1.Renes, H. Historic landscapes without history? A reconsideration of the concept of traditional landscapes. Rural Landsc. Soc. Environ. Hist. 2, 1–11 (2015). Google Scholar 2.Solymosi, K. Indicators for the identification of cultural landscape hotspots in Europe. Landsc. Res. 36, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2010.530647 (2011).Article Google Scholar 3.Primdahl, J., Pinto-Correia, T. & Pedroli, B. European landscapes in transition: implications for policy integration and landscape governance. EuroChoices 18, 18–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692x.12211 (2019).Article Google Scholar 4.Zomeni, M., Tzanopoulos, J. & Pantis, J. D. Historical analysis of landscape change using remote sensing techniques: an explanatory tool for agricultural transformation in Greek rural areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 86, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.12.006 (2008).Article Google Scholar 5.O’Rourke, E. Changing identities, changing landscapes: human-land relations in transition in the Aspre, Roussillon. Ecumene 6, 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1191/096746099701556024 (1999).Article Google Scholar 6.Plieninger, T. et al. The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: a systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57, 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040 (2016).Article Google Scholar 7.Burgi, M., Hersperger, A. M. & Schneeberger, N. Driving forces of landscape change-current and new directions. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 857–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-0245-8 (2004).Article Google Scholar 8.Hernik, J., Gawronski, K. & Dixon-Gough, R. Social and economic conflicts between cultural landscapes and rural communities in the English and Polish systems. Land Use Policy 30, 800–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.006 (2013).Article Google Scholar 9.Bicik, I., Jelecek, L. & Stepanek, V. Land-use changes and their social driving forces in Czechia in the 19th and 20th centuries. Land Use Policy 18, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-8377(00)00047-8 (2001).Article Google Scholar 10.Banski, J. The consequences of changes of ownership for agricultural land use in Central European countries following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. Land Use Policy 66, 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.045 (2017).Article Google Scholar 11.Connolly, C. Whose landscape, whose heritage? Landscape politics of “swiftlet farming’ in a World Heritage City. Landsc. Res. 42, 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267128 (2017).Article Google Scholar 12.Otero, I., Boada, M. & Tabara, J. D. Social-ecological heritage and the conservation of Mediterranean landscapes under global change. A case study in Olzinelles (Catalonia). Land Use Policy 30, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.005 (2013).Article Google Scholar 13.Snowball, J. D. & Courtney, S. Cultural heritage routes in South Africa: effective tools for heritage conservation and local economic development?. Dev. South. Afr. 27, 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835x.2010.508589 (2010).Article Google Scholar 14.Cultural Territorial Systems: Landscape and Cultural Heritage as a Key to Sustainable and Local Development in Eastern Europe Springer Geography (eds F. Rotondo, F. Selicato, V. Marin, & J. L. Galdeano) 1–386 (2016).15.Del Lungo, S., Sabia, C. A. & Pacella, C. in Heritage as an Alternative Driver for Sustainable Development and Economic Recovery in South East Europe-Project See/B/0016/4.3/X Sagittarius Vol. 188 Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences (ed V. Vasile) 95–102 (2015).16.Boryczka, E. M., Michalak, J. & Rzenca, P. Protection of valuable areas of local cultural heritage in sustainable development. Cultural parks in the Lodz Region. Ekonomia I Srodowisko-Econom. Environ. 1, 225–240 (2019). Google Scholar 17.Kozien, A. The principle of sustainable development as the basis for weighing the public interest and individual interest in the scope of the cultural heritage protection law in the European Union. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073985 (2021).Article Google Scholar 18.Shipley, R. & Feick, R. A practical approach for evaluating cultural heritage landscapes: lessons from rural Ontario. Plan. Pract. Res. 24, 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450903327113 (2009).Article Google Scholar 19.Scorza, F. et al. Conflicts between environmental protection and energy regeneration of the historic heritage in the case of the city of Matera: tools for assessing and dimensioning of sustainable energy action plans (SEAP). Comput. Sci. Appl. 10409, 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62407-5_37 (2017).Article Google Scholar 20.Tweed, C. & Sutherland, M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.008 (2007).Article Google Scholar 21.Tieskens, K. F. et al. Characterizing European cultural landscapes: accounting for structure, management intensity and value of agricultural and forest landscapes. Land Use Policy 62, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.001 (2017).Article Google Scholar 22.Feuer, H. N., Van Assche, K., Hernik, J., Czesak, B. & Rozycka-Czas, R. Evolution of place-based governance in the management of development dilemmas: long-term learning from Malopolska, Poland. J. Environ. Planning Manag. 64, 1312–1330. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1820314 (2021).Article Google Scholar 23.Benoit, M. et al. Landscape agronomy: a new field for addressing agricultural landscape dynamics. Landscape Ecol. 27, 1385–1394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9802-8 (2012).Article Google Scholar 24.(ECOVAST c/o Mrs Valerie CARTER (President), ‘Sherborne’, Ingleden Park Road, Tenterden, Kent TN30 6NS, UK, 2006).25.Antrop, M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002 (2005).Article Google Scholar 26.Allen, R. C. Tracking the agricultural revolution in England. Econ. Hist. Rev. 52, 209-+. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0289.00123 (1999).Article Google Scholar 27.Vol. European Treaty Series-No. 176 (Council of Europe, Florence, 2000).28.Palang, H. et al. Social landscape: ten years of planning ‘valuable landscapes’ in Estonia. Land Use Policy 28, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.004 (2011).Article Google Scholar 29.Solon, J. et al. Physico-geographical mesoregions of poland: verification and adjustment of boundaries on the basis of contemporary spatial data. Geogr. Pol. 91, 143–170. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0115 (2018).Article Google Scholar 30.Ales, R. F., Martin, A., Ortega, F. & Ales, E. E. Recent changes in landscape structure and function in a mediterranean region of Sw Spain (1950–1984). Landscape Ecol. 7, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02573953 (1992).Article Google Scholar 31.Stobbelaar, D. J. & Pedroli, B. Perspectives on landscape identity: a conceptual challenge. Landsc. Res. 36, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.564860 (2011).Article Google Scholar 32.Chrastina, P., Hroncek, P., Gregorova, B. & Zoncova, M. Land-use changes of historical rural landscape-heritage, protection, and sustainable ecotourism: case study of Slovak Exclave Civ (Piliscsev) in Komarom-Esztergom County (Hungary). Sustainability 12, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156048 (2020).Article Google Scholar 33.Antrop, M. The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of Flanders Region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 38, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(97)00027-3 (1997).Article Google Scholar 34.Fischer, J., Hartel, T. & Kuemmerle, T. Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conserv. Lett. 5, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00227.x (2012).Article Google Scholar 35.Avriel-Avni, N., Rofe, Y. & Scheinkman-Shachar, F. Spatial modeling of landscape values: discovering the boundaries of conflicts and identifying mutual benefits as a basis for land management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 34, 553–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1850957 (2021).Article Google Scholar 36.Howley, P., Donoghue, C. O. & Hynes, S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006 (2012).Article Google Scholar 37.Spulerova, J. et al. Developing a strategy for the protection of traditional agricultural landscapes based on a complex landscape-ecological evaluation (the case of a mountain landscape in Slovakia). Moravian Geogr. Rep. 21, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2013-0017 (2013).Article Google Scholar 38.Lieskovsky, J. et al. Factors affecting the persistence of traditional agricultural landscapes in Slovakia during the collectivization of agriculture. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 867–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0023-1 (2014).Article Google Scholar 39.Patru-Stupariu, I., Tudor, C. A., Stupariu, M. S., Buttler, A. & Peringer, A. Landscape persistence and stakeholder perspectives: the case of Romania’s Carpathians. Appl. Geogr. 69, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.07.015 (2016).Article Google Scholar 40.Lieskovsky, J. & Burgi, M. Persistence in cultural landscapes: a pan-European analysis. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1192-7 (2018).Article Google Scholar 41.van der Zanden, E. H., Verburg, P. H. & Mucher, C. A. Modelling the spatial distribution of linear landscape elements in Europe. Ecol. Ind. 27, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.002 (2013).Article Google Scholar 42.Jepsen, M. R. et al. Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003 (2015).Article Google Scholar 43.van Zanten, B. T., Verburg, P. H., Koetse, M. J. & van Beukering, P. J. H. Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012 (2014).Article Google Scholar 44.Banski, J. & Mazur, M. Classification of rural areas in Poland as an instrument of territorial policy. Land Use Policy 54, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.005 (2016).Article Google Scholar 45.Plit, J. & Myga-Piatek, U. The degree of landscape openness as a manifestation of cultural metamorphose. Quaestiones Geographicae 33, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0036 (2014).Article Google Scholar 46.Geri, F., Amici, V. & Rocchini, D. Human activity impact on the heterogeneity of a Mediterranean landscape. Appl. Geogr. 30, 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.10.006 (2010).Article Google Scholar 47.Serra, P., Pons, X. & Sauri, D. Land-cover and land-use change in a Mediterranean landscape: a spatial analysis of driving forces integrating biophysical and human factors. Appl. Geogr. 28, 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.02.001 (2008).Article Google Scholar 48.Su, S. L., Jiang, Z. L., Zhang, Q. & Zhang, Y. A. Transformation of agricultural landscapes under rapid urbanization: a threat to sustainability in Hang-Jia-Hu region, China. Appl. Geogr. 31, 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.008 (2011).Article Google Scholar 49.Baessler, C. & Klotz, S. Effects of changes in agricultural land-use on landscape structure and arable weed vegetation over the last 50 years. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 115, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.12.007 (2006).Article Google Scholar 50.Simensen, T., Halvorsen, R. & Erikstad, L. Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: a systematic review. Land Use Policy 75, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.022 (2018).Article Google Scholar 51.Li, E. J., Endter-Wada, J. & Li, S. J. Dynamics of Utah’s agricultural landscapes in response to urbanization: a comparison between irrigated and non-irrigated agricultural lands. Appl. Geogr. 105, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.02.006 (2019).Article Google Scholar 52.Cushman, S. A., McGariyal, K. & Neel, M. C. Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol. Ind. 8, 691–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.12.002 (2008).Article Google Scholar 53.Kim, K. H. & Pauleit, S. Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea. Land Use Policy 24, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.12.001 (2007).Article Google Scholar 54.Aburas, M. M., Ho, Y. M., Ramli, M. F. & Ashaari, Z. H. Monitoring and assessment of urban growth patterns using spatio-temporal built-up area analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190, 12369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6522-9 (2018).Article Google Scholar 55.Torreggiani, D. et al. TRuLAn: a high-resolution method for multi-time analysis of traditional rural landscapes and its application in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 124, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.011 (2014).Article Google Scholar 56.Stanfield, B. J., Bliss, J. C. & Spies, T. A. Land ownership and landscape structure: a spatial analysis of sixty-six Oregon (USA) Coast Range watersheds. Landsc. Ecol. 17, 685–697. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022977614403 (2002).Article Google Scholar 57.Sklenicka, P. & Salek, M. Ownership and soil quality as sources of agricultural land fragmentation in highly fragmented ownership patterns. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9185-4 (2008).Article Google Scholar 58.Zhao, H. Z. et al. Incorporating spatio-temporal connectivity for prioritized conservation of individual habitat patches
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-02892-x
Determining and quantifying the historical traces of spatial land arrangements in rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe
