t. wrbka, e. szerencsits, k. reiter & a. kiss€¦ · today about one half of austrias...

Identifying sustainable land-use by describing

landscape structure. A case study in alpine and

lowland agricultural landscapes of Austria

T. Wrbka, E. Szerencsits, K. Reiter & A. Kiss

Department of Vegetation Ecology and Conservation Biology, University

Email: [email protected]. univie. ac. athttp://www.pph. univie. ac. at/

Abstract

Sustainable development of cultural landscapes has become an important policyissue in Austria. Therefore ecologists are confronted with the demand forindicators describing sustainibility of land use on different scales. The presentedpaper proposes the elaboration of an indicator set reflecting the spatialconfiguration of elements in landscapes — the so-called landscape structure.Refering to the outcomings of an interdisciplinary research project in differentAustrian agricultural regions it can be shown that certain features of landscapestructure are suitable to describe sustainable land-use systems on a scale of1:10.000.

1 Introduction

Due to its geographical position in the heart of Europe, Austria encompasses agreat variety of different landscape types (Grabherrfl]). Whereas wildernessareas remained only in some remote regions of the high Alps and along theDanube river, most of its forelands and valleys have been subjected tocontinouus human influence since the neolithic period. Today about one half ofAustrias territory can be described as open agricultural landscapes, shaped bydifferent farming systems. Especially in the alpine regions traditional mountainpeasantry based on dairy farming can be found, whereas crop-producing farmswith large consolidated field blocks are prevailing in the lowlands of EasternAustria (Wrbka & Fink[2]). Nevertheless in an European or global perspective

Transactions on Ecology and the Environment vol 27 © 1999 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541

210 Ecosystems and Sustainable Development

both types of farming systems can be regarded as small-scale as they have anaverage size of about 30 hectares agriculturally used land (Binder &Pfingstner[3]). Therefore, many Austrian farmers are facing an enormouseconomic pressure caused by recent socio-economic changes like the transitionprocess in neighbouring countries and the membership in the European Unionsince 1995 (Ortner et al.[4]). On the other hand there is a growing awareness forthe high non-market values produced by these small family farms (Pevetz[5j).Agriculture policy in Austria is therefore focussing on agro-environmentalprograms which should encourage environmental friendly farming systems.

But from a scientific point of view the question, how to describe sustainableagriculture still remains open. In a national research programme entitled'Sustainable Development of Austrian Cultural Landscapes' launched by theAustrian Federal Ministry for Science and Transport in 1995 the scientificactivities are focused on the elaboration of indicators which can be used todescribe and monitor sustainable land-use systems in an appropriate way(Begusch et al[6]). Among the different ecological features that can be measuredat the landscape scale, the spatial distribution of landscape elements - the so-called landscape structure - seemed to be a very promising set of attributes(Formanf?]) to achieve this goal.

Therefore an interdisciplinary research project, entiteled ,,SINUS - Structuralfeatures of landscape ecology as INdicators for sustainable land USe", was setup aiming at the elaboration of 'spatial indices of sustainable land-use' bycombining remote sensing methods with ecological field-investigations (Wrbkaet al.[8]). A methodology had to be developed which allows us to applyecological knowledge on land-cover data derived by automatic segmentation ofLandsat TM images (Suppan et al.[9]) by means of a rule-based expert system.The knowledge base consists of structured information about the relationship ofland use intensity and ecological attributes of different landscape types derivedby field investigations in 200 test areas (Szerencsits et al.[10]). The presentedpaper emphazises the classification of the sampled landscapes and discusses theuse of commonly used indices (O'Neill et al.[ll]) for describing the degree ofanthropogenic transformation in Austrian cultural landscapes.

2 Methods of mapping and classifying Austrian cultural

landscapes

As well as in the Alpine arch and in the Danube river basin and the Hercynianuplands a wide range of natural conditions is existing and thus gives a verydifferent background for the development of cultural landscapes. Due to this fact,the Austrian territory consists of a great variety of landscapes, which evolved ina long period of human impact, a time span of more than 3000 years. During thelast decades it has been the aim of several studies to classify this variety in anobjective way (Fink, Grunweis & Wrbka[12], Wrbka & Fink[2]). The difficultieswhich such an attempt has to face, are obvious: The objects - cultural landscapes- are very complex entities and there is still a lot of discussion how and for which


Ecosystems and Sustainable Development 211

purpose landscape classification should be carried out (Farina[13],Zonneveld[14], Naveh & Liebermann[15]).

In Austria the recent classification approaches are aiming at (Wrbka[16], Wrbka,Szerencsits & Reiter[17]):

• the identification of spatial units with an 'ecological meaning' ondifferent scales (local, regional, national, european);

• the compilation of a geographical data base of landscape attributeswhich can be aggregated to those spatial units;

• the elaboration of landscape types which can also be used for practicalpurposes especially in land-use planning and nature conservation;

As the investigated landscapes had to be sampled, mapped and classifiedtargeting the creation of landscape types which should reflect their underlyingkey processes, special attention had to be paid on sampling design and themethodology of landscape ecological mapping.

The method applied for the final selection of the 140 representative testquadrants was originally developed for the purpose of vegetation data sampling(Reiter & Grabherr[18]). As described in previous contributions (Szerencsits etal.[10]) the major steps of this procedure are: intersection of thematic maps,stratification and finally the random selection of a certain number of test sites perstratum. Notably the stratification was done step wise. First the polygons derivedby the intersection of thematic maps related to the topic of the study wereclassified by isoclustering. Then the resulting 8 stratas of first order wereintersected with topographical maps in the scale 1:50.000. Third this selection oftopographic maps were intersected with preclassified landscape types derived bythe visual interpretation of Landsat TM images to create 70 stratas of secondorder. As large waterbodies, glaciers and barren rock as well as forestedlandscapes and large urbanized regions have been excluded from the fieldinvestigations, several strata had to be discarded. This means that finally 3testsites per stratum were chosen by random selection. To get comparable basicspatial units, sample plots of 1x1 km according to the Austrian federal coordinatesystem were finally depicted as ,,reference landscapes". Figure 1 gives animpression of their spatial distribution across the Austrian territory and revealsthe high degree of representativeness which was achieved by the chosensampling design.

The whole sample consisted of 115 test sites, in which landscape ecologicalattributes like the hemerobiotic state (Naveh & Liebermann[15], Sukopp[19],Grabherr et al.[20])., species richness of vascular plants, trophic level of thetopsoil and others were recorded (Szerencsits et al.[10]). A team of 12 ecologistswas needed to collect this large data-set during two field-working periods in1996 and 1997. While aiming at the describtion of the ecological key-processesof Austrian cultural landscapes which are related to sustainabilty the descriptionof the landscape pattern in the recorded sites was elaborated most carefully.Identifying the patch-origin types sensu Form an & Godron[21] played therefore



an essential role in our methodology. For each landscape element it wasestimated to what extent it is belonging to the group of disturbance-,regeneration-, introduced-, remnant- or environmental resource patches. Thiswas done directly in the field by using four values to describe the degree ofmembership to this functional groups. The field surveyors also were asked tomake decisions which elements could be regarded as matrices or corridors togive preliminary informations about the 'overall' landscape structure (Wrbka,Szerencsits & Reiterfl?]).

The field mapping was done at a scale of 1:10.000 on copies of aerial-fotographswhich is adequate for the dense information content. The field maps weredigitized to a Geographical Information System and related to a database. Forbetter and more comfortable visualization a program written in Arc MacroLanguage (AML) was developed. This tool allows the user to draw more than 30thematic maps in different layouts and colour-modes by simple mouse-clickSzerencsits et al.[10]). For each sample site the area of all landscape elementswith a certain attribute (eg. mild and episodic anthropogenic) was computed,summed up and assigned to 7 classes according to their percentage of total area.A divisive cluster analysis using the default options of TWINPAN programme(Hill[22]) was then conducted.

In a second step of this procedure the derived groups of landscapes werecharacterized ecologically by using the attributes which turned out to be the mostexplanatory ones. Those attributes - the so-called preferential - were thencompared to other environmental variables like land-use intensity, type ofargarian production and major geoecological land units.

Figure 1:

* Location of Test Sites

N = 115stratified random sample

T. Wrbka, E. Szerencsits, K. Reiter, A. KissDept. of Vegetation Ecology and Conservation Biology,Univ. of Vienna, Austria



3 Results

As a result of the clusteranalysis, 12 groups were assigned to and identified asso-called functional landscape types or FUNLANDs (Wrbka et al.[23]). It wasfound, that the main underlying gradient structuring the data set is obviouslycomposed by a combination of species richness and the hemerobiotic state.Therefore these attributes which turned out to be the numerical preferential forthe different groups were also used for labeling and describing the distinguishedlandscape types. As an extract of the complete table a condensed compilation ofeigth assorted landscape types is given in the following table.

Table 1: Selected FUNLANDS (Functional Landscape Types) of AustrianCultural Landscapes

331

2

4

7

8

9

10

11

FUNLAND - Description

Seminatural, species rich landscapes withpronounced environmental resources (wetand nutrient poor sites), mildanthropogenic and considerable naturaldisturbance as well as a low amount ofpersistant introduced landunitsModerately altered, moderately speciesrich landscapes with pronouncedenvironmental resources (wetness), mildanthropogenic disturbance andconsiderable natural disturbanceInfluenced, moderately species richlandscapes, moderately stronganthropogenic disturbance andconsiderable natural disturbanceAltered, moderately species poorlandscapes with pronouncedenvironmental resources (dry and nutrientpoor sites), strong anthropogenicdisturbanceModerately altered, moderately speciespoor landscapes with pronouncedenvironmental resources (wet sites),moderately strong anthropogenicdisturbance and a high amount of mediumpersistant introduced landunitsAltered, moderately species poorlandscapes with pronouncedenvironmental resources (wet sites),moderately strong anthropogenicdisturbanceAltered, moderately species poorlandscapes with pronouncedenvironmental resources (wet sites),moderately strong anthropogenicdisturbance and a high amount of mediumpersistant introduced landunitsStrongly altered, moderately species poorlandscapes with pronouncedenvironmental resources (dry sites), stronganthropogenic disturbance

Geoecologicalland unit

Alpine andsubalpineplateeaus, ridgesand slopes

Prealpinevalleys, lakebasins and hillylands

Alpine slopesand narrowvalleys

Pannonianlowland

Midland plateausand hilly lands,prealpine hillylands and valleys

Prealpine hillylands andlowlands

Prealpine hillylands andlowlands andextraalpinevalleys and lakebasinsPrealpine andpannonian hillylands

Predominantland cover

seminaturalgrassland, barerock

permanentgrassland, inlandwaters

permanentgrassland,coniferous forest

vineyards,orchards,cropland

permanentgrassland,cropland,coniferous forest,decidouus forest

cropland,permanentgrassland

cropland,permanentgrassland,seminaturalgrassland

vineyards,orchards,cropland,decidouus forest

PredominantLand UseSystem

Extensiverangeland

IntensiveDairyfarming

Mediumintensivedairyfarming

Intensivevinefarming,mediumintensivecropproductionIntensive mixedagriculture(dairyfarming,meat andcropproduction)

Intensive crop-andmeatproduction

Mediumintensive mixedagriculture(dairyfarming,meat andcropproduction)Mediumintensivevinefarming,crop- andmeatproduction



The table reveals, that one important environmental factor which is influencingthe key-processes of Austrian cultural landscapes is a combination of thedifferent geomorphological, climatic and soil conditions in the majorgeoecological land-units. The degree of naturalness seems to be positivelycorrelated with the steepness of slopes and other morphometric parameters,because FUNLANDs with low human impact are predominant within the alpsand in other regions with a very pronounced relief. Moderately influencedlandscapes can also be found in river valleys and lake basins of the alps and theirforelands. This is due to the fact, that a lot of wet sites are occuring in thoseregions as a result of the landforming processes during the glaciation period. Asmall group of moderately influenced landscapes can also be found in theAustrian lowlands, most of them situated in broad valleys and large extraalpinebasins. Such regions are characterized by a considerable high groundwater tableand regular flooding as a natural disturbance event and ecological key process.On the other hand cultural landscapes with highest degree of transformation byman are found on the terrace-systems of the Austrian down- and lowlands withmoderate relief and fertile soils (table 1).

Taking a look at the corresponding landuse sytems of the investigated regions aclose relationship between the species-poor FUNLANDs which are altered orstrongly influenced by man, and the farming systems which are occurring in theAustrian lowlands and predominantly based on intensive crop- andmeatproduction, can be seen. On the other hand, traditional alpine farmingsystems which are still relying on dairyfarming and on the production of wheatand rye for local consumption are likely to be found in species-rich culturallandscapes whith a comparatively high degree of naturalness, shaped by mildanthropogenic disturbance and considerable natural disturbance processes andpronounced environmental resources (table 1).

A typical example for this group are the so-called ,,perialpine hedgerowlandscapes" (Wrbka & Fink[2]). Those traditionally maintained culturallandscapes are characterized by dense orthogonal networks of old-grownhedgerows which are interweaving the matrix of managed permanent grassland.Their distributional pattern reveals a close binding to the northern and south-eastern fringe of the Austrian alps (Figure 2). This is due to the very humidclimate of the steep and exposed slopes in these outermost parts of the alpinearch, where dairyfarming and husbandry has evolved as an appropriate andsustainable way of agriculture.

A more detailed picture is given by a series of maps which are illustrating someof the structural features of different Austrian cultural landscapes (Figures 3, 4,5). The differences between the selected sample sites are striking, because pairsof landscapes had been chosen which are somehow representing extreme casesof very distinct mosaics of land-use. This was done to illustrate the strongrelationship between pattern and process on the landscape level, thus enabling usto interpret landscape structure in the light of the sustainability paradigm.



As stated above, the hemerobiotic state of Austrian cultural landscapes can bevery different. Not only the sum of elements transformed by man can be used asan indicator set, but also their spatial configuration provides valuableinformation for evaluating the sustainability of land-use. A comparison of twosample sites ,,Sellrain" and (Figure 3) exhibits, that intensive lowland agriculturehas created an almost homogenous and very geometrically arranged landscape in,,Nennberg", whereas dairy farming in ,,Sellrain" has produced an irregular andinterdigited distribution of elements in a meso- and euhemerobic state. Thisindicates that Austrian mountain peasants, who are traditionally practicioninglabour intensive ,,low input farming" have created heterogenous culturallandscapes with high biodiversity values. Following Forman[7, 26] such fine-grained and highly diverse regions can be regarded as sustainable landscapes.

Another interesting structural feature is the distribution of those landscapeelements which are willingly introduced by man, such as buildings, stands andplantations of cultivated plants etc. Most of them have to be permanentlymaintained by costly or energy consuming labour, thus being ,,hot-spots" ofpermanent human activity in any landscape. In this sense every introduced patchsensu Forman & Godron[21] is creating a certain zone of nuisance to all non-synanthropic organisms. Therefore the amount and the persistence of introducedelements could be used as an indicator for sustainable (or better: unsustainableland use). As there are very few places without such elements it turned out, thattheir spatial configuration, causing for instance either fragmentation orintersection of seminaturai areas, should be added to this indicator set.

Figure 2:

Distribution of cultural landscapeswith highly connected hedgerows

T. Wrbka, E. Szerencsits, K. Reiter, A. KissDept. of Vegetation Ecology and Conservation Biology,Univ. of Vienna, Austria



Figure 3:

Hemerobia of two different Austrian Cultural Landscapes

Quadrant: SellrainF Coord.: 216231Topog. MapNr. 147

DEGREE OF ANTHROPOGENICINFLUENCEI metahemerobH polyhemerobHi a-euhemerob• b-euhemerob11 mesohemerob

oligohemerobahemerob

Quadrant: NennbergF Coord.: 688337Topog. MapNr. 55

T.WRBKAE. SZERENCSITSK. REITERDepartment of Vegetation Ecology andConservation Biology,University of Vienna, Austria



Figure 4:

Introduced Landscape Elements in different Austrian Cultural Landscapes

Quadrant: MoasterbodenF Coord.: 639214Topog.MapNr. 162

PERSISTENCE OFINTRODUCED LANDUNITS

lowH medium• highH very high

Quadrant: SellrainF Coord.: 216231Topog.MapNr. 147

T. WRBKAE. SZERENCSITSK. REITERDepartment of Vegetation Ecology andConservation Biology,University of Vienna, Austria



The two compared sample sites are both situated in the alps. The quadrant,,Moasterboden" , is representing a subalpine cultural landscape assigned to theFUNLAND group of ,,seminatural, species rich landscapes with pronouncedenvironmental resources, mild anthropogenic and considerable naturaldisturbance". As illustrated in figure 4, this sample site is characterized by largetracts of highly persistant introduced elements. Most of them are ski-runs whichare acting as broad intersecting corridors. As stated above, the other quadrant,,Sellrain" belongs to the mountain peasantry region of the alpine slope zone. Incomparison, its structure can be described as medium intersected by narrowroads (Figure 4). Fragmentation is due to farmsteads and wooden barns whichare scattered across the meadows and pastures of this traditionally maintainedcultural landscape. Interpreting this two distinct patterns in the light ofsustainability, one has to take into account that the fragmentation effects of ski-runs in a fragile subalpine environment are much higher, than those of localroads in a stable agricultural landscape (Grabherr[29,30]).

A third important feature of landscape structure which is widely used forcharacterizing agricultural regions is the ocurrence of networks consisting ofseminatural linear biotopes, such as hedgerows or grass banks on field margins.In the presented study we enhanced this concept and combined the density ofcorridors with the size and number of nodes and the network circuitry to anintegrated Connectedness value". The two presented samples are representingcrop producing regions in the eastern extraalpine parts of Austria (Figure 5). Inthe maps the pattern of grassland biotopes, be it grass banks, meadows orpastures, is shown. The quadrant ,,Teichhof' is situated in a large basin in thepannonian lowland, characterized by fertile black soils and a warm and drycontinental climate. These conditions are favourable for crop-growing, especiallyfor the production of sugarbeet and high quality wheat. As a consequence, oneof the most intensified agricultural land-use systems has evolved, having createda homogenous matrix of tilled land, which is scarcely interweaved by grassbanks along field roads.

In contrast, the quadrant ,,Gradnitz" shows a very dense network of seminaturalgrassland on field margins which is highly connected to a broad belt of meadowsfollowing a river corridor. This fine grained pattern is typical of the traditionalland-use system in marginalized upland regions of eastern Austria, where noland consolidation or amelioration took place. Due to this circumstances, theoriginal field pattern of the medieval period, when most of this today openlandscape was created, was preserved in a quite good shape. The grass banks onthe field margins can therefore be regarded as very old permanent grasslandecosystems. Not surprisingly they are suitable habitats for species-rich plantcommunities despite of being surrounded by tilled land. As numerous studieshave shown (Dover, Butt & Pearson[24], Marshall & Smith[25]), a high numberof vascular plant species, but also of insects and spiders can be observed in thosestrips, many of them being regarded as benefitial organisms. The latter areplaying a decisive role in self-regulating agro-ecosystems, an importantprecondition for succesful organic farming.



Figure 5:

Connectedness of Grassland in two different Austrian Cultural Landscapes

Quadrant TeichhofF Coord. : 788338Topog. MapNr. 61

CATEGORIES OF LANDUSE• field marginill orchard• pasture with treesH meadow intensive

meadow m. intH meadow extensive.v pasture int.s\" pasture m. int.Jj pasture ext.

Quadrant GradnitzF Coord.: 662389Topog. MapNr. 19

T. WRBKA *"vr̂E. SZERENCSITS \ -jLjK. REITER •"'""Department of Vegetation Ecology andConservation Biology,University of Vienna, Austria



Undoubtedly, cultural landscapes with highly connected field margins - moregenerally described as ,,network landscapes" (Forman[26]) can be evaluated asvery sustainable. As stated above, such traditionally maintained culturallandscapes have been preserved predominantly in upland regions with lessfavourable soils and climatic conditions. Until now they cover about 10% of theAustrian territory, but being seen as marginal lands from a purely economicviewpoint, they are increasingly falling victim to afforestation. As shown by thebox in Figure 6, only 14 among 115 sample sites could be identified as ,,NetworkLandscapes" in 1997.

Figure 6: Total Length of field margins in 115 sample landscapes and 14,,Network Landscapes"

Treshdd value fa network landscapes5km/krrf

The presented set of ,,sustainability indicators" is just a small part of the wholegroup of spatially explicit landscape attributes which could possibly used for theidentification of sustainably managed regions at the local scale. Considering acertain level of sustainabilty for each of the different cultural landscape types inAustria, the presented set of indicators could be used to refine the evaluation foreach sample site individually. As illustrated in table 2, this reevaluation may leadto up- or downgrading, in accordance with the underlying set of rules (Wrbka etal[8]). Further research is necessary to clarify in which way the particularindicators should be joined to each other, fuzzy algorithms or dichotomousdecision-tress are promising tools in that respect.



Table 2: Refinement of sustainability levels by means of selected features oflandscape structure - five examples:

Exemplifying sample

landscapes

Moaster-boden

Sellrain

Nennberg

Gradnitz

Teichhof

SUSTAINABILTY L

EVEL OF

CORRESPONDING

FUNLAND(seetab.l)

Very high

High

Low

Medium

Low

SUSTAINABILITY

INDICATOR 1

:

Hemerobiotic

state

Meso- and beta-euhemerobic

Meso- and beta-euhemerobic (see fig. 3)

Polyhemerobic (see/W)

Alpha-euhemerobic andpolyhemerobic

Polyhemerobic

SUSTAINABILITY

INDICATOR 2

:

Fragmentation

Heavily intersectedby large tracts ofski-runs, mediumfragmented bytourisminfrastructure (see/#OMedium intersectedby local roads,medium fragmentedby scatteredfarmsteads (see./#*)Heavily intersectedby transnationalhighway, mediumfragmented byscatteredfarmsteadsScarcely intersectedby field roads

Medium intersectedby local roads

SUSTAINABILITY

INDICATOR 3

:

Connectedness o

f seminatural

linear

bioto

pes

Not relevant

Mediumconnectedness ofhedgerows andgrassland

Very lowconnectedness ofgrassland

Highconnectedness ofgrassland (seeOg.5)Very lowconnectedness ofgrassland (seeOg.5)

SUSTAINABILTY L

EVEL

AFTER REFINEMENT

WITH

SUSTAINABILITY

INDICATORS

Low

High

Very low

High

VeryLow

4 Discussion

The result of the classification and pattern analysis of stratified random sampledlandscapes suggests that there is a significant relation between the classified'patch attributes' or ecological functions respectively and the spatial arrangementof the landscape elements. This means, that the so-called 'landscape structure' inthe sense of Forman & Godron[21], can also be regarded as ,,frozen process".Among the 'basic landscape types' distinguished by Forman[26], the morecomplicated ones like 'network-landscapes' or 'interdigitated landscapes' as wellas fine grained 'scattered patch landscapes' correspond to FUNLANDs withlower human pressure. Those landscapes can be found predominantly inmountainous regions of the Austrian Alps and Uplands, where the farmers stillhave to adapt their land-use practises to the natural environment by respectingthe different site conditions on their land. On the other hand the much simplierstructured 'checkerboard landscapes' and coarse-grained 'scattered patchlandscapes' occur in the down- and lowlands of Austria, hi those regions, the



structural diversity was impoverished by the heavily subsidised intensification ofagriculture, including numerous procedures of land amelioration and -consolidation, thus overruling natural heterogeneity.

Odum & Turner[27] found, that the landscape elements of the Georgia landscapein the early 1930s had a higher fractal dimension than the elements of the sameregion in the 1980s. During the same period of time the use of fertilizers,pesticides and other agrochemicals increased dramatically. Those figures areillustrating the growing human impact on the land shaping a landscape withdecreasing geometrical complexity. The same can be said for agriculturallandscapes in northeastern Germany, where Stachow[28] detected a negativecorrelation between indices describing the complexity of patch shapes oflandscape elements on one hand and the hemerobiotic state on the other hand.Another hint in this direction was given by the presenting authors (Wrbka et al.[23]), who were able to show statistically for Austrian cultural landscapes, thatthere is a significant influence of the categories of hemerobiotic state on theshape of landscape elements, expressed by the area weighted mean shape index(O'Neill, etal.[ll]).

Although there is an ongoing discussion process among Austrian scientists onhow to define the most crucial term 'sustainability', as a basic premise it wasagreed that ,,sustainable development" has to aim at the significant reduction ofhuman-induced flows of matter and energy through the ecosystems of ourcultural landscapes (Begusch et al. [6]). In that respect, the elaboration of'indicators for sustainable land-use' has to focus on such ecological attributes,which are reacting very sensitive to those flows. On the other hand suchindicators should be feasable for repeated calculations within monitoringprocedures. In our opinion, certain features of landscape structure fulfill thesecriteria, because they have great ecological significance and can be computedwith standard software packages efficiently.

References:

[1] Grabherr G., Biodiversitat und landschaftliche Vielfalt Osterreichs, in:Okologische Grundwerte in Osterreich, ed. W.Morawetz,Biosystematics and Ecology Series Supplement, Austrian Academy ofScience, Vienna, pp.23-56.

[2] Wrbka Th. & Fink M.H., Kulturlandschaftsgliederung Osterreichs, in:,,Wo i leb...." - Kulturlandschaften in Osterreich, eds. Urban H.,Griinweis P.M., Smoliner C., Oberosterreichische Umweltakademie,Linz,pp.34-51, 1997.

[3] Binder, J. & Pfingstner H., Neues Klassifizierungssystem furlandwirtschaftliche Betriebe in Osterreich, Schriftenreihe derBundesanstalt fur Agrarwirtschaft, 50, Vienna, 1988.

[4] Ortner, K., Neunteufel M, Jumah A. & Hofreither M., Agriculture afterjoining the EU, Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt flir Agrarwirtschaft,78, Vienna, 1996.



[5] Pevetz, W., Die Multifunktionalitdt der osterreichischen Land- undForstwirtschaft, Schriftenreihe der Bundesanstalt ftir Agrarwirtschaft,82, Vienna, 1996.

[6] Begusch, K., Pirkl H, Prinz M., Smoliner C. & Wrbka Th., ResearchConcept „ Sustainable Development of Cultural Landscapes", FederalMinistry for Science and Transport, Vienna, pp. 1-20, 1995.

[7] Form an R., Land Mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions',Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.1-632, 1995.

[8] Wrbka Th., Reiter K., Szerencsits E., Mandl P., Bartel A., Schneider W.& Suppan F.: Landscape Structure Derived from Satellite Images asIndicator for Sustainable Landuse, Proc.ofthe EARSEL Symposium on'Operational Remote Sensing for Sustainable Development', Enschede,1998.

[9] Suppan F., Steinwendner J., Bartl R. & Schneider W., (1998):Automatic Determination of Landscape Elements from Satellite Images,Proc.of the Intern.Conf. 'Present and Historical Nature-CultureInteractions', eds. P.Kovar et al., Prag, 1998.

[10] Szerencsits E., Wrbka Th., Reiter K. & Peterseil J., Mapping andVisualizing Landscape Structure of Austrian Cultural Landscapes,Proc.of the Intern.Conf. 'Present and Historical Nature-CultureInteractions', eds. P.Kovar et al., Prag, 1998.

[11] O'Neill R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H. et al., Indices of LandscapePattern. Landscape Ecology, 1: pp.153-162, 1988.

[12] Fink, M.H., Griinweis P.M. & Wrbka Th., Kartierung ausgewdhlterKulturlandschaften Osterreichs, Monographien desUmweltbundesamtes, Vol.11, Vienna, pp.1-335, 1989.

[13] Farina A., Principles of Landscape Ecology, Chapman & Hall, London,pp. 1-235, 1998.

[14] Zonneveld I., Land Ecology: an introduction to landscape ecology as abase for land evaluation, land management and conservation, SPBAcademic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 1-199, 1995.

[15] Naveh, Z. & Liebermann, A., Landscape Ecology - Theory andApplication, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, pp. 1-345, 1984.

[16] Wrbka Th, Die osterreichische Kulturlandschaftskartierung alsGrundlage naturschutzfachlicher Erhebungen und Bewertungen;Sauteria, 8, pp.133-138, 1996.

[17] Wrbka Th., Szerencsits E. & Reiter K., Classification of AustrianCultural Landscapes - Implications for Nature Conservation andSustainable Development, Proc.H Intern. Conf. on Cult, and Environm.„Sustainable Cultural Landscapes in the Danube-Carpathian Region",ed. Miklos L., Banska Stiavnica, Slovakia, pp.31-41, 1997.

[18] Reiter, K. & Grabherr, G., Operationalisierung theoretischer Konzeptebei der Stichprobenwahl, Proc.of the conference:„Pflanzengesellschaften im Alpenraum", eds. M.Sobotik et al.,Gumpenstein, pp. 1-26, 1997.

[19] Sukopp, H., Wandel von Flora und Vegetation unter dem EinfluB desMenschen, Berichte iiber Landwirtschaft, 50, pp.112-139, 1972.



[20] Grabherr, G., Koch, G., Kirchmeir, H., Reiter, K., Hemerobieosterreichischer WaldSkosysteme, Veroffentlichungen desosterreichischen MaB-Programms, 17, pp.1- 493, 1998.

[21] Forman, R & Godron, M., Landscape Ecology, Wiley & sons, NewYork, pp. 1-619, 1986.

[22] Hill, M.O., TWINSPAN - a FORTRAN program for Two-Way-INdicator-SPecies-ANalysis, Cornell University Press, New York,1979.

[23] Wrbka, Th., Szerencsits, E.,.Reiter, K. & Plutzar, Ch., Which attributesof landscape structure can be used as indicators for sustainable landuse?; Proc. of the Intern. Conf. 'Present and Historical Nature-CultureInteractions', eds. P.Kovar et al., Prag, 1998.

[24] Dover, J., Butt, K., Pearson, D., Nodes and linear sections of fieldboundaries: plant species richness, soil nutrients and boundary width,eds. J.W.Dover & R.G.H.Bunce, Proc.of the 1998 European IALECongress ,,Key Concepts in Landscape Ecology", IALE(UK), Preston,pp.347-350, 1998

[25] Marshall, E.J.P, Smith, B.D., Field margin flora and fauna; interactionwith agriculture, eds. J.M.Way & P.W.Greig-Smith, Field Margins,BCPC Monograph No.35, Thornton Heath, Surrey, pp.23-33, 1987.

[26] Forman, R., Ecologically Sustainable Landscapes: The Role of SpatialConfiguration, eds. Zonneveld I., Forman R: Changing Landscapes -an Ecological Perspective: Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York,pp.261-279, 1989.

[27] Odum, E.P., Turner, M.G., The Georgia landscape: a changing resource,eds. Zonneveld L, Forman R.: Changing Landscapes - an EcologicalPerspective: Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, pp.137- 164, 1989.

[28] Stachow, U., Naturraum- und Biotopausstattung, eds. Bork H.R. et al.:Agrarlandschaftswandel in Nordostdeutschland; Ernst &Sohn, Berlin,pp.286-322, 1995

[29] Grabherr, G., The impact on trampling by tourists on a high altidudinalgrassland in the Tyrolean Alps, Austria, Vegetatio, 48, pp.209-217,1982.

[30] Grabherr, G., Damage to vegetation by recreation in the Austrian andGerman Alps, eds. N.Bayfield & G.C.Barrow: The ecological impactsof outdoor recreation on mountain areas in Europe and North America.Recreation Ecology Research Group Report No.9, Wye College,Ashford,pp.74-91, 1985.


t. wrbka, e. szerencsits, k. reiter & a. kiss€¦ · today about one half of austrias...

Documents