Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material A. Examples of national landscape classifications and the main determinants of the classification

Main determinants of classification

Additional landscape information

Country

National landscape assessment

Land cover

Geomorphology/

Biophysical

Landscape character assessment (LCA)

Other

Landscape structure

Land management

Austria

SINUS- cultural landscape types1

X

 

Supporting field survey included data on landscape elements and structural attributes

Current status of intensity and human influence based on supporting field survey

Belgium

Landscape characters of Belgium2

X

 

Landscape metrics based on land cover information; landscape heterogeneity based on remote sensing data (entropy of image reflectance)

 

Traditional landscapes of Flanders3

X

 

Linear elements as descriptive component of “relic zones”

Use of historical land use maps and expert information on field structure

Czech Republic

Types of contemporary landscape4

X

 

-

-

Germany

Valuable landscapes/landscapetypes in Germany 5

X

 

Areas with hedges separately characterized

Information on parcel structures used in classification, e.g. “structure-rich landscapes” (strukturreiche kulturlandschaft)

Denmark

Cultural landscapes of Denmark6

 

-

-

Estonia

Landscape region map 7

X

 

-

-

Great Britain

Countryside Character Initiative – England8

X

 

LCA: Areas of common character defined based on regional information on, e.g. land use, enclosure/field and settlement patterns. A distinct pattern of elements in the landscape is further identified by a descriptive field survey

 

Scottish National Programme of Landscape Character Assessment8,9

X

 

 

Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment10

X

 

 

Landmap – Cultural landscape (Wales)11

X

Hungary

Natural landscape units12

X

 

-

-

 

Landscape types13

 

-

-

Ireland

Agricultural regions14

Agricultural production regions broadly delineated

n.a

n.a

Italy

Landscape unit map15

X

 

-

-

Lithuania

Map of physiomorphotopes of the Lithuanian landscape

(Natural landscapes and landscapes of cultivation)16

X

 

Architectonic characteristics of the landscape are identified

-

 

Map of technomorphotopes of the Lithuanian landscape

(Urban to natural gradient)16

Overlay urban gradient and population density

-

-

Netherlands

Landscape types17

X

 

-

-

Portugal

Landscape characterisation in Portugal18

X

 

See LCA

Slovakia

The natural (reconstructed) and present landscape structures of Slovakia assessed by the CORINE land cover database19

X

 

-

-

Slovenia

Landscapes20

X

 

-

-

Spain

Spanish landscape atlas21

X

 

-

-

1(Peterseil et al., 2004; Schmitzberger, Szerencsits, & Wrbka, 2001)2(Van Eetvelde & Antrop, 2009)3(Antrop, Van Eetvelde, Janssens, Martens, & Van Damme, 2002)4(Hrnciarová, 2009)5(Gharadjedaghi et al., 2004)6(Nordic Council of Ministers, 1987)7(Arold, 2005) 8(Swanwick, 2002)9(Julie Martin Associates & Swanwick, 2003)10(ERM Ireland Ltd, 2004)11(Alister, 2002; Countryside Council for Wales, 2013)12(Sándor, 1967)13(Márton, 1989)14(Aalen, Whelan, & Stout, 1997)15(Amdio et al., 2002)16(Kavaliauskas & Veteikis, 2006)17(Farjon, De Bont, Kalkhoven, Koomen, & Nieuwenhuizen, 2002)18(Pinto-Correia, Cancela d’Abreu, & Oliveira, 2003)19(Otahel et al., 2000)20(Fridl & Bogataj, 2001) 21(Mata Olmo & Sanz Herrainz, 2003)

References

Aalen, F. H. A., Whelan, K., & Stout, M. (1997). Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape. Cork: Cork University Press.

Alister, S. (2002). Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landscape Research, 27(3), 271–295.

Amdio, V., Amadei, M., Bagnaia, R., Di Bucci, D., Laurenti, L., Lisi, A., … Lugeri, N. (2002). The role of geomorphology in landscape ecology: the landscape unit map of Italy 1: 250000. In R. J. Allison (Ed.), Applied Geomorphology: Theory and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V., Janssens, J., Martens, I., & Van Damme, S. (2002). Traditionele Landschappen van Vlaanderen (Traditional Landscapes of Flandres). Ghent University, Geography Department.

Arold, I. (2005). Eesti maastikud (Estonian landscapes). Tartu.: Tartu ülikooli kirjastus.

Countryside Council for Wales. (2013). LANDMAP. Retrieved August 01, 2013, from http://www.ccw.gov.uk/interactive-maps/landmap.aspx

ERM Ireland Ltd. (2004). Landscape Character Assessment of Co. Clare.

Farjon, J. M. J., De Bont, C. H. M., Kalkhoven, J. T. R., Koomen, A. J. M., & Nieuwenhuizen, W. (2002). Naar een Steekproef Landschap, ontwerp van een methode en pilotstudie (Based on a landscape sample study, method design and pilot study). Alterra-rapport 359. Wageningen.

Fridl, J., & Bogataj, J. (2001). National Atlas of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Rokus.

Gharadjedaghi, B., Heimann, R., Lenz, K., Martin, C., Pieper, V., Schulz, A., … Riecken, U. (2004). Verbreitung und Gefährdung schutzwürdiger Landschaften in Deutschland (Distribution and endangerment of valuable landscapes in Germany). Natur Und Landschaft, 79(2), 71–81.

Hrnciarová, T. (2009). Atlas krajiny Ceské republiky (Landscape atlas of the Czech Republic). Praha: Ministerstvo ̌zivotního prosťredí ̌Ceské republiky.

Julie Martin Associates, & Swanwick, C. (2003). Overview of Scotland’s Heritage, Programme of Landscape Character Assessment’.

Kavaliauskas, P., & Veteikis, D. (2006). Lietuvos Respublikos kraštovaizdžio erdvinės struktūros įvairovės ir jos tipų identifikavimo studija (Study of landscape spatial structure diversity and its types identification in the Republic of Lithuania). Vilnius: VU GMF geografijos ir kraštotvarkoskatedra.

Márton, P. (1989). Magyarország nemzeti atlasza (National Atlas of Hungary). Budapest: Cartographia.

Mata Olmo, R., & Sanz Herrainz, C. (2003). Atlas de los Paisajes de Espaňa (Spanish landscape atlas). Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de Espaňa.

Nordic Council of Ministers. (1987). Natur- og kulturlandskapet i arealplanleggingen. 1. Regioninndeling av landskap. (Nord 1987:029). Copenhagen, Denmark.

Otahel, J., Feranec, J., Pravda, J., Husar, K., Cebecauer, T., & Suri, M. (2000). The natural (reconstructed) and present landscape structures of Slovakia assessed by the CORINE land cover database. Geographia Slovaca, 16.

Peterseil, J., Wrbka, T., Plutzar, C., Schmitzberger, I., Kiss, A., Szerencsits, E., … Beissmann, H. (2004). Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes—the SINUS approach. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 307–320.

Pinto-Correia, T., Cancela d’Abreu, A., & Oliveira, R. (2003). Landscape Units in Portugal and the development and application of Landscape Indicators. In W. Dramstad & C. Sogge (Eds.), Agricultural Impacts on Landscapes. Developing Indicators for Policy Analysis. Oslo: NIJOS / OECD.

Sándor, R. (1967). National Atlas of Hungary. (R. Sándor, Ed.). Budapest: Cartographical establishment “Cartographia.”

Schmitzberger, I., Szerencsits, E., & Wrbka, T. (2001). Do Satellite image derived landscape types support conservation planning? Examples from Austria and Europe. In Ü. Mander, A. Printsmann, & H. Palang (Eds.), Development of European Landscapes. (pp. 491–493). Tartu: Institute of Geography University of Tartu.

Swanwick, C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland.

Van Eetvelde, V., & Antrop, M. (2009). A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 160–170.

Supplementary Material B. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between an independent validation dataset and interpolated LUCAS point data on field size using ordinary kriging (OK).

The average value of 5 random points within a sampling square is compared with the average value within a 10 x 10 km sampling square based on the OK map.

n

OK

Europe

150

0.41**

Scandinavia

34

0.25

Western Europe

39

0.21

Eastern Europe

42

0.40**

Southern Europe

35

0.43*

*Significance levels: <0.01.

**Significance levels: <0.001.

Supplementary Material C. Expert-based typology landscape classification decision tree

Supplementary Material D. All possible class combinations and related areas for the expert-based typology.

Land cover

Input intensity

Scale

Landscape structure

Area (km2)

Arable

Extensive

Small

Open

17565

Medium

Open

172620

Large

Open

17587

Extensive

Small

Enclosed

941

Medium

Enclosed

4348

Large

Enclosed

173

Intensive

Small

Open

26836

Medium

Open

289765

Large

Open

24662

Intensive

Small

Enclosed

1567

Medium

Enclosed

13608

Large

Enclosed

820

Very intensive

Small

Open

15909

Medium

Open

171804

Large

Open

13669

Very intensive

Small

Enclosed

1431

Medium

Enclosed

7881

Large

Enclosed

99

Grassland

Extensive

Small

Open

5955

Medium

Open

42197

Large

Open

2488

Extensive

Small

Enclosed

1006

Medium

Enclosed

11637

Large

Enclosed

464

Intensive

Small

Open

9596

Medium

Open

73944

Large

Open

2291

Intensive

Small

Enclosed

5155

Medium

Enclosed

71045

Large

Enclosed

546

Mosaic

Extensive

Small

Open

10180

Medium

Open

47314

Large

Open

2718

Extensive

Small

Enclosed

4648

Medium

Enclosed

9863

Large

Enclosed

287

Intensive

Small

Open

13087

Medium

Open

55641

Large

Open

2247

Intensive

Small

Enclosed

7298

Medium

Enclosed

18867

Large

Enclosed

242

Very intensive

Small

Open

3578

Medium

Open

16600

Large

Open

398

Very intensive

Small

Enclosed

1863

Medium

Enclosed

4337

Large

Enclosed

10

Permanent crops

Small

Open

2780

Medium

Open

11734

Large

Open

1221

Small

Enclosed

520

Medium

Enclosed

993

Large

Enclosed

44

Supplementary Material E. Detailed legend for the agricultural landscapes as delineated by the SOM-based typology.

Supplementary Material F. Mean values of non-standardized input datasets for the different landscape clusters as delineated by the SOM-based typology.

Clusters

Arable land

Grassland

Mosaic

Permanent Crops

Field size

Green Lines

Nitrogen input

1

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.1

0.0

1.5

2

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

0.0

1.7

3

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

1.0

1.9

4

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.6

5

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.7

1.0

1.7

6

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

1.0

2.1

7

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

1.9

8

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

2.0

9

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

3.0

10

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.8

0.1

0.4

11

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.0

0.0

1.0

12

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

1.9