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). ASSESSMENTOFLAND-USECHANGES ANDTHEIRIMPACTSONECOSYSTEM SERVICESINTWOSLOVENIANRURAL LANDSCAPES Daniela Ribeiro, Mateja Šmid Hribar Due to the karst features human activities are limited and the landscape of Bela krajina is being overgrown (upper). The landscape of the Ljubljana Marsh is largely composed of various meadows, fields, pastures, canals, hedges, tall herb communities, and shrubs (down). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.6636 UDC: 913:711.14(497.4) 711.14:711.3(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenian rural landscapes ABSTRACT:Thisstudyshowsthelinkbetweenlanduse,landscapechanges,andecosystemservices.Two pilot areas were investigated for how land use changes from 1824 to 2013 affect the provision of ecosystem services. Itwasfoundthatlow-intensitymanagedtraditionallanduseisdisappearingduetotheintensification of agricultural production on the one hand, and the retreat of agriculture from unfavorable areas on the otherhand.However,suchtraditionallandusecontributestomorediverseandmorenumerousecosystem services and helps preserve the cultural landscape. Therefore, intensification and overgrowth should be restricted, and less intensive agriculture should be encouraged. The approach presented can be used as a support tool for decision-making in managing and governing landscapes. KEY WORDS: land use, ecosystem services, Franciscean Land Cadaster, Revised Land Cadaster, field mapping, Bela krajina, Ljubljana Marsh Ocena sprememb rabe zemljišč in njihov vpliv na ekosistemske storitve v dveh podeželskih pokrajinah v Sloveniji POVZETEK: Namen študije je pokazati povezavo med rabo zemljišč, pokrajinskimi spremembami in ekosistemskimistoritvami. Nadvehpilotnihobmočjihsmopreučevali,kakojespremembarabezemljiščmed leti1824in2013vplivalanazagotavljanjeekosistemskihstoritev. Ugotovilismo,datakozaradiintenziviranja kmetijskepridelave,kottudiopuščanjakmetijstvanamanjugodnihobmočjih,izginjatradicionalnamanj intenzivnarabazemljišč. Vendarpapravtovrstnatradicionalnarabaprispevavečboljraznolikihekosistemskih storitevterpripomorekohranjanjukulturnepokrajine.Zaraditegabibilotrebaomejevatiintenzifikacijo inzaraščanje,terspodbujatiobstojmanjintenzivnegakmetijstva. Predstavljenipristoplahkoslužikotpodporno orodje pri odločanju za upravljanje in gospodarjenje s pokrajinami. KLJUČNE BESEDE: raba zemljišč, ekosistemske storitve, franciscejski kataster, reambulančni kataster, terensko kartiranje, Bela krajina, Ljubljansko barje ADDRESSES: Daniela Ribeiro, Mateja Šmid Hribar Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute daniela.ribeiro@zrc-sazu.si, mateja.smid@zrc-sazu.si This article was submitted for publication on February 14th, 2018. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 14. februarja 2018. 1 Introduction The landscape, as a combination of abiotic, biotic, and cultural elements, provides ecological functions andecosystemservicesessentialfortheexistenceofthehumanrace(MillenniumEcosystemAssessment 2005).Thelandscapestructureisinfluencedbyhumanactivities,particularlybylandusethatshapessocioe-conomicdevelopmentandmodifiesthestructureandprocessesintheenvironment(ManderandUuemaa 2010).Changesinthelandscape’sstructureresultinchangestoitsfunctionsandconsequentlytoecosystem services as well. As a result of land-use changes, European landscapes have undergone rapid transforma­tion (European Landscape Convention 2000). Two dominant trends in land-use changes are overgrowth due to agriculture marginalization and land abandonment, and land intensification due to more inten­sive agricultural production on a larger scale (Fry and Gustavsson 1996, Bender et al. 2005). In Slovenia, various studies have examined land-use changes (e.g. Gabrovec and Kladnik 1997; Petek 2002;PetekandUrbanc2004;Hladnik2005;PaušičandČarni2012;Lisec,PišekandDrobne2013;Ribeiro,Ellis Burnet and Torkar 2013; Šmid Hribar 2016; Gabrovec and Kumer 2019). However, no one has tack­led the effects of land-use changes on ecosystem services. Ecosystemservicesarethedirectandindirectcontributionsofecosystemstohumanwellbeing(Kumar 2010). Theyhavebecomeanimportanttoolforawiderangeofdecision-makingcontexts(Fisher,Turner and Morling 2009; de Groot et al. 2010). Transformation of natural ecosystems into other forms of land use alters the landscape’s functioning and consequently the supply of ecosystem services. These changes often result in short-term economic benefits (Braat et al. 2008), but in the long run they may reduce and degrade regulating ecosystem services that are vitally important for people. Previous studies have shown that the provision of ecosystem services depends on biophysical conditions and landscape management practices (e.g., Ceschia et al. 2010; Otieno et al. 2011; Burkhard et al. 2012; Haines-Young, Potschin and Kienast2012;Bürgiet al.2015;FrélichováandFanta2015;Makovníková,KanianskaandKizeková2017). Frélichová and Fanta (2015) have proven that land-use intensification contributes to the decline of diversi­tyandecosystemservicesbecauselandscapesareoftenconvertedtosingle-purposeland-use(Braatetal.2008). Ontheotherhand,underuseornousealsosignificantlyimpactsandthreatensthemultifunctionalityofland-scapesandconsequentlybioculturaldiversityandflowsofecosystemservices(Mauerhoferetal.2018).Hence, structural and functional landscape changes might result in a loss of diverse ecosystem services. Thisstudy examines the link betweenlandscapes, changes tothem, and theability toprovide ecosys­temservices.Itpresentsanovelapproachtounderstandingthefunctioningoflandscapesthatcanbeused as an advanced decision-making tool for managing and governing landscapes. Based on two pilot areas, we investigated how land-use changes affect the provision of ecosystem services in Slovenia. 1.1 Pilot areas Weselectedtwopilotareasasexamplesofthetwodominanttrendsinland-usechanges.Thefirstpilotarea, Črna vas, is located in the Ljubljana Marsh Protected Landscape Area (IUCN Category V) near the capi­tal city, Ljubljana. Črna vas is a Slovenian settlement where the landscape has changed significantly. The greatestchangesoccurredatthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury,whenextensivedrainagewascarried outinordertoobtainnewfarmland. Thedrainageworkwasfinishedin1829,andcolonizationofthearea followed(Melik1927).Amajorchangetothelandscapewasalsocausedbyintensivepeatextraction,which lowered the surface by several meters in many areas and increased the risk of floods, and therefore floods arestillcommon(Smrekaretal.2016).Themostimportantdrivingforcesthatshapetoday’slandscapeincludeintensivefarming,natureprotection,andurbanizationduetotheproximityofLjubljana(ŠmidHribar2016). The second pilot area, Bojanci, is located in Bela krajina in southeastern Slovenia. In Bela krajina the useofthespace,anditspatterningandeconomicstructure,areinfluencedbyinterlacingkarstandPannonian geographical characteristics (Plut 2008). Until the Second World War, people from Bela krajina mainly worked in and made a living from agriculture (Dražumerič 1987). However, due to the karst landscape features, cultivation is connected to great investments in land improvement, and the natural conditions do not allow the development of intensive agriculture in the region (Ciglič et al. 2012; Ribeiro 2017). For avarietyofreasons,emigrationfromtheareawascommon,andthepopulationcontinuedtodecline,with aconsequentincreaseinlandabandonment.Asaresult,todaytheregionisgrapplingwithsignificantsocial and economic challenges (Ribeiro 2017). 2 Methods 2.1 Data To determine long-term landscape changes, we applied data from the Franciscean Land Cadaster (Franciscejskikataster…1824;1825),theRevisedLandCadaster(Reambulančnikataster…1869;1877), andhabitatmapping(Habitatnitipi…2009,Čarniet al. 2011)combinedwithfieldwork(in2013),which representedthecurrentlanduse.Thehistoricalmapswerefirstscannedandgeoreferenced,andthencon­verted to vector format for further analysis. Todemonstratethe land usefor1824 and1825,we used theFranciscean Land CadasterforCarniola, which is a valuable data source for studying the cultural landscape of the nineteenth century (Ribnikar 1982;Petek andUrbanc 2004). Data forthe nextperiod(1869 and1877) were obtained fromthe Revised Land Cadaster for Carniola. In determining land use, we used the descriptive part of the two cadasters, in which each land plot is defined by land use. In rare cases in which the use was not known or unread­able, we identified it as »unknown«. For the current land use, habitat mapping data were used combined with our field mapping. Data for theČrnavaspilotareawereacquiredfromthemappingofhabitattypescarriedoutin2009fortheLjubljana Marsh area (Erjavec et al. 2009). Data for the Bojanci pilot area were acquired from the mapping of habi­tat types carried out in 2011 for the Marindol area (Čarni et al. 2011). The habitat mapping data were convertedintolandusetypedata(Table1,column1). Inthecaseofdoubt, additionalfieldworkwas con-ductedforČrnavasin2013.Forinstance,certainhabitattypes,suchasalderswampwoods,weresometimes classifiedashedgerowsandsometimesgrovesaccordingtolanduseandfieldobservations.Thesameprin­ciple was used for rare land plots in which two or even three different habitat types were mapped. 2.2 Analysis of land use changes Inordertomakecomparisonsovertime,thedatasetswerethematicallygeneralized(Ribeiro,EllisBurnet and Torkar 2013). Table 1 shows how the land use categories were classified in the datasets used, as well asthecorrespondingCORINELandCovercategory(EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency1995),whichallows aninternationalcomparison. Because thedatasetsusedwerepreparedfordifferentneeds, themainchal­lenge of categorization was to unify various detailed datasets, which is subjective to a certain degree. In ArcGIS 10, we examined the topology of all digital land use layers and eliminated the errors. For each of the two pilot areas, we produced land use maps (1825, 1869, 2013 for Črna vas, and 1824, 1877, 2011 for Bojanci). The land use change maps were produced by successively overlaying the three temporal spatial data layers (Figure 1). 2.3 Assessment of ecosystem services Theassessmentofecosystemserviceswasbasedonthematrixfortheassessmentofvariouslandusetypes’ capacitiestoprovideecosystemservices,asproposedbyBurkhardet al.(2009;Table2).The»recreational and aesthetic values« (see Table 2, cultural services column) were divided into two separate criteria, and Table 1: Land-use categories in the pilot areas from 1824 until 2013 (sources: Franciscejski kataster…1824; 1825, Reambulančni kataster…1869; 1877, Habitatni tipi…2009, Čarni et al. 2011, Šmid Hribar 2016). Land-use type (2013) Franciscean Land Cadaster (1824 and 1825) Revised Land Cadaster (1869 and 1877) Habitat mapping (2009 and 2011) CORINE land cover Cultivated field Cultivated field Cultivated field 82.11 Field crops 2.1.1 Non-irrigated arable land Extensive orchard Orchard Orchard 83.151 Northern fruit orchards 2.2.2 Fruit trees and berry plantations Garden Garden with fruit trees Vegetable garden Garden with fruit trees Vegetable garden 83.15 Fruit orchards 85.3 Gardens 2.2.2. Fruit trees and berry plantations Intensive meadow – – 38.222 Hygromesophile 2.1.1 Non­irrigated arable medio-European lowland land hay meadows Extensive to medium- Meadow Meadow 37.311 Calcareus purple 2.4.3 Land principally intensive meadow Wet meadow Meadow with trees moorgrass meadow occupied by agriculture, with Meadow with trees Meadow with fruit trees 37.2 Eutrophic humid significant areas of natural Meadow with fruit trees grasslands vegetation and grapevines 37.21 Atlantic and sub­ 3.2.1 Natural grassland Meadow with fruit trees Atlantic humid meadows 37.211 Cabbage thistle meadows 81 Improved grasslands Vineyard Vineyard Vineyard 83.21 Vineyards 2.2.1 Vineyards Pasture Pasture Pasture 38.1 Mesophile pastures 2.3 Pastures Pasture with trees Pasture with trees Pasture with fruit trees Wet pasture Wet pasture – – – Tall-herb communities – – 37.11 Western nemoral 3.2 Shrub and/or herbaceous tall-herb communities vegetation associations Wetland Marshes – 53.1 Reed beds 4.1.1 Inland marshes 53.21 Large carex beds Peatland – Peatland – 4.1.2 Peatbogs Shrubland Pasture with shrubs – 38.13 Ruderalized 3.2.4 Transitional Pasture with shrubs and trees abandoned grasslands woodland/shrub Meadow with shrubs 87.1 Fallow fields Meadow with shrubs 87.2 Ruderal communities and trees 87.2 × 31.8D/44.9 Ruderal communities × Western Eurasian thickets / Alder, willow, oak, aspen swamp woods Forest Young forest Young forest 84.3 Small woodlots 3.1 Forests Mature forest Mature forest 83.311 Native conifer Forest with fruit trees plantations Grove – Bushes 44.91 Alder swamp woods 3.2.4 Transitional 83.311 Native conifer woodland/shrub plantations Hedgerow – – 44.3 Middle European 2.4.4 Agro-forestry areas stream ash-alder woods 44.91 Alder swamp woods 84.2 Hedges River River River Stream 24.1 River and streams 5.1.1 Watercourses Channel Channel Channel 89.22 Ditches and small canals 5.1.2 Water bodies 89.22/22.4 Ditches and small canals/Euhydrophyte communities Pond Pond Pond – 5.1.2 Water bodies Built-up area Built-up Cemetery Path Built-up Path Passage 86 Towns, villages, and 1.1 Urban fabric industrial sites 1.2 Industrial, commercial, Paths and tracks Roads and transport 1.3 Mine, dump, and construction sites additional criteria were added for »cultural/natural heritage and identity« (Table 3). We scored the gen­eralized land use types from 0 to 5 according to their relevant capacity to supply each ecosystem service as determined by Burkhard et al. (2009) in Table 2. Then we corrected certain values of ecosystem ser­vices and adjusted them according to the actual state of landscape elements inthepilot areas determined byexpertassessment(Čarni2013).TheresultsareshowninTable3.Toexplorelandscapechangesandthe consequentchangesintheirfunctions,threeecosystemserviceswerestudiedindetail:pollination,crops, and cultural/natural heritage and identity. Table 2: Matrix for assessing various land cover types’capacities to provide selected ecosystem goods and services (Burkhard et al. 2009). Ecological Integrity. Abioticheterogenity Biodiversity Bioticwaterflows Metabolicefficiency Exergycapture(radiation) Reducationofnutrienloss Storagecapacity(SOM)ProvisioningServices. Crops Livestock Fodder CaptureFisheries Acquaculture Wildfoods Timber Woodfuel Energy(Biomass) Biochemicals/medicine FreshwaterRegulatingServices. Localclimateregulation Globalclimateregulation Floodprotection Groundwaterrecharge Airqualityregulation Erosionregulation Nutrientregulation Waterpurification PollinationCultural Services.Recreational&AestheticValues IntrinsicValueofBiodiversity Continuous urban fabric 0 0 7 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 7 1 4 2 8 2 3 2 18 3 16 2 22 3 21 3 20 3 14 3 21 4 17 3 24 2 18 2 20 4 19 3 27 4 31 3 30 3 32 3 30 3 30 3 21 3 21 3 10 3 6 3 9 2 6 2 3 2 25 3 29 3 23 2 2 1 13 2 18 4 23 4 25 4 21 3 15 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 2 4 3 1 3 4 4 4 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 3 5 5 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 0 2 3 4 5 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 4 4 3 0 1 3 4 5 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 3 5 3 0 4 3 3 3 3 4 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 4 21 5 3 18 5 3 7 5 2 5 4 3 13 5 3 12 4 4 10 0 3 20 5 3 9 4 3 21 3 4 14 3 5 21 0 5 21 0 5 21 0 5 5 0 5 10 0 2 8 0 2 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 5 7 0 5 5 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 12 0 4 12 0 4 16 0 2 17 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 2 0 0 0 5 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 5 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 3 3 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 3 3 5 5 5 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 5 5 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 0 9 1 0 5 2 0 5 3 0 4 2 0 3 1 0 19 2 0 7 1 0 8 1 0 7 2 0 5 2 0 13 3 0 13 2 0 39 5 0 39 5 0 39 5 0 22 2 0 20 4 0 7 2 0 3 1 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 5 10 3 0 14 2 0 24 4 0 8 1 0 2 2 0 7 1 5 10 1 5 7 2 0 5 1 0 9 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 4 3 5 0 5 2 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 4 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 0 3 2 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 5 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 0 1 3 1 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 5 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 5 5 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 5 2 3 3 3 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 0 6 3 2 10 5 2 6 2 2 4 2 0 7 5 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 2 8 4 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 4 4 0 10 5 0 9 5 0 9 5 0 7 4 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 5 5 3 5 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 4 4 3 2 Discontinuos urban fabric Industrial or commercial units Road and rail netwroks Port areas Airports Mineral extraction sites Dump sites Construction sites Green urban areas Sport and leisure facilities Non-irrigated arable land Permanently irrigated land Ricefields Vineyards Fruit trees and berries Olive groves Pastures Annual and permanent crops Complex cultivation patterns Agricultural& natural vegetation Agro-forestry areas Broad-leaved forest Coniferous forest Mixed forest Natural grassland Moors and heathland Sclerophyllous vegetation Transitional woodland shrub Beaches, dunes and sand plains Bare rock Sparsely vegetated areas Burnt areas Glaciers and perpetual snow Inland waters Peatbogs Salt marshes Salines Intertidal flats Water courses Water bodies Coastal lagoons Estuaries Sea and ocean 148 Furthermore, we prepared maps showing the capacity of land use types to supply ecosystem services (Figures 2 to 4). »Pollination,« representing the regulative group of ecosystem services, was chosen due toitsimportanceforfoodproduction.Intensiveagricultureusingpesticidesthreatensbeesandotherpol­linators (Klein et al. 2007). An additional threat to pollinators is the loss of their habitats. The ability to providecropsintheprovisioninggroupofecosystemservicesisthecapacityofthelandscapeforfoodpro­vision.Fromamongtheculturalecosystemservices,weselectedthepotentialofproviding»cultural/natural heritage and identity« because Slovenian cultural landscapes are recognized as valuable and are probably one of the main elements of national identity (Perko and Urbanc 2004, Golobič and Lestan 2016). 3 Results 3.1 land use changes in the pilot areas In1825inČrnavastherewerewetpastures,whichlaterdisappeared.Inthesameyeardrainageworkstart-ed,resultinginthecolonizationoftheLjubljanaMarshin1829.Overthefollowingdecades,Črnavaschanged completely (Figure 1). In 1869, cultivated fields and meadows, separated by channels, characterized the landscape.Inaddition,grovesandpeatlandweremapped.Peatlandsweresubjectedtothegreatestchanges duetopeatcutting(Melik1927).Thebuilt-upareawasintroducedduetocolonization.Somehouseshad fruittreesandgardens.Inthethirdperiodstudied,2009–2013,theareabecameevenmoreheterogeneous. The inhabitants shiftedtheir activitiestowardsanimalhusbandry,cultivatedfields decreased, and mead-owswereintensified.Theshareofbuilt-upareaincreasedaswell.Nearhouses,theproportionofvegetable gardensandornamentalgardenswithfruittreesincreased,replacingtheextensiveorchards.Areasofgroves, amongwhichweincludedbushes,havedecreased.Duetoabandonment,someareashavebeenovergrown with shrubland and non-native tall-herb communities. The native tall-herb communities present a spe­ciallandscapeelementthatprovidesahabitatforendangeredbirdspecies.However,duetochangesinfarming modes, tall-herb communities are decreasing. Pastures have appeared again. Hedgerows that were plant­ed along the parcel borders by new inhabitants during the colonization after 1829 (as described in Melik 1927),andwerenotmappedincadasters,havenowadaysbecomearecognizableelementofthelandscape. Fragments of wetland have been found in abandoned channels. Rivers and channels are also present. InBojanci,cultivatedfields showedadramaticdecrease from1824to2011, althoughthischangewas moreevidentafter1877(Figure1).Theareasoccupiedbygardensexperiencedfluctuationsforthetimes­pan studied. The area of vineyards is almost negligible and, as with gardens, this land use category also experienced slightfluctuations in theperiod studied. In1824, extensivemeadowsand pastures dominat­ed.Bothmeadowsandpasturesincreasedbetween1824and1877,anddecreasedbetween1877and2011. Pastureland almost disappeared in 2011, presumably as a result of afforestation. Shrubland occupied an extensiveareain1824;in1877thislandusecategorywasnotmapped,whereasinthethirdperiodshrub­landwasmapped,althoughitoccupiedamuchsmallerproportionthantheinitialarea.Eventhoughforest areawasalreadyquiteextensivein1824,theafforestedlandsignificantlyexpandedovertime.Inlandwaters were negligible in 1824 and 1877, and these elements do not occur again after this period. The built-up area did not show major changes over more than 180 years; this could be understood as a sign of popu­lation stagnation. The major landscape changes in Bojanci took place after 1877. It was also reported by Ribeiro(2017)thatthemajorpeakofemigrationwasreachedbetween1912and1927,andsoitwasexpect-ed that the extent of land abandonment would increase as a result of emigration. 3.2 Link between land use and ecosystem services Because landscape governance aims to be sustainable, it is important to know the functions and roles of ecosystems and individual landscape elements, and to manage landscapes accordingly. Therefore, based on the matrix from Table 2, values of ecosystem services were assigned for each landscape element. The resultispresentedinTable3,inwhichlandscapeelementsaresortedaccordingtothetotalsumofallesti­mated values to supply ecosystem services. Figure 1: Land-use changes in Črna vas (1825–2013) and Bojanci (1824–2011). p p. 150 Table 3: Matrix for evaluating ecosystem services provided by various land-use types in both pilot areas. p p. 151 Črna vas 182518692013 Bojanci 1824 1877 2011 Land use categories Built–up area Grove Shrubland Hedgerows Tall–herb communities Channels Cultivated eld Intensive meadows Unknown ± Extensive orchards Pasture Vineyard Extensive to medium intensive meadows Peatland Wetlands 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5km Forest Pond Wet pasture Content and map by: Daniela Ribeiro Garden River © 2018, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Built up– area Vineyard Intensivemeadow Pond Channel Pasture Cultivatedfield Garden Wetland River/stream Wetpasture Shrubland Tall herbcommunities– Peatland Hedgerow Extensiveorchard Extensivetomediumintensivemeadow Grove Mixedforest Total 8 35 37 39 40 46 50 52 52 52 53 53 55 61 68 76 81 96 105 Ecological integrity . 1 15 20 17 23 24 22 20 25 18 27 22 23 27 19 21 27 30 32 Abiotic heterogenity 1 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 Biodiversity 0 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 Biotic waterflows 0 3 3 0 0 4 3 3 4 0 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 Metabolic efficiency 0 1 4 3 4 5 4 2 4 3 5 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 4 Exergy capture (radiation) 0 3 5 3 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 Reducation of nutrien loss 0 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 4 5 5 Storage capacity (SOM) 0 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 5 1 5 3 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 Regulating Services . 0 3 6 7 7 8 6 10 17 10 14 20 16 21 22 20 27 34 39 Local climate regulation 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 4 3 3 3 4 5 Global climate regulation 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 4 Flood protection 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 Groundwater recharge 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 Air quality regulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 4 5 Erosion regulation 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 3 2 0 4 3 4 5 5 Nutrient regulation 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 4 4 5 Water purification 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 2 4 2 1 5 4 5 Pollination 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 3 2 2 3 5 4 5 5 Provisioning Services . 0 6 9 10 4 8 16 11 2 9 7 8 8 6 17 22 13 18 22 Crops 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 Livestock 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 0 Fodder 0 0 5 0 0 3 5 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 Capture Fisheries 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acquaculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wild food 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 0 3 0 4 4 5 Timber 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 5 Wood fuel 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 4 4 0 5 5 Energy (Biomass) 0 1 3 3 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 1 2 1 0 1 Biochemicals/medicine 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 1 3 4 5 Freshwater 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cultural Services . 7 11 2 5 6 6 6 11 8 15 5 3 8 7 10 13 14 14 12 Recreational values 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 5 4 Aesthetic values 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 C/N heritage and identity 3 4 0 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 2 0 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 3.3 Changes in the supply of selected ecosystem services as a result of landscape changes over 180 years The capacity to provide pollination in Črna vas was the greatest in 1869 (Figure 2), when this landscape wasnotasfragmentedandintensivelyusedasin2013. Incontrary,inBojancithecapacitytoprovidepol­lination was the greatest in 2011 (Figure 2), when the forest area reached its maximum. ThebestperiodforsupportingcropprovisioninČrnavaswasin1869(Figure3)duetothehighpro­portionofcultivatedfields.Manyofthemwerelatertransformedintovarioustypesofmeadowsandbuilt-up areas. In Bojanci as well, the best period for supporting crop provision was in 1877 (Figure 3). After this period, the area experienced an increase in land abandonment as a result of emigration and consequent­ly depopulation. InČrnavas,thecapacityforsupplyingcultural/naturalheritageandidentitystartedwiththefirstinhab­itantsafter1829.Colonizationintroducedelements(channels,hedgerows,meadows,andcultivatedfields) thatlatersignificantlyinfluencedtheidentityofthislandscape.However,nowadayssomeofthemarebeing replacedby intensivemeadows and shrublands, which arenotcontributingto currentheritage and iden­tity. The capacity for supplying cultural/natural heritage and identity in Bojanci was quite high in 1877 due to the increase in areas of pastures, meadows, and forests. This result might be due to the fact that shrubland was not mapped in 1877; the areas previously mapped as shrubland in 1824 were mapped as pastures or meadows in 1877. According to themap, the greatest capacityto providethis culturalecosys­tem service was achieved in 2011 (Figure 4), when the forested area was larger. 4 Discussion Weanalyzedlong-termland use changes in two pilot areas from1824 to 2013 (Figure1). Dueto a lackof data from 1900 to 2000, the intervals between the datasets are unequal, but this did not affect the main goal of the study. The study of land use changes in Črna vas has shown that since 1825 the main driving forces of the area were agriculture, settlement, and water management, which introduced a number of new landscape elements yielding various ecosystem services. In recent decades, nature protection became an important driving force, resulting in declaring the Ljubljana Marsh a protected landscape area in 2008. This protec­tionhaslimitedintensifiedagricultureand,inadditiontoregularagriculturalsubsidies,hasalsointroduced specificones. However,thesystemofsubsidieshasavoluntarybasis,enablingfarmerstomaketheirown decisions.Allofthishasresultedinthesimultaneouspresenceoftwooppositetrends:intensificationand abandonmentaccompaniedbythedisappearanceofmanagingthelandscapeinlessintensivemannersthat areclosertonature.Elementssuchaswetpastures,peatland,andpartlyalsogrovesandextensiveorchards have almost disappeared in Črna vas as a result of ongoing agricultural intensification. Without sustain-ablegovernance,thistrendwillcontinueleadingtofragmentationandthedisappearanceoflow-intensity landscape usage elements, which are important for providing more diverse ecosystem services. LandmanagementislackinginBojanci,andlandscapeelementsarebeingtransformedintootherele­ ments. Land abandonment may contribute to the natural restoration of the landscape on the one hand, and it may threaten the functional diversity of cultural landscapes on the other hand. Landscape elements such as cultivated fields or meadows have practically disappeared in Bojanci in recenttimes. This phenomenon can beexplainedprimarilyasthe resultofthe retreat ofagriculturefrom unfavorable areas and rural depopulation. The method applied made it possible to assess ecosystem services based on land use (Table 3). The originalityofthispaperliesinitsapplicationofthemethodtolanduseattheparcellevelfromthreetime periods, making it possible to show the influence of land use changes on the capacity to provide ecosys­tem services (Figures 2–4). Figure 2: Changes in the supply of pollination in Črna vas (1825–2013) and Bojanci (1824–2011). p p. 153 Figure 3: Changes in the supply of crops in Črna vas (1825–2013) and Bojanci (1824–2011). p p. 154 Figure 4: Changes in the supply of cultural/natural heritage and identity in Črna vas (1825–2013) and Bojanci (1824–2011). p p. 155 Črna vas 182518692013 Bojanci 1824 1877 2011 ± Capacities of di.erent land use types to supply pollination 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5km 0 = no relevant capacity 2 = relevant capacity 4 = high relevant capacity Content and map by: Daniela Ribeiro 5 = very high relevant capacity © 2018, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute 1 = low relevant capacity 3 = medium relevant capacity 182518692013 Črna vas Bojanci 1824 1877 2011 ± Capacities of di.erent land use types to support crops 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5km 0 = no relevant capacity 2 = relevant capacity 4 = high relevant capacity Content and map by: Daniela Ribeiro 1 = low relevant capacity 3 = medium relevant capacity 5 = very high relevant capacity © 2018, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute 182518692013 Črna vas Bojanci 1824 1877 2011 ± Capacities of di.erent land use types to provide cultural/natural heritage and identity 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5km 0 = no relevant capacity 2 = relevant capacity 4 = high relevant capacity Content and map by: Daniela Ribeiro 1 = low relevant capacity 3 = medium relevant capacity 5 = very high relevant capacity © 2018, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute In Črna vas, the provision of ecosystem services studied was higher in 1869. In this pilot area neither alackofagriculture(mappedin1825)norintensiveagriculturaluse(mappedin2013)positivelycontributes to a balanced provision of regulating and provisioning ecosystem services. Cultural ecosystem services increasedwith colonization; however, theyare now threatenedby synchronous intensification and aban­donment. LandabandonmentinBojanciisleadingtoanincreaseinregulatingecosystemservicesandtoadecrease in provisioning ecosystem services. Cultural ecosystem services increased in Bojanci recently following the expansion of forests. The high relevant capacity for provisioning heritage and identity attributed to Bojanciin2011,showninFigure4,isarguablebecausethisabandonedlandscapehasresultedinanexpan­sion of forested land. This points to a critical aspect of the methodology used. We assigned forest a high valueforculturalservicesbecauseforestsaremuchappreciatedandhighlyimportantforSlovenians.However, the aesthetic value of mosaic landscapes with a diversity of land use patches is here not taken in account. We are aware that not all forested areas support the same level of these ecosystem services. Therefore, on the one hand, for some cultural ecosystem services it would be more accurate to assign values for specif­ic points (e.g., monuments and viewpoints) and not for the landscape element as a whole. On the other hand,alandscapeitselfcansometimesberecognizedas heritage andnationalidentity (Lowenthal2007). We suggest that cultural ecosystem services should be further studied and elaborated using system­ atic field walk based analysis as proposed by Bieling and Plieninger (2013) and interviews as mentioned by Bieling et al. (2014). Based on the landscape changes studied, we argue that preservation of traditional and low-intensity agriculture should be promoted to protect against the overgrowth of agricultural land and that intensive use of agricultural land should be restricted due to the importance of preserving cultural landscapes and providingdiverseecosystemservices(e.g.,foodprovisioningandpreservationofculturalheritage/identity, whichconsequentlyattractstourism).Inaddition,thefindingsofthisstudyshouldinfluenceincentive-based policies(e.g.,thefutureCommonAgriculturalPolicy),whichshouldbebetteradaptedtolocalcontextsand characteristics. 5 Conclusions With this study we linked land use with ecosystem services. We are aware that the ecosystem service val­ues used in this study are only an approximation, and detailed studies should be carried out for a more accurate assessment. A comparison of selected ecosystem services providedover 180 years for the pilot areas revealed that provisioningandculturalservicesweresignificantlyreducedinBojanciduetolandabandonmentanddepop­ulation,whereastheseecosystemservicesincreasedduetocolonizationandtheproliferationofarableland in Črna vas. On the other hand, for exactly the same reasons, regulating ecosystem services increased in Bojanci in recent decades, but they decreased in Črna vas during the same time period. Italsoturnedoutthatlandusedataarenotalwaysrelevantformappingthesupplyofculturalecosys­temservices.Nevertheless,fromtheestimatedvaluesshowninTable3itisalreadyevidentthatlessintensively usedlandscapeelementscontributetomorenumerousanddiverseecosystemservicesthanlandscapeele­ments with more intense use or abandoned ones. This finding should be taken into account in landscape management,whichshouldconsidernaturalcharacteristicsandtrytomaintainthoselandscapeelements that require little input while still offering various ecosystem services. Theapproachpresentedcanbeusedasasupporttoolfordecision-makinginmanagingandgoverning landscapes. Furthermore,the study opens anarenafor theoreticaldiscussionbetween various disciplines (e.g., geography, ecology, forestry, and sociology) that should contribute to understanding the landscape as a complex integrated whole. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research AgencyresearchcorefundingGeographyofSlovenia(P6-0101)andInfrastructureprogramme(I0-0031). 6 References Bender,O.,Boehmer,H. J.,Jens,D.,Schumacher,K. P. 2005:UsingGIStoanalyselong-termculturallandscape change in Southern Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landurbplan.2003.10.008 Bieling,C., Plieninger,T. 2013: Recordingmanifestations ofculturalecosystemservicesinthe landscape. Landscape Research 38-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.691469 Bieling,C.,PlieningeT.,Pirker,H.,Vogl,C.R.2014:Linkagesbetweenlandscapesandhumanwell-being: Anempiricalexplorationwithshortinterviews. EcologicalEconomics105. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2014.05.013 Braat,L.,Klok,C.,Walpole,M.,Kettunen,M.,Peralta-Bezerra,N.,tenBrink,P. 2008:Changesinecosystem services.Thecostofpolicyinaction-thecaseofnotmeetingthe2010biodiversitytarget. Wageningen. Bürgi,M.,Silbernagel,J.,Wu,J.,Kienast,F. 2015:Linkingecosystemserviceswithlandscapehistory. Landscape Ecology 30-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0102-3 Burkhard,B.,Kroll,F.,Müller,F.,Windhorst,W. 2009:Landscapes‘ capacitiestoprovideecosystemservices – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3097/ LO.200915 Burkhard,B.,Kroll,F.,Nedkov,S.,Müller,F. 2012:Mappingecosystemservicesupply,demandandbudgets. Ecological Indicators 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019 Ceschia, E., Béziat, P., Dejoux, J. F., Aubinet, M., Bernhofer, C., Bodson, B., Buchmann, N., Carrara, A., Cellier,P.,DiTommasi,P.,Elbers,J.A.,Eugster,W.,Grünwald,T.,Jacobs,C.M. J.,Jans,W.W.P.,Jones, M., Kutsch, W., Lanigan, G., Magliulo, E., Marloie, O., Moors, E. J., Moureaux, C., Olioso, A., Osborne, B., Sanz, M. J., Saunders, M., Smith, P., Soegaard, H., Wattenbach, M. 2010: Management effectsonnetecosystemcarbonandGHGbudgetsatEuropeancropsites.Agriculture,Ecosystems& Environment 139-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.09.020 Ciglič, R., Hrvatin, M., Komac, B., Perko, D. 2012: Karst as a criterion for defining areas less suitable for agriculture. Acta geographica Slovenica 52-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS52103 Čarni, A., 2013: Evaluation of ecosystem services. Personal communication. Ljubljana. Čarni,A.,Čelik,T.,Dakskobler,I.,Košir,P.,Juvan,N.,Marinšek,A.,Sajko,I.,Šilc,U.,Vreš,B. 2011:Kartiranje negozdnihhabitatnihtipovSlovenije:območjeReka,Marindol,Volčeke,Kras –Lokev,Mirna. Ljubljana. deGroot,R.S.,Alkemade,R.,Braat,L.,Hein,L.,Willemen,L.2010:Challengesinintegratingtheconcept ofecosystemservicesandvaluesinlandscapeplanning,managementanddecisionmaking.Ecological Complexity 7-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Dražumerič, M. 1987: Izseljevanje iz Bele krajine od začetkov do druge svetovne vojne. Traditiones 16. Erjavec, D., Govedič, M., Grobelnik, V., Jakopič, M., Trčak, B. 2009: Monitoring zavarovanih negozdnih habitatnihtipovvMestniobčiniLjubljana. Ljubljana. Internet:https://www.ljubljanskobarje.si/uploads/ datoteke/Porocilo_MOL_ht.pdf (31. 10. 2013). European Environmental Agency, 1995: CORINE land cover. Internet: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ publications/COR0-landcover (8. 1. 2018). European Landscape Convention, 2000. Internet: https://www.pcl-eu.de/project/convention/intro.php? PHPSESSID=4d2ef5d6833223d11cf81320b70026ac (8. 1. 2018). Fisher,B.,Turner,R.K.,Morling,P. 2009:Definingandclassifyingecosystemservicesfordecisionmaking. Ecological Economics 68-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 FranciscejskikatasterzaKranjsko,SIAS176,k.o.Bojanci,N19,listA01,listA02,listA03,listA04.Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana. 1824. Franciscejski kataster za Kranjsko, SI AS 176, k. o. Bojanci, N19, Seznam zemljiških parcel. Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana. 1824. Franciscejski kataster za Kranjsko, SI AS 176, k. o. Trnovsko predmestje, L303, list A06, list A08, list A09. Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana. 1825. Franciscejski kataster za Kranjsko, SI AS 176,k. o. Trnovsko predmestje, L303.Seznam zemljiških parcel. Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana. 1825. Frélichová,J.,Fanta,J. 2015:Ecosystemserviceavailabilityinviewoflong-termlandusechanges:aregional case study in the Czech Republic. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1890/EHS15-0024.1 Fry, G., Gustavsson, R. 1996: Testing landscape design principles: the Landscape Laboratory. Ecological and landscape consequences of land use change. European Centre for Nature Conservation – Publication Series on Man and Nature 2. Tilburg. Gabrovec, M., Kladnik, D. 1997: Nekaj novih vidikov rabe tal v Sloveniji. Geografski zbornik 37. 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/AGS.4892 Golobič,M.,Lestan,K. A. 2016:PotentialimpactsofEUpoliciesonculturallandscapediversity:example of Slovenian coastal landscapes. Annales 26-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19233/ASHS.2016.16 Habitatni tipi na Ljubljanskem barju, 2009. Digital map, Center za kartografijo favne in flore. Miklavž na Dravskem polju. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Kienast, F. 2012: Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales:Mappingmarginalchangesandtrade-offs.EcologicalIndicators21.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolind.2011.09.004 Hladnik, D. 2005: Spatial structure of disturbed landscapes in Slovenia. Ecological Engineering 24, 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.12.004 Klein,A.M,Vaissiere,B.E.,Cane,J.H.,Steffan-Dewenter,I.,Cunningham,S.A.,Kremen,C.,Tscharntke, T.2007:Importanceofpollinatorsinchanginglandscapesforworldcrops.ProceedingsofRoyalSociety 274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 Kumar,P.(ed.)2010:Theeconomicsofecosystemsandbiodiversity:Ecologicalandeconomicfoundations. London. Lisec, A., Pišek, J., Drobne, S. 2013: Suitability analysis of land use records of agricultural and forest land fordetectinglandusechangeonthecaseofthePomurskaStatisticalRegion.ActageographicaSlovenica 53-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53104 Lowenthal,D.2007:Livingwithandlookingatlandscape.LandscapeResearch32-5.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01426390701552761 Makovníková,J.,Kanianska,R.,Kizekova,M. 2017:Theecosystemservices suppliedbysoilinrelationto land use. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 66-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.66.1.4 Mander, Ü., Uuemaa, E. 2010: Landscape assessment for sustainable planning. Ecological indicators 10-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.08.003 Mauerhofer, V., Ichinose, T., Blackwell, B. D., Willig, M. R., Flint, C. G., Krause, M. S., Penker, M. 2018: Underuseofsocial-ecologicalsystems:Aresearchagendaforaddressingchallengestobioculturaldiversity. Land Use Policy 72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.003 Melik, A. 1927: Kolonizacija Ljubljanskega barja. Ph.D. thesis, Univerza Kraljevine Srbov Hrvatov In Slovencev. Ljubljana. Millenium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005: Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington. Internet: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (13.11.2017). Otieno, M., Woodcock, B. A., Wilby, A., Vogiatzakis, I. N., Mauchline, A. L., Gikungu, M. W., Potts, S. G. 2011:LocalmanagementandlandscapedriversofpollinationandbiologicalcontrolservicesinaKenyan agro-ecosystem. Biological Conservation 144-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.013 Paušič, A., Čarni, A. 2012: Landscape transformation in the low karst plain of Bela krajina (SE Slovenia) over the last 220 years. Acta geographica Slovenica 52-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS52102 Perko, D., Urbanc, M. 2004: Landscape research in Slovenia. Belgeo 2-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/ belgeo.13618 Petek,F.2002:MethodologyofevaluationofchangesinlanduseinSloveniabetween1896and1999.Acta geographica Slovenica 42-1. Petek, F., Urbanc, M. 2004: The Franziscean Land Cadastre as a key to understanding the 19th-century culturallandscapeinSlovenia.ActageographicaSlovenica44-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS44104 Plut, D. 2008: Osnovne geografske značilnosti Bele krajine. Bela krajina in Krajinski park Lahinja. Ljubljana. ReambulančnikatasterzaKranjsko,k.o.Bojanci.GeodetskaupravaRepublikeSlovenije,Geodetskapisarna Črnomelj. 1877. ReambulančnikatasterzaKranjsko,SIAS181,k.o.Bojanci,N19,Seznamzemljiškihparcel.ArhivRepublike Slovenije, Ljubljana. 1877. ReambulančnikatasterzaKranjsko,SIAS181,k.o.Trnovskopredmestje,L303,listA06,listA08,listA09. Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana. 1869. ReambulančnikatasterzaKranjsko,SIAS181,k.o.Trnovskopredmestje,L303,Seznamzemljiškihparcel. Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Ljubljana. 1869. Ribeiro, D., Ellis Burnet, J., Torkar, G. 2013: Four windows on Borderlands: Dimensions of place defined bylandcoverchangedatafromhistoricalmaps.ActageographicaSlovenica53-2.DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS53204 Ribeiro,D.2017:Impactoflandscapefeaturesonlanduseandregionaldevelopmentinkarstareas:acase study of Bela krajina. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ljubljana. Ljubljana. Ribnikar, P. 1982: Zemljiški kataster kot vir za zgodovino. Zgodovinski časopis 36-4.Smrekar,A.,ŠmidHribar,M.,Tiran,J.,Erhartič,B.2016:Amethodologicalbasisforlandscapeinterpretation: thecaseoftheLjubljanaMarsh.ActageographicaSlovenica56-2.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.875Šmid Hribar, M. 2016: Varovanjein trajnostni razvoj kulturne pokrajine na primeru Ljubljanskega barja. Georitem 27. Ljubljana.