IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6408-d569092.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Landscape Persistence Assessment of Częstochowa Upland: A Case Study of Ogrodzieniec, Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Żemła-Siesicka

    (Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia, 41200 Sosnowiec, Poland)

  • Urszula Myga-Piątek

    (Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia, 41200 Sosnowiec, Poland)

Abstract

Landscape permanence is understood as the temporal extent of the dominance of a given type of landscape, expressed by the temporal continuity of its use. This issue, already being the subject of much research, is important in proper landscape protection and management. In this paper, spatial landscape persistence and persistence of particular landscape types are presented for the Ogrodzieniec municipality, Częstochowa Upland, Poland. In addition, a background of landscape types and their changes in the Częstochowa Upland has been presented. Based on current and historical topographic maps, landscape types (forest, agriculture, settlement, fortified and industrial) were identified for the following studied periods: 1831, 1944, 1965, 2007, 2014 and 2020. After overlapping the maps, the persistence index was calculated, and isochrones of landscape persistence were determined. The term ‘landscape isochrones’ introduced in this paper is defined as theoretical lines of equal landscape time duration (iso-persistence line). The results show that the landscape of Ogrodzieniec can be considered to be persistent. The largest area of the municipality is occupied by the most permanent landscapes dating from before 1831. The most persistent is the fortified landscape. The method applied is important for planning sustainable development of the region, which is currently under intense tourist and economic pressure.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Żemła-Siesicka & Urszula Myga-Piątek, 2021. "A Landscape Persistence Assessment of Częstochowa Upland: A Case Study of Ogrodzieniec, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6408-:d:569092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6408/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6408/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schulp, Catharina J.E. & Levers, Christian & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Tieskens, Koen F. & Verburg, Peter H., 2019. "Mapping and modelling past and future land use change in Europe’s cultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 332-344.
    2. Elisabeth Marquard & Stephan Bartke & Judith Gifreu i Font & Alois Humer & Arend Jonkman & Evelin Jürgenson & Naja Marot & Lien Poelmans & Blaž Repe & Robert Rybski & Christoph Schröter-Schlaack & Jar, 2020. "Land Consumption and Land Take: Enhancing Conceptual Clarity for Evaluating Spatial Governance in the EU Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Philip J. Burton, 2010. "Striving for Sustainability and Resilience in the Face of Unprecedented Change: The Case of the Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak in British Columbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(8), pages 1-21, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Decoville, Antoine & Feltgen, Valérie, 2023. "Clarifying the EU objective of no net land take: A necessity to avoid the cure being worse than the disease," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Jelena Živanović Miljković & Omiljena Dželebdžić & Nataša Čolić, 2022. "Land-Use Change Dynamics of Agricultural Land within Belgrade–Novi Sad Highway Corridor: A Spatial Planning Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Shangyi Zhou & Weilin Xu, 2018. "Interpreting the Inheritance Mechanism of the Wu Yue Sacred Mountains in China Using Structuralist and Semiotic Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Jinming Yang & Shimei Li & Huicui Lu, 2019. "Quantitative Influence of Land-Use Changes and Urban Expansion Intensity on Landscape Pattern in Qingdao, China: Implications for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Schatz, Eva-Maria & Bovet, Jana & Lieder, Sebastian & Schroeter-Schlaack, Christoph & Strunz, Sebastian & Marquard, Elisabeth, 2021. "Land take in environmental assessments: Recent advances and persisting challenges in selected EU countries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Pahlavani, Parham & Sheikhian, Hossein & Bigdeli, Behnaz, 2020. "Evaluation of residential land use compatibilities using a density-based IOWA operator and an ANFIS-based model: A case study of Tehran, Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. Tomasz Rokicki & Aleksandra Perkowska & Bogdan Klepacki & Piotr Bórawski & Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska & Konrad Michalski, 2021. "Changes in Energy Consumption in Agriculture in the EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, March.
    8. Susana Silva & Paulo Carvalho, 2022. "Historic Gardens Heritage in Portugal: From the Originality of an Art to the Inventory Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
    9. Rita Nicolau & Beatriz Condessa, 2022. "Monitoring Net Land Take: Is Mainland Portugal on Track to Meet the 2050 Target?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-31, July.
    10. Chuai, Xiaowei & Yuan, Ye & Zhang, Xiuying & Guo, Xiaomin & Zhang, Xiaolei & Xie, Fangjian & Zhao, Rongqin & Li, Jianbao, 2019. "Multiangle land use-linked carbon balance examination in Nanjing City, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 305-315.
    11. Vermeiren, Karolien & Crols, Tomas & Uljee, Inge & De Nocker, Leo & Beckx, Carolien & Pisman, Ann & Broekx, Steven & Poelmans, Lien, 2022. "Modelling urban sprawl and assessing its costs in the planning process: A case study in Flanders, Belgium," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    12. Gösta F. M. Baganz & Daniela Baganz, 2023. "Compensating for Loss of Nature and Landscape in a Growing City—Berlin Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Orsi, Francesco & Ciolli, Marco & Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Mapping hotspots and bundles of forest ecosystem services across the European Union," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Luis Gomes & Tânia Nobre & Adélia Sousa & Fernando Rei & Nuno Guiomar, 2020. "Hyperspectral Reflectance as a Basis to Discriminate Olive Varieties—A Tool for Sustainable Crop Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, April.
    15. Xiaowei Chuai & Jiqun Wen & Dachang Zhuang & Xiaomin Guo & Ye Yuan & Yue Lu & Mei Zhang & Jiasheng Li, 2019. "Intersection of Physical and Anthropogenic Effects on Land-Use/Land-Cover Changes in Coastal China of Jiangsu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    16. Francesco Botticini & Armands Auzins & Peter Lacoere & Odette Lewis & Michela Tiboni, 2022. "Land Take and Value Capture: Towards More Efficient Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-28, January.
    17. Roman Réh & Ľuboš Krišťák & Miloš Hitka & Nadežda Langová & Pavol Joščák & Miloš Čambál, 2019. "Analysis to Improve the Strength of Beds Due to the Excess Weight of Users in Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, January.
    18. Jelena Živanović Miljković & Vesna Popović & Aleksandra Gajić, 2022. "Land Take Processes and Challenges for Urban Agriculture: A Spatial Analysis for Novi Sad, Serbia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, May.
    19. René Ulloa-Espíndola & Susana Martín-Fernández, 2021. "Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Changes Applying Cellular Automata in the South of Quito and the Machachi Valley, Province of Pichincha, Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-25, August.
    20. Hjalager, Anne-Mette & Staunstrup, Jan Kloster & Sørensen, Michael Tophøj & Steffansen, Rasmus Nedergård, 2022. "The densification of second home areas — sustainable practice or speculative land use?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6408-:d:569092. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.