Landscape As A Geosystem Art

László
Miklós · Erika Kočická
Zita Izakovičová · Dušan Kočický
Anna Špinerová · Andrea Diviaková
Viktória Miklósová
Landscape as
a Geosystem
Chapter 2
Landscape as a Geosystem
Abstract This is the core chapter of the book dealing with the theoretical principles
of the geosystems. Defines the topical and choric models of geosystems, as well as
the simplified model of the geocomplexes. There is explained the difference between
state variables and typological characteristics of the elements of geosystems. Spe-
cific respect is given to the definition of the structures of the landscape. According
to the genesis, physical character of the elements and according to the relation of
structures to their role and management in planning processes we divide the land-
scape as geosystem to three substructures. Primary landscape structure is a set
of material elements of the landscape and their relations that constitute the original
and permanent foundation for other structures. These elements are mainly the ele-
ments of the abiotic sphere—the geological base and subsoils, soils, waters, georelief,
air. Secondary landscape structure is constituted by human-influenced, reshaped
and created material landscape elements that currently cover the Earth’s surface.
These are the elements of land use, real biota, man-made objects and constructions.
Tertiary (socio-economic) landscape structure is a set intangible (non-material)
socio-economic factors/phenomena displayed to the landscape space as interests,
manifestations and consequences of the activities of individual sectors that are rele-
vant to landscape. These are the protection and other functional zones of nature and
natural resources protection, hygienic and safety zones of industrial and infrastruc-
ture objects, zones of declared zones of specific environmental measures, admin-
istrative boundaries, etc. Finally, the chapter gives the geosystem definition of the
landscape and its reflection in the law in Slovakia. This definition reeds: “Landscape
is a complex system of space, location, georelief and other mutually, functionally
interconnected material natural elements and elements modified and created by a
man, in particular the geological base and soil creating substratum, soil, water bod-
ies, air, flora and fauna, artificial structures and the elements of land use, as well as
their connections, which determine also the socio-economic factors related to land-
scape. Landscape is the environment of man and other living organisms.” The chapter
is illustrated by figures and graphics explaining the structure of the geosystem.
Keywords Geosystem · Geocomplex · Elements · Primary landscape structure

Secondary landscape structure · Tertiary landscape structure
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 11

L. Miklós et al., Landscape as a Geosystem,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94024-3_2
12 2 Landscape as a Geosystem
The concept of the landscape occurs in different sciences. Recently, slightly simpli-
fied, at least two main streams should be identified: the material entity/geosystem-
based concepts of the landscape (“hard” concepts), and, the cultural-heritage, values,
and perception-based ones (“soft” concepts). The first approach is represented mainly
by geographers and landscape ecologists who grew up on geographical sciences, the
second one by very different groups, which includes both specialists from landscape
sciences, as well as very broad group of social scientists and even architects and
artists. This book will concentrate on the landscape as a geosystem which may
be regarded a complex natural resource for life and development of humans and
other organisms. Its favourable vertical and spatial structure is a crucial aspect of
the quality of the environment. Subsequently, the landscape as a geosystem should
be a scientific base to the integrated landscape management which is the process of
regulating the landscape use. This process requires integrated management tools that
can absorb and properly use the landscape-ecological information on the geosystem.
2.1 The Approaches to the Definition of the Landscape
Of course, the different approach to the definition of the landscape is not a new issue.
According to Naveh and Lieberman (1994) the landscape is historically perceived
in two ways: as a tangible material reality and also as an intangible, mental and
artistic experience, even as a way of the life (genre de vive, Vidal De la Blache
1922). A similar dichotomous understanding of the landscape has been expressed
by many other authors as, e.g. Zonneveld (1981), Golley and Bellot (1991), Haber
(2002, 2004, 2007), Hynek (2010). Authors as Grodzinski (2005), Hunziker et al.
(2007) defined another dichotomy marked as space/place concept. However, for
geographically educated landscape ecologists, the “space-places” word-pair evokes
first of all the research dimensions—the choric and topic dimension (e.g. Haase
1973, 1980, 1996; Haase et al. 1991). These words evoke the same impression also
in a common language (surely in Slavic languages) and for laymen. In addition, the
first president of the International Association for Landscape Ecology IALE, Isaack
Zonneveld, spoke about the huge diversity of landscape ecologists during the VIth
International Symposium on Problems of Landscape Ecological Research (October
1982, Piešťany, Slovakia) where IALE was constituted. He considered landscape
ecologists simply all those who deal with landscapes (personal note of the author who
attended to the Symposium). Generally, there are permanently competing concepts
such as geocomplex versus cultural landscapes, scientific versus cognitive approach,
positivism versus constructivism (Bastian 2008; Antrop 2013).
The landscape has been the object of interest of landscape ecology since the
works of Troll (1939), Bobeck and Schmithüsen (1949), Schmithüsen (1968, 1974).
Landscape ecology has developed as a specialised integration of the disciplines of
comprehensive landscape research (Chorley and Kennedy 1971; Mičian 1982; Pre-
obrazhensky 1983; Risser et al. 1984; Forman and Godron 1986; Leser 1991, 1997;
Finke 1994; Zonneveld 1995; Richling and Solon 1996; Nassauer 1997; Farina 1998;
2.1 The Approaches to the Definition of the Landscape 13
Bastian 2001 Kertész 2002; Wu and Hobbs 2002; Oťaheľ 2004; Kerényi 2003; Haber
2004; Kienast et al. 2007; Kozová et al. 2007; Kolejka et al. 2011; Antrop 2013; Wu
2013 and many others). Nevertheless, the scientific conception of landscape as an
object of research still has many different definitions, from understanding the land-
scape as an image up to a holistic understanding. Many scientific conferences and
symposia have been devoted to clarifying the basic concepts of the landscape and
landscape ecology, too. Let us mention the 3rd, 4th and 5th international symposia on
the problems of landscape-ecological research organised in by the Institute of Land-
scape Ecology of Slovak Academy of Sciences (Neef et al. 1973; Proceedings 1973,
1976, 1979, 1982), up to the last one—the 17th in 1915 (Landscape …, 2012, 2015),
or the congresses of the Czechoslovak geographers (e.g. their XVIth congress (Pro-
ceedings 1978), of the International Congress organised by the Netherlands Society
of Landscape Ecology in Veldhoven (Tjallingii and De Veer 1982), and the Allerton
Park workshop (Risser et al. 1984) held after foundation of IALE may be considered
as constitutive ones. One acknowledgment of the scientific relevance of these confer-
ences may be the fact that the International Association for Landscape Ecology was
established at the 6th International Symposia on the Problems of Landscape Ecolog-
ical Research in Piešťany (Slovakia), 1982. There are also a large number of newer
scientific works, proceedings, recherché and compendiums analysing the concept of
landscape (Grodzinski 2005; Longatti and Dalang 2007; Kertész 2010; Antrop 2013;
Jones et al. 2013; Bruns et al. 2015). On other hand it has to be mentioned, that the
significant diversification of the studies led to variable quality ranging from rigor-
ous scientific analysis to almost pseudoscientific papers aimed at the broad public,
sometimes applying innovations in amateurish way (Antrop 2013).
Deep analysis of this abundance of literature is not the intention of presented work.
For the purpose of this book we confine ourselves only to a highly generalised formal
division of possible approaches to the landscape. However, it has to be mentioned that
the majority of recent recherché and compendiums paid much more attention to the
landscape-ecological publications published in West-European and North-American
countries than to those in Central or Eastern Europe (Csorba 1987). Our book tries
to fill in this gap to a certain extent, too.
(a) Landscape as Image
The landscape as a landscape painting, an image of the area, a photo—as understood
by the public and artistic sphere. In a slightly more specialised sense the landscape
is a set of visual elements, especially relief, vegetation and other elements of land
use, the scenery, spatial and aesthetic aspects of the landscape. Nevertheless, this
approach also appears in many contemporary studies, even finding some support in
the European Landscape Convention (2000).
(b) Landscape as a Natural Complex
The landscape in this sense is understood as a natural part of the geographic com-
plex, the physical-geographical complex, without a socio-economic component. It is
characterised by a range of physical-geographical features, from the geological base,
up to vegetation and air. This understanding was characteristic, and still is popular,
particularly in the Russian (Soviet) landscape-ecological school (the “landshaftove-

denyje”, Preobrazhensky and Minc 1973; Sochava 1977; Isachenko 1980, 1981;
Preobrazhensky 1983; Snytko 1983; Grodzinski 2005; Puzachenko 2006; Snytko
and Semenov 2008; Khoroshev et al. 2013).
(c) Landscape as a Natural-Socio-economic Complex
The landscape in this case is understood as a complex of physical-geographical and
socio-economic components of the geographical sphere. This understanding is the
basis for the application of theories of the landscape into practice, especially in spatial
planning activities. The concept emphasises both the vertical and horizontal structure
of the landscape units. This understanding was characteristic mainly for the German
landscape-ecological school (Neef 1963, 1967; Neef et al. 1973; Schmithüsen 1976;
Haber 1980; Snacken and Antrop 1983; Schreiber 1985; Haase 1996; Leser 1997;
Brandt 1999). This approach has been widely applied and is also applied in the Central
European landscape-ecological school (Demek 1974; Verrasztó 1979; Drdos et al.
1980; Mičian 1982; Csorba 1988; Richling and Solon 1996; Kistowski 1998; Oťaheľ
2004; Grodzinski 2005; Lowiczki and Mizgajski 2013; Veteikis et al. 2015). This
approach later on developed into the understanding of the landscape as a geosystem
(Krcho 1968; Demek 1974, 1978).
(d) Landscape as Structure of Land Cover
Landscape is in this case is considered to be the structure of the components of the
current land cover and shape of the land emphasising the unity of the pattern and pro-
cess, structure and function. This understanding of the landscape was characteristic
mainly for the American landscape-ecological schools (Forman and Godron 1981;
Risser et al. 1984; Turner 1990; Forman 1995). A number of quantitative method and
spatial metrics were developed within this approach, as, e.g. entropy, heterogeneity,
fragmentation of the landscape (Turner 1990; Turner and Gardner 1991; McGarigal
2002; Mezősi and Fejes 2004; Mander et al. 2005; Szabó et al. 2008; Csorba and
Szabó 2012; Štefunková and Hanušin 2015). Within this approach emphasis on the
horizontal relations of the land cover elements strongly prevails. This approach also
became very popular in Western Europe and later all over the world (Schreiber 1980;
Vejre and Brandt 2004; Wrbka et al. 2004; Veteikis et al. 2015). Some aspects of this
approach are easy to understand for non-specialists too, e.g. a very popular subject
of studies is the comparison, metrics and statistics of the changes of land use pat-
terns over time. Leser (1991) also draws our attention to the horizontal and vertical
aspects of the delineation of landscapes. According to him the horizontal aspect is
trivial: for example, a micro-region as an ecosystem involving the typical processes,
since the vertical aspect is less trivial, but at the same time extremely important.
This approach also creates an important part of current international environment
policy—e.g. the approaches to ecological networks (Jongman and Pungetti 2004;
Brandt 1995; Csorba; 2008a; Schilleci et al. 2017). The approach is also characteris-
tic for landscape architects (landscape engineering, landscaping). Nevertheless, the
approach can fall to flattening of the scientific approach. Diverse landscape studies,
2.1 The Approaches to the Definition of the Landscape 15
sometimes with almost pseudoscientific quality, try to “offer ‘innovation’ in their

domain, even when applied in a more amateurish way” (Antrop 2013).
(e) Holistic Characteristics of the Landscape
Many scientists have tried to express the holistic character of landscape, with greater
or lesser success, often with difficult to translate phrases, e.g.:
• landscape as a region is the unity of human activity and the natural environment,
the interaction of people and the environment in the region—genre de vie—genre
of life (Vidal De La Blache 1922);
• landscape is a particular portion of the Earth’s surface and is determined by the unit
structure and similar character of the set of relations (durch einheitliche Structur
und gleiches Character Wirkungsgefüge geprägten konkreten Teil der Erdober-
fläche (Neef 1967);
• landscape is a particular space-time system of the total ecosphere (Naveh 1990).
In this direction there are a number of theories which are more or less philosophi-
cally tuned, without more precise definition of the subject (Teleki 1917; Szádeczky-
Kardoss 1989), sometimes even understanding the landscape just as an aspect, a
reflection of the real world (e.g. Zonneveld 1981; Golley and Bellot 1991; Hunziker
et al. 2007; Hynek 2010). One can also include in this group the understanding
of the total human ecosystem (Naveh and Lieberman 1984), the landscape as the
home of the humans (Pedroli 2000), the “three-pronged” view of the landscape as
“scenery–pattern–system” (Zonneveld 1995), or even the five-dimensional under-
standing of landscape as spatial–mental–temporal–natural/cultural–complex system
understanding (Tress and Tress 2001). Nevertheless, however holistic the landscape
is, for practical purposes it needs some concretisation (Verrasztó 2017; Antrop and
Van Eetvelde 2017).
(f) Definition of Landscape from the European Landscape Convention
The classic example for a holistically constructed definition is the definition of land-
scape in the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, Florence, 20th
October, 2000), which is of a rather declarative character and is not really practically
suitable for use in management and planning, or, if you like, it allows a very liberal
interpretation. It reads as follows (Article 1):
Landscape means an area perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action
and interaction of natural and/or human factors.
It is a non-materialistic definition; landscape is defined as an imaginary entity based

on perception of its character. Other articles define the landscape as an assembly of
“heritage”, “values”, “quality” (Article 5, 6). The problem is not the loose definition
itself, but its acceptance, more precisely its non-acceptance in practice. Specifically,
its acceptance is not practically controllable in “hard” policies, such as protection,
management and planning, since whatever perception of the landscape of whomever
might be considered as legal! Therefore the practice may apply the theoretical provi-
sions of the Convention in a voluntary way (Antrop 2005). The Convention serves as
the main pillar for the landscape ecologists who consider the landscape to be a phe-
nomenon, the “scape” of the land, the cultural-heritage value. The specialists from
this group do not always insist on the deep knowledge of landscape as geosystem,
on the knowledge of the elements of landscape, of their physical structure (see, e.g.
Breuste et al. 2009). To his approach can be ranked also the very popular approach of
the evaluation and mapping of the “character” of landscapes, many times described
as the mapping of landscape types (Wascher and Jongman 2000; Wascher 2005;
Wrbka et al. 2005; Csorba 2008b; Wrbka 2009; Konkoly-Gyuró et al. 2010; Renet-
zeder et al. 2010), the mapping of “values” of landscapes and historical landscape
structures (Špulerová et al. 2011; Štefunková et al. 2011).
Of course, differences in the understanding of specific studies and projects are not
as clear-cut as we present here, and the geographical distribution of these approaches
is not as sharp either (Hynek 2011; Žigrai 2015). There also is an apparent shift of
“popularity” of different streams of understanding of the landscape in Central Europe,
if looking at the content of the comparable, repeatedly held and traditional 17 Inter-
national Symposia on Landscape Ecological Research organised by the Institute of
Landscape Ecology of SAS (from Proceedings … 1973, 1976, 1979; up to Land-
scape … 2012, 2015), but also according to the content of other landscape-ecological
and geographical symposia (e.g. Kozová et al. 2007; Breuste et al. 2009; Mizgajski
and Markuszewska 2010; Kolejka et al. 2011; IX. Kárpát-medencei … 2013) or
according to other sources (Longatti and Dalang 2007).
If further look deeper into various theories at their interpretation in practical trials,
no matter how comprehensive and holistic, their view narrows to a much more simpli-
fied understanding. The narrow view is even more visible in application trials. In some
cases, there is an apparent abandonment of even the simplified physical-geographical
complexity and the result is analysis of only a few elements and relationships of the
selected components of the landscape. Such an approach to the study of the land-
scape, although it may be scientific and the results may be very valuable, cannot be
close to being considered a comprehensive or holistic approach to landscape.
2.2 The System Theory and the Landscape as a Geosystem
With the demands to understand the landscape holistically, considering all aspects
mentioned above, we consider the most appropriate compromise between holistic
theory and practical application of results, attempting maximum comprehensiveness
of the study of landscape to be the understanding of landscape as geosystem, while
still regarding the basic argument of the system theory that a system is more than a
mere sum of its elements.
The geosystem theory is based on the general system theory that developed with
gradual adaptation of the term “Gestalt” to geographical theory. We recall that term
“Gestalt” is commonly accepted as one that cannot be translated exactly, but in
any case it is a not exactly definable wholeness of landscape. On these principles,
Austrian biologist and philosopher K.L. von Bertalanffy gradually developed his
2.2 The System Theory and the Landscape as a Geosystem 17
General System Theory (von Bertalanffy 1950, 1968). His theory emphasises holism
versus reductionism, organism versus mechanism, an open versus a closed system.
Most simply, a system in his view is defined as
a system is a set of elements and their relations.
In landscape ecology and geography, the landscape is generally understood as a

complex material entity, as a section from the geosphere, therefore, which comprises
a set of ecosystems, under anthropocentric views as a space for human life. This
character of the landscape is expressed by timeless definition of Neef (1967) that the
landscape is a particular portion of the Earth’s surface and is determined by the unit
structure and similar character of the set of relations (durch einheitliche Structur und
gleiches Character Wirkungsgefüge geprägten konkreten Teil der Erdoberfläche).
In other words, it is characterised as a total system of the geographic sphere as a
cybernetic system in the broad sense (e.g. Krcho 1968, 1974, 1991; Vološčuk 2003),
concretised as a geosystem (Chorley and Kennedy 1971; Sochava 1978; Isachenko
1981; Haase 1973, 1980; Preobrazhensky and Minc 1973; Demek 1974, 1978; Mičian
1982; Neef et al. 1973; Preobrazhensky 1983; Snacken and Antrop 1983; Richling
and Solon 1993; Naveh and Lieberman 1993; Miklós and Izakovičová 1997 and
many others).
These basic postulates also clearly apply to the landscape as a geosystem that
after the analysis of crucial aspects of definitions of a geosystem by various authors
a simple, but comprehensive definition of a geosystem can be proposed:
ageosystemisasetof elements(components)of thegeographicalsphere

andtheirmutualrelationswitheachother
(Krcho 1968, 1978; Miklós and Izakovičová 1997; Miklós and Špinerová 2011).
Of course, there are also other definitions of a geosystem that also use other system
terms. E.g. often these definitions appear with concepts such as structure, pattern of
functioning, dynamics, matter, energy, information, synergy, spatiality, temporality.
All these terms are, however, implied as contained in the concept of system, or the
terms set, element relationship.
This understanding corresponds to our understanding and definition of landscape
(Miklós and Izakovičová 1997; Miklós and Špinerová 2011), which was also reflected
in legal form in Act 50/1976 Coll. on territorial planning and the building code
(Building Act), as amended by Act 237/2000 Coll.:
Landscape is a complex system of space, location, landforms and other mutually functionally
linked material of natural and man reshaped and formed elements, in particular the geological
substrate and soil-forming substrate, waters, soil, flora and fauna, man-made objects and
elements of land use, as well as connections resulting from socio-economic phenomena in
the landscape. The landscape is the environment of mankind and other living organisms.
(§139a paragraph 3)
Landscape as a geosystem may be regarded a complex natural resource for life

and development of humans and other organisms. Its favourable vertical and spatial
Aerial photo
Satelite image
Scheme
Fig. 2.1 Landscape as the material section from the geographical sphere and its models
structure is a crucial aspect of the quality of the environment. Subsequently, the

landscape as a geosystem should be a scientific base to the integrated landscape
management which is the process of regulating the landscape use. This process
requires integrated management tools that can absorb and properly use the landscape-
ecological information on the geosystem.
General theoretical and methodological aspects of the landscape as a geosystem,
as mentioned above, are detailed in the works Miklós and Izakovičová (1997) and
Miklós and Špinerová (2011). Further chapters deal with this understanding of the
landscape, starting with methodical base of this approach up to presentation of a rou-
tine creation of database applicable for different landscape studies, spatial planning
processes and integrated landscape management (Miklós et al. 2011a, b, c, 2014).
2.3 Models of Geosystems—Geosystems and Geocomplexes
A process for the optimal use of landscape at any point is predetermined by the syn-
ergistic effect of all the parametric property values of the landscape as a geosystem.
Therefore it is extremely important to organise information about the geosystem in a
suitable form and with an appropriate breakdown. The next items explain the essence
of geosystems using models.
The models can be considered to be an abstraction of reality. In this respect, the
simplest model of geosystems is their understanding as a material section from the
geographical sphere (Fig. 2.1).
2.3 Models of Geosystems—Geosystems and Geocomplexes 19
Applied approaches to landscape are characterised mainly by two kinds of models

of landscape as a geosystem, the topic and the choric models.
2.3.1 Topical Model of a Geosystem
The elements of the model are the components of the geographical sphere of a1 –an .
Relations in geosystems are labelled with the symbol rn . We can therefore write the
model of the geosystem in the form
SGK ! {an , r n }
Such a topical model can be named also as the monosystem model (Preobrazhen-
sky and Minc 1973; Preobrazhensky 1983). The topical geosystem model offers
the simplest way to understand the vertical structure of the geosystems (Fig. 2.2),
explains the vertical structure of the landscape as geosystem.
In the case of applied landscape-ecological works, the formal description of the
relationship of each element with each other would be extremely difficult, not to
mention that we could never know all the relationships. Therefore, for practical
reasons, we approach work using
geocomplexes,
the material nature of which is of course identical with geosystems, but we write
them formally only as a set of elements
G K ! (an ),
whereby we implicitly attribute a set of relationships to the complex.

In this specific work the topic model of geosystems is used
• for characterising elements of landscape in the process of landscape-ecological

analysis;
• creation and characteristics of homogeneous geocomplexes in the process of
landscape-ecological synthesis (see later).
The Geosystem Approach to the Concept of Ecosystem
The most generally accepted characteristic of the ecosystem says that it is the
system of living organisms and their surrounding elements (Tansley 1935; Odum
1975). This coincides with the principle of the scientific discipline of ecology, that
addresses the relation of “dwelling” and “dweller” (oikos—house and inhabitant)
and studies the relations of a central element—the dweller—most commonly a biotic
component—to other elements of the “dwelling”. It means that—according to the
Fig. 2.2 Topic model of a

geosystem
ecological theory—the living organisms are central in ecosystems. Accordingly, from

the geosystem point of view, the model of the ecosystem can also be considered as
a topical model and formally can be transcribed as follows:
E S ! {an , r 3m−nm },
where the elements of the model are the same components of the geographical sphere
a1 to an , as in the geosystems, but in ecosystems the element a3 —the biotic compo-
nent (flora and fauna) is centralised and formally only relations r3m–nm are assessed,
which are the relations of all elements with the component a3 (Fig. 2.3). This defi-
nition of ecosystem is based on the understanding of the landscape as a geosystem
where each material section of the earth’s surface is the bearer of geosystems as well
as ecosystems (Preobrazhensky and Minc 1973).
Of course, there are many other “classic” definitions of an ecosystem in biological
disciplines, e.g. based on compartments (Ellenberg 1973; Odum 1975), but they do
not affect the material essence of systems.
Fig. 2.3 Model of ecosystem from the geosystem perspective
It should be noted that, in practice, a clear-cut boundary between definitions of

a geosystem and ecosystem approach is very rare and even less so between the
geosystem and ecosystem approach in research. Most research is of an “ecosys-
tem” approach character with a certain element centralised. This applies to mankind,
where the most significant ecosystem approach stresses the protection of the environ-
ment—that of the centralised element of mankind and other living organisms This
statement is also valid for studies on agroecosystems or forest ecosystems (Bunce
et al. 1993; Mizgajski and Ste˛pniewska 2012).
The Geosystem Approach to the Concept of Socio-economic Factors in the Landscape
In the landscape we can analyse and map a number of intangible entities and phenom-
ena of the character of interests, manifestations and consequences of the activities
of individual sectors that are relevant to landscape and have spatial manifestation.
They display to the landscape the projection of the areas or boundaries of interest of
all sectors as
• the nature conservation,
• protection of natural resources as waters, forests, soils,
• the interest areas of urbanisation and recreation,
• the zones of interest of agriculture, industry, transport, communal activities, includ-
ing the areas of their negative impacts to the landscape in the form of hygienic and
safety zones,
• the interests displayed in the form of boundaries of administrative or sectoral
territorial units.
Fig. 2.4 Socio-economic factors in the landscape. SEF bounded to: I, D—industry and technical
objects, U, R—urbanisation and recreation, V—protection of water resources, P—protection of
high quality soils, L—forest resources protection, OP—nature conservation, ZSJ—administrative
borders
The SEF themselves are intangible, not material but they are strictly bound to tan-
gible elements of the primary and secondary landscape structure or their specific
combinations.
For our purposes we label the concrete forms of the spatial manifestations of
above-mentioned areas or boundaries of sectorial interests as socio-economic factors
or phenomena in the landscape (SEF).
The model of the socio-economic factors is visualised on Fig. 2.4.
2.3.2 Choric Model of a Geosystem
The choric model divides the landscape to more or less homogenous parts according
to defined rules creating spatial subsystems, so the elements of this model are the
partial spatial subsystems (Krcho 1974, 1978) (Fig. 2.5), constituting the horizon-
tal/spatial structure of the landscape as geosystem.
The model can also be named also as a polysystem model (Preobrazhensky and
Minc 1973; Preobrazhensky 1983), because in addition to describing the system
Fig. 2.5 Choric model of a geosystem
SG as a whole, each spatial subsystem SG(n) can also be described using the topic
model GK , as in the previous chapter. So, in this mode the polysystem model explains
both the vertical and horizontal/spatial structure of the landscape as a geosystem.
The choric geosystem model is also used often; it is the basis for the landscape-
ecological syntheses, e.g. for the creation and characterization of abiotic complexes
and landscape-ecological complexes in the method of the landscape-ecological plan-
ning LANDEP (Ružička and Miklós 1982; Špinerová 2015).
The recording of such a model has the form:
SG ! {SG(1) , SG(2) , . . . SG(n) },
where elements of the model are partial spatial subsystems SG(1) to SG(n). A more
precise expression of the multi-system form looks as follows:
S{G K (an )} ! [S{G K (an )}(1) , S{G K (an )}(2) , . . . S{G K (an )}(n) ]
In this specific work we use the characteristics of geosystems under the choric
model using landscape-ecological synthesis, namely:
• in landscape-ecological typification; spatial subsystems SG(n) which have homo-
geneous content of elements an . They can be understood as types of geocomplexes
of topic character—abiotopes, biotopes, ecotopes (Mosiman 1984, 1990; Csorba
1988, 2014; Stanová et al. 2002; Diviaková 2011). The most commonly used are
abiotic complexes (abiocomplexes, ABC), as the most stable part of geocomplexes
(see below);
• in landscape-ecological regionalization: if spatial subsystems contain several

different geocomplexes with different content, but are linked with defined bonds, it
is possible to see them as regions of geocomplexes (landscape-ecological regions)
(Neef 1963; Haase et al. 1991; Bailey 2002; Lowicki and Mizgajski 2013).
The conception of the topical and choric models of the geosystems respond to the
“classic” approaches of topological and chorological research (Neef 1963; Haase
1973, 1980; Haase et al. 1991; Bastian et al. 2006). Types and regions are widely used
in current landscape-environmental work, as well as in spatial planning processes
in Slovakia.
2.4 Elements and Relationships in Geosystems
Elements of a geosystem in topological or chorological units are bound together

by mutual relations in both vertical and horizontal directions (Schmithusen 1968,
1976; Mičian 1982; Szádeczky-Kardoss 1989; Khoroshev et al. 2013).
The physical substance of relationships in a geosystem is energy-material and
information flows between elements of the geosystem.
The relations are displayed by state of the elements of the geosystems and their
changes in time, which are caused by the processes and dynamics of the geosystems
(Snytko 1983; Hrnčiarová and Miklós 1991; Hofierka and Šúri 1996).
On our distinguishing level, the elements of geosystems are the components
of the geographical sphere. According to this approach, a geosystem consists of
elements; we research these elements through indicators of their properties, which
at each point in space have specific values. Strict differentiation of conceptual series
- system
– element of system
– property of element
– indicator of property
– value of indicator of property
is very important. Accordingly, the objective of landscape analyses is the creation

and characteristics of indicators of properties of elements of landscape.
These values have the character of
• state variables—real measurable values of particular indicators of the properties

of elements (e.g. the depth of soils, amount of rainfall, flow rate, tree height,
amount of biomass), which determine the current status of an element;
• typological characteristics (spatial subsystems with typological values, e.g. soil
type, climate type, physiognomic-ecological formation of plants). They are often
expressed verbally and provide a comprehensive description of numerous prop-
erties of a particular element. These characteristics are commonly projected on
maps in the form of spatial units;
2.4 Elements and Relationships in Geosystems 25
• combination of typological characteristics and state variables.
It should be noted that it is impossible to lay down precise rules as to which elements
should be characterised by state variables or typological characteristics. In general,
it can be argued that state variables are suitable for large-scale landscape-ecological
works as well as specialised studies, whereas typological characteristics seem to be
preferred in informative and descriptive studies and in less detailed works on smaller
scales.
The relations, the energy-material and information flows in geosystems, which
can be also called processes, can be determined by
• measuring the values of the state variables of indicators of properties of those
elements of the geosystem which affect the examined relationship—for example,
measuring the amount of rainfall and the amount of soil washed away in determin-
ing the relationship of precipitation and soil erosion. This method of determining
relationships is typical for specialised analytical geography, environmental science
and other disciplines, in which it is the assessment of the relationship between
selected elements that is the main subject of research. In this way, the individu-
al—specialist can study a few relationships in-depth while trying to determine as
closely as possible the values of material and energy flows.
• comparison of the values of state variables of one element to the value of the
state variables of another element—e.g. determining (measuring) the altitude and
determining the plant community to establish a relationship between altitude and
vegetation. In this case we do not search the real cause of relationship, exploring
the nature of energy and material flows, which are obviously very complex. We are
content with the fact that we know the results of these relationships based on years
of specialised analytical studies, subsequent comparison of the characteristics of
a synthetic evaluation of geosystem elements (Tarboton 1997; Guth and Kučera
1997; Špinerová 2015). Such knowledge is also characteristic for landscape ecol-
ogy, which often works well with “soft” systems with data sets that are referred to
as “fuzzy data sets”, which recognises that in the evaluation of relations geosys-
tems we work—in relation to the level of perfection of its knowledge—also with
a “grey” or “black” box.
The ecological sciences, including landscape ecology also often use the term
“autoregulatory mechanisms”. Essentially, autoregulatory mechanisms govern
energy-material-information flows, which, in space and time, maintain certain con-
ditions in geosystems. Frequently they are understood as positive processes which
occur mostly in natural systems. However, it needs to be emphasised that autoreg-
ulatory mechanisms are constantly at work, in any conditions, in primeval forests,
deserts, heaps, sewers, regulated watercourses and even tarns. Man can change some
indicator values of the properties of the elements, which can disrupt, accelerate or
hamper the process of autoregulatory mechanism, but he cannot eradicate them. For
example, man can regulate CO2 emissions but he is not able to prevent the green-
house effect of the atmosphere, can change the soil surface by heaping a tailings
pile, but he cannot prevent the growth of pioneer plants on the pile. Even if he tried
to exterminate them with another layer of tailing rock and thereby leave the surface
exposed, he cannot prevent erosion from happening on that surface. There are count-
less examples we could mention, but the point here is to provide a reminder that the
process is an important aspect of the geosystem.
2.5 Structure of Landscape as a Geosystem
For research, as well as for practical purposes, a very important aspect of the geosys-
tem approach to landscape is the characteristic of the landscape structure. There
is a number of works devoted to this issue where one can find different approaches
to the understanding of the structure. The most popular—probably also the easiest
understandable—approach is the characteristic of the spatial structure of the land use,
the characterisation of the pattern (Forman 1995; Turner 1990). This approach led
to development of an amount of quantitative methods and metrics within landscape
ecology (Turner and Gardner 1991; Gustafson 1998; Mcgarigal 2002; Oťaheľ et al.
2004; Mezősi and Fejes 2004; Csorba and Szabó 2012). According to this approach
the landscape structure is the inherent configuration of the quantitative and the
qualitative phenomena of landscape, reflected in complex physiognomic-functional
clusters (Szabó 2007, 2008; Šteffek et al. 2008; Špulerová et al. 2011).
The other approach is close to the physical-geographical principles and also
emphasises the vertical functional structure of the landscape as geosystem (Neef
1967; Krcho 1968; Isachenko 1981; Mičian 1982; Mosimann 1990; Haase et al.
1991; Bastian and Schreiber 1994; Snytko and Semenov 2008; Csorba 2014;
Christopherson et al. 2016).
The complex—vertical/horizontal—landscape structure should be used as for
basis for classifying the landscape as a geosystem, whether by typification or region-
alization (Ružička et al. 1978; Ružička 2000; Bailey 2002; Csorba 2008b; Kolejka
et al. 2011; Lowiczki and Mizgajski 2013; Štefunková and Hanušin 2015).
According to the genesis, physical character of the elements of the geosystems
(see above) and last but not least according to the relation of structures to their use and
management we divide the landscape as geosystem according to the topical model
of the geosystem (see above) into three substructures (Miklós and Izakovičová 1997;
Miklós et al. 2011a, b, c; Špinerová 2015) (Fig. 2.6).
2.5.1 Primary Landscape Structure
Primary landscape structure (PLS) is a set of material elements of the landscape and
their relations that chronologically constitute the original and permanent foundation
for other structures. Notable characteristic PLS elements are
2.5 Structure of Landscape as a Geosystem 27
Fig. 2.6 Structure of the landscape as a geosystem
• physically bound to a particular place on Earth;

• the principles of their functioning are unchanged by mankind (e.g. water
flows in the direction of gravity, south-facing slopes get more heat than north-
facing slopes, the prevailing wind direction is set, the weathering of rocks cannot
be stopped, etc.), but on the other hand;
• their reaction after disturbance is hard to control;
• the material and structural basis is very hard or impossible to change (e.g.
limestone is not granite, where mountain ranges are, there are not lowlands, cold
climate is not warm climate, etc.);
• these elements have in practice been least changed by mankind in comparison
with the secondary and tertiary structure of the landscape, which mankind has
directly created.
This structure is formed by the abiotic elements of the geosystem: geological sub-
strate, subsoil, relief, waters, air. (Geo)relief has a specific character: it creates the
phasal interface between the gaseous, liquid and solid phase of this structure itself,
is intangible, represents the surface forms (Krcho 1968, 1974, 1991). Examples see
in next corresponding chapters and tables (Tables 3.1a, b, Sect. 3.1.1).
A specific interpretation of the primary structure (of the abiotic complex) based
also on the knowledge of real vegetation is the concept of potential natural vegeta-
tion. This means the “potential” vegetation does not really exist, where any vegetation
does exist it is already real vegetation that has occurred secondarily (see examples
in the following chapters, Table 3.1b). Complexes (communities) of original natu-
ral vegetation and fauna in our conditions are virtually absent. Even communities
with quasi-natural substances are to some extent affected by humans, but most are
commonly changed.
2.5.2 Secondary Landscape Structure
Secondary landscape structure (SLS) is a set of physical elements that have been
formed secondarily, by human activities reshaping the primary landscape structure.
It consists of a set of human-influenced, reshaped and mankind-created material
landscape elements that currently covers the Earth’s surface (Ružičková and Ružička
1973; Miklós and Izakovičová 1997). As for influenced elements we rank, e.g. the
forests, as reshaped mainly as agricultural land, and as newly created the buildings
and other technical objects.
Major characteristics of the elements of the SLS
• they are physiognomic elements of the land cover;

• they are physically bound to a specific place on the surface of the earth;
• they are changeable with a certain amount of energy (e.g. forest to fields, fields
to buildings, buildings to scrub, etc.).
Elements of the SLS can be characterised from the perspectives of
• Land use forms (physical forms of land use) or land cover—physiognomic-

functional perspective;
• their biotic content (real vegetation and fauna)—physiognomic-ecological per-
spective;
• their spatial structure—structural-spatial perspective (Miklós and Špinerová
2011).
The SLS is bound and dependent on the components of the primary landscape struc-
ture (Ružičková and Ružička 1973). At the same time it has firm relations to the
tertiary landscape structure.
Between the terms as secondary landscape structure, land use and land cover
there is a causal relationship. All forms and manifestations of the secondary landscape
structure—from the so-called cultural landscape, which landscape-ecological studies
consider an ideal state, to built-up industrial areas—came to existence by means of
land use activities. Therefore, the secondary structure is the spatial manifestation of
land use activities. For landscape-ecological evaluation it is important to consider
the term current landscape structure (CLS), which is understood to means the
secondary landscape structure at present. The current landscape structure has been
created as a result of land use, therefore, according to economic and geographical
terminology, its elements are also forms of land use (Ružička et al. 1978; Žigrai 1983,
1995). Elements of the current landscape structure in various works are referred to
as elements of land cover. The land cover is seen as the “visible” layer of landscape
2.5 Structure of Landscape as a Geosystem 29
sphere, as the physiognomy of the landscape (Feranec and Oťahel 2001). At the same
time, these elements can be characterised with varying degrees of detail and according
to their bio-organic content as physiognomic-ecological formations of real vegetation
as well as biotopes or habitats. In planning and other operating procedures they are
referred to simply as mapping units of CLS. The basic classification of mapping
units of CLS still follows the original division of the secondary landscape structure,
as proposed by Ružička and Ružičková (1973). The only difference is the level of
detail which is determined by the objectives of a specific project (examples see in
next chapters, Table 3.2). The secondary landscape structure is where mankind has
the most direct interest in the result of changes (Drdoš et al. 1995). Therefore, any
planning of the optimal ecological organisation and use of land as well as protection
of nature and natural resources is possible only by establishing a manner of use of
land for every individual area of the territory (Haber 2005, 2007; Štefunková et al.
2011; Špulerová et al. 2011). So, we can state that the elements of SLS/CLS are the
main operational units for planning and management procedures.
Examples see in next corresponding chapters and tables (Tables 3.2 and 3.4a–e,
Sect. 3.1.1).
2.5.3 Tertiary Landscape Structure
Tertiary (socio-economic) landscape structure (TLS) is a set socio-economic fac-

tors/phenomena (SEF) displayed to the landscape space. As described above SEF
are intangible entities and phenomena of the character of interests, manifestations
and consequences of the activities of individual sectors that are relevant to landscape
and have spatial manifestation. So, the SEF can be named as elements of TLS.
Important characteristics of the tertiary landscape structure are
• the SEF intrinsically (by themselves) are intangible, but bound to tangible ele-
ments of primary and secondary landscape structure;
• must be of landscape-ecological relevance, i.e. they have spatial expression
(they are “mappable” in the space).
As SEF are intangible, there is no sense in speaking about their physical change-
ability (simply they do not physically exist). In spite of this, they very significantly
influence the utilisation of the landscape use, present and future, since they are very
closely bound to human interests.
The elements of TLS can be labelled with the term socio-economic fac-
tors/phenomena in the landscape (SEF). They are defined in the regulations with
differing legal force—the acts, regulations, directives, standards, codes of practice,
conventions, and development documents such as plans, projects, programmes of
economic and social development of municipalities, local Agenda 21, documents of
territorial systems of ecological stability, governmental development concepts and
so on. SEF has spatial manifestation in the character of zones, sections, bands, sites,
regions, protected areas, which are defined by law or other documents of varying
force. They apply to those areas of human activities that have spatial demands. SEF
are carriers of the guidelines, restrictions and prohibitions on human activities
(Miklós and Špinerová 2011). On the basic level we can define the groups of SEF
according to their character as
• boundaries and territories of declared nature conservation areas;
• boundaries and territories of declared protected areas of natural resources, zones
of hygienic protection of water resources;
• protection zones and the safety zones of production, transportation and other tech-
nical facilities;
• administrative boundaries and sectorial boundaries;
• boundaries of sites, sections or territories of declared deterioration of the environ-
ment.
More detailed characteristics and examples see in next corresponding chapters and
tables (Tables 3.3 and 3.4a–e, Sect. 3.1.1).
2.6 Interrelationships of the Individual Landscape

Structures
An important aspect of the division of the landscape into the above-mentioned struc-
tures is their mutual relation, especially with respect to planning and projecting
practice.
The decisive impact of these three structures on planning of activities (manage-
ment) in the landscape, according to the logic of their characteristics should be as
follows:
• as the primary landscape structure PLS has immutable principles of operation,
impossible and difficult to change properties, but easily changeable quality, plan-
ning should primarily adapt utilisation of landscape to its characteristics,
where possible not to change them;
• the secondary/current landscape structure SLS/CLS is changeable by using an
amount of energy. Planning can therefore consider its changes, but with respect
to its quality, if possible according to the properties of the primary landscape
structure;
• as the tertiary structure does not physically exist, in theory it is the easiest to change.
Therefore it should be carefully adapted to the characteristics of primary and
secondary landscape.
Briefly: from the point of view of environmental care, nature conservation, main-
taining ecologically optimal management and utilisation of land, as well as from
the point of view of planning processes, unchangeable and partially changeable
landscape, the PLS and SLS/CLS—the current landscape-ecological condition-
s—are the most critical structures because their disruption causes all ecological
2.6 Interrelationships of the Individual Landscape Structures 31
problems, whereas tertiary structure of the landscape TLS—the requirements of

humans—should adjust to the primary and secondary landscape structure.
However, the last-mentioned statement is a difficult issue. Naturally, the occur-
rence of the elements of the tertiary landscape structure is not incidental. As men-
tioned above, socio-economic factors and SEF phenomena, although intangible, are
linked to specific tangible elements, or specific combination of material elements
of the primary or secondary landscape structure. Some SEP always co-occur with
a certain element of the primary or secondary landscape structure; some occur only
in specific territories. Some examples: In case of the occurrence of a protected plant
or animal species, their territory is linked to a SEF—protected habitat. On the other
hand, not every territory which exhibits a precious landscape structure similar to
already declared national parks will automatically be declared as protected land-
scape area or a national park. Not every territory with rich water resources will
be declared a protected water management area—e.g. the entire Danubian Plain is
extremely rich in groundwater, but not the whole territory was declared as a Protected
Water Management Area. On other side, for example, each transport line, product
line or energy duct has its own protections zone designated, and each farm has a
sanitary zone and every quarry has its safety zone, etc. Given the large amount of
SEF and their possible combinations in the terrain, it is not possible neither feasible
to provide a comprehensive overview of this situation, and it is possible only in a
particular territory.
In practice, these principles are reflected in a different order
• if something is defined by the tertiary structure (socio-economic phenomena), for
example acts, regulations, plans, regardless of the correctness of their existence,
for planning they are many times almost unchangeable principles, because the
authorities insist on these principles very strongly;
• the secondary structure is variable, so if it is not limited by any element of tertiary
structure, it is only a slight obstacle to planning;
• in large areas of territory, the primary structure is not limited by any regulations,
e.g. relief, climate, etc. so planning only respects it if it conflicts with tertiary or
secondary structures.
With a certain degree of simplification, it can be claimed that the SEF from the group
of transportation, communal-technical activities, industrial and mining activities and
agricultural activities are usually linked to protection, sanitary or buffer zones. SEF
from the group of nature conservation as well as recreation and housing are not
necessarily always linked to any elements of the primary or secondary landscape
structure. SEF of administrative territorial division are also not permanently linked
to certain elements of the primary and secondary structure. SEF of deterioration of
natural resources and the environment are linked only to an incidence of heightened
concentration of pollution or other deterioration.
2.7 Definition of the Landscape and Its Reflection

in the Law
Based on the definitions proposed by various authors, a landscape as a geosystem can

be defined as a complex of components (elements) of the geographical sphere and
their interrelationships. From the systemic and factual perspective, this definition
can refer to the same material entities as, e.g. the terms landscape, geoecosystem,
geocomplex, geographical complex, but also other terms such as the territory, region,
river basin, environment, etc. whereas it is still the same particular material section of
the geographical sphere—but with different borders. By other words we can recognise
on each particular material section of the geographical sphere at the same time
geosystem, geocomplex, territory, region, river basin, etc.
The landscape as a geosystem for our practical purposes is defined as follows:
Landscape is a complex system of

• space, location, georelief
and other mutually, functionally interconnected
• material natural elements and elements influenced, modified and cre-
ated by man,
in particular geological base and soil creating substratum, water bodies,
soil, flora and fauna, artificial objects and the elements of land-use, as
well
as by their relations determined
• socio-economic factors (phenomena) in the landscape.
The landscape represents the environment of man and other living organ-
isms.”
(Miklós and Izakovičová 1997; Landscape Atlas of Slovak Republic (Miklós
et al. 2002), Act No. 237/2000 Coll., §139).
The above wording of the definition of the landscape was also adopted in Act
50/1976 Coll. on Territorial Planning and Building Order as amended by Act
237/2000 Coll., in §139. Moreover, the same Act defines also the elements and
structure of the landscape as regulative of spatial arrangement and functional use of
land, as:
§139 Terms of land-use planning
(1) … a regulative of spatial arrangement and functional use of land is a binding
directive, which guides the location and arrangement of a certain object or imple-
mentation of a certain activity in a territory. It is expressed by the values of properties
of elements of landscape structure in words, numbers and, if applicable, also graph-
ically. The regulative has the character of bans, restrictions or supporting factors in
relation to spatial arrangement and functional use of the land. …
2.7 Definition of the Landscape and Its Reflection in the Law 33
Fig. 2.7 Definition of landscape as a geosystem
The definition can be graphically represented as follows (Fig. 2.7).

So, if the same object is also seen in the subject-object relation, the landscape is
considered the environment of life and activity of man, and thus the definition of the
environment is the same: the landscape as a geosystem is the environment of human
life and activities. Thus, the environment is not discrete, but the same object, the
landscape space filled with material components of the landscape where humans and
other living organisms exist.
Other utilitarian perspectives can interpret landscape structures also as
• life-sustaining conditions on earth;

• material source and potential for life of man;
but also as
• the setting for “the conflict of interests” of various activities;

• a critical aspect of environmental care.
The landscape structure can be considered a complex natural resource enabling life
of humans and other organisms. For practical reasons it is appropriate to distinguish
between material landscape resources and landscape potentials as follows:
Material resources: include the elements of the geosystem, providing material and
energy for reproduction processes They are objectively existing, their properties can
be measured and, if necessary, utilised.
Landscape potentials (of suitability for): prerequisites of utilisation for various

purposes. The potential of the landscape as a whole is defined as the ability of the
landscape structure to meet the requirements and needs of the society in the event
society decides to exploit such ability (Haase 1978; Miklós 1988; Tremboš 1994).
So, they occur only if there is demand (e.g. recreational potential).
According to various landscape structures, the most important resources and
potentials can be outlined as follows:
(a) Primary landscape structure
• material resources: air, water, minerals, soil;

• potential: gravitational and positional potential: relief, space, location—as
unalterable and unenlargeable resources;
• bioenergetic potential, heat-moisture regimen.
(b) Secondary landscape structure
• material resources: biotic resources, technical structures;

• potentials of the secondary landscape structure as a whole to provide qualities
for the life (e.g. recreational potential);
• reproductive potential of landscape elements, carrying capacity, stability,
resistance, resilience, etc.
(c) Tertiary landscape structure
• human resources;
• socio-economic potential: to satisfy the interests of production industries,
nature conservation and protection of natural resources.
More recently, these same aspects of the landscape—material goods, suitability
for different forms of utilisation, potentials, socio-economic and environmental func-
tions of landscape have been referred to as ecosystem services (Costanza et al. 1997;
Kienastet al. 2007; De Groot et al. 2010; Iverson et al. 2014; Grunewald and Bastian
2015).
References
Antrop M (2005) From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In:
Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects
of integration, education and application, UR Frontis Series, vol 12. Springer Science + Business
Media, Wageningen, 5 Sept 2011, pp 27–50. http://library.wur.nl/frontis/landscape_research/03_
antrop.pdf.accessed
Antrop M (2013) A brief history of landscape research. In: Howard P, Ian Thompson I, Waterton E
(eds) The Routledge companion to landscape studies. Routledge, Oxon, New York, pp 12–22
Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2017) Landscape perspectives. The holistic nature of landscape.
Springer, Netherlands, p 372
References 35
Bailey RG (2002) Ecoregion-based design for sustainability. Nova Iorque: Springer-Verlag, New
York
Bastian O (2001) Landscape ecology—towards an unified discipline? Landscape Ecol 16:757–766
Bastian O (2008) Landscape classification between fact and fiction. In: Lechnio J, Kulczyk S,
Malinowka E, Szumacher I (eds) Landscape classification. Theory and practice, Warshaw, pp
13–20
Bastian O, Schreiber KF (1994) Analyse und ökologische Bewertung der Landschaft. Gustav Fischer
Verlag Jena - Stuttgart, p 502
Bastian O, Kronert R, Lipsky Z (2006) Landscape diagnosis on different space and time scales—a
challenge for landscape planning. Landscape Ecol 21:359–374
Bobeck H, Schmithüsen J (1949) Die Landschaft im logischen System der Geographie. Erdkunde
3:112–120
Brandt J (1995) Ecological networks in Denmark. In: Van Buuren M, Jongman R (eds) Ecological
networks in Europe, Special issue of the journal “Landschap”, Wageningen, pp 63–76
Brandt J (1999) Geography as ‘landscape ecology’ Dan J Geogr 1(Special Issue):21–32
Breuste J, Kozová M, Finka M (eds) (2009) European landscapes in transformation: challenges
for landscape ecology and management european IALE conference 2009, Salzburg (Austria),
Bratislava (Slovakia)
Bruns D, Kühne O, Schönwald A, Theile S (eds) (2015) Landscape culture—culturing landscapes.
The differentiated construction of landscapes. http://www.springer.com/de/book/9783658042837
Bunce RGH, Ryszkowski L, Paoletti MG (1993) Landscape ecology and agroecosystems. Lewis
Publishers Conference publication, Boca Raton, FL, p 241
Chorley RJ, Kennedy BA (1971) Physical geography—a system approach. Prentice—Hall
Interantional Inc, London, p 370
Christopherson RW, Cunha S, Thomsen CE (2016) Geosystems core. Pearson, p 512
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill
RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem
services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260
Csorba P (1987) A tájökológia időszerű kérdései az angol nyelvű szakirodalom alapján. Földrajzi
Közlemények 35 (111) (1–2):74–80
Csorba P (1988) The ecogeographical pattern map of Tokaj “Great Hill” and its environs. In:
Ruzicka M, Hrnciarová T, Miklós L (eds) Spatial and functional relationships in landscape
ecology. VIIIth international symposium on problems of landscape ecological research. IEBE
CBES of SAS. IALE East European Region, vol 1. Bratislava, pp 273–284
Csorba P (2008a) Landscape ecological fragmentation of the small landscape units (Microregions)
of Hungary based on the settlement network and traffic infrastructure. Ekológia (Bratislava)
27(1):99–116
Csorba P (2008b) A tájhatárok kijelölése és változása. Földrajzi Közlemények 132(2):220–226
Csorba P(2014) A tájszerkezet földrajzi értelmezése. A geographical interpretation of landscape
structure. 4D Tájépítészeti és kertművészeti folyóirat. J Landscape Archit Gard Art 36:32–39
Csorba P, Szabó Sz (2012) The application of landscape indices in landscape ecology. In:
Tiefenbacher J (ed) Perspectives on nature conservation—patterns, pressures and prospects. pp
121–140. http://www.intechopen.com/books/perspectives-on-natureconservation-patterns-press
ures-and-prospects/the-application-of-landscape-indices-in-landscape-ecology
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the
concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision
making. Ecol Complex 6:453–462
Demek J (1974) Systémová teórie a štúdium krajiny. Studia Geographica, 40, Brno, Geografický
ústav ČSAV, p 198
Demek J (1978) The landscape as a geosystem. Geoforum 9(1):29–34
Diviaková A (2011) Biotické komplexy pre environmentálny manažment. VKÚ, a. s., Harmanec,
p 120
Drdos J, Urbánek J, Mazúr E (1980) Landscape syntheses and their role in solving the problems
of environment, vol 32. Geografický Casopis, Bratislava pp 119–l29
Drdoš J, Miklós L, Kozová M, Urbánek J (1995) Základy krajinného plánovania. Technická
univerzita Zvolen, p 172
Ellenberg H (ed) (1973): Ökosystemforschung. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York
Farina A (1998) Principles and methods in landscape ecology. Chapmann and Hall, London
Feranec J, Oťaheľ J (2001) Krajinná pokrývka Slovenska/Land cover of Slovakia. Bratislava (Veda)
Finke L (1994) Landschaftsökologie. Westermann Verlag, Braunschweig
Forman RTT (1995) Land mosaics. The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, p 632
Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for landscape ecology.
Bioscience 31:733–740
Forman RTT Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York
Golley FB, Bellot J (eds) (1991) Interactions of landscape ecology, planning and design. Landscape
Urban Plann 21(1–2):3–11
Grodzinski MD (2005) Piznannya landschaftu: misce i prostir (Understanding Landscape. Place
and Space. In Ukrain). Kiev. U 2-x t. Vidavnicsho-poligrafichesky centr Kiivsky universitet. T.1,
431 pp., T.2, 503 pp
Grunewald K, Bastian O (eds) (2015) Ecosystem services—concept, methods and case studies.
Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, p 312
Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems
1:143–156
Guth J, Kučera T (1997) Monitorování změn krajinného pokryvu s využitím DPZ a GIS. Příroda
10:107–124
Haase G (1973) Zu Inhalt und Terminologie der topischen und chorischen Landschaftserkundung.
Beitrag zu IIIrd Internacional Symposium on Problems of Ecological Landscape Research,
Smolenice, Bratislava: ÚBK SAV, p 19
Haase G (1978) Zur Ableitung und Kennzeichnung von Naturraumpotentialen. Petermanns Geogr
Mitt 122(2):113–125
Haase G (1980) Izučenie topičeskich i choričeskich struktur, ich dinamiki i razvitija v landšaftnych
sistemach. In: Structura, dinamika i razvitije landšaftov. Moskva: Institut geografii AN SSSR,
pp 57–81
Haase G et al (1991) Naturraumerkundung und Landnutzung. Geochorologische Verfahren zur
Analyse, Kartierung und Bewertung von Naturräumen. Beiträge zur Geographie. Berlin, 34, I
und II
Haase G (1996) Geotopologie und Geochorologie — Die Leipzig-Dresdner Schule der Land-
schaftsökologie. In: Haase G, Eichler E (Hrsg): Wege und Fortschritte der Wissenschaft. —
Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Akademie Verlag, pp 201–229
Haber W (1980) Entwicklung und Probleme der Kulturlandschaft im Spiegel ihrer Ökosysteme.
Forsiarchiv Jg. 51, H. 12, 245–250
Haber W (2002) Kulturlandschaft zwischen Bild und Wirklichkeit. In: Schweizerisches Akademie
der Geistes und Sozialwissenschaften. Bern, Akadenmievorträge, Heft IX, p 19
Haber W (2004) Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology. Ecol Res
19:99–106
Haber W (2005) Pflege des Landes – Verantwortung für Landschaft und Heimat. In: Deutscher
Rat für Landespflege (ed): Landschaft und Heimat. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Rates für
Landespflege, Meckenheim 77:100–107
Haber W (2007) Vorstellungen über Landschaft. In: Busch B (ed) Jetzt ist die Landschaft ein
Katalog voller Wörter. In: Beiträge zur Sprache der Ökologie, 5:78–85
References 37
Hofierka J, Šúri M (1996) Modelling spatial and temporal changes of soil water erosion. Geografický
časopis 48:255–269
Hrnčiarová T, Miklós L (1991) Morphometric indices in the interpretation of water and material
motion dynamics illustrated on the example Dolná Malanta. Ecology (CSFR) 10(2):187–221
Hunziker M, Buchecker M, Hartig T (2007) Space and place—two aspects of the human-landscape
relationship. In: Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) A changing world. Challenges for landscape
research, Landscape Series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–62
Hynek A (2010) Krajina: objekt nebo konstrukt? In: Herber V (ed) Fyzickogeografický sborník 8.
Fyzická geografie a kulturní krajina. MU, Brno, pp 138–142
Hynek A (2011) Geografie – geograficita prostorovost. In: Svobodová H (ed) Prostorovost: místa,
území, krajiny, regiony, globiony. Sborník príspěvku z konference. GaREP, s.r.o. Brno, pp 6–50
Isachenko AG (1980) Optimization of the Natural Environment. Moscow: Mysl. Topological
Aspects of the Science of Geosystems. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1974
Isachenko AG (1981) Predstavlenije o geosisteme v sovremennoj fizičeskoj geografiji. Izv. VGO
Leningrad 113(4):297–306
Iverson AL, Marín LE, Ennis KK, Gonthier DJ, Connor-barrie BT, Remfert JL, Cardinale BJ,
Perfecto I (2014) Do polycultures promote winâ wins or tradeâ offs in agricultural ecosystem
services? A metaâ analysis. J Appl Ecol 51(6):1593–1602
Jones KB, Zurlini G, Kienast F, Petrosillo I, Edwards T, Wade TG, Li B-L, Zaccarell N (2013)
Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial
patterns and knowledge. Landscape Ecol 28:1175–1192
Jongman RHG, Pungetti G (2004) Ecological networks and greenways: concept, design, imple-
mentation. United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge, p 153
IX. Kárpát-medencei környezettudományi konferencia (2013) Symposium abstracts, Miskolci
Egyetem, Sapientia Erdélyi Magyar Tudományegyetem. Miskolc
Kerényi A (2003) Környezettan. Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest, p 470
Kertész Á (2002) Tájökológia. Holnap Kiadó, Budapest, p 166
Kertész Á (2010) Tájökológiai kutatások 2010. IV. Magyar Tájökológiai Konferencia, MTA FKI,
Budapest, p 294
Khoroshev AV, Eremeeva AP, Merekalova K A (2013) Evaluation of intercomponents linkages in
the steppe and taiga landscapes with account for modifiable areal unit. Proc of Russ Geogr Soc
145(3):32–42 (in Russian)
Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) (2007) A changing world. Challenges for landscape research.
Landscape series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 753–754
Kistowski (1998) Relations between the structure of landscape and its potential at the territory of
last glaciation in Poland. In: The problems of landscape ecology, vol III, Warsaw, pp 179–188
Kolejka M et al (2011) Krajina Česka a Slovenska v současném výzkumu. Masarykova univerzita,
Pedagogicka fakulta, Brno
Konkoly-Gyuró E, Tirási Á, Wrbka T, Prinz M, Renetzeder C (2010) Der Charakter grenzüber-
schreitender Landschaften. Das Fertő/Neusiedlersee-Hanság-Becken und die Region Sopron.
Verlag Universität Westungarn. Lőverprint, Sopron, p 43
Kozová M, Hrnčiarová T, Drdoš et al (2007) Landscape ecology in Slovakia. Development, cur-
rent state, and perspectives. Contribution of the slovak landscape ecologists to the IALE world
congress 2007 and to the 25th anniversary of IALE. Bratislava: Ministry of the environment of the
Slovak Republic, Slovak association for landscape ecology—IALE-SK, 2007, CD ROM, p 541
Krcho J (1968) Prírodná časť geosféry ako kybernetický systém a jeho vyjadrenia v mape.
Bratislava, Geografický časopis, 20(2):115–130
Krcho J (1974) Štruktúra a priestorová diferenciácia fyzicko -geografickej sféry ako kybernetického
systému. Bratislava, Geografický časopis 26(2):132–162
Krcho J (1978) The spatial organisation of the physical-geographical sphere as a cybernetic system
expressed by means of measure as entropy. In: Acta Facultatis Rerum Naturalium Universitas
Comenianae, Geographica, vol 16. pp 57–147
Krcho J (1991) Georelief as a subsystem of landscape and the influence of morphometric param-
eters of georelief on spatial diferentation of landscape-ecological processes. Ecology (CSFR),
Bratislava 10(2):115–158
Landscape Ecology (2015) Symposium abstracts. In:17th International symposium. ILE SAS,
Bratislava
Landscape Ecology: From Theory to Practice (2012) In: Proceedings of the 16th international
symposium on problems of landscape ecological research. ILE SAS, Bratislava
Leser H (1991) Landschaftsökologie: Ansatz, Modelle, Methodik, Anwendung. Eugen Ulmer
Verlag, Stuttgart, p 647
Leser H (1997) Landschaftsökologie. Ulmer, Stuttgart
Longatti P, Dalang T (2007) The meaning of “Landscape”—an exegesis of Swiss Government
texts. In: Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) A changing world. Challenges for landscape research.
Landscape series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–62
Łowicki D, Mizgajski A (2013) Typology of physical-geographical regions in Poland in line
with land-cover structure and its changes in the years 1990–2006. W: Geographia Polonica,
Warszawa, 86(3):255–266
Mander Ü, Müller F, Wrbka T (2005) Functional and structural landscape indicators: upscaling
and downscaling problems. Ecol Ind 5(4):267–272
McGarigal K (2002) Landscape pattern metrics. In: El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW (eds)
Encyclopedia of environmetrics, Chichester, vol 2. Wiley, England, pp 1135–1142
Mezősi G, Fejes Cs (2004) Landscape metrics (in Hungarian), In: Táj és Környezet, MTA FKI,
Budapest, Hungary, pp 229–242
Mičian Ľ (1982) A system approach to landscape and the sciences realizing it with a special to the
system of geographical scienecs. In: VIth International symposium on problems of landscape
ecological research, Piešťany, Institute of Experimental Biology and Ecology SAS, Bratislava,
Oct 1982
Miklós L (1988) Space and position—scene of the origin of spatial ecological landscape problems.
Ekológia (ČSSR) 7:381–395
Miklós L, Hrnčiarová T et al (eds) (2002) Atlas krajiny Slovenskej republiky. 1. vydanie, MŽP SR
Bratislava, SAŽP Banská Bystrica, p 344
Miklós L, Izakovičová Z (1997) Krajina ako geosystém. VEDA, SAV, Bratislava, p 152
Miklós L, Špinerová A (2011) Krajinno-ekologické plánovanie LANDEP. VKÚ, Harmanec, p 159
Miklós L, Diviaková A, Izakovičová Z (2011a) Ekologické siete a územný systém ekologickej
stability. Vydavateľstvo TU vo Zvolene, p 141
Miklós L, Ivanič B, Kočický D (2011b) Krajinnoekologická základňa integrovaného manažmentu
povodia Ipľa. Digitálna databáza a tematické mapové vrstvy. Projekt HUSK 0801/2.1.2/0162
Vytvorenie jednotného monitoringu na báze priestorového informačného systému v povodí Ipľa.
Banská Štiavnica, Esprit, spol. s r. o. (elektronický zdroj)
Miklós L, Izakovičová Z, Kanka R, Ivanič B, Kočický D, Špinerová A, David S, Piscová V,
Štefunková D, Oszlányi J, Ábrahámová A (2011c) Geografický informačný systém povodia Ipľa:
Katalóg GIS a výber máp. Bratislava: Ústav krajinnej ekológie SAV: Katedra UNESCO, Fakulta
ekológie a environmentalistiky, Technická univerzita Zvolen, Esprit Banská Štiavnica, p 143
Miklós L, Németh R, Verrasztó Z (2014) Application of GIS in studying the drainage basin of the
Ipoly River. Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute, Tulcea, Romania, 20:109–128
Mizgajski A, Markuszewska I (eds) (2010) Implementation of landscape ecological knowledge in
practice. The problems of landscape ecology. Volume XXVIII. Polish Association for Landscape
Ecology, Wydawnictvo Naukowe Adam Miczkiewicz University, Poznań
Mizgajski A, Ste˛pniewska M (2012) Ecosystem services assessment for Poland—challenges and
possible solutions. Ekonomia i Środowisko, Białystok 2(42):54–73
Mosimann T (1984) Methodische Grundprinzipien für die Untersuchung von Geoökosystemen in
der topologischen Dimension. In: Geomethodica, Veröff. 9. Basler Geometh. Coll., Bd. 9:31–65
References 39
Mosimann T (1990) Ökotope als elementare Prozesseinheiten der Landschaft (Konzept zur
prozessorientierten Klassifikation von Geosystem). Geosynthesis, 1, Geographisches Institut der
Universität Hanover, p 56
Nassauer JI (ed) (1997) Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. Island Press, Washington,
D.C
Naveh Z (1990) Landscape ecology as a bridge between bioecology and human ecology. In:
Svobodova H (ed) Cultural aspects of landscape. Pudoc Wageningen, p 173
Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1984) Landscape ecology—theory and application. Springer, New York,
p 356
Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1993) Landscape ecology—theory and application, 2nd edn. Springer-
Verlag, New York
Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1994) Landscape ecology: theory and application. Springer, New York
Neef E (1963) Topologische und chorologische Arbeitsweisen in der Landschaftsforschung. PGM
107(4):249–259
Neef E (1967) Die theoretischen Grundlagen der Landschaftslehre. H. Haack, Gotha, Leipzig
Neef E, Richter H, Barsch H, Haase G (1973) Beitrage zur Klarung der Terminologie in der
Landschaftsforschung Geographisches Institut der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR,
Leipzig, p 28
Odum EP (1975) Ecology: the link between the natural and the social sciences, 2nd edn. Holt
Rinehart and Winston, London, New York, Sidney, Toronto
Oťaheľ J (2004) Landscape and landscape research in Slovakia. Belgeo - Revue belge de géographie
2–3. Landscape research in Europe
Oťaheľ J, Feranec J, Cebecauer T, Pravda J, Husár K (2004) Krajinná štruktúra okresu Skalica:
hodnotenie zmien, diverzity a stability. Geographia Slovaca, 19, p 123
Pedroli B (ed) (2000) Landscape our home (Lebensraum Landschaft). Indigo, Zeist Stuttgart
Preobrazhensky VS (1983) System orientation of landscape research in geography and its present-
day realization. In: Drdoš J (ed) Landscape synthesis. Geoecological foundations of the complex
landscape management. VEDA, Bratislava, pp 31–36
Preobrazhensky VS, Minc AA (1973) Sootnoshenye ponyaty geosystema a ekosystema. In: Práce
a materiály z biológie krajiny 20. Proceedings of 3rd international symposium on the landscape
ecological research. ÚBK SAV, Bratislava
Proceedings of 3rd International Symposium on the Landscape Ecological Research (1973) Práce
a materiály z biológie krajiny 20, ÚBK SAV, Bratislava
Proceedings of 4th Congress of the Czechoslovak Geographers (1978) Geographical institute of
the SAS, Bratislava
Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on the Landscape Ecological Research (1976)
Institute of experimental biology and ecology SAS, Bratislava
Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on the Landscape Ecological Research (1979)
Institute of experimental biology and ecology SAS, Bratislava
Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Problems of Landscape Ecological Research
(1982) Institute of experimental biology and ecology SAS, Bratislava
Puzachenko JG (2006) Landscape planning: general fundamentals, methodology, technology.
Moscow, pp 4–80 (in Russian)
Renetzeder C, Wrbka T, Mücher S, Eupen MV, Kiers M (2010) Landscape structure analysis
in selected european regions and its use for sustainability impact assessment. In: Andel J,
Bicik I, Dostal P, Lipsky Z, Shahneshin SG (eds) Landscape modelling. Geographical space,
transformation and future scenarios, Urban and landscape perspectives, vol 8, p 236
Richling A, Solon J (1993) Ekologia krajobrazu. Wydaznictvo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, p 225
Richling A, Solon J (1996) Landscape ecology. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, p 464
(in Polish)
Risser PG, Karr JR, Forman RTT (1984) Landscape ecology: directions and approaches. Illinois
Natural History Survey. Special Publ. 2, Champaign
Ružička M (2000) Krajinnoekologické plánovanie - LANDEP. (Systémový prístup v krajinnej

ekológii). Združenie BIOSFÉRA. Bratislava
Ružička M, Miklós L (1982) Landscape ecological planning (LANDEP) in the process of territorial
planning. Ekologia (CSSR) 1(3):297–312
Ružička M et al (1978) Krajinné zložky, prvky a štruktúra v biologickom plánovaní krajiny.
Quasestiones geobiologicae 23:7–63
Ružičková H, Ružička M (1973) Druhotná štruktúra krajiny ako kritérium biologickej rovno¬váhy.
Quaestiones geobiologicae 12:23–62
Schilleci F, Todaro V, Lotta F (2017) Connected lands: new perspectives on ecological networks
planning. Springer, p 85
Schmithüsen J (1968) Was ist eine Landschaft?. Universität d. Saarlandes, Saarbrücken
Schmithüsen J (1974) Landschaft und Vegetation. Geograph. Inst. d. Univ. d. Saarlandes,
Saarbrücken
Schmithüsen J (1976) Allgemeine Geosynergetik. Grundlagen der Landschaftskunde. de Gruyter,
New York, Berlin
Schreiber KF (1980) Brachflachen in der Kulturlandschaft. Daten und Dokumente zum
Umweltschutz, Sonderreihe Umwelttaguug ‘Okologische Probleme in Agrarlandschaften’,
Univ. Hohenheim 30:61–93
Schreiber K F (1985) Was leistet die Landschaftsäkologie für eine àkologische Planung? Schriften
reihe für Orts-, Regional-und Landesplanung 34. Zürich, Switzerland, pp 7–28
Snacken F, Antrop M (1983) Structure and dynamics of landscape systems. In: Drdoš J (ed)
Landscape synthesis: geoecological foundations of the complex landscape management. VEDA,
Bratislava, pp 10–30
Snytko VA (1983) Substance dynamics in geosystems GeoJournal 7(2):135–138
Snytko V, Semenov YM (2008) The study of geosystem structure, development and functioning in
Siberia. The V. B. Sochava Institute of Geography, Siberian Branch of RAS Irkutsk
Sochava VB (1977) Landscapes of Southeastern Siberia (1:1 500000 map). Russia, Moscow
Sochava VB (1978) Vvedenie v učenije o geosistemach (An Introduction to the Science of
Geosystems in Russian). Nauka, Novosibirsk, p 319
Špinerová A (2015) Štruktúra krajiny ako regulátor dynamiky pohybu vody a materiálu. Technická
univerzita Zvolen, p 132
Špulerová J, Dobrovodská M et al. (2011) Stratégia ochrany a manažmentu historických štruktúr
poľnohospodárskej krajiny v modelovom území Liptovská Teplička. Bratislava: Ústav krajinnej
ekológie SAV, p 152
Stanová V, Valachovič M et al (eds) (2002) Katalóg biotopov slovenska. Bratislava: DAPHNE –
Inštitút aplikovanej ekológie, p 225
Šteffek J, Gallay I, Gallayová Z, Kunca V, Lepeška T, Olah B, Škvareninová J, Ujházy K, Ujháziová
M, Wiezik M, Križanová Z (2008) Krajinnoekologický výskum: teória, metódy a prax. Zvolen:
FEE TU, p 222
Štefunková D et al (2011) Vybrané výsledky výskumu starej vinohradníckej krajiny Svätého Jura.
In Ekologické štúdie: Vedecký časopis venovaný aktuálnym problémom ekológie, krajinnej
ekológie a príbuzných vedných disciplín 2(1–2):126–131, ISSN 1338-2853
Štefunková D, Hanušin J (2015) Analysis of the spatial and temporal distribution of selected
landscape diversity indexes in detailed scale (Example of Viticultural Landscape Svätý Jur). In:
Halada Ľ, Bača A, Boltižiar M (eds) Landscape and landscape ecology. Proceedings of the 17th
international symposium on landscape ecology. Institute of landscape ecology, Slovak Academy
of Sciences, Bratislava, pp 185–191
Szabó M (2007) Tájszerkezeti változások a Felső-Szigetközben az elmúlt 20 évben. Földrajzi
Közlemények. CXXXI. (LV). 1(2):55–74
Szabó M (2008) A bioszféra sokfélesége—az élővilág változatossága és veszélyeztetettsége.
Földrajzi Közlemények. 132(4):441–449
References 41
Szabó Sz, Csorba P, Varga K (2008) Landscape indices and landuse—tools for landscape manag-
ment. In: Plit J, Andreychouk V (eds) Methods of landscape research, Dissertations Commission
of Cultural Landscape, Sosnowiec, Poland, 8:7–20, ISSN 1896-1460
Szádeczky-Kardoss E (1989) A jelenségek univerzális kapcsolódása (Akadémiai Kiadó Bp., pp
1–292)
Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational terms and concepts. Ecology 16(3):284–307
Tarboton DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in
grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33(2):309–319
Teleki P (1917) A földrajzi gondolat története -MTA székfoglaló, (Kossuth Könyvkiadó.
Bp. 1996:1–194
Tjallingii SP, De Veer AA (eds) (1982) Perspectives in landscape ecology. In: Proceedings of
the 1st international congress in landscape ecology, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, Center for
Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, 6–11 Apr 1981
Tremboš P (1994) Geoekologická syntéza Diviackej pahorkatiny - metodický postup vymedzovania
základných krajinných jednotiek. In: Minár, J. (ed.): Prírodná časť krajiny, jej výskum a návrhy
na využitie, /Zborník/, KFGaG PRIF UK, Bratislava, pp 118–120
Tress B, Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to
landscape research. Landscape Urban Plann 57(3–4):143–157
Troll C (1939) Luftbildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung (Aerial photography and ecological
studies of the earth). Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde, Berlin, pp 241–298
Turner M (1990) Spatial and temporal analysis of the landscape patterns. Landscape Ecol 4(1):21–30
Turner M G, Gardner RH (eds) (1991) Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: the analysis
and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. Springer
Vejre H, Brandt J (2004) Contemporary Danish landscape research. Belgeo—Revue belge de
géographie 2–3. Landscape research in Europe
Verrasztó Z (1979) Land formation and the geological aspects of environmental protection. In:
Symposium Changes of the geological environment under the influence of man’s activity. IAEG
National group, Krakow-SandomierzBelchatow-Plock-Warszawa, pp 135–141
Verrasztó Z (2017) Holisztikus környezeti modellezés kartográfiai, GIS és távérzékelési módszerek
alkalmazásával. Remote Sens 7(1):490–516
Veteikis D, Kavaliauskas P, Skorupskas R (2015) Assessing the optimality of landscape structure
in a landscape plan (a Lithuanian example) In: Halada Ľ, Bača A, Boltižiar M (eds) Landscape
and landscape ecology. Proceedings of the 17th international symposium on landscape ecology.
Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, pp 348–358
Vidal De La Blache P (1922) Principes de géographie humaine. Armand Colin, Paris
Vološčuk I (2003) Ochrana prírody krajiny. TU vo Zvolene, Zvolen
von Bertalanffy L (1950) An outline of general system theory. Br J Philos Sci 1(2):134–165
von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory. Foundations, development and applications.
George Brazileer, Penguin Books, New York
Wascher D (ed) (2005) European landscape character areas. Alterra Report, No. 1254, p 160
Wascher D, Jongman R (2000) European landscapes, classification, assessment and conservation.
European Environmental Agency, Coppenhagen
Wrbka T (2009) Das Waldviertel - Wildnisreste in historisch gewachsener Kulturlandschaft am
Grünen Band Europas. In: Wrbka T, Zmelik K, Grünweis FM (eds) Das Grüne Band Europas -
Grenze.Wildnis.Zukunft. Weitra. Bibliothek der Provinz, p 342
Wrbka T, Erb KH, Schulz NB, Peterseil J, Hahn CO, Haberl H (2004) Linking pattern and process
in cultural landscapes. an empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy
21:289–306
Wrbka T, Stocker-Kiss A, Schmitzberger I, Peterseil J (2005) Network landscapes of Austria—i-
dentification and ecological assessment. In: Konkoly Gyuró É (ed) Greenways. Conference
presentations on ecological corridors, green corridors, Sopron, Hungary, pp 47–62
Wu J (2013) Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the
Allerton Park workshop. Landscape Ecol 28:1–11
Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic
synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365
Žigrai F (1983) Krajina a jej využívanie. 1. vyd. Brno: UJEP, 1983, p 131
Žigrai F (1995) Integračný význam štúdia využitia zeme v geografii a krajinnej ekológii na príklade
modelového územia Lúčky v Liptove. Geografické štúdie, p 4
Žigrai F (2015) Meta-landscape ecology as a new ecological science (selected metascientific
aspects). In: Halada Ľ, Bača A, Boltižiar M (eds) Landscape and landscape ecology. Proceedings
of the 17th international symposium on landscape ecology. Institute of landscape ecology, Slovak
Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, pp 25–35
Zonneveld JIS (1981) The ecological backdrop of regional geography. In: Tjallingii SP, de Veer
AF (eds) Perspective in landscape ecology. Proceedings of the international congress of the
Netherlands society of landscape ecology, Veldhoven, PUDOC, Wageningen, pp 67–90
Zonneveld IS (1995) Land ecology: an introduction to landscape ecology as a base for land
evaluation. Land management and conservation. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam

Landscape As A Geosystem Art

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landscape As A Geosystem Art

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landscape As A Geosystem Art

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

László

Keywords Geosystem · Geocomplex · Elements · Primary landscape structure

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 11

2.1 The Approaches to the Definition of the Landscape

particularly in the Russian (Soviet) landscape-ecological school (the “landshaftove-

sometimes with almost pseudoscientific quality, try to “offer ‘innovation’ in their

It is a non-materialistic definition; landscape is defined as an imaginary entity based

2.2 The System Theory and the Landscape as a Geosystem

a system is a set of elements and their relations.

In landscape ecology and geography, the landscape is generally understood as a

ageosystemisasetof elements(components)of thegeographicalsphere

Landscape as a geosystem may be regarded a complex natural resource for life

structure is a crucial aspect of the quality of the environment. Subsequently, the

2.3 Models of Geosystems—Geosystems and Geocomplexes

Applied approaches to landscape are characterised mainly by two kinds of models

2.3.1 Topical Model of a Geosystem

whereby we implicitly attribute a set of relationships to the complex.

• for characterising elements of landscape in the process of landscape-ecological

The Geosystem Approach to the Concept of Ecosystem

Fig. 2.2 Topic model of a

ecological theory—the living organisms are central in ecosystems. Accordingly, from

Fig. 2.3 Model of ecosystem from the geosystem perspective

It should be noted that, in practice, a clear-cut boundary between definitions of

2.3.2 Choric Model of a Geosystem

Fig. 2.5 Choric model of a geosystem

SG ! {SG(1) , SG(2) , . . . SG(n) },

• in landscape-ecological regionalization: if spatial subsystems contain several

2.4 Elements and Relationships in Geosystems

Elements of a geosystem in topological or chorological units are bound together

is very important. Accordingly, the objective of landscape analyses is the creation

• state variables—real measurable values of particular indicators of the properties

• combination of typological characteristics and state variables.

2.5 Structure of Landscape as a Geosystem

2.5.1 Primary Landscape Structure

Fig. 2.6 Structure of the landscape as a geosystem

• physically bound to a particular place on Earth;

2.5.2 Secondary Landscape Structure

• they are physiognomic elements of the land cover;

Elements of the SLS can be characterised from the perspectives of

• Land use forms (physical forms of land use) or land cover—physiognomic-

2.5.3 Tertiary Landscape Structure

Tertiary (socio-economic) landscape structure (TLS) is a set socio-economic fac-

2.6 Interrelationships of the Individual Landscape

problems, whereas tertiary structure of the landscape TLS—the requirements of

2.7 Definition of the Landscape and Its Reflection

Based on the definitions proposed by various authors, a landscape as a geosystem can

Landscape is a complex system of

Fig. 2.7 Definition of landscape as a geosystem

The definition can be graphically represented as follows (Fig. 2.7).

• life-sustaining conditions on earth;

• the setting for “the conflict of interests” of various activities;

Landscape potentials (of suitability for): prerequisites of utilisation for various

• material resources: air, water, minerals, soil;

(b) Secondary landscape structure

• material resources: biotic resources, technical structures;

(c) Tertiary landscape structure

Ružička M (2000) Krajinnoekologické plánovanie - LANDEP. (Systémový prístup v krajinnej

You might also like