G V 2012 EOGRAFSKI ESTNIK 84-1 Special Issue on the Occasion of the 32nd International Geographical Congress in Cologne ZVEZA GEOGRAFOV SLOVENIJE ASSOCIATION OF SLOVENIAN GEOGRAPHERS L'ASSOCIATION DES GÉOGRAPHES SLOVÉNES GEOGRAFSKI VESTNIK GEOGRAPHICAL BULLETIN BULLETIN GÉOGRAPHIQUE 84-1 2012 GEOGRAPHICAL TIDBITS FROM SLOVENIA Special Issue on the Occasion of the 32nd International Geographical Congress in Cologne ZVEZA GEOGRAFOV SLOVENIJE ASSOCIATION OF SLOVENIAN GEOGRAPHERS L'ASSOCIATION DES GÉOGRAPHES SLOVÈNES GEOGRAFSKI VESTNIK GEOGRAPHICAL BULLETIN BULLETIN GÉOGRAPHIQUE 84-1 2012 GEOGRAPHICAL TIDBITS FROM SLOVENIA Special Issue on the Occasion of the 32nd International Geographical Congress in Cologne Edited by: Matija Zorn Rok Ciglic Drago Perko ČASOPIS ZA GEOGRAFIJO IN SORODNE VEDE BULLETIN FOR GEOGRAPHY AND RELATED SCIENCES BULLETIN POUR GÉOGRAPHIE ET SCIENCES ASSOCIÉES LJUBLJANA 2012 GEOGRAPHICAL TIDBITS FROM SLOVENIA Matija Zorn, Rok Ciglič, Drago Perko © 2012, Association of Slovenian Geographers - Zveza geografov Slovenije ISSN: 0350-3895 COBISS: 3590914 UDC: 91 http://zgs.zrc-sazu.si/en-us/publications/geographicalbulletin.aspx (ISSN: 1580-335X) GEOGRAFSKI VESTNIK - GEOGRAPHICAL BULLETIN 84-1 2012 Special Issue on the Occasion of the 32nd International Geographical Congress in Cologne International editorial board - mednarodni uredniški odbor: Valentina Brečko Grubar (Slovenia), Rok Ciglič (Slovenia), Predrag Djurovic (Serbia), Sanja Faivre (Croatia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Uroš Horvat (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Ugo Sauro (Italia), Katja Vintar Mally (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) and Walter Zsilincsar (Austria) Editor-in-chief - urednik: Matija Zorn Managing and technical editor - upravnik in tehnični urednik: Rok Ciglič Editors of special issue - uredniki posebne številke: Matija Zorn, Rok Ciglič, Drago Perko Editorial address - naslov uredništva: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija Publisher - izdajatelj in založnik: Association of Slovenian Geographers - Zveza geografov Slovenije DTP - prelom: SYNCOMP d. o. o. Printed by - tisk: SYNCOMP d. o. o. Co-founded by - sofinancer: Slovenian Book Agency - Javna agencija za knjigo Republike Slovenije The journal is indexed in - publikacija je vključena tudi v: CGP (Current geographical publications), FRANCIS, Geobase (Elsevier indexed journals), GeoRef (Database of bibliographic information in geosciences), OCLC WorldCat (Online computer library center: Online union catalog), SciVerse Scopus Front page: Some architectonic tidbits of the National and University Library in Ljubljana designed by Jože Plečnik in 1931 and built in 1941. Photographer: Marko Zaplatil. Naslovnica: Nekaj arhitektonskih poslastic Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice v Ljubljani, ki je bila zgrajena leta 1941 po načrtih Jožeta Plečnika iz leta 1931. Fotograf: Marko Zaplatil. CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana 913(497.4)(082) GEOGRAPHICAL tidbits from Slovenia : special issue on the occasion of the 32nd International Geographical Congress in Cologne / edited by Matija Zorn, Rok Ciglič, Drago Perko. - Ljubljana : Association of Slovenian Geographers = Zveza geografov Slovenije, 2012. - (Geografski vestnik = Geographical bulletin = Bulletin géographique, ISSN 0350-3895 ; 84, 1) ISBN 978-961-91456-3-0 1. Zorn, Matija 261936128 6 CONTENTS FOREWORD ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 Matija Zorn, Rok Ciglič, Drago Perko ARTICLES Drago Perko, Matija Zorn Geography in Slovenia........................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Rok Ciglič, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe ........................................................................23 Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global classification methods..................................39 Bojan Erhartič, Matija Zorn Geodiversity and geomorphosites research in Slovenia ................................................................................................................51 Gregor Kovačič, Nataša Ravbar, Metka Petrič, Janja Kogovšek Latest research on karst waters in Slovenia and their significance....................................................................................65 Martin Knez, Tadej Slabe Karstology in motorway construction on Classical Karst..........................................................................................................77 Darko Ogrin Climate research on Slovenian territory in pre-instrumental period: weather and climate in the 17th Century..............................................................................................................................................87 Matija Zorn, Blaž Komac, Špela Kumelj Mass movement susceptibility maps in Slovenia: The current state................................................................................99 Blaž Komac, Matija Zorn, Domen Kušar New possibilities for assessing the damage caused by natural disasters in Slovenia - The case of the Real Estate Record..............................................................................................113 Aleš Smrekar Environmental awareness in Slovenia through residents' relationship to waste ..............................................129 David Bole Socio-economic characteristics of the Slovene urban system................................................................................................141 Barbara Lampič, Irena Mrak, Irma Potočnik Slavič The impacts of globalization in rural areas of Slovenia: examples from the Pomurje and Goriška regions ....................................................................................................................151 Vladimir Drozg Mobility and the lifestyle of the Slovene population......................................................................................................................163 David Bole, Matej Gabrovec Daily commuters in Slovenia................................................................................................................................................................................171 Dejan Cigale Development patterns of Slovene tourist destinations................................................................................................................187 Marjan Ravbar The role of creativity in geographic studying of human resources in Slovenia ..................................................199 Stanko Pelc Geographical marginality as a research topic in Slovenian geography......................................................................209 Anton Gosar From ethnic to national: political geography in Slovenia........................................................................................................219 Mimi Urbanc, Jerneja Fridl Education for active citizenship in spatial-planning processes: from teacher to student........................227 Drago Kladnik Slovenian geography and geographical names....................................................................................................................................237 7 FOREWORD After Slovenia attained independence in 1991, three volumes about Slovenia were issued to inform the international geographic community about this nation state and geographic research on it: • Slovenia, Geographic Aspects of a New Independent European Nation, published on the occasion of the 27th International Geographical Congress of the International Geographical Union (IGU) at Washington in 1992 (9 authors, 10 chapters, 98 pages), • Slovenia: A Gateway to Central Europe, published on the occasion of the 28th International Geographical Congress of the International Geographical Union in the Hague in 1996 (9 authors, 12 chapters, 100 pages), and • Slovenia: A Geographical Overview, published on the occasion of the 30th International Geographical Congress of the International Geographical Union in Glasgow in 2004 (27 authors, 27 chapters, 160 pages). This is the fourth such volume, Geographical Tidbits from Slovenia, which Slovenian geographers have prepared for the 32nd International Geographical Congress of the International Geographical Union in Cologne in 2012. It was published as the first issue of volume 84 of the journal Geografski vest-nik/Geographical Bulletin. This journal is being published by the Association of Slovenian Geographers, which celebrates its 90th anniversary in 2012. This volume presents certain geographic topics that Slovenian geographers have dealt with in recent years. It contains 20 articles by 29 different contributors at various Slovenian research institutions. Matija Zorn, Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko 8 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012, 9-21 Articles ARTICLES GEOGRAPHY IN SLOVENIA AUTHORS Drago Perko, Matija Zorn Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia drago@zrc-sazu.si, matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.si UDC: 910.1(497.4) COBISS: 1.02 ABSTRACT Geography in Slovenia This article discusses the current situation of geography as a discipline in Slovenia. Geography flourished after Slovenia became independent in 1991. The number of geographic publications rose sharply, seminal geographic and cartographic works about Slovenia were published, and up until the onset of the economic crisis there was also an increase in the number of geography researchers, who dealt with an increasingly broad selection of topics. Modern methods, especially connected to geographic information systems, were established. Digital cartography completely replaced traditional methods. After Slovenia joined the European Union in 2004, there was a marked increase in international cooperation by Slovenian geographers, in particular in the widest variety of European and other international projects. The focus of national and international projects has shifted from pure research to applied and targeted research. KEY WORDS geography, cartography, science, geographer, project, research, Slovenia IZVLEČEK Geografija v Sloveniji Prispevek govori o današnjem stanju geografije kot znanosti v Sloveniji. Po osamosvojitvi države leta 1991 se je gegrafija razcvetela. Močno se je povečalo število geografskih publikacij, izšla so temeljna geografska in kartografska dela o Sloveniji, do začetka gospodarske krize je naraščalo tudi število geografov znanstvenikov, ki se ukvarjajo z vse širšim naborom vsebin. Uveljavile so se sodobne metode, predvsem geografski infomacijski sistemi. Digitalna kartografija je povsem spodrinila klasično. Po vstopu Slovenije v Evropsko unijo leta 2004 se je izrazito povečalo mednarodno sodelovanje slovenskih geografov, predvsem v najrazličnejših evropskih in drugih mednarodnih projektih. Težišče nacionalnih in mednarodnih projektov se je s temeljnih raziskav premaknilo k uporabnim in ciljnim raziskavam. KLJUČNE BESEDE geografija, kartografija, znanost, geograf, projekt, raziskava, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on March 1, 2012. 9 Drago Perko, Matija Zorn Geography in Slovenia 1 Historical milestones Until the independence of Slovenia in 1991, Slovenian geography was connected with the development of geography in the Habsburg Monarchy and in Yugoslavia; that is, the states that for long centuries had included most of the territory that comprises Slovenia today. The following are a few of the geographical and cartographic milestones in the past few centuries. These were described in detail up to 1920 by Bohinc (1925) and to the beginning of the 1970s by Ilešič (1979); the period from 1945 to 1990 was described by Vrišer (2007) and Klemenčič (2010), and briefer overviews were written by Kranjec (1964), Vrišer and Šifrer (1978), Gosar (1993a; 1993b; 1994), Perko (2000), Fridl (1998; 2007), and Fridl and Mihevc (2001): • Žiga Herberstein or Siegmund (Sigismund) Freiherr von Herberstein (1486-1566) was a Carniolan diplomat most noted for his extensive writing on the geography, history, and customs of Russia. His work Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii (Notes on Muscovite Affairs), published in 1549, became the main source of knowledge about Russia in Europe. • In 1689, Janez Vajkard Valvasor or Johann Weichard Freiherr von Valvasor (1641-1693) comprehensively described and cartographically presented Slovenian territory between the Alps and the Adriatic Sea, its natural characteristics, the life of its people, and its administrative divisions in the fifteen volumes of Die Ehre defi Hertzogthums Crain (The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola; Slovene Slava Vojvodine Kranjske). For his description of certain karst processes, the author was awarded membership in the Royal Society in London. • In 1853, the first map was published that presented Slovenian territory using exclusively Slovenian place names. It was made by Peter Kozler (1824-1879) and published during a period of political turbulence. Immediately after its publication, this map titled Zemljovid Slovenska dežela in pokrajin (A Map of the Slovenian Land and Provinces) was confiscated and only appeared publicly in 1861. • In 1860 the school geographer and cartographer Blaž Kocen (Blasius Kozenn, 1821-1871) published a school atlas that was later reprinted several dozen times in various languages, and which is still being published under his name in updated editions today (Bratec Mrvaretal. 2011). • Between 1869 and 1877, a series of map sheets were published that comprised the first atlas of the world in Slovenian. It was prepared by Matej Cigale (1819-1889) and later called Atlant (Urbancetal. 2006). • In 1919, a university was founded in the Slovenian capital Ljubljana and geography was introduced. With the founding of the geography department, a base for geographical research was established (Ilešič 1950, 1969; Plut 1989). • In 1922, the Geographical Society was founded, which later grew into the Association of Slovenian Geographers. • In 1925, the association began publishing the journal Geografski vestnik (Geographical Bulletin). • In 1935, Anton Melik (1890-1966), who is considered Slovenia's greatest geographer, prepared a book titled Slovenija (Slovenia), the first general geographical monograph on the country. Four regional volumes followed: Slovenski alpski svet (Slovenia's Alpine World, 1954), Štajerska s Prekmurjem in Mežiška dolina (Styria with Prekmurje and the Mežica Valley, 1957), Posavska Slovenija (The Lower Sava Region of Slovenia, 1959), and Slovensko Primorje (The Slovenian Littoral, 1960). • In 1946, the geographical institute (since 1976 the Anton Melik Geographical Institute) was established by the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts. In 2002 the Institute for Geography (established in 1962) and the Geographical Museum of Slovenia (established in 1946) were joined to the institute. Figure 1: Janez Vajkard Valvasor: Map of Lake Cerknica, supplement to chapter 46 of volume four of The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola. Valvasor was the first to professionally describe and present the »functioning« of an intermittent karst lake. He attempted to explain the periodic appearance and disappearance of the lake with a system of underground currents, catchment basins, and mechanical siphons. He submitted his research findings to the Royal Society in London in 1687 and become a member. ► 10 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Drago Perko, Matija Zorn Geography in Slovenia Figure 2: Kozler's 1853 map Zemljovid Slovenske dežele in pokrajin (A Map of the Slovenian Land and Provinces) marked the borders of Slovenian ethnic territory for the first time. • In 1946 systematic study of the Triglav Glacier began; this is the oldest ongoing geographical and research project in Slovenia. • Between 1968 and 1980 four extensive volumes of Krajevni leksikon Slovenije (Lexicon of Places in Slovenia), edited by Roman Savnik (1902-1987), were published. • In 1972, the first modern Slovenian general geographical atlas, Veliki atlas sveta (Great Atlas of the World), was published. • In 1986, the Commission for the Standardization of Geographical Names of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia was established. Now the commission operates at the geographical institute and is an active member of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names. 12 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles SLOVENIJA tJOkftyUIt ttl tfW.it' i j I - O G K \ :'S K ; ¡Vri,as si .ovrrNiji: Ki.r....... .j.i i'. i J-J alih -M j'jrilrj-idL'h iW dwmi arLhs »[.DViuiJi v 3ljx: in neti bi Figure 3: The three-year project Regional Geography of Slovenia, in which all geographical institutions participated, culminated in the volume Slovenia: Landscapes and People. Figure 4: The three-year project Geographical Atlas of Slovenia involved nearly 200 geographers and experts from other disciplines, cartographers, photographers, and others. • In 1992, at the 27th IGU Congress in Washington, the Association of Slovenian Geographers was accepted as full member into the International Geographical Union. • In 1998, three extensive seminal geography books on Slovenia were published: the general volume Geografija Slovenije (Geography of Slovenia), the regional volume Slovenija - pokrajine in ljudje (Slovenia: Landscapes and People), and Geografski atlas Slovenije (Geographical Atlas of Slovenia), the first national atlas of the country. • In 2005 the first Slovenian Geografski terminološki slovar (Geographical Terminology Dictionary) was published. • In 2006, the Popisni atlas Slovenije (Census Atlas of Slovenia), the first atlas of its kind in Slovenia, was published. • In 2008, the book Slovenia in Focus was published in English in honor of the European Union presidency of Slovenia. 2 Current organization Contemporary Slovenian geography has three major institutional forms: the national association, the research institutes, and the university departments (Gosar 1994). In Slovenia the majority of geographical studies take place at the geographical and karst studies institute and at the geography departments at the universities in Ljubljana, Maribor, and Koper. The Anton Melik Geographical Institute of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (hereinafter: the geographical institute; Natek and Perko 1999) employs 13 Drago Perko, Matija Zorn Geography in Slovenia Figure 5: The Triglav Glacier (above in September 1957, below in September 2007) has nearly disappeared. Systematic study of the glacier began in 1946. This is the oldest geographical project and the oldest ongoing long-term research project in Slovenia. 14 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles thirty-six researchers and three technical aides. The Karst Research Institute of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (hereinafter: the karst studies institute; Slabe 1997) has fourteen researchers and five technical aides. Both institutes are entirely financed through national and international projects. Approximately half of the budget of the geographical institute is represented by European public funds, one third by national public funds, and one-fifth by commercial projects. The budget of the karst studies institute remains predominantly national public funds. The salaries of most of the full-time researchers and lecturers at all three university geography departments are covered by the state. In principal, half of the funding is to be earmarked for teaching and half for research. Departmental employees can receive an additional one-fifth of funding through national and international projects. The Geography Department at the University of Ljubljana's Faculty of Arts (hereinafter: the Ljubljana department; Resnik Planinc and Kušar 2010) employs twenty-one researchers and eight research aids, the Geography Department at the University of Maribor's Faculty of Arts (hereinafter: the Maribor department) has nine researchers, and the Geography Department at the University of Primorska's Faculty of Humanities in Koper, or the Geographical Studies Institute at the University of Primorska's Scientific and Research Centre (hereinafter: the Koper department; Brečko Grubar and Gosar 2011) has eight researchers. Researchers that are simultaneously employed at more than one geographical institute are counted for the institute where their employment share is largest. At both institutes and all three departments there are therefore just over 100 employees altogether, the majority of whom are geographers. Geographers represent about one-half of one percent of all active Slovenian researchers. There are considerably more (about ten times as many) geography teachers. Nearly 800 teachers teach geography at Slovenian primary schools, and nearly 300 in secondary schools (both vocational and college-prep), making somewhat over 1,000 teachers altogether. National public financing of Slovenian geographical studies mostly takes place through the Slovenian Research Agency. The agency classifies the sciences into six groups: • Natural science and mathematics (9 research areas); • Technology (12 research areas); • Medicine (22 research areas); • Biotechnology (6 research areas); • Social sciences (13 research areas); • Humanities (12 research areas). These groups of sciences are headed by research councils, and individual areas (which geography also belongs to) by national coordinators, who are simultaneously members of the research councils. Geography, which also includes karst studies, is traditionally part of the humanities in Slovenia. All of the research areas within the humanities are: history, archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, cultural studies, literary studies, musicology, art history, philosophy, theology, and geography. In 2012 the agency financed five geographical research programs and seven geographical research projects. The research programs are more pure-research oriented; they last from three to six years and are connected to individual geographical institutions. The projects involve more applied research; they last from two to three years, and since 2011 they have connected at least two institutions, of which one must be geographical. The agency invites applications for research projects once a year in general. The titles of the research programs underway in geography (alphabetized by Slovenian name) are: • Geografija Slovenije Geography of Slovenia (geographical institute); • Območja kulturnega stika v integracijskih procesih Areas of cultural contact in integration processes (Koper department); • Raziskovanje krasa Karst research (karst studies institute); 15 Drago Perko, Matija Zorn Geography in Slovenia • Slovenska identiteta in kulturna zavest v jezikovno in etnično stičnih prostorih v preteklosti in sedanjosti Slovenian identity and cultural conscious in linguistic and ethnic contact areas in the past and present (Maribor department); • Trajnostni regionalni razvoj Slovenije Sustainable regional development of Slovenia (Ljubljana department). In terms of their content and the researchers involved, the two programs of the geographical institute and the Ljubljana department are distinctly geographical, whereas the other three are more interdisciplinary. The titles of the research projects underway in geography, alphabetized by Slovenian name (with the head institution), are: • Določanje naravnih pokrajinskih tipov Slovenije z geografskim informacijskim sistemom Determining natural landscape types of Slovenia using a geographic information system (geographical institute); • Evropske multikulturne regije med družbeno-prostorsko konvergenco in divergenco Multicultural European regions between social and spatial convergence and divergence (Koper department); • Meritve in analiza izbranih klimatskih parametrov v kraških jamah: primer sistema Postojnskih jam Measurement and analysis of climatic parameters in karst caves: An example from the Postojna Caves system (karst studies institute); • Povečanje učinkovitosti in aplikativnosti preučevanja naravnih nesreč s sodobnimi metodami Increasing the effectiveness and applicability of research on natural disasters using modern methods (geographical institute); • Prometna raba tal: spreminjanje in vpliv na vsakodnevno življenje Transport land use: Changes and effects on everyday life (geographical institute); • Šolski učbeniki kot orodje za oblikovanje geografskih predstav o slovenskih pokrajinah Textbooks as tools for shaping the geographical imagination of Slovenian landscapes (geographical institute); • Terasirane pokrajine v Sloveniji kot kulturna vrednota Terraced landscapes in Slovenia as cultural values (geographical institute). Geographers also participate in certain agency projects outside geography and the humanities. 3 Regular geographical publications Following Slovenia's independence, geographers considerably increased their number of publications in international books and periodicals, but by far the largest number of their publications continued to appear in Slovenian books and periodicals, which are co-financed in part by the Slovenian Book Agency. The oldest Slovenian geography journal is Geografski vestnik (Geographical Bulletin), which has been published by the Association of Slovenian Geographers since 1925. Since 2000 it has appeared twice a year. This journal for geography and related disciplines, as the association's publication is subtitled, publishes research and discussion articles in all areas of geography and related disciplines. The largest share of published articles is in human geography, followed by physical geography, and then contributions from related disciplines and regional geography. The articles have abstracts and summaries in English. The journal also publishes reviews of geographical publications, notes milestone birthdays and anniversaries of prominent experts in the field and presents their biographies and bibliographies, follows major events, conferences, and symposiums in Slovenia and abroad, and reports on the research work of geographical institutes (Turk 1999; Perko and Zorn 2008). The journal has been accessible on the internet since 1999 (Internet 3). The Association of Slovenian Geographers also publishes the popular science magazine Geografski obzornik (Geographic Horizon), which has appeared four times a year since 1954 (Potočnik Slavic 2003) and is also available on the internet (Internet 4), proceedings from conferences of Slovenian geographers (since 1969), and occasional books about Slovenia for global and regional congresses (since 1992). The Ljubljana Geographical Society, which is a member of the Association 16 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI iBORNIK 2011 51 1 Figure 6: Title page of the journal Acta geographica Slovenica. Figure 7: Title page of the journal Acta carsologica. GEOGRAFIJA SLOVENIJE 23 M . j méW '1 ■ L ■ v - .. ■■-. 1----^¿MifEr GEOMORFOLOŠKA DEDIŠČINA V DOLINI TRIGLAVSKIH JEZER BOJAN ERHART1Č Figure 8: Title page of the book series Geografija Slovenije (Geography in Slovenia). Figure 9: Title page of the book series GeograFF. 17 Table 1: Geographical institutions with current printed publications and projects: English and Slovenian name Mailing and web address Regular research publications (journals and book series) Number of national geographical programs underway (as of spring 2012) Number of national geographical projects underway (as of spring 2012) Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Geograßki inštitut Antona Melika, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Gosposka ulica 13 SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://giam.zrc-sazu.si Journals: Acta geographica Slovenka / Geograßki zbornik (since 1952) Series: Geografija Slovenije (Geography of Slovenia, 23 books since 1999) Georitem (Georhythm, 19 books since 2007) GIS v Sloveniji (GIS in Slovenia, 11 books since 1992) Regionalni razvoj (Regional Development, 3 books since 2009) Naravne nesreče (Natural Hazards, 2 books since 2010) 1 5 Karst Research Institute, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Titov trg 2 SI - 6230 Postojna, Slovenia Journals: Acta carsologica / Krasoslovni zbornik (since 1974) 1 1 Inštitut za raziskovanje krasa, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti http://izrk.zrc-sazu.si Series: Carsologica (14 books since 2002) Department of Geography, Faculty of Humanities Koper, University of Primorska Titov trg 5 SI - 6000 Koper, Slovenia / 1 1 Oddelek za geografijo, Fakulteta za humanistične študije Koper, Univerza na Primorskem http://www.fhs.upr.si Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana Oddelek za geografijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani Aškerčeva 2 SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia http://geo.ff.uni-lj.si Journals: Dela (Works, since 1985) Series: GeograFF (11 books since 2008) 1 / Department of Geography, Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor Oddelek za geografijo, Filozofska fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru Koroška cesta 160 Journals: SI - 2000 Maribor, Slovenia Revija za geografijo (Journal for Geography, since 2006) http://www.ff.uni-mb.si/ oddelki/geografija 1 / Association of Slovenian Geographers Zveza geografov Slovenije Gosposka ulica 13 Journals: SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Geografski vestnik (Geographical Bulletin, since 1925) http://zgs.zrc-sazu.si/ Geografski obzornik (Geographic Horizon, since 1954) / / Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles of Slovenian Geographers, publishes the travelogues Vodniki LGD (Ljubljana Geographical Society Guides, since 2004). Acta geographica Slovenica / Geografski zbornik is the main Slovenian geography journal. It is published by the geographical institute. From 1952 to 2002 it was usually published once a year, and since 2003 it has been published twice a year. Initially it was called Geografski zbornik / Acta geographica, but the name was changed in 2002, when it merged with the journal Geographica Slovenica (which was published from 1972 to 2002). Since 1993 it has been published in English and Slovenian, and it has also been available on the Internet since 1995 (Internet 1). Before the merger of the two journals, publications tended to be lengthy research articles in physical geography, especially geomorphology, glacier and natural disaster studies, as well as human geography, especially studies of mountain farms and land use. After the merger, there was a more balanced representation of various branches of geography (Topole 2000; Zorn and Komac 2010). Since 2003 the journal has been included in Science Citation Index Expanded and it is one of the Slovenian scholarly journals most cited abroad. From 1950 to 1968 the geographical institute published Dela inštituta za geografijo (Works of the Geographical Institute), which is the oldest Slovenian geographical book series. Its successor is the research book series Geografija Slovenije (Geography in Slovenia), which has been published since 1999. The geographical institute has also published the research book series GIS v Sloveniji (GIS in Slovenia) since 1992 (Perko and Zorn 2010), Georitem (Georhythm) since 2007, Regionalni razvoj (Regional Development) since 2007, and Naravne nesreče (Natural Hazards) since 2010. The collections are also accessible on the Google Books web portal. The karst studies institute publishes the world-renowned journal Acta carsologica / Krasoslovni zbornik (since 1955, with two or three issues a year since 1997), which is also available on the internet (Internet 2) and is included in Science Citation Index Expanded, as well as the research book series Carsologica (since 2001). The Ljubljana department has published the journal Dela (Works) since 1985, which is also available on the internet (Internet 2), and the research book series GeograFF since 2008, the Maribor department has published Revija za geografijo (Journal for Geography) since 2006, also available on the internet (Internet 6), and the Slovenian National Education Institute has published Geografija v šoli (Geography in School) since 1991. 4 Conclusion After Slovenia gained its independence in 1991, Slovenian geography flourished; among other things, this is shown by the great increase in the number of geographical publications. Seminal geographical and cartographic works about Slovenia were also published. Until the onset of the economic crisis there was also an increase in the number of geography researchers, who dealt with an increasingly broad selection of topics. Modern methods, especially connected to geographical information systems, were established. Digital cartography completely replaced traditional methods. After Slovenia joined the European Union in 2004, there was a marked increase in international cooperation by Slovenian geographers, in particular in the widest variety of European and other international projects. The focus of national and international projects has shifted from pure research to applied and targeted research. Where to go from here and how? Currently in Slovenia the belief dominates that training experts in the humanities and social sciences cannot pull Slovenia out of the grip of the economic crisis that has affected Europe in recent years. Slovenian geographers face the important task of showing that supporting geographical research still makes sense. Perhaps this does not have a direct impact on job creation but it may, for example, help locate new activities in a place such that these activities will not suffer additional costs; for example, from natural disasters. Applied studies can be used to change such beliefs. 19 Drago Perko, Matija Zorn Geography in Slovenia We are also faced by the task that, after over a decade of rapid and comprehensive development in Slovenia in many areas, it is necessary to update certain seminal works of Slovenian geography that were published at the end of the twentieth century and that are cited in Chapter 1. Money is also an obstacle because major Slovenian publishers are currently unable to afford such financial investment. With the gradual blurring of borders between individual research areas, our educational institutions are facing increasing greater competition from non-geographical disciplines. Only their prompt response to this competition and social needs will make possible a demand for geographers among employers. While writing this article and reviewing the literature, the authors also became aware that Slovenian geographers still lack a suitable perspective on themselves; that is, a thorough study of the development of Slovenian geography. 5 References Bohinc, V. 1925: Razvoj geografije v Slovencih. Geografski vestnik 1-1. Ljubljana. Brečko Grubar, V., Gosar, A. 2011: Oddelek za geografijo Fakultete za humanistične študije Univerze na Primorskem ob desetletnici ustanovitve. Geografski vestnik 83-2. Ljubljana. Fridl, J. 1998: Oris razvoja kartografije in geografije. Geografski atlas Slovenije. Ljubljana. Fridl, J. 2007: Maps. Slovenia in Focus. Ljubljana. Fridl, J., Mihevc, B. 2001: Geography and cartography in Slovenia. National Atlas of Slovenia. Ljubljana. Gosar, A. 1993a: Geography in Slovenia. Slovene Studies 15, 1-2. Bloomington. Gosar, A. 1993b: Geography in Slovenia. Symposium on Ethnicity and Geography. Ljubljana. Gosar, A. 1994: Geography in Slovenia. GeoJournal 33-4. Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/BF00806435 Ilešič, S. 1950: Slovenska geografija v 30 letih ljubljanske univerze. Geografski vestnik 22. Ljubljana. Ilešič, S. 1969: Geografija. Petdeset let slovenske univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Ilešič, S. 1979: Pogledi na geografijo. Ljubljana. Internet 1: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (1.3.2012). Internet 2: http://carsologica.zrc-sazu.si (1.3.2012). Internet 3: http://zgs.zrc-sazu.si/en-us/publications/geographicalbulletin.aspx (1.3.2012). Internet 4: http://zgs.zrc-sazu.si/Publications/GeographicHorizon/tabid/468/language/en-US/Default.aspx (1.3.2012). Internet 5: http://geo.ff.uni-lj.si/index.php?q=publikacije/dela (1.3.2012). Internet 6: http://www.ff.uni-mb.si/dotCMS/listProducts?categoryInode=15123 (1.3.2012). Klemenčič, V. 2010: O Vrišerjevih dilemah in dejanskem stanju slovenske geografije v času delovanja tretje generacije slovenskih geografov. Geografski vestnik 82-2. Ljubljana. Kranjec, S. 1964: Geografija. Slovenska matica 1864-1964. Ljubljana. Natek, M., Perko, D. 1999: 50 let Geografskega inštituta Antona Melika ZRC SAZU. Geografija Slovenije 1. Ljubljana. Perko, D. (ed.) 2000: Geography in Slovenia: institutions, education, researches, publications. Ljubljana. Internet: http://zgds.zrc-sazu.si/en/slovenia.pdf (1.3.2012). Perko, D., Zorn, M. 2008: Zgodovina Geografskega vestnika. Geografski vestnik 80-2. Ljubljana. Perko, D., Zorn, M. 2010: Zgodovina knjižne zbirke GIS v Sloveniji. Geografski informacijski sistemi v Sloveniji 2009-2010. Ljubljana. Plut, D. 1989: Ob 70-letnici poučevanja in raziskovanja geografije na ljubljanski univerzi. Dela 6. Ljubljana. Potočnik Slavič, I. 2003: Začetki Geografskega obzornika. Geografski obzornik 50, 3-4, Ljubljana. Resnik Planinc, T., Kušar, S. 2010: Devetdeset let Oddelka za geografijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Dela 33. Ljubljana. Slabe, T. 1997: Karst research institute. Kras 21. Ljubljana. 20 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Topole, M. 2000: Bibliografija Geografskega zbornika. Geografski zbornik 40. Ljubljana. Turk, J. 1999: Bibliografija Geografskega vestnika 1925-1998. Ljubljana. Urbane, M., Fridl, J., Kladnik, D., Perko, D. 2006: Atlant and Slovene national consciousness in the second half of the 19th century. Acta geographica Slovenica 46-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS46204 Vrišer, I. 2007: Geografske dileme. Geografski vestnik 79-1. Ljubljana. Vrišer, I., Šifrer, M. 1978: Geography in Slovenia. Geographica Iugoslavica 1. Ljubljana. Zorn, M., Komac, B. 2010: The history of Acta geographica Slovenica. Acta geographica Slovenica 50-1. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS50101 21 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012, 23-37 Articles ARTICLES SLOVENIA IN GEOGRAPHICAL TYPIFICATIONS AND REGIONALIZATIONS OF EUROPE AUTHORS Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.si, drago@zrc-sazu.si UDC: 911.6(497.4) COBISS: 1.02 ABSTRACT Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe Slovenian geographical literature often emphasizes Slovenia's landscape diversity and its position at the intersection of four major European geographical units: the Alps, the Mediterranean, the Pannonian Basin, and the Dinaric Alps. This article establishes whether Slovenia's diversity is also reflected in non-Slovenian geographical divisions (classifications, typifications, and regionalizations) of Europe. It examines various divisions of Europe and establishes how Slovenia is divided and to what extent these divisions resemble the well-established Slovenian geographical typification of Slovenia. KEY WORDS regional geography, geographical typification, regionalization, Slovenia, Europe IZVLEČEK Slovenija v geografskih tipizacijah in regionalizacijah Evrope V slovenski geografski literaturi se pogosto poudarja pokrajinska raznolikost Slovenije in njena lega na stiku štirih velikih evropskih geografskih enot: Alp, Sredozemlja, Panonske kotline in Dinarskega gorovja. V prispevku ugotavljamo, ali se raznolikost Slovenije kaže tudi pri tujih geografskih členitvah (klasifikacijah, tipizacijah in regionalizacijah) na ravni Evrope. Pregledali smo različne členitve Evrope in ugotavljali, kam se uvršča Slovenija, kako je Slovenija razdeljena in koliko so te delitve Slovenije podobne eni od uveljavljenih slovenskih geografskih tipizacij Slovenije. KLJUČNE BESEDE regionalna geografija, geografska tipizacija, regionalizacija, Slovenija, Evropa The article was submitted for publication on June 29, 2011. 23 Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe 1 Introduction Slovenia's landscape diversity is a feature that counterbalances its smallness. At the same time, it is also a natural value that demands greater care for the environment and more detailed planning because best practices usually cannot simply be transferred from one area to another. A number of Slovenian researchers have drawn attention to this diversity. Melik (1935) emphasized that Slovenia is where the Alps meet the Dinaric Alps and that Slovenia extends all the way to the Adriatic Sea, the Friulian Plain, and the Pannonian Basin. He characterized Slovenia as »the land of intersections« (Melik 1935, 1-3). The intersection of four European natural geographical regions (i.e., the Alps, the Dinaric Alps, the Mediterranean, and the Pannonian Basin) was also described by Gams (1998), who drew attention to the non-uniform delineation of Slovenian macro-regions (Gams 1998, 9-11). Slovenia's landscape diversity was well described by Kladnik and Perko, who noted that »in a circle with a diameter of 150km, encompassing Slovenia, the high mountainous Alps meet and mingle with prealpine hills and basins, the flat Pannonian Plain with its hilly edges, the karstified Dinaric Alps with karst plateaus and lowlands in between, and the Mediterranean with the mitigating effects of the Adriatic Sea« (Kladnik and Perko 1998, 20). On top of everything, Slovenia is also at the intersection of four cultural areas (i.e., Slavic, Germanic, Romance, and Hungarian), which is why a number of cultural landscape types have also formed in this small area (Kladnik and Perko 1998, 20). Plut (1999, 12) also mentioned the intersection of four European physical-geographical macro-regions (i.e., the Alps, the Pannonian Plan, the Dinaric Alps, and the Mediterranean) and the formation of five landscape types (in addition to the ones mentioned above, he also included the Prealps) as a geographical constant that needs to be taken into account in sustainable development planning. 2 The purpose of this article and overview of geographical divisions of Europe This article presents several European geographical divisions, especially those that take into account natural landscape elements (i.e., relief, rocks, climate, vegetation, etc.). It examines how many macro-units (types or regions) Europe is divided into and which ones Slovenia belongs to. It establishes whether Slovenia's diversity is also reflected in small-scale divisions of Europe. In addition, it also examines some divisions that are based on social landscape elements such as land use. According to Meeus (1995, 57-58), only 10 to 30% of Europe can be characterized as true natural landscape. The geographical scope, the number of levels and categories (i.e., the number of various regions or types) in the entire area covered by division and the number of levels and categories in Slovenia, the spatial resolution of data, the purpose, the main methodological procedures, and the authors were defined for each division. An attempt was also made to determine the type of division (typification or region-alization), even though they mainly involve a combination of both. Detailed methodological procedures and other data were unavailable for some divisions and so only the number of individual categories used for Slovenia is provided for these. To make comparison easier, all the divisions of Slovenia are presented on maps using the same scale. 3 Geographical typification of Slovenia In order to compare how individual geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe show Slovenian landscapes and how they differentiate between them, a relatively simple geographical typi- Figure 1: Geographical typification of Slovenia, levels 1 and 2 (Perko 2008, 54) P 24 Mediterranean landscapes Mediterranean low hills Mediterranean plateaus 0 10 20 30 40 5 _ GIAM ZRC SAZU Pannonian landscapes Pannonian low hills Pannonian plains Dinaric landscapes Dinaric plateaus Dinaric lowlands Landscape types Alpine landscapes Alpine mountains Alpine hills Alpine plains Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe fication was selected that divides Slovenia into four types at the first level, and into nine types or subtypes at the second level (Figure 1). The first level is connected with Slovenia's location at the intersection of four major European geographical units - the Alps, the Pannonian Basin, the Dinaric Alps, and the Mediterranean - and, at the second level, the first-level types are divided primarily according to relief and rock structure (Perko 2008, 33-54). This geographical typification, which is primarily based on natural landscape elements and land use, has the following structure: • The first type (Alpine landscapes) has three subtypes: Alpine mountains, Alpine hills, and Alpine plains; • The second type (Pannonian landscapes) has two subtypes: Pannonian low hills and Pannonian plains; • The third type (Dinaric landscapes) has two subtypes: Dinaric plateaus and Dinaric lowlands; • The fourth type (Mediterranean landscapes) has two subtypes: Mediterranean low hills and Mediterranean plateaus. Based on this, a regionalization of Slovenia was also designed (Perko 2008, 55), dividing Slovenia into four macro-regions at the first level, and into 48 regions at the second level: • The first macro-region (the Alps) consists of 11 regions (e.g., the Julian Alps, the Sava Hills, and the Sava Plain); • The second macro-region (the Pannonian Basin) consists of 12 regions (e.g., the Haloze Hills and the Mura Plain); • The third macro-region (the Dinaric Alps) consists of 19 regions (e.g., the Javornik Hills, Mount Snežnik, and White Carniola); • The fourth macro-region (theMediterranean) consists of six regions (e.g., the Gorizia Hills and the Karst). The boundaries of the macro-regions specified in the regionalization match the boundaries of types in the typification (e.g., in the regionalization, the Alps cover the same area as the Alpine landscape in the typification) and each region specified in the regionalization matches one of the subtypes in the typification (e.g., the Alps macro-region includes four regions of the Alpine mountains subtype, five regions of the Alpine hills subtype, and two regions of the Alpine plains subtype). Because Slovenia is at the intersection of two very different geographical units, the majority of its geographical types and regions are characterized by transition and influences from neighboring types and regions. Slovenia's geographical typification and regionalization thus also present a great research challenge. Based on how a specific geographical typification or regionalization of Europe or its areas divides Slovenia, a connoisseur of Slovenia's geography may determine the suitability and quality of this geographical division relatively well. 4 Overview of European divisions Older divisions of Europe were produced in a traditional manner, based on the subjective judgment and expertise of their authors (Mucher et al. 2003), whereas the latest divisions (e.g., the Environmental Stratification of Europe, and the European Landscape Classification) have been prepared using geographical information systems and are especially interesting because of their methodology and high data resolution; with some, the basic spatial data unit (cell) is only 1 km2. Because vegetation is closely connected with other natural factors (Internet 5), this article also presents some maps with classifications that are based on vegetation because it can provide a good picture of natural landscape diversity. The divisions of Europe that were examined in greater detail are: • 1: The Environmental Stratification of Europe (Mucheretal. 2003; Metzgeretal. 2005; Jongmanetal. 2006); 26 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles • 2: The European Landscape Classification (LANMAP2; Mucher etal. 2003; 2006; 2010); • 3: The Digital Map of European Ecological Regions (Internet 1); • 4: Biogeographical Regions (Internet 2); • 5: The Physical-Geographical Classification of Europe (Germ. Physisch-geographische Gliederung Europas; Bohnetal. 2002/2003); • 6: The Pan-European Landscape Types (Meeus 1995); • 7: The Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (Olson et al. 2001); • 8: The Biogeographical Provinces of Europe (Internet 3); • 9: The Biogeographic Map of Europe and Bioclimatic Map of Europe (Rivas-Martinez, Penas, and Diaz 2009); 4.1 The Environmental Stratification of Europe A group of researchers from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Portugal developed a division of Europe in order to define sample areas in Europe and units applicable to various environmental models and reports (Mucher et al. 2003; Metzger et al. 2005). They used the principal component method, in which they replaced several data layers (e.g., height, slope, vicinity of the ocean, latitude, and several climate variables for January, April, July, and October) with only three combined variables (components), which they used to divide the cells into groups. They defined 84 environmental classes and combined them into 13 environmental zones, which they combined furher into six biogeographic regions. Also taking into account the islands in the Atlantic Ocean, the total number of zones is 14 (and seven regions). The entire stratification uses a spatial resolution of 1 km2 (Mucher et al. 2003; Metzger et al. 2005; Jongmanetal. 2006). It covers the territory between 11° W and 32° E, and between 34° and 72° N (Metzger 2005, 558). Because of great differences, the entire area was statistically processed in two divisions: north and south (Metzger 2005, 554, 558). Even though the units at the highest level are called regions, this is more of a typification than a regionalization. It is interesting that the Alpine region also appears in Scandinavia. Slovenia lies in three of the six biogeographical regions (Figure 2) and in five of the 13 environmental zones. It includes the following environmental zones: the Alpine south, Mediterranean mountain, Mediterranean north, Pannonian, and Continental zones. At the lowest level, Slovenia contains 12 of the 84 classes (Metzger etal. 2005, 558). The boundary between both major divisions also runs across Slovenia because the Mediterranean mountain zone and the Mediterranean north zone belong to the south, and the rest to the north. Figure 2: Environmental Stratification of Europe, level 2 (Metzger et al. 2005; Jongman etal. 2006). 27 Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe 4.2 The European Landscape Classification The Alterra Institute prepared a typification that differs from the previous one primarily in the fact that it also includes the sociogeographical element of land use, and uses the method of segmentation and classifying segments into groups. The purpose of this classification was to develop a landscape typification for all of Europe that could be connected with typifications at the level of individual countries and used as a basis for other projects (Mucher etal. 2003, 53). The authors used data on climate, elevation, soil, and land use (Mucher et al. 2006, 5). They also specified major urban areas, water surfaces, and tide areas (Mucher et al. 2006). They first divided Europe into small homogenous units (segments) using elevation, soil, and land-use data, and afterwards also took into account the climate data in order to classify these units into individual types (Mucher et al. 2010, 4). In classifying the homogenous units at the first level (Figure 3), they took into account the climate; it contains eight types: Arctic, Boreal, Atlantic, Alpine, Mediterranean, Continental, Anatolian, and Steppic. At the second level, they also took into account the elevation; this level consists of 31 types. The third level also took into account the soil and includes 76 types. The lowest (i.e., fourth) level then also took into account special land-use areas and includes 350 landscape types and more than 14,000 polygons (Mucher etal. 2006, 9). Except for the Alpine type, only a few types occur in different, spatially separated areas at the highest level. Raster processing was first performed on 1 km2 cells and then the obtained polygons or units smaller than 11 km2 were combined with the neighboring ones. The final map at a scale of 1: 2,000,000 covers all of Europe, up to the Ural Mountains in the east and Azerbaijan in the southeast and Novaya Zemlya in the northeast; the map does not include Cyprus (Mucher etal. 2006). The first version of the map (Mucher et al. 2003) covered only part of the European Union and did not take climate into account in its classification. In Slovenia three types can be observed at the first level: Mediterranean, Continental, and Alpine. Nearly all of Slovenia lies in the Mediterranean type but, surprisingly, the Gorizia Hills are part of the Alpine type. At the second level, Slovenia includes eight types (not counting the excluded urban areas of Ljubljana and Maribor). The third level includes 12 of a total of 76 types, and the final, fourth level includes 19 of a total of 350 types. 4.3 The Digital Map of European Ecological Regions (DMEER) The DMEER is a biogeographical map showing European ecological regions based on climate, topography, and geobotanical data. It was produced by researchers from several European institutes and the Figure 3: The European Landscape Classification, level 1 (Mücher et al. 2003; 2006; 2010). 28 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Ecological regions Dinaric mountains mixed forests Illyrian deciduous forests Alps conifer and mixed forests Pannonian mixed forests Po river basin mixed forests Source: Internet source 2, © EEA, Copenhagen, 2009 © GIAM ZRC SAZU Figure 4: European ecological regions, level 1 (Internet 1; © EEA, Copenhagen, 2009) World Wildlife Fund (WWF) based on the hierarchical classification of data they obtained from the natural vegetation map by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation and the European Landscape Classification map by the British Institute of Terrestrial Ecology with a 0.5° x 0.5° resolution. The polygons that were defined based on both data layers were then divided into groups several times by testing, and then the most suitable classification was selected for individual parts of Europe. All polygons smaller than 2,000 km2 were eliminated. The final map at a scale of 1: 2,500,000 was harmonized with the map of WWF ecoregions. This classification was used in order to promote more effective managing of the regions and show areas with homogenous ecological conditions. The map shows all of Europe measuring 10.5 million km2, including Turkey, the coast of the Middle East, and Sinai (Mucheretal. 2003, 114, 116; Internet 1; Internet 5). The final classification is markedly based on vegetation and has typification features because the same units are spatially separated. Ecological regions are largely named after the vegetation type (Figure 4). The classification includes 68 European ecological regions (Internet 5). In the map, Slovenia is classified under four units and it borders on one: • Dinaric Mountains mixed forests, • Illyrian deciduous forests, • Alpine coniferous and mixed forests, • Pannonian mixed forests, • Po Basin mixed forests. 4.4 Biogeographical Regions The Map of Biogeographical Regions was produced for the NATURA2000 network (Directive 92/43/EEC). This was the first time that non-administrative boundaries were accepted in an official EU-document (Mucher et al. 2003, 113). The division used was spatially expanded and also applied to the EMERALD network (with slight modifications). The last version from 2008 was prepared at a scale of 1: 1,000,000. The map of Europe only shows EU countries, including the Canary Islands and the Azores (Internet 2; European Topic Centre... 1996). The first versions were based on combining natural vegetation in the member states of the European Community and the Council of Europe (Noirfalies 1987), whereby forest communities were combined into biogeographical regions (including azonal units) and the map was generalized. In later versions, the Map of Potential Vegetation prepared by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation was also used (European Topic Centre... 1996). The 2008 division (Figure 5), which covers the EU, includes nine biogeographical regions: Alpine, Atlantic, Black Sea, 29 Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe Figure 5: Biogeographical Regions, level 1, 2008 version (Internet 2; © EEA, Copenhagen, 2009). Boreal, Continental, Macaronesia, Mediterranean, Pannonian, and Steppic. The 2005 division of Europe shows all the European countries from the Ural Mountains to the Caucasus and Turkey. It includes 11 categories; in addition to the ones listed above, it also includes the Arctic and Anatolian regions. This division is generally based on natural vegetation, but some boundaries also run along the administrative state borders, which is why it deviates from a completely natural division. Some biogeographical regions appear in several spatially separated areas (e.g., the Alpine region in Scandinavia). According to the 2005 and 2008 divisions, Slovenia is part of the Continental and Alpine regions, touching the Pannonian region in the northeast (the boundary runs along the state border). However, it is surprising that southwestern Slovenia is part of the Continental region. In the 2005 map, which shows all the countries, Slovenia also touches the Mediterranean region in the southwest. 4.5 The Physical-Geographical Classification of Europe The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation prepared the Map of Natural Vegetation of Europe (Germ. Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas) at the scale of 1: 2,500,000. This map is based on the Physical-Geographical Classification of Europe, which included climate, rocks, and soil as the main components. Europe was divided into four subcontinents: Northern Europe, Western and Central Source: Bohn et al 2002/2003 © GIAM ZRC SAZU Figure 6: Physical-Geographical Classification of Europe, level 2 (Bohnetal. 2002/2003). 30 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Europe, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. These were then divided into nine major areas and 47 physical-geographical regions, which were further divided into subunits or subregions (Bohn et al. 2002/2003, 68, 69). At all levels, this physical-geographical classification is more of a regionalization than a typi-fication. Slovenia is part of two subcontinents, three major areas, and four regions (Figure 6). 4.6 Pan-European Landscape Types The map of pan-European landscape types at a scale of 1: 25,000,000 (Meeus 1995) was among the first attempts to represent European landscape diversity (Mucher et al. 2006, 3). Meeus defined 30 categories in Europe, extending to the Ural Mountains and the Caucasus, also including Novaya Zemlya in the north (Meeus 1995, 57). The criteria used included relief forms (as the consequence of the rock base and climate), economic land-use potential, sustainability of human activity, nature preservation, settlement pattern, field pattern, visual impression, and the quality of the view (Meeus 1995, 61-62). The purpose of this typification was to develop the bases for Europe's sustainable development at various levels (Meeus 1995, 57-58). Meeus (1995) defined 30 landscape types, which he combined into nine groups: Tundras, Taigas, Highlands and mountains, Bocages, Open fields, Regional landscapes, Steppes, Arid landscapes, and Terrace landscapes. The division was to be relevant at the level of Europe, and according to the author the typification was merely a rough one (Meeus 1995, 61-62). Regional landscapes are the types that only appear in one or several places thanks to their exceptional natural or cultural features (Meeus 1995, 65). Almost all of Slovenia (Figure 7) is part of a single landscape type: the Mediterranean semi-bocage. The word bocage denotes a landscape of mixed meadows and forests (Internet 4). This is an area in a mountain's rain shadow that is cultivated despite the dry climate. The climate is Mediterranean, with diverse land use and predominantly rural settlements (Meeus 1995, 69). Some other types can be found near Slovenia: the Collective open fields in the east, the Delta type in the west, and the Mountain type in the north (Meeus 1995, 63). 4.7 The Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World The map of the terrestrial ecoregions of the world was designed to improve environmental-protection planning at the global and regional levels. The authors based their work primarily on the biogeographical features of landscapes around the world (Olson etal. 2001, 933). Mediterranean semi-bocage Delta Mountain Collective open field 0 25 50 75 100 km Source: Meeus 1995 © GIAM ZRC SAZU Figure 7: Pan-European Landscape Types, level 1 (Meeus 1995). 31 Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe Ecoregions were defined as relatively extensive spatial units primarily characterized by special combinations of natural communities and species. The borders between these areas match the natural conditions prior to major changes introduced by man (Olson etal. 2001, 933). The terrestrial part of the world was divided into eight geographical realms and 14 biomes. Within these, they further defined 867 ecoregions. The geographical realms include Oceania (covering the Pacific), Nearctic (covering North America), Neotropic (covering Central and South America), Afrotropic (covering Sub-Saharan Africa), Palearctic (covering Europe and the majority of Asia), Indo-Malay (covering South and Southeast Asia), and Australasia (covering Australia and part of the islands between Asia and Australia). The biomes (Olson et al. 2001) include the following: • Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests, • Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests, • Tropical and subtropical coniferous forests, • Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, • Temperate coniferous forests, • Boreal forests/taiga, • Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and shrublands, • Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands, • Flooded grasslands and savannas, • Montane grasslands and shrublands, • Tundra, • Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub, • Deserts and xeric shrublands, • Mangroves, • (Lakes), • (Rock and ice). Individual units were defined based on various sources; the DMEER map (see section 4.3) was used for the western Palearctic region, which also covers Europe. In areas for which no biogeographical divisions were found, the authors relied on relief forms and vegetation. The average size of ecoregions is approximately 150,000km2 (Olson etal. 2001, 934). Of 14 biomes, three are present in Slovenia (Figure 8): • Mediterranean forests, woodland, and scrub, • Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, • Temperate coniferous forests. Mediterranean forests, woodlands and scrubs Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests Temperate coniferous forests o Source: World Wildlife Fund © GIAM ZRC SAZU 25 50 75 100 km Figure 8: Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World, level 2. 32 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Ecoregions found in Slovenia or its immediate vicinity include the following: • Pannonian mixed forests, • Dinaric Mountains mixed forests, • Illyrian deciduous forests, • Alpine coniferous and mixed forests, • Po Basin mixed forests. 4.8 The Biogeographical Provinces of Europe The biogeographical provinces of Europe (Figure 9) used in the Europe's Environment report of 1995 are based on Udvardy's Classification of the Biogeographical Provinces of the World (1975). Almost all of the units are named after geographical names and occur only once. Thus this classification can be placed among regionalizations, although this cannot be done with certainty because of the inconsistencies in naming the units and because the classification is not further divided into smaller units. Slovenia is part of four out of 19 provinces: the Balkan highland, Continental, Mediterranean sclerophyll, and Central European highlands. In addition to Europe's biogeographical provinces, the report also showed four biogeographical zones of the EU covering the territory of the EU at that time. The reason for the smaller number and share of categories in Slovenia is also the fact that the classification also covers northern Africa, Turkey, the eastern Mediterranean, and the area east of the Caspian Sea. 4.9 The Biogeographic Map of Europe and the Bioclimatic Map of Europe The University of Leon prepared the Biogeographic Map of Europe, which covers the area up to the Arabian Peninsula and the Caspian Sea, and also includes the Canary Islands, Spitsbergen, Novaya Zemlya, and Franz Josef Land. The 1: 16,000,000 map includes five regions: the Circumartic, Eurosiberian, Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian, and Saharo-Arabian. The first two regions are further divided into three subregions. The third level contains 30 provinces, and the fourth level contains a total of 71 sectors (Rivas-Martinez, Penas, and Diaz 2009). All of Slovenia is part of the Eurosiberian region and the Alpino-Caucasian subregion, which is further divided into the Alpine and the Apennine-Balkan provinces. At the lowest level it is part of the Eastern Alpine, Illyrian, and Padanian sectors (Figure 10). The Bioclimatic Map of Europe (Figure 11) at a scale of 1: 16,000,000 was prepared in addition to the Biogeographic Map of Europe; this map contains three levels. Europe was divided into four macro- Biogeographical provinces Balkan highland J Continental I Central European highland 1 Mediterranean sclerophyll 0 25 50 75 100 km Source: Internet source 3, © EEA, Copenhagen, 1995 © GIAM ZRC SAZU Figure 9: The Biogeographical Provinces of Europe, level 2 (Internet 3; © EEA, Copenhagen, 1995) 33 Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe Provinces Alpine Apennino-Balkan Source: Rivas-Martínez, Penas in Díaz 2009 © GIAM ZRC SAZU Figure 10: Biogeographic Map of Europe, level 3 (Rivas-Martmez, Penas, and Díaz 2009). Bioclimates ^^^^ Temperate continental Temperate oceanic Source: Rivas-Martínez, Penas in Díaz 2009 © GIAM ZRC SAZU Figure 11: Bioclimatic Map of Europe, level 2 (Rivas-Martínez, Penas, and Díaz 2009). bioclimatic units: the Polar, Boreal, Temperate, and Mediterranean; these are further divided into 16 bioclimatic units with certain variants for some (Rivas-Martínez, Penas, and Díaz 2009). Western Slovenia is part of the Temperate Oceanic bioclimate and eastern Slovenia is part of the Temperate Continental bioclimate. The border between them runs across the Sava Valley, west of Ljubljana, and then in the Dinaric direction towards the southeast. By comparing both maps one can get a better idea of the natural conditions in Slovenia. 5 Comparing the divisions In determining the number of units presented in Slovenia in various divisions, the surrounding areas or units touching Slovenia were also taken into account due to the various methods used for defining the borders between units. Table 1 shows individual divisions and the number of categories by individual level. The number of categories occurring in Slovenia is given in parentheses. At the highest levels, Slovenia is part of various units (types or regions). The names of these units are based on geographical names and the names of the vegetation type, climate, and other natural factors. The following geographical names of major geographical units and their derivatives are most common 34 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Table 1: Overview of selected features of divisions of Europe. Name (source) of division Number of all categories (number of categories in Slovenia) Prevailing type (method) Unit names Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 of division 1 Environmental Stratification of Europe (Mücheretal. 2003; Metzgeretal. 2005; Jongmanetal. 2006) 2 (2) 6 (3) 13 (5) 84 (12) Upper level: regionalization, lower level: typification Biogeographic regions: Mediterranean, Continental, Alpine 2 European Landscape Classification LANMAP2 (Mücheretal. 2003; 2006; 2010) 8 (3) 31 (8) 76 (12) 350 (19) Upper level: regionalization, lower level: typification Types: Mediterranean, Continental, Alpine 3 Digital Map of European Ecological Regions (Internet 1) 68 (5) Typification Ecological regions: Dinaric Mountains mixed forests, Illyrian deciduous forests, Alpine conifer and mixed forests, Pannonian mixed forests, Po Basin mixed forests 4 Biogeographical Regions (Internet 2) 9 (3) Typification Biogeographical regions: Continental, Alpine, Pannonian 5 Physical-Geographical Classification of Europe (Germ. Physisch-geographische Gliederung Europas) (Bohnetal. 2002/2003) 4 (2) 9 (3) 47 (4) Regionalizaiton Areas: Alpine, Carpathian, Mediterranean 6 Pan-European Landscape Types (Meeus 1995) 9 (4) 30 (4) Typification Landscape types: Mediterranean semi-bocage, Delta, Mountain, Collective open field 7 Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (Olsonetal. 2001) 8 (1) 14 (3) 867 (5) The highest level: regionalization, lower levels: typifications Biomes: Mediterranean forests, woodlands and scrubs, Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, Temperate coniferous forests 8 Biogeographical Provinces of Europe (Internet 3) 4 (-) 19 (4) Regionalization Biogeographical provinces: Balkan highland, Continental, Central European highland Mediterranean sclerophyll 9A Biogeographic Map of Europe (Rivas-Martinez, Penas, and Diaz 2009) 5 (1) Subregions in places 30 (2) 71 (3) Upper levels: typification, lower level: regionalization Provinces: Alpine, Apennine-Balkan 9B Bioclimatic Map of Europe (Rivas-Martinez, Penas, and Diaz 2009) 4 (1) 16 (2) Versions in places Typification Bioclimates: Temperate continental, Temperate oceanic 35 Rok Ciglic, Drago Perko Slovenia in geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe Figure 12: Interconnection of borders of the examined divisions of Europe compared to the geographical typification of Slovenia (Perko 2008). (listed in the adjectival form): Alpine, Mediterranean, Continental, Pannonian, Balkan, Illyrian, Padanian, Dinaric, Carpathian, Central European, and Apennine. The analysis of names did not take into account the Map of Potential Vegetation and the Bioclimatic Map, which are typifications based on a single physical-geographical element (vegetation or climate). The same applies to the levels that include the cardinal points in their names (e.g., Southern Europe) and levels that only classify Slovenia in one unit. The map showing the borders of the divisions' types or regions indicates how these divisions of Europe differ from one another and how insignificantly they approximate the established Slovenian geographical typification of Slovenia (Figure 12). 6 Conclusion Even though these geographical typifications and regionalizations of Europe have been developed for various purposes, using various methods, and based on various factors, minor differences were nonetheless expected between them with regard to Slovenia (Figure 2). The majority only partly approximate the geographical typification of Slovenia (Perko 2008), which shows Slovenia's actual geographical features relatively well. On the other hand, these great differences between the divisions of Europe confirm the findings of Slovenian geographers regarding how difficult it is to typify and regionalize a country with such a wide variety of landscapes as Slovenia. This is further confirmed by the fact that, despite Slovenia's small area, which accounts for less than one percent of the territory in the majority of European divisions, its share of types or regions is several times larger than the share of its size in all of Europe. 7 References Bohn, U., Neuhäusl, R., Gollub, G., Hettwer, C., Neuhäuslova, Z., Raus, T., Schlüter, H., Weber, H. 2000/2003: Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas/Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe. Maßstab/Scale 1:2,500,000. Münster. European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity 1996: The Indicative Map of European Biogeographical Regions, Methodology and Development. Paris. 36 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Gams, I. 1998: Lega Slovenije v Evropi in med njenimi makroregijami. Geografija Slovenije. Ljubljana. Internet 1: Digital Map of European Ecological Regions: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataser-vice/metadetails.asp?id= 192 (26.8.2009). Internet 2: Biogeographical Regions, Europe: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/metade-tails.asp?id=1054 (26.8.2009). Internet 3: Europe's Environment, The Dobriš Assessment (1995): http://www.eea.europa.eu/publica-tions/92-826-5409-5/chap03.zip (27.8.2009). Internet 4: Bocage: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bocage (27.8.2009). Internet 5: Technical Report, DMEER: http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/download.asp?id=4069&file-type=.zip (31.8.2009). Jongman, R.H.G., Bunce, R.G.H., Metzger, M.J., Mucher, C.A., Howard, D.C., Mateus, V.L. 2006: Objectives and Applications of a Statistical Environmental Stratification of Europe. Landscape Ecology 21-3. Den Haag. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-005-6428-0 Kladnik, D., Perko, D. 1998: Zgodovina regionalizacij Slovenije. Slovenija: pokrajine in ljudje. Ljubljana. Meeus, J. H. A. 1995: Pan-European Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 31, 1-3. New York. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)01036-8 Melik, A. 1935: Slovenija: geografski opis, 1. splošni del. Ljubljana. Metzger, M. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Jongman, R. H. G., Mucher, C. A., Watkins, J. W. 2005: A Climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 14-16. Oxford. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2005.00190.x Mucher, C.A., Bunce, R. G.H., Jongman, R.H.G., Klijn, J. A., Koomen, A.J.M., Metzger, M.J., Wascher, D. M. 2003: Identification and characterisation of environments and landscapes in Europe. Alterra rapport 832. Mucher, C. A., Wascher, D. M., Klijn, J. A., Koomen, A. J. M., Jongman, R. H. G. 2006: A New European Landscape map as an integrative framework for landscape character assessment. Landscape Ecology in the Mediterranean, Inside and Outside Approaches: Proceedings of the European IALE Conference. Faro. Mucher, C. A., Klijn, J. A., Wascher, D. M., Schaminee, J. H. J. 2010: A new European landscape classification (LANMAP): A transparent, flexible and user-oriented methodology to distinguish landscapes. Ecological Indicators 10-1. Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.018 Noirfalise, A. 1987: Map of the Natural Vegetation of the Member Countries of the European Community and of the Council of Europe. Luxembourg. Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D'Amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnut, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J.F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., Kassem, K. R. 2001: Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51-11. Washington. Perko, D. 2008: Landscapes. Slovenia in Focus. Ljubljana. Plut, D. 1999: Regionalizacija Slovenije po sonaravnih kriterijih. Geografski vestnik 71. Ljubljana. Rivas-Martinez, S., Penas, A., Diaz, T. E. 2009: Worldwide Bioclimatic Classification System. Internet: http://www.globalbioclimatics.org (26.8.2009). Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975: A Classification of the biogeographical provinces of the world. IUCN Occasional Paper 18. Morges. 37 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012, 39-50 Articles ARTICLES MORPHOLOGICAL TYPIFICATIONS OF SLOVENIA'S SURFACE USING GLOBAL CLASSIFICATION METHODS AUTHORS Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia mauro@zrc-sazu.si, drago@zrc-sazu.si UDC: 911.2:551.43(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global classification methods Morphology is often the most important factor in distinguishing landscapes and is an important element in geographical classifications, typifications, and regionalizations. Therefore, morphological divisions of the surface have a long tradition in Slovenia and abroad. The development of geographic information systems has significantly increased the number of methods and indicators used for determining, analyzing, and classifying morphological units at various size levels. In terms of spatial combinations, one distinguishes between continuous and discontinuous surface classifications, and between global and regional surface classifications in terms of the values and value limits of indicators. This article presents examples of foreign methods of global surface classification of Slovenia and compares them to the established Slovenian typification of Slovenia's surface. KEY WORDS geomorphology, relief, surface, continuous and discontinuous surface classification method, global and regional surface classification method, digital elevation model, geographic information system, Slovenia IZVLEČEK Morfološke tipizacije površja Slovenije z globalnimi metodami Oblikovanost površja je pogosto najpomembnejši dejavnik razlikovanja med pokrajinami in pomembna prvina pri geografskih klasifikacijah, tipizacijah in regionalizacijah, zato imajo morfološke delitve površja v tujini in pri nas že dolgo tradicijo. Z razvojem geografskih informacijskih sistemov se je močno povečalo število metod in kazalnikov za določanje, analizo in razvrščanje enot oblikovanosti površja na različnih velikostnih ravneh. Glede na prostorsko združevanje lahko ločimo zvezne in nezvezne delitve površja, glede na vrednosti in meje vrednosti kazalnikov pa globalne in regionalne delitve površja. V prispevku predstavljamo primere tujih metod globalne delitve površja Slovenije in jih primerjamo z uveljavljeno slovensko tipizacijo površja Slovenije. KLJUČNE BESEDE geomorfologija, relief, površje, metoda zvezne in nezvezne delitve površja, metoda globalne in regionalne delitve površja, digitalni model višin, geografski informacijski sistem, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on July 12, 2011. 39 Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global . 1 Introduction Morphology is often the most important factor in distinguishing between landscapes and an important element in geographical classifications, typifications, and regionalizations. Therefore, morphological classifications of the surface have a long tradition in Slovenia and abroad. The development of geographic information systems has significantly increased the number of methods and indicators used for determining, analyzing, and classifying morphological units at various size levels. The former tedious and time-consuming landform classifications based on maps have been replaced by faster and more accurate classifications using computer-supported geographic information systems. These types of classifications are more objective, even though the selection of classification elements and their classes remain subjective. Iwahashi and Pike (2006) prepared an overview of 12 landform classifications that have been published in recent years and all of them were developed electronically. Slovenia has an extremely varied relief and can thus serve as a good indicator of the effectiveness or suitability of individual methods and indicators used in landform classification. 2 Global, non-global, continuous, and discontinuous landform classifications In terms of spatial combinations, one distinguishes between continuous and discontinuous landform classifications, and between global and regional surface classifications in terms of the values and value limits of indicators. Landform classification may be continuous or discontinuous. Classification and typification may be either continuous or discontinuous, but it is more common for classification to be continuous and typification discontinuous; regionalization is always discontinuous. In discontinuous landform classification, individual parts of the surface are combined into areas with the same or similar values of selected relief indicators and clear borders with adjacent areas with different values of selected relief indicators. These areas can be referred to as units. Areas with the same or similar values of relief indicators may appear several times in the landscape studied, but they are separated from one another by areas with different values of relief indicators. In continuous landform classification, individual parts of the surface are classified only based on the values of selected relief indicators, regardless of their spatial position. These non-spatial units are most commonly referred to as classes. Parts of the surface are thus not necessarily connected or do not touch one another, and they can appear anywhere in the landscape studied. Discontinuous classification is more qualitative, is based on expert knowledge, and has greater applied value; however, it is more subjective. Continuous classification is more quantitative and objective, and has greater analytical value. Continuous landform classification is often only the first stage of discontinuous classification - or, in other words: discontinuous classification is usually an improved continuous landform classification. In older landform classifications used in Slovenia and elsewhere, discontinuous classifications predominated; however, after the introduction of computers and geographic information systems, continuous classifications and combinations of continuous and discontinuous classifications prevailed. If a landform classification uses the same values and value limits of selected relief indicators as are used for the entire world, this is referred to as the global landform classification method. If their values and value limits are adjusted to individual areas, this is referred to as the regional landform classification method. The advantages of the global classification method is that it makes it possible to compare all parts of the world and the advantage of the regional classification method is that internal differences can be shown even in those parts of the world that would remain completely unclassified under the global classification method; this can be achieved by adjusting the values and value limits of relief indicators to de-facto conditions in the selected landscape. 40 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles In Slovenian and international classifications, typifications, and regionalizations, the global landform classification methods or adjusted global classification methods prevail; the use of the regional landform classification method, which in itself contains elements of adaptation to various landscapes, is very rare. Adjusted global landform classification methods thus represent a type of intermediate solution between global and regional landform classifications. 3 Hammond One of the first and best-known morphological typifications was developed by the American geographer Edwin H. Hammond, who classified the land-surface forms of the U.S. in greater detail (Hammond 1964). Later on, his method was reused several times using the geographic information system and the digital elevation model (Dikau, Brabb, and Mark 1991; Brabyn 1998; Gallant, Douglas, and Hoffer 2005). Hammond used a square cell with a baseline of 6 miles (approximately 9.65 km and an area of 93.12 km2) as the basic surface unit for calculating relief elements; this may seem enormous, but in the U.S. context this does not even account for 0.001% of its entire territory. The cells followed one another without overlapping. Using 1: 250,000 maps, he defined the following three elements for each cell: slope, local relief, and profile type. He labeled each element with an agreed-upon sign and used their combinations to determine the land-surface form units. The first element in Hammond's classification is slope. For each cell, he calculated what share of its area has a slope below 8% (approximately 4.57°). He labeled this element with capital letters: • A: > 80% of area gently sloping, • B: 50-80% of area gently sloping, • C: 20-50% of area gently sloping, • D: < 20% of area gently sloping. The second element in Hammond's classification is local relief. He defined the maximum and minimum elevation and their difference for each cell. He labeled this element with numerals: • 1: 0-30 m, • 2: 30-90 m, • 3: 90-150 m, • 4: 150-300 m, • 5: 300-900 m, • 6: 900-1,500 m. The third element in Hammond's classification is profile type. For each cell he defined the percentage of gently inclined surface that lies below or above the average local relief of the cell. He labeled this element with lower-case letters: • a: > 75% of gentle slope is in lowland, • b: 50-75% of gentle slope is in lowland, • c: 50-75% of gentle slope is on upland, • d: > 75% of gentle slope is on upland. Hammond combined these elements to define the land-surface forms. He drew them onto a large color map at a scale of 1 : 5,000,000. However, he did not present the results of his classification in square form, but with the land-form boundaries that he set subjectively by following the edges of flat plains, tablelands, hills, and similar major relief forms. Because of this the map is slightly generalized, but more synoptic. To define the landform units, Hammond used three elements with four (slope), six (local relief), and another four (profile type) classes; this theoretically makes up 96 combinations or 96 possible landform units. However, he actually only chose 21 units, which he combined into five groups (plains, tablelands, plains with hills or mountains, open hills and mountains, and hills and mountains). 41 Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global . Only 13 of his 21 landform units (morphological types) appear in Slovenia (Table 1, Figure 1). Table 1: Morphological types of Slovenia according to Hammond. Unit km2 % 1 Flat plains 99.83 0.49 2 Smooth plains 93.40 0.46 3 Tablelands with moderate relief 1.93 0.01 4 Plains with hills 609.21 3.01 5 Plains with high hills 1,102.06 5.44 6 Plains with low mountains 1,371.04 6.76 7 Open hills 141.44 0.70 8 Open high hills 819.23 4.04 9 Open low mountains 3,990.24 19.68 10 Open high mountains 411.04 2.03 11 High hills 147.23 0.73 12 Low mountains 6,003.36 29.61 13 High mountains 5,482.92 27.05 4 Meybeck, Green and Vorosmarty The classification by Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty (2001) is the simplest of all the ones presented because the authors only used two classification elements: relief roughness and mean elevation. They used the global digital elevation model GTOPO30 with 30 arc seconds grid resolution, which corresponds to approximately 1 km. The first element used in the classification by Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty is relief roughness. They defined the maximum and minimum elevation for each cell and divided their difference by the cell's baseline length. The unit of relief roughness calculated this way is 1 m/km or %%. They divided the values estimated into seven classes: • 1: < 5%, • 2: 5-10%, • 3: 10-20%, • 4: 20-40%, • 5: 40-80%, • 6: 80-160%, • 7: > 160%. The second classification element is the average elevation. The values estimated were divided into eight classes: • 1: 0-200 m, • 2: 200-500 m, • 3: 500-1,000 m, • 4: 1,000-2,000 m, • 5: 2,000-3,000 m, • 6: 3,000-4,000 m, • 7: 4,000-5,000 m, • 8: 5,000-6,000 m. Figure 1: Morphological typification of Slovenia according to Hammond. P 42 4-^ o Radlje ob W ° Dravograd " o Ravne na Koroštem o SIGvenj -Gradec ■• Črna na Koroštem Lenart ^^ v Slovenskih MARIBOR Ljutomer -enice .Ormož Slovenska Bistrica Mozirje \ Slovenske Konj °Bohinjska Bistrica Rogaška Slatina Trbovlje »omžale Laško Cerkno Zagorje ob SaviP . Flat plains Smooth plains Tablelands with moderate relief Plains with hills Plains with high hills Plains with low mountains Open hills Open high hills Open low mountains Open high mountains High hills Low mountains High mountains LJUBLJANA ievnica Nova Gorica • Grosuplje Logatec Ajdovščina Novo mesto Cerknica Metlika« Koča/je Črnomelj Ilirska Bistrica Authors: Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Cartography: Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin ©GIAMZRCSAZU Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global . Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty combined these elements to define 15 landform units, of which 13 also appear in Slovenia. The typification of Slovenia's surface, which was performed as part of the typification of the surface of the entire world following the methodology developed by Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty, was taken from the website of the Institute for Environment and Sustainability, which is part of the European Commission Joint Research Centre (Internet 1). Table 2: Morphological types of Slovenia according to Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty. Unit km2 % 1 Plains 1,063.04 5.24 2 Mid Altitude Plains 1,723.99 8.50 3 High Altitude Plains 145.31 0.72 4 Lowlands 580.66 2.86 5 Rugged Lowlands 66.96 0.33 6 Very Low Plateaus 5,514.21 27.20 7 Low Plateaus 2,554.05 12.60 8 Mid Altitude Plateaus 305.83 1.51 9 High Altitude Plateaus 10.15 0.05 10 Hills 1,904.12 9.39 11 Low Altitude Mountains 4,529.24 22.34 12 Mid Altitude Mountains 1,815.29 8.95 13 High Altitude Mountains 60.10 0.30 5 Iwahashi and Pike Iwahashi and Pike (2007) developed their landform classification in three areas of various size using three different digital elevation models. Their landform classification of a part of Hokkaido was based on a 55-meter digital elevation model, their classification of Japan was based on a 270-meter digital elevation model, and their classification of the world was based on a 1,000-meter digital elevation model. They used the same criteria in all of their classifications: • Slope gradient, • Local convexity, • Surface texture. They calculated slope gradient with ArcGIS, which uses Horn's algorithm (1981). They determined local convexity using the highly permeable Laplacian filter for detecting edges, which is similar to the mathematical operation of the second derivative. This filter enhances the edges in all directions and thus the basic features of landforms such as the bottoms of valleys and the peaks of ridges. They determined the surface texture so that they first calculated the median of every cell using a 9-cell moving window (3x3 cells). Then they subtracted the layer with the median values from the original digital elevation model and thus gained a layer in which the peaks of ridges and the bottoms of valleys were the most pronounced. From the geomorphological viewpoint, this layer could be named the map of density of valleys and ridges. At the same time, this layer shows the terrain or the surface texture. In further developing the surface texture indicator, they took into account all of the positive and negative cells and ascribed them the value 1; all the other cells retained the value 0. Then they used a round Figure 2: Morphological typification of Slovenia according to Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty. P 44 -p*. L* Murska Soboti ü Lenart -y SI o venski Izgori cah uravograd iavrie na Koroškem o Slôvenj Gradec MARIBOR Ljutomer g « Črna nà Koroskër lenice rmož' 'elenje Slovenska Bistrica Slovenske Konjice^ Mozirje bohinjska Bistrica Rogaška Slatin? Kamnik Trbovlje lomžale Laško 'Cerkno LJUBLJANA ievnica lova Gorica • Grosuplje Logatec Ajdovščina ■Novo mesto ierknica 5ostojna ,wS _ tTii"'! j Ribnica Koče/je Črnorm Ilirska Bistrica n Plains IBI Mid Altitude Plains I I High Altitude Plains I^B Lowlands I Rugged Lowlands I Ve ry Low P late au s I I Low Plateaus ■I Mid Altitude Plateaus I I High Altitude Plateaus □ Hills I I Low Altitude Mountains Hi Mid Altitude Mountains I High Altitude Mountains 10 20 30 40 50 Authors: Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Cartography: Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin DGIAMZRC S AZU Units Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global . moving window with a diameter of 10 cells to determine the frequency of the terrain. This data finaly enabled them to calculate the percentage of terrain occurrence for each cell by dividing the frequency of occurrence by the area of the round moving window. Iwahashi and Pike connected the prepared classification layers (slope gradient, local convexity, and surface texture) using the nested-means classification procedure, which was introduced to geographical research and classification by Scripter (1970) and makes it possible to divide the surface into 8, 12, or 16 classes. This procedure is especially recommended for dividing unevenly or asymmetrically classified data such as data on the elevation and slope gradient, in which greater values are increasingly rarer. The typification of Slovenia's surface made following Iwahashi's and Pike's methodology as part of the typification of the entire world's surface was based on the website of the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (Internet 2). Of the 16 landform units defined by Iwahashi and Pike in their classification of the world surface, 13 appear in Slovenia (Table 3, Figure 3). Table 3: Morphological types of Slovenia according to Iwahashi and Pike. Unit km2 % 1 Gentle surface with low convexity and coarse texture 190.03 0.94 2 Gentle surface with low convexity and fine texture 574.63 2.83 3 Gentle surface with high convexity and fine texture 59.83 0.30 4 Moderately gentle surface with low convexity and coarse texture 44.13 0.22 5 Moderately gentle surface with low convexity and fine texture 925.44 4.56 6 Moderately gentle surface with high convexity and fine texture 245.37 1.21 7 Moderately steep surface with low convexity and coarse texture 80.25 0.40 8 Moderately steep surface with low convexity and fine texture 3,060.27 15.10 9 Moderately steep surface with high convexity and fine texture 1,720.62 8.49 10 Steep surface with low convexity and coarse texture 95.61 0.47 11 Steep surface with low convexity and fine texture 5,599.23 27.62 12 Steep surface with high convexity and coarse texture 10.05 0.05 13 Steep surface with high convexity and fine texture 7,667.47 37.82 6 Perko The first computerized relief typification in Slovenia was created by Drago Perko, who initially divided Slovenian territory into eight landform units (Perko 1992; 2001; 2007), and later on into seven (Table 4, Figure 4). This classification is based on spatial variability in elevation and slope. For each square cell of a 100-meter digital elevation model, Perko took into account its eight neighboring cells (a moving window measuring 9 ha or 3x3 cells) to first calculate the elevation variation and the slope variation coefficient; following this, he used both variation coefficients to calculate their geometric mean, which he called the relief coefficient (Perko 2001). By generalizing the relief coefficient, he defined the landform units. He manually adjusted the final borders between these units to the natural borders in the landscape (rivers, plateau edges, etc.). Later he determined the variability of Slovenia's relief (Perko 2007) using a new version of the relief coefficient, which he calculated as a geometric mean of the slope variation coefficient and the aspect Figure 3: Morphological typification of Slovenia according to Iwahashi and Pike. P 46 4-^ f^ryf v^^Radljš obP W ° Dravograd ^Qrttifi ■ o Ravne na Koroštem oSIGyenj Gradec „ o Črna na^Koroškern1 Lenart v Slovenskih loricah MARIBOR Ljutomer ¡enice .Ormož' Slovenska Bistrica Mozirje Slovenske Konjice Bohinjska Bistrica Rogaška Slatina Kamnik" ■ Železniki J *ranJ Škof j a Loka "o¿er.kno '■ Í^VW Trbovlje »omžale Laško Zagorje ob Nova Gorica Krško Logatec Ajdovščina Novo mesto Cerknica Metlika« Koča/je Črnomelj Ilirska Bistrica ©GIAMZRCSAZU Units H ■ ^^m j^J^J^fc^ I^^H Gentle surface with low convexity and coarse texture it'ja ".■ .Jp; | | Gentle surface with low convexity and fine texture LJUBLJANA »^evnica r fm \ | Gentle surface with high convexity and fine texture I | Moderatly gentle surface with low convexity and coarse texture _| Moderatly gentle surface with low convexity and fine texture _| Moderatly gentle surface with high convexity and fine texture I | Mo deratly steep surface with low convexity and co arse texture I | Moderatly steep surface with low convexity and fine texture I | Moderatly steep surface with high convexity and fine texture I | Steep surface with low convexity and coarse texture I || Steep surface with low convexity and fine texture Steep surface with high convexity and coarse texture Steep surface with high convexity and fine texture 0 10 20 30 40 50 Authors: Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Cartography: Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global . variation coefficient of each square cell of the 25-meter digital elevation model and its 120 neighbors (a moving window measuring 75,625 ha or 11x11 cells). Table 4: Morphological types of Slovenia according to Perko. Unit km2 % 1 Plains 1,918.31 9.46 2 Rough Plains 1,195.38 5.90 3 Low Hills 4,842.91 23.89 4 Rough Low Hills 2,645.48 13.05 5 High Hills 6,686.63 32.98 6 Rough High Hills 1,028.94 5.08 7 Mountains 1,955.29 9.64 7 Conclusion Various surface classifications are more or less successful in dividing Slovenia's surface. The majority show Slovenia as a hilly or even mountainous country with a diverse relief. Some areas are placed in classes that deviate considerably from the actual conditions. The classification criteria have obviously been adjusted to areas with less diverse relief, such as the North European Plain, the West Siberian Plain, and the Tibetan Plateau. However, with appropriate modification of the classification criteria (Perko and Hrvatin 2009) the same classifications yield significantly better results even for countries with such a diverse relief as Slovenia. Hammond's method proved to be of relatively good quality in classifying the surface of the United States. However, for Slovenia, where the morphological features of the surface change rapidly in space, this method is insufficiently accurate. Thus a number of Slovenian landscapes are classified in units that do not show their actual morphological features because, due to the size of the basic square cell, the morphological features of their neighboring landscapes are also taken into account. The original basic cell with an area of nearly 100km2 is significantly too large to determine all three of Hammonds elements for Slovenia. The results of Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty's method are the closest to our idea of Slovenia's landforms. Among all three foreign methods selected, it is the only one that does not require major adjustments. However, as in practically all computerized surface classifications, individual relief units are spatially too fragmented. Of the 16 classes in the original classification of the entire world's surface following Iwahashi and Pike's method, 13 classes appear in Slovenia. The percentage of the surface covered by individual classes is very uneven because nearly nine-tenths of Slovenian territory is classified under only four classes. The weaknesses noticed in this classification include the excessive similarity between the second and third classification criteria (the percentage of local convexity and surface texture), which consequently partly duplicate each other. It is interesting that all three selected foreign classifications are statistically more correlated with that of Perko (correlation coefficients between 0.345 and 0.446) than with one another (correlation coefficients between 0.270 and 0.306). The classification by Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty statistically correlates the best with Perko's classification (correlation coefficient of 0.446) (Table 5). By comparing the units in Perko's classification or typification with the units used by Hammond, by Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty, and by Iwahashi and Pike, it can be seen how the use of the glob- Figure 4: Morphological typification of Slovenia according to Perko. P 48 Murska Sobota Lenart v Slovenskih got / ¡r>ravo9fed f o Ravne na Koroštem EEÄä-, «-Slövenj Gradec IBOR Ljutomer ienice Slovenska Bistri Slovenske Konjice »ohinjska Bistrica Rogaška Slatina. jé Kamnik [a Domžale Trbovlje Laško Cerkno Zagorje ob Savi.1 JUBLJANA Sevnica Nova Gorica ° Vrhnika HL»' ■ Logatec? Krško • Grosuplje Ajdovščina Novo mesto ¡erknica iibnica .-^Metlika« Koče/je Črnomelj Ilirska Bistrica Drag*1 Authors: Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Cartography: Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin ©GIAMZRCSAZU Units Plains Rough Plains I I Low Hills Rough Low Hills | | High Hills | | Rough High Hills Mountains Mauro Hrvatin, Drago Perko Morphological typifications of Slovenia's surface using global . al classification methods can create a poor or completely wrong picture in smaller areas with diverse relief. Table 5: Correlation coefficients between the morphological typifications of Slovenia. Hammond's Meybeck, Green, Iwahashi Perko's classification and Vörösmarty's and Pike's classification classification classification Hammond's classification 1.000 0.306 0.296 0.413 Meybeck, Green, and Vorosmarty's 0.306 1.000 0.270 0.446 classification Iwahashi and Pike's classification 0.296 0.270 1.000 0.34S Perko's classification 0.413 0.446 0.34S 1.000 8 References Brabyn, L. 1998: GIS analysis of macro landform. Tenth Colloquium of the Spatial Information Research Centre. Dunedin. Dikau, R., Brabb, E. E., Mark, R. K. 1991: Landform Classification of New Mexico by Computer. Menlo Park. Gallant, A. L., Douglas, D. B., Hoffer, R. M. 2005: Automated mapping of Hammond's landforms. IEEE geoscience and remote sensing letters 2-4. Piscataway. Hammond, E. H. 1964: Analysis of properties in landform geography: An application to broadscale landform mapping. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 54. Washington. Horn, B.K. P., 1981: Hill Shading and the Reflectance Map. Proceedings of the IEEE 69-1. Los Alamitos. Internet 1: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/landform (20.1.2012). Internet 2: http://gisstar.gsi.go.jp/terrain/front_page.htm (20.1.2012). Iwahashi, J., Pike, R. J. 2007: Automated classifications of topography from DEMs by an unsupervised nested-means algorithm and a three-part geometric signature. Geomorphology 86, 3-4. New York. Meybeck, M., Green, P., Vorosmarty, C. 2001: A new typology for mountains and other relief classes: An application to global continental water resources and population distribution. Mountain Research and Development 21-1. Bern. Perko, D. 1992: Zveze med reliefom in gibanjem prebivalstva 1880-1981 v Sloveniji. Doktorsko delo, Oddelek za geografijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Perko, D. 2001: Analiza površja Slovenije s stometrskim digitalnim modelom reliefa. Geografija Slovenije 3. Ljubljana. Perko, D. 2007: Morfometrija površja Slovenije. Georitem 3. Ljubljana. Perko, D., Hrvatin, M. 2009: Določanje enot oblikovanosti površja v Sloveniji s prirejeno Hammondovo metodo. Geografski vestnik 81-2. Ljubljana. Scripter, M. W. 1970: Nested-means map classes for statistical maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 60. Washington. 50 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012, 51-63 Articles ARTICLES GEODIVERSITY AND GEOMORPHOSITE RESEARCH IN SLOVENIA AUTHORS Bojan Erhartič, Matija Zorn Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Gosposka ulica 13, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia bojaner@zrc-sazu.si, matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.si UDC: 911.2:551.4(497.4) COBISS: 1.02 ABSTRACT Geodiversity and geomorphosite research in Slovenia Slovenia's geodiversity, or its abiotic natural diversity, becomes more and more significant when considering regulations on nature conservation. This article presents theoretical background information to the study of geodiversity and geomorphological heritage and the current state of this field in Slovenia. The first quantitative evaluation of geomorphological heritage in Slovenia, which was carried out in the Triglav Lakes Valley, is also presented. The significance of regions with a high concentration and diversity of landforms is presented. Some inconsistencies in the current register of natural values are described and recommendations are presented for adding to this register. KEY WORDS geography, geomorphology, geodiversity, geomorphosites, nature conservation, Triglav Lakes Valley, Slovenia IZVLEČEK Preučevanje geodiverzitete in geomorfološke dediščine v Sloveniji Geodiverziteta ali pestrost nežive narave v Sloveniji vse bolj pridobiva na pomenu pri vprašanju zakonskega varovanja narave. Predstavljena so nekatera teoretska izhodišča za preučevanje geodiverzitete in geomorološke dediščine ter stanje na tem področju v Sloveniji. Predstavljeno je tudi prvo kvantitativno vrednotenje geomorfološke dediščine v Sloveniji, izvedeno v Dolini Triglavskih jezer. Izpostavljen je pomen območij z veliko gostoto in raznovrstnostjo reliefnih oblik. Ugotovljena so bila nekatera neskladja z obstoječim registrom naravnih vrednot ter podani predlogi za dopolnitev le-tega. KLJUČNE BESEDE geografija, geomorfologija, geodiverziteta, geomorfološka dediščina, varstvo narave, Dolina Triglavskih jezer, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on September 23, 2011. 51 Bojan Erhartič, Matija Zorn Geodiversity and geomorphosite research in Slovenia 1 Introduction In the past two decades, the trend toward describing and evaluating natural diversity around the world and in Slovenia has been strongest in biology (Serrano and Ruiz-Flaño 2007) because concerns about species extinction and habitat loss have grown. The concept of biodiversity was introduced in 1988 as a scientific term to define the variability of the Earth's living organisms, its »biological diversity« (Wilson 1992), and was intended to include »the diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems« (Hawksworth 1996). Its use became widespread as a result of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which was held in order to encourage analysis of conservation of biodiversity and related issues. Biodiversity promotes the idea that the world is biologically diverse, that there are significant threats to this biological diversity, and that there is therefore a need to take action to conserve it. It quickly became obvious to geoscientists that there must be an equivalent to biodiversity to describe the variety of non-living or abiotic natural wealth. The first uses of the term »geodiversity« occurred in 1993 in publications from Germany and Australia (Wiedenbein 1993; Sharples 1993; Gray 2008). Thus, some researchers quickly realized that it is possible to consider geology, geomorphology, and hydrology in much the same way as biology; that is, planet Earth is very diverse in these senses as well, and this diversity is also valuable and threatened, and there is a need to conserve it. Thus the concept of geodiversity took its place as a tool for managing protected areas, often in contrast to the term biodiversity (Cañadas and Ruiz-Flaño 2007). In Slovenia, the term did not appear in professional literature until 2007 (Erhartic 2007). The term biodiversity is still more common than the term geodiversity, which is shown by the two terms' use on the World Wide Web. Using the Googlefight webpage to compare biodiversity (with 4.3 million hits) and geodiversity (with around 17,400 hits) on 22 January 2012 showed that the difference is a factor of nearly 250. The concept of conservation and management of natural areas has changed over time. Broadly speaking, the main phases have been (Skoberne 2005): • Conservationist, with implementation of landscape and monumental concepts involving the most outstanding visible elements of natural areas (e.g., trees, caves, waterfalls); • Biological, with protection of species being placed in the foreground (over time, activities were extended to include ecosystems); • Holistic, with extension of understanding ecosystem protection to a global level that includes habitats and landscapes as visible elements of the multiple relations between living beings, including humankind, and the abiotic environment. These changes in conservation concepts and the incorporation of biodiversity have led to a greater understanding of the role that the abiotic components of a landscape play in determining value, an aspect without which it is impossible to conserve nature. Indeed, protected areas are often defined as such because of the abiotic elements that make up these outstanding landscapes. It is within this framework that new terms have been coined and concepts such as geodiversity have been created. In Slovenia, the first known example of conscious nature conservation was the protection of the virgin forest Rajhenavski pragozd in 1892. Despite over a century of tradition, however, management of natural areas is only now moving from the second, biological and ecosystem phase, to the third, holistic phase or paradigm. 2 Geodiversity The Australian Heritage Commission report of 2002 defines geodiversity as »the natural range (diversity) of geological (rocks, minerals, fossils), geomorphological (landform, processes) and soil features. It includes their assemblages, relationships, properties, interpretations and systems« (Gray 2004, 8; 52 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Figure 1: Levels of biodiversity and geodiversty (Erhartič 2011, 28). Internet 1). The British definition is similar, except that it also includes people and culture: »It is the link between people, landscapes and culture; it is the variety of geological environments, phenomena and processes that make those landscapes, rocks, minerals, fossils and soils which provide the framework for life on Earth« (Gray 2004, 7). In marked contrast to the clear and precise definition of biodiversity, which includes a concept of hierarchical levels - genes, species and ecosystems (Figure 1) - geodiver-sity has shown a conceptual weakness that has left it adrift in various fields. The concept of geodiversity as »the variety of abiotic nature« (Gray 2004) includes a plethora of interrelated elements on the land surface and in the seas and oceans. It has also led to attempts to formulate more integrative definitions that try to take into account all the elements involved in the structure and physical processes of the land surface. Sharples (2002), on the other hand, includes not only geological, geomorphological, and soil elements, but also the interrelated character of their links, assemblages, properties, systems, and processes. The most integrative vision is that of Kozlowski (2004, 834) who defines geodiversity as the »natural variety of the Earth's surface, referring to geological and geomorphological aspects, soils and surface waters, as well as to other systems created as a result of both natural (endogenic and exogenic) processes and human activity.« Slovenians use a somewhat simplified definition (Erhartič 2007, 60): »geodiversity is the diversity and complex connection of features and processes in the geology, geomorphology, hydrology, and soil geography of a particular area«; it is also understood as the diversity of non-living nature. There is a natural tendency to think of wildlife as being fragile and vulnerable and therefore in need of conservation, whereas rocks, mountains, and landforms are seen as stable, static, and much too prolific to ever be endangered. The world's geodiversity is of value in several respects but is threatened by many human activities (Gray 2004). Pressures on geodiversity arise principally from planning developments and land-use changes. These may damage key features, impair their visibility and accessibility, or fragment the interest. There is therefore a need for geoconservation, but the objectives and methods of geoconservation need to take the various elements of geodiversity into account. For example, the conservation of soils needs to be approached very differently from the conservation of fossils. Important geomorphological sites can be protected by legislation, but soils and landscapes in the wider countryside are better conserved by policy development and partnerships (e.g., in agriculture). Slovenia lacks a holistic perspective on landscape because this is dealt with by sectors within various ministries (e.g., the Ministry of Infrastructure and Spatial Planning, the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture, and Sport, and the Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment). Only in the past few years has Slovenia focused more on studying the issues of geodiversity and geoheritage, primarily geomorphological heritage (geomorphosites) (Erhartič 2007; 2010a; 2010b; Zorn, Erhartič, and Komac 2009; Komac, Zorn, and Erhartič 2011), although awareness of geological heritage (geosite) is older (e.g., Rotar 1991; Hlad 1998; Hlad and Šolar 1998; Kavčič and Peljhan 2010; Peljhan, Gorjup-Kavčič, and Benčina 2011). 53 Bojan Erhartič, Matija Zorn Geodiversity and geomorphosite research in Slovenia The geodiversity concept highlights the sensitivity of abiotic elements and dynamics and the value of the natural, geological, geomorphological, pedological, and hydrological factors in nature conservation and land planning and management. However, this does not imply a focus on concrete sites (e.g., geosite and geomorphosites), but rather on a set of elements found within a stretch of the land continuum or in a region as a whole. According to Gray (2005), geodiversity is a means for inclusion of natural diversity in conservation, planning, and education through different forms (e.g., geotopes, geomorphosites, geoparks, and protected landscapes). The objectives and methods of geoconservation vary, depending on which element of geodiversity is being considered. 3 Geomorphological heritage Of course, it is not necessary to protect all geodiversity because that would lead to pragmatic problems due to society's needs to use certain resources. Thus it is necessary to highlight, evaluate, and protect the most important or most valuable parts of abiotic nature. Landforms are one of the most widespread, immediately recognizable, and attractive non-living natural elements of the landscape, which have always aroused interest among people due to their beautiful, exceptional, or unusual appearance. By selecting interesting, memorable shapes, people unconsciously endow them with some meaning or value. These forms thus become heritage, or (with professional evaluation) a value. Its attributes are those that give it value and allow the landform to be declared a geomorphological natural value. Geomorphological heritage (e.g., Hribar 2010) thus entails phenomena and processes to which value can be ascribed: scientific, aesthetic, historical, tangible, and intangible cultural, social, or economic value, depending on peoples perceptions or the needs of a given study. Evaluation is personal and depends on the awareness and knowledge of an individual and the entire society (Hlad 2002). A given landform becomes a natural value only if it also contains a social component, and if the geomorphology and nature conservation professionals recognize it as a value and ascribe it the status of a value. However, because society develops and changes over time, and with it also the criteria and measures, values are also subject to change (Smid Hribar 2008). The problem of evaluating nature and natural values is that, regardless of the evaluation method used, it is practically impossible to exclude the subjective component (Erhartic 2010a). In international literature, the term geomorphosite has come into use for geomorphological heritage. Panizza (2001, 4) defines this term as »a landform to which a value can be attributed.« Regardless of the fact that terms change, parts of nature that have been recognized as such remain. What is essential is that they contain special values (Berginc 2006). With non-living heritage, researchers first primarily studied the scientific value of forms and phenomena (Panizza and Piacente 1993; Rivas et al. 1997; Bruschi and Cendrero 2005; Coratza and Giusti 2005; Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005) because they were merely used to support the inventorying of heritage and the analysis of environmental impacts (Reynard etal. 2007). Scientific criteria were soon joined by cultural, ecological, economic, and aesthetic criteria of evaluating non-living nature (Panizza and Piacente 1993; Reynard et al. 2007). In order to reduce subjective influence and enable comparison of geomorphological heritage in various parts of the world, a number of quantitative methods of evaluating geomorphological heritage have developed in recent years (e.g., Panizza 2003; Coratza and Giusti 2005; Serrano and Gonzales-Trueba 2005; Pereira, Pereira, and Caetano Alves 2007; Reynard etal. 2007). Which evaluation method is the most appropriate depends on the research goals (Erhartic 2010a). Until recently, this type of (quantitative) evaluation had not been present in Slovenia (Erhartic 2010a; 2011). The first protected area where it was carried out was Triglav National Park, which is also the only Slovenian national park (Erhartic 2011; chapter 5.1). 54 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles 4 Geodiversity in Slovenia The Republic of Slovenia covers 20,273 km2 and encompasses four macro-geographical regions: the Alps and Dinaric Alps, and the Mediterranean and Pannonian basins (Orožen Adamič 2004). Significant landscape and biological diversity within a relatively small territory is one of Slovenia's main characteristics. It is greatly supported by different types of climate, geological structure, varied relief, and great differences in elevation. Due to prevailing carbonate bedrock (43%), an appropriate climate, and the amount of precipitation, karst phenomena are especially well developed in Slovenia. The Sežana-Komen karst region, known also as the Classical Karst, attracted the attention of geotourists as early as the Middle Ages (Zorn, Erhartič, and Komac 2009). Even though geodiversity has not yet been systematically studied in Slovenia, it can be concluded on the basis of natural-geographical landscape elements that the level of geodiversity is high in Slovenia because a large number of geological, geomorphological, and hydrologic phenomena are manifested in a small area. Slovenia's nature conservation system is thematically oriented toward three fields: natural assets (values), plant and animal species, and ecosystems. Due to EU requirements, Slovenia introduced Natura 2000 as a mechanism for the conservation of natural habitats, fauna (especially birds), and flora. The aim of the network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats (Internet 2). The EU describes habitats as »terrestrial or aquatic areas differentiated by their geographical, abiotic and biotic characteristics, whether they be wholly natural or semi-natural« (Internet 2). Thus habitats include abiotic and spatial components. The variety of abiotic elements forming habitats can also be referred to as geodiversity. The framing of the concept of geodiversity in this context is of special interest because it reflects an understanding of natural diversity, and links the concept to development of conservation policies and management of natural protected areas and natural heritage in national and transnational areas, such as Natura 2000 in Europe. Even though Natura 2000 has thus been based on biological criteria, the determination and management of these areas also entails the study and preservation of geodiversity. The average percentage of Natura 2000 area in EU countries is 15%, whereas in Slovenia it is much higher, over 36% (Internet 2). This very high percentage is a consequence of the diverse landscape/abiotic compounds and relatively well-preserved natural environment in Slovenia. The surface contains a great diversity of rocks. Sedimentary rocks originate in various geological periods and are thus extremely diverse, which is why the soils are also extremely diverse (Jeršek and Vidrih 2009). Great diversity can also be observed with climatic conditions, which especially depend on distance from the sea, elevation, and the quantity of precipitation. These factors are reflected in exceptionally great geodiversity. Due to the large share of carbonate rocks, geodiversity in Slovenia may be the greatest when it comes to karst forms. The karst features in the Slovenian Karst (Kras) are so distinct and characteristic that the Slovenian-based term karst has become standardized in international terminology for this type of landform (Jeršek and Vidrih 2009). The possibility of measuring and quantifying geodiversity has been discussed since the beginning of geodiversity research (Serrano and Ruiz-Flano 2007). It is accepted that the effectiveness of the incorporation of geodiversity in land management depends on the capacity to understand and evaluate it. Nevertheless, the applications of the term and the theoretical reflections thereof have not been accompanied by systematic evaluation of geodiversity assessment methods. One of the first attempts to evaluate parts of geodiversity in Slovenia applied to the Soča River and the project of constructing a hydroelectric power plant at Kobarid (Peterlin and Sedej 1965; Orožen Adamič 1970). Peterlin and Sedej (1965) used an exclusively descriptive evaluation method, whereas Orožen Adamič (1970) used a simple method to numerically illustrate the »value« and thus reduce the subjective influence of evaluating nature. This resulted in a list of factors that were able to be assessed with a specific unit of measurement. 55 Bojan Erhartič, Matija Zorn Geodiversity and geomorphosite research in Slovenia 5 Geomorphosites in Slovenia In Slovenia, natural heritage is defined as a part of nature »that a society of a specific time and place recognizes as value« (Inventar... 1988). In 1999, the Nature Conservation Act (Zakon o ohranjanju... 1999) eliminated the term »natural heritage« and introduced a new one: »natural value/valuable natural feature.« Even though 170 years ago the first initiative to protect natural sites (Praprotnik 2004; Skoberne 2007) referred to the aesthetic experience of nature and all of the old nature conservation legislation was familiar with natural beauty or the aesthetic aspect, the currently valid Nature Conservation Act (Zakon o ohranjanju... 1999; 2004) does not mention any aesthetic criteria for evaluating nature. At the management level, this severely encumbers the evaluation of nature and defining heritage. According to this act, »natural values shall encompass all natural heritage in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia« (Zakon o ohranjanju... 2004) and »in addition to a rare, valuable or well-known natural phenomenon, a natural value shall be any other valuable phenomenon; component or part of living or non-living nature; natural area or part thereof; ecosystem; landscape; or designed landscape.« The Slovenian Nature Conservation Act (Zakon o ohranjanju... 2004) defines ten different kinds of natural values (Erhartic 2009). At least four of them correspond to the term »geoheritage«: surface geomorphological, underground geomorphological, geological, and hydrological natural values. However, other types of natural values may also contain abiotic nature. There are about 19,000 natural values in Slovenia (Internet 3). Figure 2 shows that half of them are underground geomorphological values because all karst caves are declared as (subsurface) natural values of national importance (Zakon o varstvu... 2004). Surface geomorphological and hydrological natural values follow, in third and fourth place. Abiotic natural values as defined above represent 73% of Slovenia's natural values. Around 85% of natural values can be shown as points (cave entrances, erratic boulders, trees), and the rest of them are indicated as areas, mostly very small. There are only 338 areas larger than 1 km2 (Internet 3). The total area of the ten largest natural values is 656.8 km2, which is 3.24% of the national territory. The large majority of them are geomorphological values: karst mountain plateaus, thrust structures, glacier valleys, and karst poljes (Internet 3). 5.1 Example of evaluating landforms in high mountain areas From 2008 to 2011, an extensive study (Erhartic 2011) was conducted on the geodiversity and geomorphological heritage in the oldest Slovenian protected area, from which the Triglav National ecosystem , . , ;o designed dendrological 14% À botanical 4% hydrological 10% geological 4% geomorpho-logical 10% Figure 2: Natural values in Slovenia (Internet 3). 56 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Figure 4: A map from the second half of the eighteenth century showing the Triglav Lakes Valley (Hacquet 1778). 57 Bojan Erhartič, Matija Zorn Geodiversity and geomorphosite research in Slovenia Figure 5: The Triglav Lakes Valley contains seven large bodies of water; the photo shows Jezero v Ledvici lake with roche moutonnée in the background. Figure 6: Numerous karren tables have been preserved on the glacial karst surface of Velika vrata area. 58 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Park developed. The high mountainous Triglav Lakes Valley in the heart of the Julian Alps, which is relatively difficult to access (Figures 3 and 4), was protected in 1924. It is visited by approximately 40,000 people a year (Erhartic 2004, 69), which places a significant burden on this vulnerable high mountain karst area with its characteristic underground streams, thin soil, and modest vegetation. The study focused on the landform analysis of the Triglav Lakes Valley and the nature-conservation evaluation of landforms. A detailed inventory of landforms was made, which included recording, analysis, and cartographic presentation of landforms. It turned out that areas with a high density and diversity of landforms had greater nature-conservation significance than individual landforms because the latter can also be in various developmental stages. Therefore, based on the relief landscape elements, the surface of the Triglav Lakes Valley was then divided into units or geomorphological complexes. A simple Swiss method (Reynard et al. 2007) was used to evaluate seventeen uniform geomorphological units. The method includes central or scientific evaluation criteria (e.g., rarity, typicality, completeness, and paleogeographical value), which are complemented by additional criteria (e.g., ecological, aesthetic, cultural, and economic value). The total value, which is the result of central and additional evaluation criteria, is provided descriptively because this preserves greater transparency of the procedure. Landform evaluation showed that the greatest geomorphological value can be ascribed to a wide variety of valley parts. However, lakes (Figure 5) and the glacial-karst surface of Velika vrata area (Figure 6) were evaluated as the most important nature-conservation areas. The Velika vrata area is important especially because of its numerous corrosion and glacial erosion forms at various developmental stages. Karren tables stand out among the glacial karst shapes because the area of Velika vrata is their locus typicus in Slovenia (Figure 6). In the high-mountain areas of the limestone Alps, lakes are important already because they are so rare and because of their ecological and aesthetic value. These are followed by the limestone pavement areas south of the Prehodavci Pass, especially thanks to its completeness and the presence of rare and typical high-mountain karst features; the roche moutonnée south of Jezero v Ledvici lake (Figure 5), and limestone pavement Gladki last, which is the largest limestone pavement in the Triglav Lakes Valley. With regard to the Triglav Lakes Valley, certain discrepancies were established with the register of natural values kept by the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation and the Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia; proposals for expanding the list were presented as well as (Figure 7) proposals for awarding the status of a natural value and for establishment of small protected area (natural monument): • All the lakes are natural values, but only First Lake is recognized as a natural monument; all the lakes should acquire the status of a natural monument; • The evaluation confirms the justification of limestone pavement Gladki last to be recognized as a natural value; • The evaluation did not confirm the reasons for limestone pavement Debeli last to have the status of a natural value; according to the Swiss criteria, this unit does not meet the requirements to be listed among the most important natural heritage in Slovenia; • The area of limestone pavement Kosmata lasta is inaccessible, so its status can neither be confirmed nor rejected; • The geomorphologically most important area in the Triglav Lakes Valley is the area of Velika vrata, which has not been awarded any legal status so far; therefore we believe it should become a natural value; a further appropriate legal step in this area would be to protect it as a natural monument; -In terms of scientific value, Velika vrata is followed by the limestone pavement Podi south of the Prehodavci Pass; we also suggest that a status of natural value be ascribed to this unit; Figure 7: Geomorphological units in the Triglav Lakes Valley and proposals for geomorphological heritage and its protection (Erhartic 2011, 139, 196). P str. 60 59 OS o Geomorphosites ^ existing geomorphosites proposed geomorphosite proposed natural monument Geomorphological Units ( ) geomorphological unit geomorphhological unit - lake 1 Kanjavec 2 Hribarice 3 upper part of the Triglav Lakes Valley 4 limestone pavement below the Prehodavci Saddle 5 moraines in the eastern part of the Triglav Lake Valley 6 Jezerski greben Ridge 7 scree under Jezerski greben Ridge 8 Lepo Špičje-Plaski Vogel-Čelo Ridge 9 tectonically broken zone under the Lepo Špičje Ridge j q limestone pavement and roche moutonnee between Ledvica Lake and Pri Utah mountain pasture 11 forested limestone pavement with karst depressions 12 Debeli last 13 Gladki last 14 limestone plateau Za dolino and Pri bajti 15 Velika vrata 16 Kosmata lašta 17 lakes border of the Triglav Lakes Valley 0 0.5 1 2 km 1_i_i_i_I_i_i_i_I Author of the content: Bojan Erhartič Author of the map: Manca Volk Source: ARSO, GURS, MKGP © Anton Melik Geographical Institute ZRC SAZU td .o. B M 5- P f—s o< 2 N o B O n> o O- OJ B O-CJQ "O B- o B o* s Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles • The upper part of the Triglav Lakes Valley has a great nature-conservation value; this unit also includes five bodies of waters with natural value status. Jezero pod Vršacem lake is also protected as a natural monument and so it does not require an additional conservation regime; • The area between Jezero v Ledvici lake and the deserted mountain pasture Pri Utah also stands out in terms of its value. We think that the roche moutonnée and patches of moraine material that prevent corrosion - which is extremely visible in the field - are so important that the area should be awarded the status of a natural value. 6 Conclusion Even though the awareness of geoheritage in Slovenia is approximately as old as the country itself (Chapter 2), until a few years ago we had been lacking a problem-oriented approach to its study. However, we still too often lack the applicability of geoheritage and, nearly a decade and a half later, also geodi-versity as a tool within the management of protected areas. According to Gray (2004), geodiversity is a basic principle of geoconservation and protection of places. As a term, it appears easily accessible to managers and politicians, supporting quick recognition of the need to take other aspects of conservation, in addition to biological ones, into consideration. In particular, it is felt to be useful for the conservation of abiotic heritage and the incorporation thereof in local sustainable development policies, as well as for the assessment of non-biological natural resources. From the planning point of view, the term can help integrate nature conservation into sustainable land management. This is reflected well in geoparks (Internet 4), which are actually a response by geo-science professionals to the overly strong emphasis on biological issues in the nature-conservation system. There are currently two geoparks in Slovenia: the Idrija Geopark (Peljhan, Gorjup-Kavčič, and Režun 2009) and the (Austrian-Slovenian) Karavanke/Karawanken Geopark across the border (Bedjanič, Rojs, and Fajmut Štrucl 2012; Geopark... 2012). Another one is currently being designed: the cross-border (Slovenian-Italian) Kras/Carso Geopark. In contrast to protected areas, geoparks are not defined in Slovenian legislation. Their mission lies primarily in sustainable land management with an emphasis on sustainable tourism and promotion of the area. In Slovenia, geoparks are also a relatively recent phenomenon because the first (in Idrija) was only established in 2010 (Peljhan, Stupar, and Režun 2011, 4); this is why the two geoparks already established are not yet part of the international geopark network. Establishing geoparks is definitely a step in the right direction, but nonetheless they lack not only balance between the living and non-living components of nature, but also a uniform representation of material within non-living nature because the geomorphological ones are often left in the background. The goal of evaluating geodiversity and geoheritage (Erhartič 2011) is for Slovenia to receive a more systematic - and especially more objective - method for verifying whether specific geoheritage »deserves« to be legally protected. 7 References Bedjanič, M., Rojs, L., Fajmut Štrucl, S. 2012: Geopark Karavanke. Gea 22-5. Ljubljana. Berginc, M. 2006: Sistem varstva narave v Sloveniji. Ljubljana. Bruschi, V. M., Cendrero, A. 2005: Geosite evaluation: can we measure intangible values? Il Quaternario 18-1. Roma. Cañadas, S., Ruiz-Flaño, P. 2007: Geodiversity: concept, assessment and territorial application. The case of Tiermes-Caracena (Soria). Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles 45. Madrid. Coratza, P., Giusti, C. 2005: Methodological proposal for the assessment of the scientific quality of geo-morphosites. Il Quaternario 18-1. Roma. 61 Bojan Erhartič, Matija Zorn Geodiversity and geomorphosite research in Slovenia Erhartič, B. 2004: Presoja uporabnosti rastlinskih čistilnih naprav pri planinskih postojankah Triglavskega narodnega parka. Diplomsko delo, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Erhartič, B. 2007: Reliefne oblike kot geodiverziteta (geomorfološka naravna dediščina). Dela 28. Ljubljana. Erhartič, B. 2009: Terase Jeruzalemskih goric kot krajinska vrednota. Pomurje: Trajnostni regionalni razvoj ob reki Muri. 20. zborovanje slovenskih geografov. Murska Sobota. Erhartič, B. 2010a: Geomorphosite assessment. Acta geographica slovenica 50-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/ AGS50206 Erhartič, B. 2010b: Conserving geoheritage in Slovenia through geomorphosite mapping. Geovisions 35. Lausanne. Erhartič, B. 2011: Naravovarstveno vrednotenje geomorfološke dediščine v Dolini Triglavskih jezer z metodo geomorfološkega kartiranja. Doktorsko delo, Biotehniška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Geopark Karavanke/Karawanken: Application for membership in the Global Geoparks Network. Internet: http://www.ktn.gv.at/236440_DE-Dateien-Unesco-Einreichung.pdf; http://www.podzemljepece.com/ UserFiles/File/2011_Geopark%20Karvanke_Karawanken_Application.pdf (10.1.2012). Gray, M. 2004: Geodiversity, valuing and conserving abiotic nature. London. Gray, M. 2005: Planning for geoconservation. Earth Heritage 23. Ludlow. Gray, M. 2008: Geodiversity: the origin and evolution of a paradigm. The History of Geoconservation. London. Hacquet, B. 1778: Oryctographia Carniolica oder Physikalische Erdbeschreibung des Herzogthums Krain, Istrien, und zum Theil der benachbarten Länder. Erster Theil. Leipzig. Hawksworth, D. L. 1996: Biodiversity: measurement and estimation. Oxford. Hlad, B. 1998: Geološka dediščina v naših rokah. Proteus 70, 9-10. Ljubljana. Hlad, B. 2002: Varstvo geoloških naravnih vrednot v Sloveniji. Geologija 45-2. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.5474/ geologija.2002.036 Hlad, B., Šolar, S. (eds.) 1998: Geološka naravna dediščina: zbornik posveta. Ljubljana Hribar, A. 2010: Geomorfološka dediščina. Življenje in tehnika 61-6. Ljubljana. Internet 1: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/members/media-releases/mr20110309.html (15.12.2010). Internet 2: http://www.natura2000.gov.si/ (10.1.2012). Internet 3: http://gis.arso.gov.si/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page (17.12.2010). Internet 4: http://www.europeangeoparks.org/ (10.1.2012). Inventar najpomembnejše naravne dediščine Slovenije, 1. del. Ljubljana, 1988. Jeršek, M., Vidrih, R. 2009: Geodiverziteta. Evolucija Zemlje in geološke značilnosti Slovenije. Ljubljana. Kavčič, M., Peljhan, M. 2010: Geological heritage as an integral part of natural heritage conservation through its sustainable use in the Idrija region (Slovenia). Geoheritage 2, 3-4. DOI: 10.1007/ s12371-010-0018-5 Komac, B., Zorn, M., Erhartič, B. 2011: Loss of natural heritage from the geomorphological perspective: do geomorphic processes shape or destroy the natural heritage? Acta geographica slovenica 51-3. Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS51306 Kozlowski, S. 2004: Geodiversity: The concept and scope of geodiversity. Przegl^d Geologiczny 52-8. Warszawa. Orožen Adamič, M. (ed.) 2004: Slovenia: a geographical overview. Ljubljana. Orožen Adamič, M. 1970: Kako naj vrednotimo pokrajino? Proteus 33-4. Ljubljana. Panizza, M. 2001: Geomorphosites: Concepts, methods and example of geomorphological survey. Chinese Science Bulletin 46, Suppl. Peking. DOI: 10.1007/BF03187227 Panizza, M. 2003: Karst landforms as geomorphosites. Dela 20. Ljubljana. Panizza, M., Piacente, S. 1993: Geomorphological assets evaluation. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Suppl. 87. Stuttgart. 62 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles Peljhan, M., Gorjup-Kavčič, M., Benčina, T. 2011: Geološka dediščina v Občini Idrija. Geografski obzornik 58-1. Ljubljana. Peljhan, M., Gorjup-Kavčič, M., Režun, B. 2009: Naravoslovna dediščina Idrije povezana v Geopark. Idrijski razgledi 54-1. Idrija. Peljhan, M., Stupar, M., Režun, B. 2011: Geopark Idrija je pripravil dosje za vključitev v evropsko mrežo geoparkov. Komunitator 11-61. Idrija. Internet: http://www.fmr.si/pic/kom/komunitator_decem-ber11.pdf (10.1.2012). Pereira, P., Pereira, D., Caetano Alves, M. I. 2007: Geomorphosite assessment in Montesinho Natural Park (Portugal). Geographica Helvetica 62-3. Basel. Peterlin, S., Sedej, I. 1965: Projekt hidroelektrarne Trnovo in varstvo pokrajine. Varstvo narave 2-3. Ljubljana. Praprotnik, N. 2004: Blagajev volčin - naša botanična znamenitost. Ljubljana. Reynard, E., Fontana, G., Kozlik, L., Scapozza, C. 2007: A method for assessing »scientific« and »additional values« of geomorphosites. Geographica Helvetica 62-3. Basel. Rivas, V., Rix, K., Frances, E., Cendrero, A., Brunsden, D. 1997: Geomorphological indicators for environmental impact assessment: consumable and non-consumable geomorphological resources. Geomorphology 18, 3-4. Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-555X(96)00024-4 Rotar, J. 1991: Varstvo narave in geološka dediščina v Sloveniji. Rudarsko-metalurški zbornik 38-2. Ljubljana. Serrano, E., Gonzalez-Trueba, J. J. 2005: Assessment of geomorphosites in natural protected areas: the Picos de Europa National Park (Spain). Géomorphologie: relief, processus, environnement 3. Paris. DOI: 10.4000/geomorphologie.364 Serrano, E., Ruiz-Flano, P. 2007: Geodiversity. A theoretical and applied concept. Geographica Helvetica 62-3. Basel. Sharples, C. 1993: A Methodology for the identification of significant landforms and geological sites for geoconservation purposes. Hobart. Sharples, C. 2002: Concepts and Principles of Geoconservation. Internet: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/ inter,nsf/WebPages/SJON-57W4FD?open (10.1.2012). Skoberne, P. 2005: Študijsko gradivo za podiplomski študij Varstva naravne dediščine 2005-2006. Biotehniška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Skoberne, P. 2007: Zavarovane rastline Slovenije: žepni vodnik. Ljubljana. Šmid Hribar, M. 2008: Drevo kot dvopomenska dediščina. Magistrsko delo, Biotehniška fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. Ljubljana. Wiedenbein, F. W. 1994: Origin and use of the term geotope' in German-speaking countries. Geological and Landscape Conservation. London. Wilson, E. O. 1992: The diversity of life. Cambridge. Zakon o ohranjanju narave. Uradni listi Republike Slovenije 56/1999, 31/2000, 110/2002, 119/2002, 22/2003, 41/2004, 96/2004, 61/2006, 63/2007, 117/2007, 32/2008, 8/2010. Ljubljana. Zakon o varstvu podzemnih jam. Uradni listi Republike Slovenije 2/2004, 61/2006. Ljubljana. Zorn, M., Erhartič, B., Komac, B. 2009: La Slovénie, berceau du géotourism karstique. Karstologia 54-2. Le Bourget-du-Lac. 63 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012, 65-75 Articles ARTICLES LATEST RESEARCH ON KARST WATERS IN SLOVENIA AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AUTHORS Gregor Kovačič University of Primorska, Faculty of Humanities Koper, Department of Geography, Titov trg 5, SI - 6000 Koper, Slovenia gregor. kovacic@fhs. upr.si Nataša Ravbar, Metka Petrič, Janja Kogovšek Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Karst Research Institute, Titov trg 2, SI - 6230 Postojna, Slovenia natasa.ravbar@zrc-sazu.si, petric@zrc-sazu.si, kogovsek@zrc-sazu.si UDC: 911.2:551.444(497.4) COBISS: 1.02 ABSTRACT Latest research on karst waters in Slovenia and their significance In this paper an overview on recent research on karst waters in Slovenia is presented. In recent years a great emphasis was given to the investigation of water flow and transport in karst aquifers and questions regarding the protection of karst water. In paper, the results of a series of studies, such as tracer tests, GIS methods, hydrological time series analysis are discussed, as well as their contribution to the scientific knowledge. The results of the studies show that only continuous research of karst waters with the use of different investigation techniques is a guarantee for efficient protection of karst water, which is becoming strategically important natural resource. KEY WORDS karst, karst aquifer, tracer test, time series analysis, water sources, vulnerability protection of karst water, Slovenia IZVLEČEK Novejše študije voda na krasu in njihov pomen V prispevku je predstavljen pregled raziskav kraških voda v Sloveniji v zadnjih nekaj letih. V tem obdobju izstopajo preučevanje toka in transporta snovi v kraških vodonosnikih ter vprašanja povezana z varovanjem kraških voda. V članku so predstavljeni rezultati raziskav, ki zajemajo sledilne poizkuse, uporabo GIS-ov in analize hidroloških časovnih vrst. Rezultati predstavljenih raziskav kažejo, da je zgolj zvezno preučevanje kraških voda z uporabo različnih raziskovalnih tehnik zagotovilo za učinkovito varovanje kraške podtalnice, ki postaja strateško pomembna naravna dobrina. KLJUČNE BESEDE kras, kraški vodonosnik, sledilni poizkus, analiza časovnih vrst, vodni viri, ranljivost, varovanje kraške podtalnice, Slovenija The article was submitted for publication on June 16, 2011. 65 Gregor Kovačič, Nataša Ravbar, Metka Petrič, Janja Kogovšek Latest research on karst waters ... 1 Introduction In Slovenia karst areas mostly consist of thick carbonate rock sequences of Mesozoic age forming large karst massifs and plateaus that are intersected by lower karst areas, poljes and valleys. Karst areas cover about 44% of the state (Gams 2003) and contain large amounts of quality groundwater. Half of the country's needs for the drinking water supply are abstracted from karst aquifers. These areas are, however, very permeable and enable immediate infiltration of water into the system. In the underground a three dimensional flow net of underground conduits and voids is developed (White 2002; Ford and Williams 2007). Due to some other specific characteristics (absence of protective layers, concentrated recharge, high flow velocities through underground channels, absence of organisms that usually take nutrients on the surface, etc.), karst aquifers are extremely vulnerable to pollution. Considering both, the importance of karst aquifers and their susceptibility to pollution, many studies focused on topics such as assessments of vulnerability, investigations of water flow and transport, as well as the protection of water sources. Studies included different field and other investigation techniques, such as tracer tests, GIS methods, hydrological time series analysis, etc. In this paper recent research achievements in Slovenia, performed mainly by the associates of the Karst Research Institute of Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts and associates of Faculty of Humanities Koper University of Primorska are presented. 2 Water flow and transport of soluble substances in the Unica river basin For efficient protection of karst waters against pollution it is essential to understand and consider the characteristics of water flow and transport of soluble substances in the underground and processes of their exchange with surface waters. The tracer tests were proved as one of the most suitable methods for such studies. Tracing with natural tracers involves detailed monitoring of natural parameters of karst waters in longer periods. In tracing with artificial tracers different substances are injected into the water system and their appearance is observed at selected points within the system (e.g., water caves, springs). In recent years, tracer tests were applied in several research projects on Slovene karst. Beside Rižana springs catchment area, the recharge area of the Malenščica (regionally important drinking water source) and Unica springs at the rim of the Planina polje has been most intensively studied (Fig. 1). The study area is located in SW Slovenia. The springs are recharged by three hydrologically connected parts. The central part is the karst massif of Javorniki and Snežnik. At the western side it borders the Pivka river valley and at the eastern and northern side a string of karst poljes (the biggest among them is the Cerknica polje). In the Javorniki-Snežnik part, the underground flow is dominant, and in other two parts surface streams are present also. Surface streams are mainly recharged by karst waters, and after a certain distance of surface flow they sink again. To complement the already existing knowledge about the relations between these contribution areas (Gams 1965; Habič 1987; Kogovšek 1998; 1999; 2001a; 2001b), a monitoring net was installed in 2007 (3 rain-gauges and 9 data loggers for recording discharge, temperature - T, and electrical conductivity - EC). Additionally, two multi-tracer tests with artificial tracers were carried out. High oscillations of water temperature at the springs indicate a significant share of secondary recharge from the surface water bodies (Fig. 2). By comparison of the occurrence of the peaks (maximum) or saddles (minimum) of the T curves of the Kotliči and Malenščica springs, the flow velocity in the karst system between them was estimated to 145-215 m/h (Kogovšek and Petrič 2010b). Similar values were calculated as a result of five tracer tests performed previously in this area. The T and EC curves of the Unica spring show an important influence of the recharge from the Pivka sinking stream, which is not characteristic for the Malenščica spring. In all springs the extreme T values are detected during high 66 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles karst aquifer fissured aquifer porous aquifer very low permeable rocks cave surface stream Mala Karlovica Cave I I test site with selected trickles 0 spring A tracer injection point * data logger _^ main and secondary water connection Cerknica polje 2 km ÎN Cartography: Metka Petrič Figure 1: Hydrogeological map of the part of the Unica River catchment area. waters as a reflection of a dominant recharge from the surface water bodies, while during low waters the recharge is slower and the retention time of water in the karst underground longer. At such conditions the share of primary recharge from the Javorniki-Sneznik karst aquifer is larger. Artificial tracers were used in May and November 2008 to prove the main groundwater flow from the Mala Karlovica Cave at the Cerknica polje to the Kotlici spring and further on toward the Malenscica and Unica springs. The results are presented in Figs. 1 and 3 (Gabrovseketal. 2010). During the second tracer test, the tracer was also injected into an oil collector which collects drainage water from the highway Ljubljana-Postojna to provide us with the characteristics of the contaminant flow from the karst surface. Outflow from the collector infiltrates into the vadose zone (upper, unsaturated part of the aquifer). In the period without rainfall the flow towards the observed springs was slow and tracer was appearing in very low concentrations. Only the intensive rain pushed it more efficiently out of the system. At given hydrological conditions, the main direction of flow was toward the Unica spring and only low concentrations of tracer were recorded at the Malenscica spring. 67 Gregor Kovačič, Nataša Ravbar, Metka Petrič, Janja Kogovšek Latest research on karst waters ... value for the two hydrological years), T and EC at selected monitoring points. Percolation through the vadose zone is significantly slower than groundwater flow through karst conduits and it depends on various factors. These were studied by the monitoring of precipitation and discharge of selected trickles in the Postojna cave (Fig. 1) over successive hydrological years. It was established that the dynamics of percolation through the vadose zone is directly related to the quantity and 68 Geografski vestnik 84-1, 2012 Articles 1= S j= a ^ 10 -s & 5 1 0 23.5.08 Date ^ 0.6 -| "fe "So 0.5 - S ^ 0.4 -c 1 0.3 - i-l =3 ^ 0.2 -