Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe

© Th.WRBKA / univie-cvl The Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe NASA-Wks Sopron / 2014 10 16

International LCLUC Regional Science Meeting in Central EuropeSopron, Hungary

Importance ofLanduse Change in Central Europe

Thomas WRBKA

University of Vienna

Div..Conservation Biology, Vegetation- &Landscape ecology,© Oct.2014


Content

Landuse and landscapes in Central Europe – a (very) long story of change

Landscapes under pressure – accelerated changes in the anthropocene

Quantity or quality? - how to document landuse and landscape changes

Outlook: the supportive role of RS & GIS in land evaluation, landscape planning and mitigation







Das Bild kann zurzeit nicht angezeigt werden.

Willendorf / Wachau25 000 BC

Galgenberg bei Stratzing30.000 BC

Palaeolithic Hunters & Gatherers:European Megafauna was partly driven to extinction


Neolithic Revolution

Animal husbandry, selection of varities and crop production; permanent settlement in forest clearings and on lakeshores

Rock engravings, Val camonica – Südalpen (IT)


Bronzezeit Römer MA

Bronze age: colonisation of European mountains Alpine pastures, mining


Middle Ages: taming of the wild, large-scale clearance oflarge forests

Franziszeischer Kataster: 1:2.880Neu Ruppersdorf (Weinviertel); 1820

large

Brüder v.Limburg (1416) “Stundenbuch des Herzogs von Berry - November”


European landscapes: centuries of change!

~ 5000 bis 1800 BC: clearances, first permanent settlements, fenced cropfields, „outfields“ with large pastures with transition-zones to forests; Ca 1800 v.Chr. bis 1500 BC: foundation of new

settlements, drawback of forests, large scale forest-pastures, enlargement of cropland,…

~ 1500 to1800: pre-industrial agriculture reaches maximum extent, traffic network, fragmentation and attrition of forests;


Remnants of historic forest usage

Slash and burn, forest-pastures

Coppices and Pollarding, Charcoal production


One positive result: increase of regional biodiversity

Transition zones, forest– open landscape;

Gradient of land-use intensity;

Diversity of niches;

„Novel“ species: synanthropic species, weeds,ground-breeding birds;


Another one: novel landscape elements and landscapes

Terraced cropfields and vineyards;orchards;

Refugial habitats for light-demanding,thermophilous species;


Finally: steady state or over-use and degradation?

Watered meadows:

an example for optimizedresource utilization

Carstic landscapes:

Examples for temporal over-use, followed by anew steady-state

© Th.WRBKA / univie-cvl The Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe NASA-Wks Sopron / 2014 10 16©Wrbka / univie

Landscape types with different nature value in Austria –Percentage of the whole territory

Alpine and Subalpine

Landscapes

Forested Landscapes

Agricultural Landscapes

Urbanized Landscapes

Total

Very high

13 2 2 - 17

High - 1 15 - 16Medium 3 33 9 - 45Low - - 20 1 21Very low

- - - 1 1

Total 16 36 46 2 100

Coincidence between

high nature value

and

high percentage of persistent landscape elements






100yrs of Landcover change in the Morava floodplain (Šeffer, J. & Stanová V. 1999)

Landcover change in the Machland region / Upper Austria (Hohensinner., 2002)

Loss of inundation-areas southern Germany

(Bundesamt für Naturschutz 2009)


Landuse change in lowland region of Eastern Austria: Perforation, attrition

Fragmentation of meadows (1900-1950) Wr.Becken


Nutztypenvielfalt KulturartenvielfaltKarlhof -1.6 -33.1Saudorf -7.9 -17Post -24.4 -2.9Edlitz an der Thaya -15.3 -11.4Zeiserlberg 17.3 -9Annatsberg -0.6 -12.1Teichhof -51 -44.2Unterlangenberg -44.4 -27.4Niederhofer -5.3 -6.3Irdning

Veränderung des Shannon Diversity Index in der "Maßnahmenlandschaft"

Diversity of Landuse andcroptypes has decreased in all

landscape samples (N=40), despite AgriEnv-payments

Ergebnisse einer österreichweiten ÖPUL-EvaluationWrbka et.al. 2005

Recent Changes in Austrian Agricultural Landscapes 1998 to2003:

ongoing decrease of landscape diversity!


Ongoing development: fragmentation, sealing

Figures from Austria:• Daily loss by „sealing“ ~ 20ha:

(equals 25 Soccerfields)• Road-Network: 270.000 km (~ 3 x longer

than rivercourses)• „River dis-continuum“: an obstacle every

3km• Unfragmented, remote wilderness areas:

less than 2%






© Th.WRBKA / univie-cvl The Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe NASA-Wks Sopron / 2014 10 16© Th.WRBKA / UNIVIE-CVL may 2005

1764 - 1787

1817–1861

1984

1994

2000

Landscape Ecology: detecting & monitoring changes1857 1958 1975 1991 2002

Acker

Grünland

Obstgärten

Wald

Gewässer

Brachflächen

geh.freie Kleinstr.

Kleinstr.m.Geh.

Siedlung

Sonderflächen

Verkehr 1Verkehr 2

Sonderbiotope

1%20%

= 1ha

33%

60%

32%

54%

2% 6%

49%

37%

8%

70%

15%

9%

69%

11%

11%

59%

35%3%

59%

21%

3%

81%

86%

10%

69%

36%

44%

43%

0,2% 0,5%91%

92%

7%

30%

67%

48%

28%

97%

91%10

20

31

40

50

60

70

71

81

82

9192

100

5%2%

48%

35%

10%6%

80%

100%

Abb.Südburgenland-Transform

ationderLandnutzung

imZeitraum

von1857-2002.

Auswertung

aufBasisdes

Franz.Katasters(2.Landesaufnahm

e(1857),

historischenLuftbildern

(1958-1991)sowie

eineraktuellenLandnutzungskartierung

(2002).Transform

ationsmatrix

AuflösungderBasis-G

rids10x10m

.

BeispielNaturräum

licheEinheit1

-Pinkaboden

Transformation matrix

Konservative L.

?

Trend analysis

© Th.WRBKA / univie-cvl The Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe NASA-Wks Sopron / 2014 10 16© Th.WRBKA / UNIVIE-CVL may 2005

Input for change-detection analysis

Time series at two different scales:

Microscale (~ 1: 3.000)

• Historical cadastral map (~1840s) > aerial fotos (1950s– 1990s) > landsc.ecolog.field survey (2000)

Macroscale (~ 1: 30.000)

• First Land Survey (~1770) > Third Land Survey (~1870)> medium resolution Satelliteimage (30 x 30 [m]; ~1990)

• low resolution satellite images: MSS (~1970) > LandsatTM5 (~1990) > Landsat TM7 (60 x 80 [m]; ~2000)

© Th.WRBKA / univie-cvl The Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe NASA-Wks Sopron / 2014 10 16 © Th.WRBKA / UNIVIE-CVL may 2005

Macroscale (Satellite,..) Microscale (Airfotos,..)

Landscape change: Micro- vs. Macrostructure

Forest: conservative landscape structure

Small biotopes / microstructure: gains and losses!


Transformation = directional land-use change

Landscape Unit: Pinka Valley Bottom 1857 1958 1975 1991 2002

Acker

Grünland

Obstgärten

Wald

Gewässer

Brachflächen

geh.freie Kleinstr.

Kleinstr.m.Geh.

Siedlung

Sonderflächen

Verkehr 1Verkehr 2

Sonderbiotope

1%20%

= 1ha

33%

60%

32%

54%

2% 6%

49%

37%

8%

70%

15%

9%

69%

11%

11%

59%

35%3%

59%

21%

3%

81%

86%

10%

69%

36%

44%

43%

0,2% 0,5%91%

92%

7%

30%

67%

48%

28%

97%

91%10

20

31

40

50

60

70

71

81

82

9192

100

5%2%

48%

35%

10%6%

80%

100%

Abb. Südburgenland - Transformation der Landnutzung im

Zeitraum von 1857-2002.

Auswertung auf Basis des Franz. Katasters (2.Landesaufnahm

e (1857), historischen Luftbildern (1958-1991) sow

ie einer aktuellen Landnutzungskartierung (2002). Transform

ationsmatrix Auflösung der Basis-G

rids 10x10m.

Beispiel Naturräum

liche Einheit 1 - Pinkaboden


Oscillation= non-linear landuse change

Landscape Unit: Hilly areas “Riedelland” 1857 1958 1975 1991 2002

Acker52% 31% 35% 37% 35%

10

Grünland 11% 22% 10% 9% 6%20

Gewässer50

Kleinstr.m.Geh.71

Siedlung81

Verkehr 191

Verkehr 292

Obstgärten31 8% 15% 10% 10% 10%

Weingärten31 9% 8% 9% 11% 11%

Wald40 16% 19% 20% 23% 23%

Brachflächen60 9% 4% 6%

geh.freie Kleinstr.70

Sonderflächen82

Sonderbiotope100

10% 20% 35%

Abb. Südburgenland - Transformation der Landnutzung im

Zeitraum von 1857-2002.

Auswertung auf Basis des Franz. Katasters (2.Landesaufnahm

e (1857), historischen Luftbildern (1958-1991) sow

ie einer aktuellen Landnutzungskartierung (2002). Transform

ationsmatrix Auflösung der Basis-G

rids 10x10m.

Beispiel Brachflächen in der Naturräum

liche Einheit 3 - Riedelflanke

= 1ha

Planetary boundaries (Stockholm ResilienceCentre, 2009).

Defining planetaryboundaries establishesa “safe operating spacefor humanity”, wherewe have the best chanceof continuing to developand thrive for manygenerations to come(Stockholm ResilienceCentre, 2009).


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 1 2 3 4 5

R2 = 0.75

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5

R2 = 0.57

Gradient of land-use intensity

Quelle: BD1 – Grundlagen der Biodiversität in der Kulturlandschaft

Vascular plants Bryophytes

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

Land use intensity is correlated withBiodiversity!


Land use intensity is correlated with landscapestructure!

Negative corelation betweenboundary complexity and „degree ofnaturalness“ can be assessed

Relationship between land use intensity / hemerobiotic state and boundary complexity(Moser et al 2002):

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000 R2 = 0.51

Land use intensity (Avg-Hemeroby)

Bou

ndar

y co

mpl

exity

(SU

M-N

SC

P)

alpine pasture

conserved landscape structurebut intensive land use

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000 R2 = 0.51

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000 R2 = 0.51

Land use intensity (Avg-Hemeroby)

Bou

ndar

y co

mpl

exity

(SU

M-N

SC

P)

alpine pasture alpine pasture

conserved landscape structurebut intensive land useconserved landscape structurebut intensive land use

Scatterdiagramm of land use intensity (Hemerobiotic state) and landscape complexity (NSCP = Number of ShapeCharacterstic Points) ; r²=0,51, p<0,01

Cropland and vineyards:

rectangular, low NPSC

Natural inland salt marshes:

irregular, high NPSC

© Th.WRBKA / univie-cvl The Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe NASA-Wks Sopron / 2014 10 16 © Th.WRBKA / UNIVIE-CVL may 2005

semi-natural landscape intensive agriculture

increasing human influence

Landscape structure captures “frozen” energycascades and matterflows (“landscape ecology”)

The excessive use of fossil energy creates simple geometry in agricultural landscapes (“fractal geometry”)

Landscape elements, landscape types, regions, etc. are part of a hierarchical system (“hierarchy theory”)

Landscape structure - linking pattern & process


Modelling land-use intensity (regression model)







Protecting „old-fashioned“ slowly changing agricultural landscapes

>>> RS can help to detect and monitor


>>> RS can help to optimally situate EI

Constructing and maintaining „ecological infrastructure“, eg.migration corridors


Bringing it „down to earth“

And don´t forget: it´s done by them – the people out there!

Documents

Importance of Landuse Change in Central Europe