www.cnfer.on.ca/SEP/patchanalyst/Patch5_2_Install.htm (24.5.2018). Ribnikar, P. 1982: Zemljiški kataster kot vir za zgodovino. Zgodovinski časopis 36-4. Ljubljana. Robič,D.2000:Različnorazumevanjeinpomenbiodiverzitetevekologiji,posebnovfitocenologiji.Zbornik gozdarstva in lesarstva 63-3. Shoyama,K.,Braimoh,A.K.2011:Analyzingaboutsixtyyearsofland-coverchangeandassociatedlandscape fragmentation in Shiretoko Peninsula, Northern Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning 101-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.12.016 Shrestha,M. K.,York,A. M.,Boone,C.,Zhang,S. 2012:Landfragmentation due torapidurbanization in thePhoenixMetropolitanArea:Analyzingthespatiotemporalpatternsanddrivers.AppliedGeography 32-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.04.004 Sivrikaya, F., Çakir, G., Kadiogullari, A., Keleş, S., Başkent, E., Z., Terzioglu, S. 2007: Evaluating land/use coverchangesandfragmentationintheCamiliforestplanningunitofnortheasternTurkeyfrom1972 to 2005. Land degradation and development 18-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.782 Sushant,P.,Yuan,F.2012:AssessinglandscapechangesanddynamicsusingpatchanalysisandGISmodeling. InternationalJournalofAppliedEarthObservationandGeoinformation16.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jag.2011.12.003 Turner,M.G.,Pearson,S.M.,Bolstad,P.,Wear,D.N.2003:Effectsofland-coverchangeonspatialpattern of forest communities in the southern Appalachian Mountains (USA). Landscape Ecology 18: Internet: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1026033116193.pdf (7.1.2016). Verderber, D. 2013: Študija možnosti uporabe arhivskih gradiv franciscejskega katastra za analizo sprememb v prostoru. Diploma thesis, Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo in geodezijo. Ljubljana. Wu,J. 2004: Effectsof changingscale onlandscapepattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecology 19-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000021711.40074.ae Wu,J.,Shen,W.,Sun,W.,Tueller,P.T.2002:Empiricalpatternsoftheeffectsofchangingscaleonlandscape metrics. Landscape Ecology 17-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022995922992 Zemljiški kataster. Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana, 2015. Zhang, S., York, A. M., Boone, C. G., Shrestha, M. 2013: Methodological advances in the spatial analysis oflandfragmentation.TheProfessionalGeographer65-3.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2012.700501