Textbook Landscape Ecological Planning Landep Laszlo Miklos Ebook All Chapter PDF

Landscape-ecological Planning
LANDEP László Miklós

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/landscape-ecological-planning-landep-laszlo-miklos/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Sustainable Landscape Planning in Selected Urban

Regions 1st Edition Makoto Yokohari
https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainable-landscape-planning-
in-selected-urban-regions-1st-edition-makoto-yokohari/
Encyclopedia of Landscape Design Planning Building and

Planting Your Perfect Outdoor Space Dk
https://textbookfull.com/product/encyclopedia-of-landscape-
design-planning-building-and-planting-your-perfect-outdoor-space-
dk/
A Comparative Political Ecology of Exurbia Planning

Environmental Management and Landscape Change 1st
Edition Laura E. Taylor
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-comparative-political-ecology-
of-exurbia-planning-environmental-management-and-landscape-
change-1st-edition-laura-e-taylor/
Bim for Landscape Architecture Landscape Institute
https://textbookfull.com/product/bim-for-landscape-architecture-
landscape-institute/
Engineering Geology for Society and Territory Volume 5
Urban Geology Sustainable Planning and Landscape
Exploitation 1st Edition Giorgio Lollino
https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-geology-for-society-
and-territory-volume-5-urban-geology-sustainable-planning-and-
landscape-exploitation-1st-edition-giorgio-lollino/
Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of

Ecological Stability László Miklós
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-networks-and-
territorial-systems-of-ecological-stability-laszlo-miklos/
Active Landscape Photography Theoretical Groundwork for

Landscape Architecture 1st Edition Anne C Godfrey
https://textbookfull.com/product/active-landscape-photography-
theoretical-groundwork-for-landscape-architecture-1st-edition-
anne-c-godfrey/
The Socio cultural and ecological perspectives on

landscape and gardening in Urban Environment A
narrative review 2nd Edition Ph.D. Candidate Patrick
Chukwuemeke Uwajeh And Ph.D. Candidate Ikenna Stephen
Ezennia
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-socio-cultural-and-
ecological-perspectives-on-landscape-and-gardening-in-urban-
environment-a-narrative-review-2nd-edition-ph-d-candidate-
patrick-chukwuemeke-uwajeh-and-ph-d-candidate-ikenna-step/
Ecological Political Economy and the Socio-Ecological

Crisis 1st Edition Martin P. A. Craig (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/ecological-political-economy-
and-the-socio-ecological-crisis-1st-edition-martin-p-a-craig-
auth/
László Miklós · Anna Špinerová
Landscape-
ecological
Planning
LANDEP
Landscape-ecological Planning LANDEP
László Miklós Anna Špinerová
•
Landscape-ecological
Planning LANDEP
123
László Miklós Anna Špinerová
Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Faculty of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences Sciences
Technical University in Zvolen Technical University in Zvolen
Zvolen, Slovakia Zvolen, Slovakia
ISBN 978-3-319-94020-5 ISBN 978-3-319-94021-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94021-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946604
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
Landscape planning, landscaping, is a very attractive concept for geographers,

ecologists, landscape ecologists, but also for architects, urban planners, environ-
mentalists, conservationists and even the public. The word ‘landscape’ softens the
technocratic perceptions of the word ‘planning’ on one hand, but on the other hand,
it toughens the romantic views and brings contemplations over landscape to a
different level. Thus, it hides many challenges and opportunities even for those,
who do not entirely understand their essence. Indeed, the great boom of studies that
discuss the topic of the landscape as well as the astounding number of authors—
nature lovers—proves that it is the uncertain definition of the whole subject which
offers the best representation of reality. When I say that it is probably the most
fascinating field of all naturalists and non-naturalists whose profession has to do
something with space, territory, region, landscape I may be expressing my sub-
jective opinion, but doubt that I am the only one to hold it.
However, will landscape planning live up to the expectations of those who have
thrown themselves into the arms of this scientific discipline, wishing to honour not
only their own commitments, but also to be professionally committed or perhaps to
live off it? I dare to say I doubt that many, if any, will achieve that. Simply put,
there are more nature lovers than job opportunities available for landscape planners.
There is nothing strange about this as there are not enough professional job
vacancies even in the field of nature preservation to cater for all nature lovers and
there are not enough chairs in orchestra to seat all the music lovers, and there are far
fewer serious publishing houses who are willing to pay writers than there are
literature lovers. Furthermore, I am concerned about the fate of all the results
attained as a product of this ongoing enthusiasm. Are they ever going to be
exploited, accepted, respected or will they reap hate from those affected by these
results? This concern, however, is not new at all, as not each piece of work of a
composer, writer or architect is always played, published or built. One needs to
come to terms with this fact, realise how many of us, and how much effort needs to
be exerted to spread education and awareness with regard to this fascinating area.
v
vi Preface
But what about the almost identical term—landscape-ecological planning? First,

it needs to be stressed that this publication was originally written in the Slovak
language, and so in other languages, other countries, the nomenclature might differ.
In Slovakia, however, the laws define landscape-ecological planning, and even
AGENDA 21 from the well-known conference on the environment in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992 recommends the government to implement landscape-ecological
planning (LANDEP). LANDEP—although addressing the same beautiful landscape
as a nature lover or an artist, is a harder nut to crack. The landscape discussed in
LANDEP does not require only a good appreciation of visible beauty, but also
hidden, but exceptionally important features which can be examined only after
serious study of, e.g. the geological base, soil, climate as well as other ongoing and
certainly less pleasant phenomena such as erosion, or the daily activities of man—
ploughing, farming and construction. The output is no less prosaic. The law stip-
ulates that the results of LANDEP are the regulative for technical-planning pro-
cesses, which means that they need to be based on solid arguments. The good news
is that this is the right way in which the outputs of landscape-ecological planning
can affect the development of the landscape in the long run. Even this gives rise to
various questions and concerns. Do the institutional tools really function the way
the law stipulates? Is the landscape-ecological plan for each survey for a land-use
plan in compliance with the relevant law, is land consolidation performed to
improve the ecological stability and are the water management effects of the ter-
ritorial system of ecological stability incorporated into river basin management
plans and integrated into landscape management in accordance with the law? The
answers will hardly be affirmative for all three questions.
We scientists are well aware that the situation can be remedied by continuous
improvement of the methods and methodologies through research of the landscape
as well as the methods of the application of the findings into spatial planning
processes.
This is the landscape-ecological planning our publication aims to discuss further.
Zvolen, Slovakia László Miklós

Anna Špinerová
Acknowledgements
The publication is the result of the research supported by the grant agency KEGA
Project No. 013TU Z-4/2016 and by grant agency VEGA Project No. 1/0096/
1614-0735 and VEGA Project No. 2/0066/15.
vii
Contents
1 Principles, Theoretical and Methodological Background

of Landscape-ecological Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 What Is Landscape-ecological Planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Ecologisation of Landscape Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.1 Integrated Conceptions to the Environmental Care . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2 Spatial Approach to the Environmental Care . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 Institutional Instruments for Integrated Landscape Management
in Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3.1 Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection . . . . . . . . . 16
1.3.2 River Basin Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.3.3 Territorial/Spatial Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.4 Agricultural Land Consolidation and Arrangement
Projecting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.3.5 Forest Management Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.3.6 Flood Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.3.7 Integrated Spatial Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.3.8 Interrelation of Institutional Instruments of Integrated
Landscape Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
1.4 The Object of LANDEP: The Landscape as a Geosystem . . . . . .. 31
1.4.1 The System Theory and the Geosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
1.4.2 Methodical Base of the LANDEP: Application of Models
of Geosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
1.4.3 Elements, Properties and Relations in Geosystems . . . . . .. 39
1.4.4 The Structure of the Landscape as a Geosystem
According Its Function for LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41
1.4.5 Interrelations of the Landscape Structures with LANDEP
and Other Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59
ix
x Contents
2 Landscape-ecological Planning, LANDEP—A Tool

for the Ecologisation of Spatial Planning Processes . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69
2.1 Ecologically Optimal Spatial Organisation, Utilisation
and Protection of the Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.2 The Main Principles and Methodological Aspects of LANDEP . . . 74
2.3 The Process of the LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3 Landscape-ecological Analyses in LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.1 Delimitation of the Area of the Territory of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.2 Analyses of the Primary Landscape Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.3 Analyses of the Secondary Landscape Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.4 Analyses of the Tertiary Landscape Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.5 Desired Social Activities ‘R’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4 Landscape-ecological Syntheses in LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.1 Topical Synthesis—Formation of Topical Geocomplexes
(Abiocomplexes and Landscape-ecological Complexes) . . . . . . . . 111
4.1.1 Formation of Abiotic Complexes ABC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.1.2 Formation of Landscape-ecological Complexes LEC . . . . . 118
4.2 Choric–Spatial–Structural Synthesis—Formation of Complex
Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.3 Methodical Notes to the Landscape-ecological Syntheses . . . . . . . 122
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5 Landscape-ecological Interpretations in LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.1 Technological-Functional Criteria—Localisation Criteria . . . . . . . . 133
5.1.1 Example of Interpretations of Selected Localisation
Criteria for Agricultural Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.1.2 Slope Dynamics Zones—The Conditions for the
Movement of Water and Material Along the Slope . . . . . . 137
5.1.3 Interpretation of the Slope Dynamics Zones
in the Model Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.2 Biological-Ecological Criteria—Selective Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
5.2.1 Special-Purpose Expert Interpretation of the Significance
of Vegetation and Biotic Elements of CLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.2.2 Ecological Quality of Spatial Landscape Structure . . . . . . . 154
5.2.3 Spatial Diversity of the Landscape According
to the Degree of Entropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
5.3 Socio-Economic Criteria—Realization Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
5.3.1 Methodological Aspects of Interpretations
of Socio-Economic Phenomena in the Landscape . . . . . . . 166
Contents xi
5.3.2 Interpretation of the Protection Degree

of the Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
5.3.3 Interpretation of the Degree of Load
on the Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6 Landscape-ecological Evaluation in LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
6.1 Functional Values of the Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
6.1.1 The Character of Functions and Cardinal Functional
Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.2 Formalised Decision Process in Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.2.1 Table of Functional Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.2.2 Decision Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
6.2.3 Weight Coefficients and Total Functional Suitability
of LEC for Activities R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
7 Landscape-ecological Propositions in LANDEP—Proposal
of Optimal Use of Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
7.1 Negative Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
7.1.1 Negative Selection by Comprehensive Limitation . . . . . . . 200
7.1.2 Application of Preference Limits, Restrictions
and Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
7.2 Primary Alternative Proposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.3 Secondary, Variant Proposition—Functional Typisation
of Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
7.4 Tertiary Proposition—Functional Regionalisation of Territory . . . . 208
7.5 Final, Special and Detailed Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Conclusion: Status, Problems and Application
of the Results of LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Abbreviations
ABC Abiotic Complex (Abiocomplex)

CLS Current Landscape Structure
DTM Digital Terrain Model
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ELC European Landscape Convention
EU European Union
FAR Folk Architecture Reservation
FMP Forest Management Plan (Recently FCP—Forest Care
Programme)
FMU Forest Management Unit
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HPZ/SZ Hygienic Protection Zone/Safety (buffer) Zone
ILM Integrated Landscape Management
INSPIRE INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe
KEGA Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of
Education, Science, Research and Sport of Slovak Republic
KPP Complex Agricultural Soil Survey of Slovakia
LANDEP LANDscape Ecological Planning
LEB ILM Landscape Ecological Basis of Integrated Landscape
Management
LEC Landscape-Ecological Complex
LTSES Local Territorial System of Ecological Stability
m a.s.l. Meters Above Sea Level
MAB UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme
MCR Memorial City Reservation
MoE SR Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic
MPRV SR Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak
Republic
xiii
xiv Abbreviations
NATURA 2000 Network of Sites of Community Importance and Protected Bird

Areas
NFC National Forest Centre
NFH Non-forest Habitats
NISI National Infrastructure of Spatial Information
NM Nature Monument
NNM National Nature Monument
NNR National Nature Reservation
NP National Park
NR Nature Reservation
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PA Protected Area
PBA Protected Bird Area
PLA Protected Landscape Area
PLS Primary Landscape Structure
PT Protected Tree
PWMA Protected Water Management Area
PZ Protection Zone
REPGES REpresentative Potential GEoecoSystems
SAS Slovak Academy of Sciences
SCI Site of Community Importance
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEC Socio-Economic Complex
SEF Socio-Economic Factor (Phenomenon)
SGIDŠ State Geological Institute of Dionýz Štúr
SkEA Slovak Environmental Agency
SLS Secondary Landscape Structure
SNC SR State Nature Conservation of the Slovak Republic
SR Slovak Republic
SSCRI Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute (Previously
RISF)
STN Slovak Technical Norm (Standard)
TLS Tertiary Landscape Structure
TSES Territorial System of Ecological Stability
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
USDF Unit of Spatial Division of Forest
WRI Water Research Institute
ZB GIS Fundamental Database (of topographic objects) for Geographic
Information System
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 The interrelations of the institutional instruments of integrated

landscape management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Fig. 1.2 Landscape as a material section of the geographical sphere . . . . 36
Fig. 1.3 Topical model of geosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Fig. 1.4 Choric model of geosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Fig. 1.5 Socio-economic factors in the landscape and their mutual
overlaps. SEF linked to: conservation of nature—OP,
protection of waters—V, soils—P, forests—L, urbanisation
and recreation—U, R, production and technical objects—I, D,
administrative division—ZSJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
Fig. 1.6 The functional division of the structure of the landscape with
regard to LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41
Fig. 1.7 The geosystem approach to the definition of landscape and
environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55
Fig. 1.8 The sectoral environmental management: protection of the
components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56
Fig. 1.9 The spatial planning and management policies: optimisation
of the use of the spatial subsystems (complexes) . . . . . . . . . . .. 57
Fig. 1.10 The socio-economic model and the horizontal politics . . . . . . .. 58
Fig. 2.1 Ecologically optimum spatial organisation and utilisation
of the landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72
Fig. 2.2 Change or prevent—Conflict of man and landscape
structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73
Fig. 2.3 The LANDEP scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78
Fig. 3.1 An illustration of a traditional unified cartographic base: basic
topographic elements redrawn by hand into a matrix—Eastern
Slovak Lowland—section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 84
Fig. 3.2 An illustration of current cartographic base: a combination
of orthoimages and topographic base with GIS
technology––Ilijský stream catchment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85
xv
xvi List of Figures
Fig. 3.3 Illustrations of analytical maps: indicator of a biocomplex

ABC x1 —slope angle. Legend: x1 —slope angle: 1—h0°–1°i;
2—(1°–3°i; 3—(3°–7°i; 4—(7°–12°i; 5—(12°–17°i; 6—
(17°–25°i; 7—(more than 25°i; Topography: 8—intravilan,
9—watercourse, 10—asphalt road, 11—unpaved path,
12—contour line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 90
ABC x2 —soil forming substrate. Legend: Fluvial sediments:
1—fluvial sediments (gravel-loam to rocky); Deluvial and
subslope sediments (eluviums, deluviums, colluviums):
2—sediments of dells and valleys bottoms; 3—slope platforms
deluvial sediments, slope loams; 4—sedimentary debris
(rocks, boulders); Weatherings: 5—on volcanic sandstones,
silts and pumices; 6—on breccias; 7—on andesites, porphyries
and rhyodacites. Topography: 8—intravilan, 9—watercourse,
10—asphalt road, 11—unpaved path, 12—contour line . . . . . .. 91
ABC x3 —soil skeletality and depth. Legend: 1—weakly to
moderately skeletal, moderately deep to deep; 2—moderately
skeletal, moderately deep; 3—moderately to very skeletal,
shallow; Topography: 8—intravilan, 9—watercourse,
ABC x4 —soil texture (grain size). Legend: 1—loam;
2—sandy-loam; Topography: 8—intravilan, 9—watercourse,
ABC x5 —soil types and subtypes. Legend: 1—Haplic Fluvisol
(typical), 2—Haplic Cambisol (typical), Leptic Luvisol, 3—
Stagnic Cambisol, Fragic Cutanic Albeluvisol,
4—Haplic Cambisol (typical), 5—Fulvic Andosol (typical).
Topography: 8—intravilan, 9—watercourse, 10—asphalt road,
11—unpaved path, 12—contour line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92
Fig. 3.8 Illustrations of analytical maps: elements of the secondary
landscape structure CLS y1 —land use and land cover. Legend:
1—broadleaf forest; 2—mixed broadleaf forest; 3—mixed
forest; 4—mixed coniferous forest; 5—coniferous forest;
6—unknown forest; 7—rock; 8—group of shrubs; 9—water
reservoir; 10—grassy and scrubby vegetation; 11—meadow,
pasture; 12—orchard; 13—arable land; 14—settlement
vegetation; 15—playground; 16—swimming pool;
17—separate building; 18—tower; 19—hut, shed;
20—non-specified area of the buildings; 21—material
List of Figures xvii
and waste landfill; 22—road; 23—parking lot; 24—water tank;

25—terrain slit; 26—watercourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Fig. 4.1 Scheme of the spatial synthesis by superposition of analytical
materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Fig. 4.2 a Illustration of the process of creation of the types of abiotic
complexes ABC. The maps on the left side: the analytic maps—
inputs to the synthesis—illustrated in Figs. 3.3–3.7. The map on
the right side: the synthetic map of abiocomplexes ABC as a
result of synthesis—illustrated in Fig. 4.2b. b The result of the
creation of the types of abiotic complexes ABC: ABC (x1, x2, x3,
x4, x5). Each polygon represents area of ABC with homogenous
values of all five included indicators of the properties (described
with five codes in electronic form). The included indicators:
x1—Slope angle, x2—Geological/soil-forming substrate, x3—
Soil skeletality and depth, x4—Soil texture, x5—Soil type . . . . . . . 112
Fig. 4.3 a Illustration of the process of creation of the types of
landscape-ecological complexes LEC. Maps on left side:
the map of abiocomplexes ABC as shown in Fig. 4.2b
and map of the current landscape structure CLS—reduced
content of the original mapping shown in Fig. 3.8. Map
on right side: the synthetic map of landscape-ecological
complexes. See also Fig. 4.3b. b The result of the creation
of the types of landscape-ecological complexes LEC LEC
{ABC (x1, x2, x3, x4, x5), x6}, The abiotic complexes
are characterised by indicators x1–x5 coded by five codes
identically as in the Fig. 4.2b. The CLS elements x6 is
illustrated by colours as: 1—Forest, 2—scrubs and linear
vegetation, 3—marsh, fen, 4—arable land and permanent
grassland, 5—water reservoir and creeks, 6—residential
area and garden, 7—agricultural objects, 8—other objects
(generalised picture with reduced number of
CLS elements) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Fig. 4.4 Types and regions of landscape-ecological complexes in the
Gemerské Turce catchment (original on the resolution level
of map scale 1:50,000 Legend I. Region of Ore Mountains
(a) Beach forest zone, types of landscape-ecological
complexes TLEC: 01—of lower beach forest zone, 02—of
higher beach forest zone (b) Oak forest zone, TLEC 03—on
crystallinic rocks, subtypes 031—on rich substrates, 032—on
poor substrates; 04—on mesozoic flysch rock, subtypes
041—on varied slates, 042—on marly slates; 05—on
limestones; 06—on neovolcanities, subtypes 061—on volcanic
slopes, 062—on volcanic plateau; 07—on radiolarites; 08—on
proluvial sediments; 09—on slope debris. II. Region of the
xviii List of Figures
Rimavská Basin. TLEC: 10—on alluvial plains, 11—on hilly

land; subtypes 111—on loess loams, 112—on gravels,
113—on marls, 114—on limestones, 115—on Mesozoic
flysch rock, 116—on radiolarites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Fig. 4.5 Geosystems in the Eastern Slovak Lowland (originally
on the resolution level of map scale 1:200,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Fig. 4.6 Geosystems of various hierarchical orders and types in the
Eastern Slovak Lowland (originally on the resolution level
of the map scale 1:25,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Fig. 4.7 Microcatchments of various order and their spatial
interconnections (original resolution level on the map scale
1:10,000) Legend 1—microcatchment borders of second order;
2—microcatchment borders of third order; 3—borders and
scheme of interconnections of microcatchments of fourth
order; 4—watercourses; 5—contour lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Fig. 5.1 Degree of accessibility (availability) for agricultural use . . . . . . . 135
Fig. 5.2 Degree of cultivability for agricultural use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Fig. 5.3 Interpretation of morphotops from the point of view of the
balance, tendency and direction of the downhill movement of
water and material Legend to Fig. 5.3: 1st code—balance
according to position; 2nd code—tendency according to
normal curvature; 3rd code—direction according to the
horizontal curvature. Explanation see Table 5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Fig. 5.4 Zones of slope dynamics Explanation of colours see in
Table 5.5 and in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Fig. 5.5 Most endangered slope dynamics zones. Explanation of
colours see in Table 5.6 and in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Fig. 5.6 Real threat of slope dynamics zones according to the current
land use Explanation of the colours see Table 5.7 and
in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Fig. 5.7 Coefficient of ecological quality in the microcatchments of the
Ilijský creek catchment, The bigger number (the rate of the
ecologically quality area of microcatchments), the darker
colour, the higher quality. The red colour marks the built-up
areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Fig. 5.8 Coefficient of ecological quality of cadastral territories and
their changes in the Ipel’ river basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Fig. 5.9 Comparisons of various modified ecological quality values of
Lučenec surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Fig. 5.10 The value of the entropy Hreal of microbasins of the model
territory. The darker colour the higher entropy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
List of Figures xix
Fig. 5.11 The value of entropy HCLand caused by the diversity of

greenery in comparison with Hmax The higher the value
(yellow and green colours) the closer is the real diversity to the
maximum ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Fig. 5.12 Scheme of the territorial system of stress factors TSSF
in Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Fig. 6.1 Ilustration of the projection of chosen limitations of the
agricultural use of the areas of LEC types (Limits of availability
are determined by slope angle, limits of cultivability by depth
and skeletality of soils, real usability by CLS on forested land
and built-up areas.) Functional values and limitations may occur
in combinations each with others given by numbers in LEC type
areas (Table 6.3). First number—functional value for
availability, Second—for cultivability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Fig. 7.1 Example of the proposal based on negative selection according
to partial limits for arable land (East Slovakian Lowland) . . . . . 201
Fig. 7.2 Example of the functional typisation and regionalisation of the
territory (region Upper Nitra basin, Slovakia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Fig. 7.3 Example of natural settlements regions and their positional
functions of Slovak Republic (cut), source Landscape Atlas of
Slovak Republic, Chapter VII, Map 23 Positional functional
characteristics of natural-settlement nodal micro-regions. The
original map scale 1:1,500,000. The original legend in Slovak
and English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Fig. 7.4 Example of a combinated proposal to mitigate the problems of
runoff, erosion and accumulation (model area of Ilijský creek
catchment) (original map scale 1:10,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Influence of ecologically optimal spatial organisation of the

landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Table 1.2 Economic and physical categories in planning . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Table 1.3 Chosen characteristics of the primary landscape structure
used in LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Table 1.4 Chosen characteristics of the secondary landscape structure
used in LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45
Table 1.5 Typological characteristics of socio-economic
factors/phenomena in the landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48
Table 1.6 Interrelation of socio-economic factor/phenomena SEF with
the elements of the current landscape structure CLS. . . . . . . .. 50
Table 3.1 Typological mapping units of the geological–substrate
complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86
Table 3.2 Classification classes of the selected state variables
of soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87
Table 3.3 Typological characteristic of soils—the most frequently used
soil associations in LANDEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88
Table 3.4 Classification classes of the morphological-morphometric
relief types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89
Table 3.5 Mapping units of the current landscape structure CLS
at different levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94
Table 3.6 Mapping units of current landscape structure CLS on the
local level: example of Ilijský creak catchment area . . . . . . . .. 96
Table 3.7 Frequently used typological characteristics of the SEF bound
to the nature conservation declared in acts and other planning
and development documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97
to the protection of natural resources declared in acts and
other planning and development documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98
xxi
xxii List of Tables

to the zones of urbanisation, sanitary and safety zones of
industrial, transport, technical and communal activities
declared in laws and other planning and development
documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
to the deterioration of the environment declared in acts and
other planning and development documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
to the administrative boundaries in the landscape . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Table 3.12 An example of selection of required social activities . . . . . . . . 104
Table 4.1 The methodical frame for the creation of the Table of types of
ABC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Table 4.2 Example of the table of types of abiotic complexes ABC
(Ilija creak catchment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 4.3 The possibilities of the mutual combinations of the values of
indicators of morphologic-morphometric types of relief
versus genetic–lithologic types of the substratum . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Table 4.4 The possibilities of the mutual combination of the values of
indicators of the types of geological substratum versus soil
association types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Table 4.5 The methodical frame for the creation of combination
table—Table of types of ABC and CLS elements . . . . . . . . . . 117
Table 4.6 Combination table of the types of ABC and CLS: the table
of the types of landscape-ecological complexes LEC
(Example on the Ilijský creek catchment area. Cut of the
upper part of the complete list) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Table 5.1 Simple verbal interpretation of accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Table 5.2 Interpretation of waterlogging by surface water based on
texture (permeability) and depression-inclination
(surface run-off) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Table 5.3 a Interpretation of the cultivability according to the depth and
skeletality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Table 5.4 Interpretations of position, normal curvature and horizontal
curvature as balance, tendency and direction of water and
material movement along the slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Table 5.5 Slope dynamics zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Table 5.6 Modification of slope dynamics zones according to the
movement intensity and the most vulnerable zones of slope
dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Table 5.7 Real threats to slope dynamics zones from current landscape
structure CLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Table 5.8 Ecological significance of CLS elements: model territory
of the Eastern Carpathians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
List of Tables xxiii
Table 5.9 Vulnerability of the real vegetation types by selected

disturbing factors: model territory of the Eastern Carpathians
(Leader of the expert team RNDr. H. Ružičková, CSc.) . . . . . . 157
Table 5.10 Coeficient of ecological quality and run-off coefficient of
CLS elements (Ilijský creek catchment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Table 5.11 Mapping units of positive socio-economic phenomena
of local TSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Table 5.12 Mapping units of primary stress factors on local level . . . . . . . 171
Table 5.13 Mapping units of secondary stress factors on local level . . . . . 173
Table 6.1 Scheme of the table for setting the functional values of the
indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Table 6.2 Illustration of setting the functional values of the indicators
for selected activities in the Ilijský creek catchment (part) . . . . 188
Table 6.3 Scheme of the functional parts (zones) of the decision
table—the logic of the decision in table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Table 6.4 Scheme of the transfer of limit values to the decision
table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Table 6.5 Example of the assessment of the weight coefficients of
interpreted indicators jn for selected activities on model
territory East-Slovakian lowland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Table 7.1 The completed process on decision table according to the
limits, preferences and values of LEC types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Introduction
It needs to be explained right at the beginning why we decided to devote the

monograph to the landscape-ecological planning when there are a number of works
discussing similar issues dealing with land, forests, waters. The major reason to
present the essential features of the methodology of landscape-ecological planning
(LANDEP) is a fact that the methodology proposed by the scientific institute
described in this book is reflected in the law and incorporated to the practice of
particular spatial planning procedures in Slovakia. Nevertheless, in spite that the
frame and core of LANDEP method has been presented in many scientific forums
as well as in scientific studies at home and abroad, since the methodology is
relatively complex, in complete form has never been published in English. We dare
to claim that even the translated publication cannot provide a fully comprehensive
overview of the methodology, since the LANDEP has open character which can
adopt new methods and, therefore, the partial steps are continually innovated.
A quasi-complete overview could be theoretically provided only with a set of
dozens of landscape-ecological plans, prepared with respect to legally adopted
planning procedures, which is not possible to contain in a single methodological
monograph, neither would have reason to collect them to whatever publication.
Landscape planning or relative activities are neither new nor unique.
Nevertheless, we argue that the efforts of scientific teams have not entirely reached
their goals, and only some of them have been really systematically accepted or
found their way into social practice. Exactly, it is one of the notable—and probably
rare—feature of LANDEP, which developed at a scientific institute—in the Institute
of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava since 1967,
was gradually applied to the projecting and planning practice of the 1980s, and later
incorporated as legal norms of spatial planning of Slovakia between 1992 and 2000
(Ružička and Miklós 1979, 1982a, 1990).
Until 1990, the LANDEP was incorporated to spatial planning practice only
because of the good judgement of the leaders of planning and projecting companies
and organisations such as Stavoprojekt in Žilina and Banská Bystrica, URBION in
Bratislava, Office of the Chief Architect in Bratislava, the Agricultural Project
Institute in Bratislava. After the political changes in 1989, the LANDEP method
xxv
xxvi Introduction
together with the almost simultaneously developed method of the Territorial System
of Ecological Stability TSES—which is a specific eco-network projecting method in
Slovak and Czech Republics—were incorporated into the legal system of spatial
planning, namely into the amendments of Act 50/1976 on Territorial Planning and
Building Order as amended by Act 262/1992 and, in particular, by Act 237/2000.
Throughout this period, both methods became regular and routine procedures in the
practical processes in the Slovak Republic.
We developed, applied and we still consider the LANDEP method a base for the
ecologically optimal spatial organisation and utilisation of landscape, as such as a
base for the integrated sustainable landscape management, and, consequently a
base for the spatial/complex protection of the environment (in contrast to the
technological protection of individual components of the environment).
It is to be underlined at the very beginning that the LANDEP method differs
from those landscape plannings which are based on visual structures of landscape,
or are of a character of landscape architecture, greenery design, garden and park
projecting. In LANDEP, the accent is given to the functionality of geosystems for
activities of the man, very much depending on the vertical bonds of the elements of
geosystems from geological substratum up to atmosphere. Mentioned Acts stipulate
that the results of LANDEP are the regulative for technical-planning processes.
This means that they need to be based on solid arguments.Therefore, it was in all
period based on the landscape ecological science, pillared by the understanding
of the landscape as the geosystem. The TSES—as a specific branch and comple-
mentary method to the LANDEP consequently focuses on the spatial structure
of the elements of the landscape. Thus, the mentioned two procedures complete
both basic requirements on the optimum use of the landscape—the vertical–func-
tional and the spatial–organisational optimisation.
The LANDEP methodological approach, from its first adoption in 1979 has
undergone many improvements. So as various experts became involved in the
development process of the methodology, they improved particularly the partial
methods and procedures within each step, especially in the process of interpreta-
tions and evaluations, new techniques were adopted, as GIS. At the same time, it
should be stressed that the methodological basis, material and temporal sequence of
steps and logic of confrontation of landscape with the requirements of human
activities is virtually unchanged.
The principal status of five steps of the LANDEP is still valid. The first two
steps—analyses and syntheses—have the form of fundamental research and result
in the design and characteristics of complex landscape-ecological-spatial units. The
final two steps—evaluations and proposals—address the needs of planning prac-
tice. The intermediate third step of the methodology—interpretations—has the
character of applied research and forms the arguments and criteria for the
assessment of landscape for its utilisation by man (Ružička and Miklós 1982b;
Miklós and Špinerová 2011).
We would like to note here that the LANDEP methodology was also recom-
mended as an integrated approach to landscape management and natural resources
in Agenda 21 from Rio Summit ´92 (Chapter 10, AGENDA 21).
Introduction xxvii
Agenda 21, Chapter 10:

“Government on the appropriate level … should:
Adopt planning and management systems that facilitate the integration of
environmental components such as air, water, land and other natural
resources, using landscape ecological planning (LANDEP) or other
approaches that focus on, for example an ecosystem or a watershed.”
The presented publication aims to give a comprehensive description of the

scientific and methodological surroundings of the methodic of LANDEP, as well as
to the introduction of the methodical procedure of the individual methodical steps
of LANDEP. We consider such a summarising work as important, since in the last
period a huge amount of landscape ecological works named as landscape planning
appeared with a very different content, built up on a very different level of the
scientific approach, sometimes dealing with real planning just by name.
The Graphics and Tables
The graphics, maps, tables and matrixes are of utmost importance in the LANDEP
method. Therefore, the publication is completed by a number of graphics and tables
aiming to complete the picture on the method. They are of different characters.
Partly, they amend the methodical parts of the book complementing the under-
standing of single methodical steps. In the chapters on evaluation and proposition
the tables have even the core importance, the evaluation in LANDEP is based on
the decision table. The other part of graphics and tables have illustrative function,
they should document that the methodical steps are feasible, they have real
implementation and were applied in real studies in model territories. So, they have a
character of concrete examples which illustrate the methodical steps. Since they
relate to one concrete model territory, they do not have real factual information
relevance. It is to be also underlined that we included to the publication map
illustrations from different territories, from studies in different time periods, in
different scales. Some of the older figures which we consider from the methodical
point of view as important are even hand drawings. In opposite, a number of
illustrations is the result of computer processing with GIS techniques. These
information were collected mostly in detailed scales, are basically stored elec-
tronically. Nevertheless, the hard copies presented in the publication cannot display
all those details, they are obviously essentially generalised and on lower graphical
quality. The reason we annexed them to the book is the illustration of methodical
step. For the readers may be of higher worth not the map design but probably the
map legend, which bears the information on the map content. We consider all
figures fulfil the above-mentioned functions.
xxviii Introduction
All figures, graphics and tables are created by the authors of the publication
(including also copyright of the authors). The most comprehensive works were
presented in the publications Miklós (1978)—model territory Gemerské Turce
catchment, Miklós et al. (1985)—the Ecological General Model of Czechoslovakia,
Miklós et al. (1986)—East Slovakian Lowland, Miklós and Hrnčiarová (2002)—
Landscape Atlas of Slovak Republic, Miklós et al. (2011)—Ipeľ river catchment,
Špinerová (2010, 2015)—Ilijský creek catchment.
References
Miklós L (1978) Náčrt biologického plánu povodia Gemerských Turcov. VEDA, Bratislava,
Questiones Geobiologicae, 21:127
Miklós L et al (1985) Ekologický generel ČSSR. Časť SSR. I. etapa: Priestorová diferenciácia
územia z ekologického hľadiska. Záverečná správa P16-121-402/01. ČSŽP Bratislava. ÚEBE
CBEV SAV Bratislava, Stavoprojekt Banská Bystrica
Miklós L, Hrnčiarová T (eds) (2002) Atlas krajiny Slovenskej republiky. 1. vydanie, MŽP SR
Bratislava, SAŽP Banská Bystrica
Miklós L, Izakovičová Z, Kanka R, Ivanič B, Kočický D, Špinerová A, David S, Piscová V,
Štefunková D, Oszlányi J, Ábrahámová A (2011) Geografický informačný systém povodia
Ipľa: Katalóg GIS a výber máp. Bratislava: Ústav krajinnej ekológie SAV: Katedra UNESCO,
Fakulta ekológie a environmentalistiky, Technická univerzita vo Zvolene: Esprit Banská
Štiavnica
Miklós L, Kozová M, Ružička M et al (1986) Ekologický plán využívania Východoslovenskej
nížiny v mierke 1:25 000. Ekologická optimalizácia využívania VSN. ÚEBE SAV Bratislava,
Slovosivo. III. diel, pp 5–312
Miklós L, Špinerová A (2011) Krajinno-ekologické plánovanie LANDEP [The Landscape-
ecological Planning LANDEP]. Harmanec, VKU
Ružička M, Miklós L (1979) Teoretické a metodologické základy biologického plánovania kra-
jiny. Záverecná správa úlohy VI-3-5/1. Bratislava, ÚEBE SAV
Ružička M, Miklós L (1982a) Landscape-Ecological Planning (LANDEP) in the Process of
Territorial Planning. Ekológia (ČSSR), l:297–3l2
Ružička M, Miklós L (1982b) Metodické poznatky ekologického hodnotenia územia pre zónu a
sídelný útvar (na príklade Rimavskej Soboty). VEDA, Bratislava, Acta Ecologica, 9, 26, pp 74
Ružička M, Miklós L (1990) Basic premises and methods in landscape-ecological planning and
optimisation. In: Zonnenveld IS, Forman RTT (eds) Changing Landscapes: an ecological
perspectives, Springer Verlag, New York, pp 233–260
Špinerová A (2010) Krajinno-ekologické limity poľnohospodárskeho využitia Ilíjskeho potoka.
VKÚ, a.s., Harmanec
Špinerová A (2015) Štruktúra krajiny ako regulátor dynamiky pohybu vody a materiálu. Zvolen,
Vydavateľstvo TU vo Zvolene
Chapter 1
Principles, Theoretical
and Methodological Background
of Landscape-ecological Planning
Abstract The methodology of landscape-ecological planning LANDEP is

reflected in the law and is incorporated to the practice of particular spatial planning
procedures in Slovakia. First chapter of the book deals with different understandings
of spatial planning procedures and compares them to LANDEP. LANDEP represents
a spatial approach to the protection of the environment. Its methodology, content and
practice correspond with the principles of the integrated landscape management
defined since AGENDA 21 from Rio Summit 1992 in all relevant environmental
political documents, in particular, the following:
• cross-departmental conception: sectorial integration, partnership,
• over-regionality: spatial integration, regional cooperation,
• complex approach to the environment: professional integration, landscape-
ecological complexity.
The chapter defines the main institutional spatial planning procedures supported by
relevant law in Slovakia and their relations to the integrated landscape management
and LANDEP. These tools are divided into four groups as follows:
• the information base of integrated landscape management,
• landscape-ecological framework for integrated landscape management: the
LANDEP, Territorial System of Ecological Stability TSES and the territorial plan-
ning,
• the sectoral spatial management and planning instruments as nature conservation
and landscape protection; river basin management; flood prevention, agricultural
land consolidations projects; forest management plans,
• instruments for control and assessment of the impact of planning procedures on the
environment as environment impact assessment and strategic impact assessment
(E.I.A., S.E.A) and Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control (IPPC).
As the LANDEP is by legislation assigned in Slovakia to the territorial planning,
which according to its content represents the most integrating concept with respect
to the aforementioned principles, the chapter discusses the act on territorial planning
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

L. Miklós and A. Špinerová, Landscape-ecological Planning LANDEP,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94021-2_1
2 1 Principles, Theoretical and Methodological Background …
in detail. The material object of LANDEP is defined as landscape as a geosystem.

The final subchapter deals with those aspects of geosystems which relate to the
particular methodical steps of the LANDEP procedure defines the relevant models,
structures, elements and properties of geosystems including the most frequent values
of indicators of properties.
Keywords LANDEP · Territorial planning · Integrated management · Planning

tools · Geosystem
The LANDscape-Ecological Planning LANDEP (in Russian LANDshaftno-

Ekologicheskaya Planirovka—hence the abbreviation responding to two languages,
Ružička and Miklós 1982b, 1990) is primarily a kind of spatial planning—the plan-
ning of the ecological optimum spatial organisation and functional utilisation of
the territory. It is to state that the definition and understanding of the terms rela-
tive to the landscape-ecological planning are far not unified (Finka et al. 2008). The
following section explains briefly the relations of these terms.
1.1 What Is Landscape-ecological Planning?
The main planning aspects—the spatial organisation, arrangement of objects and

activities, a form of space management—appear in all definitions of the most general
term ‘spatial planning’. The Compendium of European planning systems defines
the general task of all spatial plannings as ‘the future distribution of activities in
space’ (Compendium 1997). So, all spatial plannings should bear the aspects of pro-
posal, future, space and arrangement (Europäische … 1983; Resolution … 1990;
Williams 1996; European Spatial … 1999; Spatial planning … 2008). Koresawa and
Konvitz (2001) define the role of spatial planning as ‘coordination of sectoral poli-
cies such as transport, agriculture and environment’. The spatial planning includes
also the landscape-ecological elements, it concerns the whole territory and the total
landscape (Fabos 1979; Spitzer 1995).
Nevertheless, many times the ‘spatial’ plans are driven and covers the planning
of urbanised territories with less regards to rest of landscape (McHarg 1969; Gol-
ley, Bellot 1991; Hall 1992; Newman and Thornley 1996; Belčáková et al. 2003;
Antrop 2004; Izakovičová et al. 2017). These approaches are close to plannings
clearly oriented to urbanised territories, in spite of that the definitions intend to
define them more generally, e.g. Cullingworth and Nadin (2006) define the role of
‘town and country planning’ as ‘coordination or integration of the spatial dimension
of sectoral policies through a territorially-based strategy’. So, the terms ‘land-use
planning, regional planning, urban planning, and urban design’ are often used
interchangeably (Alterman 2001).
1.1 What Is Landscape-ecological Planning? 3
In concern to the presented book it is to be clarified that the spatial planning in

Slovakia is marked in exact translation as ‘territorial planning’ (územné plánovanie).
Also, the very basic, still valid, legal tool is named as Act on the Territorial Planning
and Building Order (Act No. 50/1976 Coll. and its later ammendments). So, we
shall use the term ‘territorial planning’ throughout the book in the sense of spatial
planning in all cases when it concerns the Slovakian practice (Hreško et al. 2003).
Another very frequently used term, which is by the content very similar to
LANDEP, is marked as ‘land-use plan’. In slight contrary to the general spatial
plans, the land-use plans tend to concentrate on non-urbanised part of the landscape,
mostly to agricultural land. The compendium Spatial Planning (2008) defines the
land-use planning as ‘… systematic assessment of land and water potential, alterna-
tive patterns of land use and other physical, social and economic conditions, for the
purpose of selecting and adopting the land-use options which are most beneficial to
land users without degrading the resources or the environment …’
The Canadian Institute of Planners (2013) included to the definition also the
aesthetic aspect as ‘land-use planning means the scientific, aesthetic, and orderly
disposition of land, resources, facilities and services with a view to securing the
physical, economic and social efficiency, health and well-being of urban and rural
communities’. This concept is covered by very rich literature of both theoretical and
practical character (e.g. Young 1986, 1993; Land-use planning applications 1991;
Guidelines 1993; Verhaeye 2004; Wehrmann 2012; Mederly et al. 2012; Rao et al.
2015).
The land-use planning in last decades is many times marked as multifunctional
planning, considering the landscape a multifunctional entity (Brandt 2003; Brandt
et al. 2000; Brandt and Vejre 2004; Mander et al. 2006).
To spatial planning procedures belong also tools for the environmental care in
spatial sense, sometimes referred to as ‘environmental planning’ (Buchwald 1980;
Barančoková et al. 2010). In fact, all the above-mentioned spatial planning processes
consider itself as important instruments for the environmental care and for sustain-
able development (Miklós 1992; Mederly and Hudeková 2005; Petrovič et al. 2011;
Silberstein and Maser 2013; Brandt et al. 2013a, b).
Probably the most popular kind of spatial planning in last decades is the ‘landscape
planning’ (different to landscape-ecological planning!), which is oriented to the eval-
uation and arrangement of land cover, very much insisting on the values, aesthetics,
cultural features, historical landscapes (Hreško et al. 2015). This approach is closed to
‘landscape architecture’, sometimes marked as ‘landscaping’. The landscape plan-
ning, landscaping, has also very rich literature (Marsh 1997; Rega 2014; Ružička
et al. 2010; Belčáková 2013a). However, numerous landscape planning projects were
developed by landscape ecologists or geographers (Breuste et al. 2009; Kozová, Pau-
ditšová, Mišíková 2010; Jones et al. 2013). This approach is very much supported
by the provisions of the European Landscape Convention (2000).
Also, very popular among landscape ecologists is the projection of ‘ecological
networks’ (Fabos 1996; Ahrend et al. 1992; Cook and van Lier 1994; Jongman 1996).
A specific method of ecological network planning in former Czechoslovakia has been
developed parallel to the LANDEP method named “Territorial System of Ecological
4 1 Principles, Theoretical and Methodological Background …
Stability TSES” (Lőw 1984; Miklós et al. 1985; Buček et al. 1986; Jančura et al. 1994;
Izakovičová 1996; Diviaková 2010). The main task of TSES project is the design of
the spatial frame of TSES—the spatial distribution of biocorridors, biocentres and
interactive elements—and the proposal of ecostabilising measures, which enables
the functioning of this frame (Miklós, Diviaková, Izakovičová 2011).
We would like to point out in relation to above-defined spatial planning procedures
that many concepts referred to as ‘planning’ and ‘landscape planning’ have the
character of various applied studies, which may indicate the possibilities to apply their
findings to planning practice, but they have not reached the step of real planning
yet. The predecessors of LANDEP, so-called biological plans, were also of such a
character (Drdoš 1967; Miklós 1978; Oťaheľ 1978). Other concepts, which aspired
to be landscape plans, lacked the character of plans too, e.g. the concept of landscape
synthesis and diagnosis (Drdoš et al. 1980; Mazúr et al. 1983). Although their name
accurately reflects their content—they indeed contained syntheses which resulted
in landscape diagnosis—they were not plans. Many other studies have a similar
character, e.g. the studies on topochores (Hynek and Trnka 1981), highly elaborated
concept of landscape potentials (Haase 1978; Drdoš 1983; Drdoš 1992; Tremboš
1993), and various other procedures of landscape ‘evaluations’. They saw the most
rapid development in the early 1990s (e.g. Zonneveld and Forman 1990; Reitsmaa
1990; Haase 1991; Barsch and Saupe 1993; Bastian and Schreiber 1994; Langevelde
1994; Žigrai 1994; Minár et al. 1995; Oťaheľ, Lehotský, Ira 1997). On the other hand,
in the past, as well as, nowadays, there are landscape-ecological studies which, in
spite that they are not named ‘planning’, show planning aspects, e.g. the ‘classical’
works of McHarg (1969), who discussed design with nature, but also other authors
(Fabos 1979; Huba 1982; Buček et al. 1986; Haber 1990; Oťaheľ 1994; Halada et al.
1995; Hrnčiarová et al. 1997; Bezák et al. 2017). Perhaps, it was the boom of applied
landscape-ecological works of the 1990s and their comparison with the real state
of landscape-ecological planning which inspired J. Drdoš to conduct a realistic and
critical evaluation of the activities of geographers and landscape ecologists in this
area (Drdoš 1995).
In any case, since then no significant methodological breakthrough or quantitative
advancement in development of the transformation of collected landscape-ecological
results into planning practice has been observed (Kerényi 2007). It can be even
argued that the applied part of the methodology—the methods of objective evalua-
tion of the suitability of landscape properties for performing various social activities
have not progressed sufficiently. We have rather seen a quantitative growth of stud-
ies discussing applied research. Numerous studies labelled as landscape planning
represent a collection of application methods of landscape evaluation (Kozová and
Bedrna 2003; Sklenička 2003; Kozová et al. 2007; 2010; Izakovičová and Moyzeová
2007; Moyzeová 2008; Breuste et al. 2009; Machar and Kovář 2010; Mizgajski and
Markuszewska 2010; Izakovičová et al. 2011a). The application of GIS technologies
has also greatly expanded the possibilities for evaluating spatial relations in the land-
scape (Miklós et al. 1986; Hreško et al. 2003; Gercsák 2011; Konečný et al. 2012;
Kocsis et al. 2016a, b). Many other methods of analyses, syntheses and interpreta-
tions were continuously developed, even not always under the designation landscape
1.1 What Is Landscape-ecological Planning? 5
ecology (Zonneveld 1995). According to Antrop (2013) ‘more and more scientific
disciplines borrow methods and techniques from others, especially when they offer
innovations’. This is one of the possible reason why there is a gap, although, hope-
fully, not a void anymore, between science and practice still persists (Antrop 2013).
Nevertheless, although these works do not have a planning character, it does not
mean that they are not valuable scientific works. In opposite, they could produce
important methodical knowledge usable also in planning procedures.
Recently, new applied landscape-ecological concepts have emerged which focus
also on determination of value of the landscape for various human activities. This
concept—slightly biased and influenced by fashion mainstream trends—is referred
to as an evaluation of ecosystem services (Constanza 1997; Kienast et al. 2007;
de Groot et al. 2010; Iverson et al. 2014; Grunewald and Bastian 2015). This con-
cept penetrated also to the decision-making processes and to landscape management
(Mederly et al. 2015). Although there is an indisputable positive influence of this
concept on the overall acceptance of natural sciences in the development, it also
raises a lot of, yet, unresolved methodological issues, scientific distortions and sim-
plifications, whereas the potential of previous similar methodologies has certainly
not been fully exploited (Bezák et al. 2017).
Most of the authors consider the landscape-ecology as a basic science for the above
mentioned planning tools (Opdam et al. 2002; Izakovičová and Moyzeová 2007;
Csima and Dublinszki-Boda 2008; Brandt et al. 2013). The landscape-ecological
character of LANDEP stems from the Central European understanding of landscape
ecology as a complex scientific discipline which studies the landscape as a geosys-
tem with both its natural and socio-economic spheres (Armand 1949; Mičian 1982;
Csorba 1987; Ružička and Miklós 1990; Haase 1991; Barsch et al. 1993; Trem-
boš 1993; Bastian and Schreiber 1994; Brandt 1999; Mizgajski and Markuszewska
2010). Thus, the object of landscape-ecological planning is landscape as a geosys-
tem with its entire complexity of vertical and topical relations, and not only its visible
components, as the term landscape is often assumed.
For the scientific basement of the landscaping could be considered the landscape
ecology in the sense of Formann and Godron (1981) based on the assessment of spatial
structure, sometimes other approaches. Many such landscape-ecological projects
were developed ‘not always under the designation ‘landscape ecology’, but as part of
landscape stewardship, landscape architecture and, first and foremost, environmental
or urban and landscape planning.’ (Zonneveld 1995).
Finally, to the family of ecologically biased spatial plannings belongs also our
Landscape-Ecological Planning LANDEP.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
His contribution to Somatology was a series of measurements on
arms; and he discovered that the fore-arm of the Negro is longer, in
comparison with his upper-arm, than that of the European, and that
that of the Ape is relatively longer than that of the Negro. On account
of these measurements on the living (no less than fifty Negroes were
measured), White has been claimed as the founder of
Anthropometry. Soemmerring (1755-1830), however, had made use
of measurements in his comparison of the anatomy of the Negro with
the European.
Measurements About the middle of the nineteenth century
and observations on the living were made, in addition
Observations of to Anthropometry; investigations were undertaken,
Living
not of the skulls and bones of the dead, or even of
Populations.
the head-forms and body-measurements of the
living, but of the forms of such features as the nose and ear,
pigmentation of the skin and eyes, and the like. As early as 1834 L.
R. Villermé had started investigations on the various classes of the
population of Great Britain, comparing the dwellers in the country
with those of manufacturing districts and large cities, mainly in the
interests of hygiene; and later he examined the size and health of
children working in coal-mines.
In 1861 the venerated Dr. John Beddoe published a study of hair
and eye colour in Ireland, and he has continued his researches in
this fruitful field from time to time in various parts of the British Isles,
and to a less extent on the continent of Europe.
But it was on the continent that this method of investigation was
most ardently prosecuted; and the story of its political origin may
here be briefly recounted, since the results were of great service to
the science of Anthropometry.
During the bombardment of Paris, in the Franco-Prussian War, the
Natural History Museum suffered some damage through shells; and
soon afterwards the director, de Quatrefages, published a pamphlet
on La Race Prussienne (1871). This was to show that the Prussians
were not Teutonic at all, but were descended from the Finns, who
were classed with the Lapps as alien Mongolian intruders into
Europe. They were thus mere barbarians, with a hatred of a culture
they could not appreciate; and their object in shelling the museum
was “to take from this Paris that they execrate, from this Babylon that
they curse, one of its elements of superiority and attraction. Hence
our collections were doomed to perish.” A reply was made by
Professor Virchow, of Berlin, and the battle raged furiously. The
significance of this controversy to Anthropometry lies in the fact that
its immediate result was an order from the German Government
authorising an official census of the colour of the hair and eyes of
6,000,000 school children of the Empire—a census which served at
once as a stimulus to and a model for further investigators.
This census had some amusing and unexpected results, quoted
by Dr. Tylor[29] as illustrating the growth of legends:—
29. Pres. Add. Brit. Ass., 1879.
No doubt many legends of the ancient world, though not really history,
are myths which have arisen by reasoning on actual events, as definite
as that which, some four years ago, was terrifying the peasant mind in
North Germany, and especially in Posen. The report had spread far and
wide that all Catholic children with black hair and blue eyes were to be
sent out of the country, some said to Russia; while others declared that it
was the King of Prussia who had been playing cards with the Sultan of
Turkey, and had staked and lost 40,000 fair-haired, blue-eyed children;
and there were Moors travelling about in covered carts to collect them;
and the schoolmasters were helping, for they were to have five dollars for
every child they handed over. For a time popular excitement was quite
serious; the parents kept their children away from school and hid them,
and when they appeared in the streets of the market town the little ones
clung to them with terrified looks.... One schoolmaster, who evidently
knew his people, assured the terrified parents that it was only the children
with blue hair and green eyes that were wanted—an explanation that sent
them home quite comforted.
Observations of external characters, combined with precise

measurements, have now been made on a large scale in most
European countries, and these methods are adopted on
anthropological expeditions. In this way a great deal of valuable
material for study has been accumulated, but much work remains to
be done in this direction.
Methods of Not only have head, body, and limb
Dealing with measurements been recorded, but the device of
Anthropometric an “index” has been adopted which gives the ratio
Data. between two measurements, as, for example, in
the previously-mentioned cephalic index (p. 34).
The averages or means of series of indices obtained from one
people have been compared with those obtained from other peoples;
but this method is misleading, as there is frequently a very
considerable range in any given series, and a mean merely gives a
colourless conception of racial types, the only value of which is a
ready standard of comparison, which, however, is full of pitfalls.
A further step in the advancement of anthropometric research was
made when the extent and frequency of such deviations from the
mean were recorded. At first this was done in a tabular manner by
means of seriations; then curves were employed: a single peak was
held to indicate purity of race, double peaks that two racial elements
entered into the series measured, a broad peak or plateau was
interpreted as being due to race fusion. Dr. C. S. Myers,[30] who has
discussed these and other methods, points out the fallacies of this
interpretation, saying: “There can be little doubt that most of the
many-peaked curves owe their irregularity to the inadequate number
of individual measurements which have been taken.”
30. C. S. Myers, “The Future of Anthropometry,” Journ. Anth. Inst., xxxiii., 1903,
p. 36.
Dr. Myers emphatically states:—

If physical anthropology is to be a science, its results must be capable
of expression in mathematical formulæ. To this end some of the most
interesting of biological work of the age is tending ... generally speaking,
the study of living forms is passing from the descriptive to the quantitative
aspect, and it is by experiment and observation on biometrical lines that
future progress is clearly promised.... Thanks to the recent work of
Professor Karl Pearson, the proper start has at last been made.
His school is now attacking by statistical methods the problem of the

dependence of the variation of one character upon that of another. It
should be remembered that Quetelet was the first to apply the
Gaussian Law of Error to human measurements in its elementary
binomial form; in this he was followed by Sir Francis Galton, who
was the first in this country to realise the importance of applying
mathematical methods to anthropological measurements and
observations. An interesting account of the genesis of his work in
this direction is given in his Memories of My Life (1908). Similar work
has also been undertaken by German investigators.
Scientific and We may conclude this chapter with a brief
Practical Value summary of the main lines which investigations
of are now taking; but it is impossible to mention
Anthropometry.
even the more important of recent workers in this
vast field.
From the beginning of the study, anthropometry was employed as
a precise means of expressing the differences between man and the
lower animals; and, owing to improved methods of research and the
discovery of new material, the origin and differentiation of man is still
investigated with assiduity.
Though no one measurement can be used for purposes of race
discrimination, yet a series of measurements on a sufficiently large
group of subjects, together with observations on the colour of the
skin, hair, and eyes, the form of various organs—such as the nose
and ears—and other comparisons of a similar nature, are invaluable
in the study of the races of mankind. It is only in this way that the
mixtures of the population can be sorted out, their origins traced, and
some idea gained of the racial migrations which have taken place
since man first appeared.
Through the initiative of Sir Francis Galton, as Dr. Myers points
out, anthropometry has begun to investigate other problems which
must ultimately be of ethnological interest; and he has opened out
the whole subject of heredity, which eventually must enter into every
branch of physical anthropology. The followers of Mendel are at
present laying a foundation upon their experiments with plants and
animals. At present very little attention has been paid by them to
man; nor, probably, can much be attempted until more precise data
are available.
Lamentably little is known with accuracy about the physical and
psychical effects of the mixture of different human types, and it is yet
to be determined how far the admitted unsatisfactory character of
many half-caste populations is due to physiological or sociological
causes.
There is a great dearth of sufficiently numerous and reliable
observations and statistics concerning the effect of the environment
upon small or large groups of human beings—a problem to which
Professor Ridgeway devoted his last presidential address to the
Royal Anthropological Institute (1910).
It is often important that the physical fitness of people should be
tested, in order to see how they stand in relation to other people, and
to discover any physical imperfections. Especially is this desirable in
the case of children; and the government inspection of school
children, though inadequate, is a step in the right direction. By such
means early inclinations to various defects are discovered and
prevented, and valuable statistics are obtained which can not only be
utilised for comparative purposes, but may form a basis for future
legislation. It is also a matter of importance to determine whether
certain imperfections are due to diseased, abnormal, or other
undesirable factors in their parentage; or whether they are the
results of unfavourable subsequent conditions. But in order that
comparisons can be made, it is necessary to make similar
investigations on the normal, capable, and healthy population.
Another branch of investigation was undertaken mainly for the
identification of criminals, and consisted in certain measurements
selected by M. Alphonse Bertillon, supplemented by photographs
and a record of individual peculiarities. The practical value of this
method of identification in France was demonstrated by its
immediate results. Criminals began to leave off aliases, and
numbers of them flocked to England. Finger-prints as a means of
identification were first discovered by Purkenje, the Breslau
physiologist (1823), who utilised them for classification. Sir William
Herschel, of the Indian Civil Service, adopted the method in Bengal,
and now methods introduced by Sir Francis Galton are in use in
India, England, and elsewhere, having in most cases supplanted the
Bertillon system.
Chapter III.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES
Next to geographical discovery, perhaps the most stimulating

influence on Anthropology has been the succession of controversies
in which it has constantly been involved. It has always been
regarded as a somewhat anarchical subject, advocating views which
might prove dangerous to Church and State; and many are the
battles which have raged within and without. Huxley attributed the
large audiences which were wont to throng the Anthropological
Section of the British Association to the innate bellicose instincts of
man, and to the splendid opportunities afforded by Anthropology for
indulging those propensities.[31]
31. Add. Brit. Ass., Dublin, 1878.
The discussions of the earlier centuries were focussed round the

question of the origin of man, and from this highly debateable
problem arose the two antagonistic groups of the monogenists, or
orthodox school, deriving all mankind from a single pair, and the
polygenists, who believed in a multiple origin. Before the discoveries
of prehistoric archæology had advanced sufficiently to show the
futility of such discussion, anthropologists were split up into opposing
camps by the question of the fixity of species, and became
embroiled in one of the fiercest controversies of modern times—that
of evolution. A subordinate subject of contention, implicated in the
polygenist doctrines, was the place of the Negro in nature, involving
the question of slavery.
Origin of Man.
Among the ancient philosophers the question of
the origin of man was answered in various ways;
some, like Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, believed that mankind
had always existed, because there never could have been a
beginning of things, relying on the scholastic argument that no bird
could be born without an egg, and no egg without a bird. Epicurus
and Lucretius believed in a “fortuitous cause,” a preparation of fat
and slimy earth, with a long incubation of water and conjunction of
heavenly and planetary bodies. Others, that men and animals
“crawled out of the earth by chance,” “like mushrooms or blite.”
With the spread of Christianity the Mosaic cosmogony became
generally adopted, and monogenism developed into an article of
faith. The Church fulminated against those atheists who admitted
doubts on the subject of Adam and Eve, or believed in the existence
of antipodal man, or that man had existed for more than the 6,000
years allotted to him by Scripture. If the censure of the Church did
not lead to recantation, the heretic was burnt. A seventeenth-century
divine, Dr. Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge,
was even more precise than Archbishop Ussher: he reached the
conclusion that “man was created by the Trinity on October 23, 4004
B.C., at nine o’clock in the morning.”[32]
32. Clodd, Pioneers of Evolution, quoting from White, Warfare of Science with
Theology.
The discovery of the New World dealt a severe blow to the

authority of the Fathers on matters of science. Antipodal man, whom
St. Augustine[33] had extinguished as “excessively absurd,” was
found to exist, and the Spaniards forthwith excused their barbarities
to the American natives on the plea that they were not the
descendants of Adam and Eve.
33. De Civitate Dei.
Polygenism and Henceforward the polygenists began to gain
Monogenism. ground. Theophrastus Paracelsus (1520) first
asserted the plurality of the races of mankind, and explained the
Mosaic cosmogony as having been written “theologically—for the
weaker brethren.” Vanini (1616) mentions a belief, entertained by
atheists, that man was descended from or allied to monkeys. In 1655
Isaac de la Peyrère, a Calvinist scholar of Bordeaux, published in
Amsterdam his Præ-Adamitæ, to prove that Adam and Eve were not
the first human beings upon the earth; and his work, being prohibited
by authority, became immensely popular.
His theory, though unorthodox, was founded on Scripture, and
regarded Adam and Eve as merely a special and much later
creation; the Gentiles, who peopled the rest of the earth, having
been formed from the dust of the earth, together with the beasts of
the field, on the sixth day. The inhabitants of the New World, which,
being separate from the Old, could not have been peopled with the
same race, were of Gentile origin. This theory was bitterly opposed.
The Parlement of Paris caused the book to be publicly burned. The
Inquisition laid hands on the author, and he was forced to abjure
both his Pre-Adamite heresy and his Calvinism. He died in a convent
in 1676.
The writings of the Encyclopedists, the freedom of thought claimed
by Voltaire and Rousseau, together with the classification of species
by Linnæus, emboldened the polygenists. Lord Kames[34] was one of
the earliest exponents in England, and he soon found many
followers. Two separate lines of antagonism may be distinguished in
the controversy. In one—the Anglo-French—Prichard, Cuvier, and de
Quatrefages represent the monogenists, and Virey and Bory de
Saint-Vincent the polygenists; the other, in which America and the
slavery question were implicated, polygenists and anti-abolitionists
going hand-in-hand, was represented by Nott and Gliddon in
America, Knox and Hunt in England, and Broca in France.
34. Sketches on the History of Man, 1774.
When materials began to accumulate they were detrimental to the
polygenist theory. Especially was this the case with regard to the
proof of what Broca termed “eugenesis”—i.e., that all the Hominidæ
are, and always have been, fertile with each other. This, which
formed a test between species and varieties in Botany and Zoology,
was claimed also in Anthropology, and the polygenists had to seek
for support elsewhere. They found it in Linguistics; “language as a
test of race” bulked large in ethnological controversy, and is not yet
entirely extinct.
At first the monogenists claimed language as supporting their
views. All languages were to be traced to three sources—Indo-
European, Semitic, and Malay; and these, in their turn, were the
offspring of a parent tongue, now entirely lost. But it was soon found
impossible to reconcile even Aryan and Semitic, and a common
parent for all three languages was inconceivable. The linguistic
argument then passed over to the polygenists.
Hovelacque stated that “the ascertained impossibility of reducing a
multiplicity of linguistic families to a common centre is for us
sufficient proof of the original plurality of the races that have been
developed with them.” M. Chavée[35] went further. “We might,” he
says, “put Semitic children and Indo-European children apart, who
had been taught by deaf mutes, and we should find that the former
would naturally speak a Semitic language, the latter an Aryan
language.” F. Müller and others took up this line of argument, holding
that distinct stock languages proved the existence of distinct stock
races. But, as Professor Keane points out, in his summary of the
controversy (1896, chap. vii.), quod nimis probat, nihil probat—what
proves too much, proves nothing—and the hundred or more stock
languages in America alone, reduced the argument to an absurdity.
35. See Topinard, 1878, p. 424.
Monogenists. Among the monogenists may be included most
of the older anthropologists—Linnæus, Buffon,
Blumenbach, Camper, Prichard, and Lawrence. Since they held that
all mankind was descended from a single pair (the question as to
whether this pair were white, black, or red, occasioned a further
discussion), they had to account for the subsequent divergence
producing the present clearly-recognised varieties; and, in so doing,
anticipated the theory of evolution, which was not clearly enunciated
until the time of Lamarck.
Linnæus believed in fixity of species, but had doubts about the
Biblical account. As a naturalist, he found it difficult to credit the
exceptional nature of a country which had supplied the wants of
zoological species as opposed to one another as the polar bear and
the tropical hippopotamus. Buffon ascribed the variations of man to
the influence of climate and diet. Though Prichard and Lawrence
both denied the possibility of the transmission of acquired
characters, Prichard believed that the transmission of occasional
variations might, to some extent, account for the diversities of races.
[36]
Lawrence wrote more clearly: “Racial differences can be
explained only by two principles—namely, the occasional production
of an offspring with different characters from those of the parents, as
a native or congenital variety; and the propagation of such varieties
by generation.” He considered that domestication favoured the
production of these congenital and transmissible variations, and,
anticipating the Eugenic school, deplored the fact that, while so
much care and attention was paid to the breeding of domestic
animals, the breeding of man was left to the vagaries of his own
individual fancy.
36. In an essay entitled “A Remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views on
Evolution,” Professor E. B. Poulton draws attention to the ideas expressed in
the first and second editions of the Researches, by Prichard, “one of the
most remarkable and clear-sighted of the predecessors of Darwin and
Wallace.... It is an anomaly that such works as the Vestiges should attract
attention, while Prichard’s keen insight, sound judgment, and balanced
reasoning on many aspects of organic evolution, and especially on the scope
of heredity, should remain unknown.” Essays on Evolution, 1908, pp. 192,
175.
Lawrence. Sir William Lawrence (1783-1867) was
appointed Professor of Anatomy and Surgery to
the Royal College of Surgeons at the early age of thirty-two. His
lectures on “Comparative Anatomy, Physiology, Zoology, and the
Natural History of Man,” delivered between 1816 and 1818, raised
an immediate outcry; and the author (to use his own words) was
charged “with the unworthy design of propagating opinions
detrimental to society, and of endeavouring to enforce them for the
purpose of loosening those restraints in which the welfare of
mankind exists.” Lawrence was forced to bow before the storm of
abuse, and announce publicly that the volumes had been
suppressed, as he was refused copyright. It is interesting to note that
these lectures are among those at present recommended for the use
of students of Anthropology.
Lawrence was far in advance of his time, and much of his teaching
may be said to have anticipated the doctrine of evolution.
Unfortunately, the theological protest raised by his lectures—
published when he was only thirty-five—resulted in his forsaking
Anthropology altogether, and he henceforward devoted himself
entirely to anatomy and surgery.
Lord Monboddo. Another prophet in advance of his times was
Lord Monboddo. James Burnett Monboddo (1714-
1799) was regarded as one of the most eccentric characters of the
eighteenth century, mainly on account of his peculiar views about the
origin of society and of language, and his theories as to the
relationship of man with the monkeys. He was deeply interested in
all the current accounts of “tailed men,” thus justifying Dr. Johnson’s
remark that he was “as jealous of his tail as a squirrel.” Later
students of his writings are less struck by these eccentricities, which
afforded endless jests to the wags of the age, than by his scientific
methods of investigation and his acute conclusions. He not only
studied man as one of the animals, but he also studied savages with
a view to elucidating the origin of civilisation.
Many other pre-Darwinian evolutionists might be mentioned, but
Professor Lovejoy’s caution must be noted:—
The premature adoption of a hypothesis is a sin against the scientific
spirit; and the chance acceptance by some enthusiast of a truth in which,
at the time, he has no sound reason for believing, by no means entitles
him to any place of honour in the history of science.[37]
37. Pop. Sci. Monthly, 1909, p. 499.
The first to enunciate a coherent theory of evolution—that of

Transformism or Transmutation—was Lamarck.[38]
38. De Maillet and Robinet had already outlined part of the Lamarckian doctrine.
Lamarck. Lamarck (1744-1829) believed that species
were not fixed, but that the more complex were
developed from pre-existent simpler forms. He attributed the change
of species mainly to physical conditions of life, to crossing, and
especially to use or disuse of organs, which not only resulted in the
modification, growth, or atrophy of some, but, under the stress of
necessity, led to the formation of new ones. “La fonction fait
l’organe.” He also held that changes produced in the individual as
the result of environment were transmitted to the offspring. Organic
life was traced back and back to a small number of primordial germs
or monads, the offspring of spontaneous generation. Man formed no
exception. He was the result of the slow transformation of certain
apes.
Lamarck’s views were first published in 1801, and were enlarged
in his Philosophie Zoologique, 1809.
Cuvier. Lamarck’s chief opponent was Cuvier (1769-
1832), Professor of Natural History and of
Comparative Anatomy in Paris, who, besides being the recognised
authority on zoology (his great book, Le Règne Animal, was long the
standard work on the subject), was even more renowned as an
anatomist. He upheld the theory of Catastrophe, of alternate
destructions and regenerations, against the new theories of
Transformism and Evolution.
According to this widely accepted belief, the universe was subject
to violent terrestrial revolutions, involving the destruction of all
existing things and the total annihilation of all living beings belonging
to the past epoch.
The theory was by no means new; it was current in the East in the
thirteenth century. In a book written by Mohamed Kaswini on the
wonders of nature, he tells the following tale:—
In passing one day by a very ancient and extremely populous city, I
asked of one of the inhabitants who founded their city. He replied to me:
“I know not, and our ancestors knew no more than we do on this point.”
Five hundred years afterwards, passing by the same place, I could not
perceive a trace of the city. Inquiring of one of the peasants about the
place when it was that the city was destroyed, he answered me: “What an
odd question you put to me; this country has never been otherwise than
as you see it now.” I returned there after another five hundred years, and
I found in the place of the country I had seen—a sea. I now asked of the
fishermen how long it was since their country became a sea; and he
replied that a person like me ought to know that it had always been a sea.
I returned again after five hundred years; the sea had disappeared, and it
was now dry land. No one knew what had become of the sea, or if such a
thing had ever existed. Finally, I returned once more after five hundred
years, and I again found a flourishing city. The people told me that the
origin of their city was lost in the night of time.[39]
39. Quoted from R. Knox, Anth. Rev., i., 1863, p. 263.

Cuvier’s position was supported by the evidence brought to
France by Napoleon’s scientific expedition to Egypt (1801). Here
were seen numbers of mummified animals, probably dating back
some three to four thousand years, but showing no appreciable
difference from existing types. This was held to demolish the theory
of evolution by proving the immutability of species.
Étienne Saint- Étienne Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844), the
Hilaire. zoologist on the Egyptian expedition, interpreted
the results differently, and was one of the most brilliant supporters of
Lamarck. In 1828 he published his convictions that the same forms
have not been perpetuated since the origin of all things, though he
did not believe that existing species were undergoing modification.
Cuvier returned to the charge, and in 1856 propounded his doctrine
of the periodical revolutions of the earth, of the renewal each time of
the flora and fauna, and of the incessant and miraculous intervention
of a creative Will. And for a time, owing to his position and authority,
he held the field.
Robert In 1844 appeared a book which had an
Chambers. enormous influence on the pre-Darwinian history
of Evolution. This was an anonymous work entitled Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation, the authorship of which was not revealed
until the publication of the twelfth edition in 1884. It was the
production of Robert Chambers (1802-1871), co-editor with his
brother William of Chambers’s Journal, and author of many books on
Scotland and a few on science. He traced the action of general laws
throughout the universe as a system of growth and development,
and held that the various species of animals and plants had been
produced in orderly succession from each other by the action of
unknown laws and the influence of external conditions. The Vestiges
became at once the centre of scientific discussion, denounced by the
orthodox, and held “not proven” by most of the men of science of the
time. Its supporters were called “Vestigiarian,” a term which implied
also “unscientific,” “sentimental,” and “absurd.”
The curious point is that in the Vestiges we find much of what was
subsequently called the Darwinian theory already enunciated.
According to Wallace, it clearly formulated the conception of
evolution through natural laws, and yet it was denounced by those
who soon after were to become the champions of Darwinism. This
was partly due to the way in which the doctrine was treated and
expressed, partly also to the “needless savagery” of Professor
Huxley.
Huxley wrote in 1887: “I must have read the Vestiges ... before
1846; but, if I did, the book made very little impression on me.... I
confess the book simply irritated me by the prodigious ignorance and
thoroughly unscientific habit of mind manifested by the writer.”
Professor Lovejoy[40] explains the reasons for Huxley’s attitude:—
40. Loc. cit.
The truth is that Huxley’s strongly emotional and highly pugnacious

nature was held back by certain wholly non-logical influences from
accepting an hypothesis for which the evidence was practically as potent
for over a decade before he accepted it as it was at the time of his
conversion. The book was written in a somewhat exuberant and
rhetorical style. With all its religious heterodoxy, it was characterised by a
certain pious and edifying tone, and was given to abrupt transitions from
scientific reasoning to mystical sentiment. It contained numerous
blunders in matters of biological and geological detail; and its author
inclined to believe, on the basis of some rather absurd experimental
evidence, in the possibility of spontaneous generation. All these things
were offensive to the professional standards of an enthusiastic young
naturalist, scrupulous about the rigour of the game, intolerant of
vagueness and of any mixture of the romantic imagination with scientific
inquiry.... He therefore, in 1854, almost outdid the Edinburgh Review in
the ferocity of his onslaught upon the layman who had ventured to put
forward sweeping generalisations upon biological questions while
capable of errors upon particular points which were palpable to every
competent specialist.
Huxley refers to this review as “the only review I ever have had
qualms of conscience about, on the grounds of needless savagery.”
Darwin more mildly described it as “rather hard on the poor author.”
Indeed, he confessed to a certain sympathy with the Vestiges; while
Wallace, in 1845, expressed a very favourable opinion of the book,
describing it as “an ingenious hypothesis, strongly supported by
some striking facts and analogies.”
The strongest testimony to the value of Chambers’s work is that of
Mr. A. W. Benn, who writes in Modern England, 1908, concerning the
Vestiges:—
Hardly any advance has since been made on Chambers’s general
arguments, which at the time they appeared would have been accepted
as convincing, but for theological truculence and scientific timidity. And
Chambers himself only gave unity to thoughts already in wide
circulation.... Chambers was not a scientific expert, nor altogether an
original thinker; but he had studied scientific literature to better purpose
than any professor.... The considerations that now recommend evolution
to popular audiences are no other than those urged in the Vestiges.
Herbert Spencer. The next great name among the pre-Darwinian

evolutionists is that of Herbert Spencer. About
1850 he wrote:—
The belief in organic evolution had taken deep root (in my mind), and
drawn to itself a large amount of evidence—evidence not derived from
numerous special instances, but derived from the general aspects of
organic nature and from the necessity of accepting the hypothesis of
evolution when the hypothesis of special creation had been rejected. The
special creation belief had dropped out of my mind many years before,
and I could not remain in a suspended state: acceptance of the only
possible alternative was imperative.[41]
41. Duncan, Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer, 1898, II., 317.
This suspended state, the tätige Skepsis of Goethe, was just what
Huxley was enjoying; in his own words, “Reversing the apostolic
precept to be all things to all men, I usually defended the tenability of
received doctrines, when I had to do with the transmutationists; and
stood up for the possibility of transmutation among the orthodox.”
Thus, up to the date of the publication of the Origin of Species,
scientific opinion was roughly divided into two opposing camps: on
one side were the classic, orthodox, catastrophic, or creationist
party, who believed in the fixity of species, and that each species
was the result of special miraculous creation; on the other, the
evolutionists or transmutationists, who rejected special creation, and
held that all species were derived from other species, by some
unknown law.
It was the formulation of this unknown law that makes 1859 an
epoch in the history of Anthropology.
Charles Darwin. Darwin’s work may best be summed up in the
words of his loyal and self-effacing co-worker,
Alfred Russel Wallace:—
Before Darwin’s work appeared the great majority of naturalists, and
almost without exception the whole literary and scientific world, held
firmly to the belief that species were realities, and had not been derived
from other species by any process accessible to us ... [but] by some
totally unknown process so far removed from ordinary reproduction that it
was usually spoken of as “special creation.”... But now all this is changed.
The whole scientific and literary world, even the whole educated public,
accepts, as a matter of common knowledge, the origin of species from
other allied species by the ordinary process of natural birth. The idea of
special creation or any altogether exceptional mode of production is
absolutely extinct.... And this vast, this totally unprecedented, change in
public opinion has been the result of the work of one man, and was
brought about in the short space of twenty years.
Huxley describes the attitude towards the theory in the year

following the publication of the Origin of Species: “In the year 1860
there was nothing more volcanic, more shocking, more subversive of
everything right and proper, than to put forward the proposition that,
as far as physical organisation is concerned, there is less difference
between man and the highest apes than there is between the
highest apes and the lowest.... That question was not a pleasant one
to handle.” But the “horrible paradoxes of one generation became
the commonplaces of schoolboys”; and the “startling proposition” of
1860 was, twenty years later, a “fact that no rational man could
dispute.”[42]
42. Add. Brit. Ass., 1878, Dublin.
This question of the difference between man and the apes was
embittered by the personal encounter between Huxley and Owen.
Professor Owen, in 1857, stated that the hippocampus minor, which
characterises the hind lobe in each hemisphere in the human brain,
is peculiar to the genus Homo. This Huxley denied;[43] and, as neither
disputant would acknowledge that he was mistaken, the question
became “one of personal veracity.”
43. “It is not I who seek to base man’s dignity upon his great toe, or to insinuate
that we are lost if an ape has a hippocampus minor.”—Anth. Rev., I., 113.
As a possible explanation of this famous dispute, it is interesting to

note the discovery announced by Professor D. J. Cunningham of the
absence of this cavity on one side of the brain of an orang-utan, with
the suggestion that Owen “may in the first instance have been
misled by an abnormal brain of this kind.”[44]
44. Cunn. Mem., II., R.I.A., p. 128.
The further history of the development, expansion, and curtailment

of the Darwinian theory as such lies beyond the scope of this little
book. The criticisms of sexual selection and of the origin of the
higher mental characters of man by Wallace; the denial of the
inheritability of acquired characters by August Weismann and others;
the orthogenesis theory of Theodore Eimer, the “mutation” theory of
Hugo de Vries and Mendel’s researches—all opened up lively
controversies, and the field of science is still clouded with the smoke
of their battles.
The ferment provoked by the publication of Darwin’s Origin of
Species profoundly affected, as was natural, the nascent science of
Anthropology. At the meeting of the British Association in Nottingham
in 1866 Dr. James Hunt read an address before the Anthropological
Department to show that “the recent application of Mr. Darwin’s
hypothesis of ‘natural selection’ to anthropology by some of Mr.
Darwin’s disciples is wholly unwarranted either by logic or by
facts.”[45] In this address he said that he still believed the deduction
he had made three years previously—“that there is as good reason
for classifying the negro as a distinct. species from the European as
there is for making the ass a distinct species from the zebra; and if,
in classification, we take intelligence into consideration, there is a far
greater difference between the negro and the European than
between the gorilla and chimpanzee.” He insisted that
“anthropologists are bound to take the totality of the characteristics
of the different types of man into consideration. “It is to be regretted,
however,” Dr. Hunt continues, “that there are many writers in
Germany who have recently written as though the question of man’s
place in nature were settled”; but he is delighted to find that
“Professor Carl Vogt is doing all he can to show the fallacy of the
unity hypothesis.” He quotes Professor Vogt as saying: “This much is
certain, that each of these anthropoid apes has its peculiar
characters by which it approaches man.... If, in the different regions
of the globe, anthropoid apes may issue from different stocks, we
cannot see why these different stocks should be denied further
development into the human type, and that only one stock should
possess this privilege. The further we go back in history the greater
is the contrast between individual types, the more opposed are the
characters.”
45. Anth. Rev., iv., 320.
The controversies and discussions of this period were not confined
to those who had technical knowledge or scientifically trained minds.
All sorts of people joined in the fray, mainly because they fancied
that the new ideas were subversive of “revealed religion”; but it
would serve no useful purpose to recall the false statements and
bitter expressions that were bandied about. Some had merely a
sentimental objection to the doctrine of evolution; but at the present
day most people would subscribe to the declaration of Broca, who
wrote: “Quant à moi, je trouve plus de gloire à monter qu’à
descendre et si j’admettais l’intervention des impressions
sentimentales dans les sciences, je dirais que j’aimerais mieux être
un singe perfectionné qu’un Adam dégénéré.”[46]

Textbook Landscape Ecological Planning Landep Laszlo Miklos Ebook All Chapter PDF

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

Textbook Landscape Ecological Planning Landep Laszlo Miklos Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landscape-ecological Planning

LANDEP László Miklós

Sustainable Landscape Planning in Selected Urban

Encyclopedia of Landscape Design Planning Building and

A Comparative Political Ecology of Exurbia Planning

Bim for Landscape Architecture Landscape Institute

Ecological Networks and Territorial Systems of

Active Landscape Photography Theoretical Groundwork for

The Socio cultural and ecological perspectives on

Ecological Political Economy and the Socio-Ecological

ISBN 978-3-319-94020-5 ISBN 978-3-319-94021-2 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946604

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Landscape planning, landscaping, is a very attractive concept for geographers,

But what about the almost identical term—landscape-ecological planning? First,

Zvolen, Slovakia László Miklós

1 Principles, Theoretical and Methodological Background

2 Landscape-ecological Planning, LANDEP—A Tool

5.3.2 Interpretation of the Protection Degree

ABC Abiotic Complex (Abiocomplex)

NATURA 2000 Network of Sites of Community Importance and Protected Bird

Fig. 1.1 The interrelations of the institutional instruments of integrated

Fig. 3.3 Illustrations of analytical maps: indicator of a biocomplex

and waste landﬁll; 22—road; 23—parking lot; 24—water tank;

Rimavská Basin. TLEC: 10—on alluvial plains, 11—on hilly

Fig. 5.11 The value of entropy HCLand caused by the diversity of

Table 1.1 Influence of ecologically optimal spatial organisation of the

Table 3.9 Frequently used typological characteristics of the SEF bound

Table 5.9 Vulnerability of the real vegetation types by selected

It needs to be explained right at the beginning why we decided to devote the

Agenda 21, Chapter 10:

The presented publication aims to give a comprehensive description of the

The Graphics and Tables

Abstract The methodology of landscape-ecological planning LANDEP is

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

in detail. The material object of LANDEP is defined as landscape as a geosystem.

Keywords LANDEP · Territorial planning · Integrated management · Planning

The LANDscape-Ecological Planning LANDEP (in Russian LANDshaftno-

1.1 What Is Landscape-ecological Planning?

The main planning aspects—the spatial organisation, arrangement of objects and

In concern to the presented book it is to be clarified that the spatial planning in

Observations of external characters, combined with precise

Dr. Myers emphatically states:—

His school is now attacking by statistical methods the problem of the

Next to geographical discovery, perhaps the most stimulating

The discussions of the earlier centuries were focussed round the

The discovery of the New World dealt a severe blow to the

37. Pop. Sci. Monthly, 1909, p. 499.

The first to enunciate a coherent theory of evolution—that of

39. Quoted from R. Knox, Anth. Rev., i., 1863, p. 263.

The truth is that Huxley’s strongly emotional and highly pugnacious

Herbert Spencer. The next great name among the pre-Darwinian

Huxley describes the attitude towards the theory in the year

As a possible explanation of this famous dispute, it is interesting to

The further history of the development, expansion, and curtailment

You might also like