Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017, 7–29 DETERMINATION OF LANDSCAPE HOTSPOTS OF SLOVENIA DOLOČANJE POKRAJINSKIH VROČIH TOČK SLOVENIJE Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič The landscape hotspot around Kamnik, as seen by the painter Franz Kurz zum Thurn und Goldenstein (1807–1878). The original painting is kept at the National Museum of Slovenia. Pokrajinska vroča točka okoli Kamnika, kot jo je videl slikar Franz Kurz zum Thurn und Goldenstein (1807–1878). Izvirnik slike hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije. 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 7 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4618 UDC: 911.52(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 ABSTRACT: Based on digital data on relief, rock, and vegetation, the most significant elements of the inter- nal structure of Slovenian landscapes, and their external appearance, a geographic information system was used to calculate landscape diversity of Slovenia. Areas with high landscape diversity are landscape hotspots, and areas with low landscape diversity are landscape coldspots. One-tenth of Slovenia with the highest landscape diversity was defined as landscape hotspots, and one-tenth of Slovenia with the lowest landscape diversity was defined as landscape coldspots. Most landscape hotspots are located in the Alpine part of Slovenia (more than two-thirds of their total area), and most landscape coldspots in the Dinaric part of Slovenia (almost half of their total area). KEY WORDS: geography, relief, rocks, vegetation, landscape diversity, landscape hotspot, landscape coldspot, geographic information system, Slovenia The editorial board received this article on May 25th, 2016. ADDRESSES: Drago Perko, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: drago@zrc-sazu.si Mauro Hrvatin, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: mauro@zrc-sazu.si Rok Ciglič, Ph.D. Anton Melik Geographical Institute Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia E-mail: rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.si 8 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 8 1 Introduction Increasingly more researchers are dealing with the evaluation and importance of landscape diversity (Runhaar and Udo de Haes 1994; Bailey 1996; Bunce et al. 1996; Bastian 2000; Mücher et al. 2003; Loveland and Merchant 2004; Šímová and Gdulová 2012; Mocior and Kruse 2016). Areas where there is a mix of vari- ous natural factors are important for biodiversity, habitats, and species diversity (Dramstad et al. 2001; Hou and Walz 2013; Walz and Syrbe 2013). Areas with landscape diversity may also have an advantage in economic development, especially in tourism, because »human perception respects diversity, complexity, patterns, and local character« (Erhartič 2012). Gray (2004) believes that the significance of diverse types of relief and richness of terrain details for the popularity of tourism areas is greatly underestimated. On the other hand, areas where various natural influ- ences mix can also be areas where it is not simple to transfer best practices because of the varying responses of the landscape to human intervention. The landscape diversity of an area may therefore offer some advantages, but also some disadvantages and challenges. High landscape diversity mainly characterizes areas at the junction and interweaving of different landscape types. Analysis of various geographical classifications of Europe shows that the most diverse areas are located in southern Scandinavia and on the margins of the Pyrenees and the Alps. Slovenia is also included in these very diverse areas (Ciglič and Perko 2013). The main purpose of the study is to determine the contiguous areas in Slovenia with the greatest and least landscape diversity, which is related to certain economic and other advantages or disadvantages. The article presents the first part of the study, which is primarily a quantitative approach to defining areas with increased natural landscape diversity. In the future, evaluation based on actual data, field research, and expert assessment will define the role of natural landscape diversity for the risk of natural hazards. It will also be used in relation to settlement patterns (i.e., spatial planning), agriculture, tourism, and the economy overall. The defined evaluation system for landscape heterogeneity can potentially be used in various areas around the globe. 2 Methods Three natural landscape elements are the most significant for the internal structure, function, and appear- ance of Slovenian landscapes: relief, rocks, and vegetation. They are so strongly linked with other natural landscape elements that a natural-geographical regionalization or typology of appropriate quality can only be created by considering these three landscape elements (Perko, Hrvatin, and Ciglič 2015). Because Slovenia has sufficiently accurate digital data on relief, rocks, and vegetation at its disposal, it is possible to use a geographic information system to determine landscape diversity as well as landscape hotspots and coldspots. As a base layer in a geographic information system, a geomorphologically tested 25 m digital eleva- tion model (Podobnikar 2002, Digitalni model višin … 2014) was used, which provides 32,436,693 square cells with a baseline of 25 m and an area of 6.25 ares. Vector layers with relief, lithological, and vegetation types were added. They were transformed from vector format to 25 m raster format because the remainder of the study used geoinformation tools for pro- cessing raster data layers. The relief layer (Figure 1) is based on a 1:400,000 map of morphological units (Perko 2001). The map has 195 units, which were combined into seven relief types (Perko, Hrvatin, and Ciglič 2015): • Plains; • Rough plains; • Low hills; • Rough low hills; • High hills; • Rough high hills; • Mountains. Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 9 Figure 1: Relief layer with seven types. p p. 10 Figure 2: Lithology layer with fifteen types. p p. 11 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 9 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia 10 R el ie f t yp es Pl ai ns R ou gh p la in s Lo w h ill s R ou gh lo w h ill s H ig h hi lls R ou gh h ig h hi lls M ou nt ai ns 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 10 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 11 R oc k ty pe s C la y an d si lt Sa nd C ar bo na te g ra ve l, ru bb le a nd ti ll Si lic at e gr av el C la ys to ne a nd si lts to ne C ar bo na te c on gl om er at e Si lic at e sa nd st on e an d co ng lo m er at e Sa nd st on e an d m ar l ( fly sc h) M ar l C ar bo na te a nd c la st ic ro ck s Li m es to ne D ol om ite M et am or ph ic ro ck s Tu ffs a nd tu ffi te s Ig ne ou s r oc ks 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 11 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia The lithology layer (Figure 2) is based on a vector map of rock types of Slovenia (Litostratigrafska karta Slovenije 2011), which was produced by the Geological Survey of Slovenia and primarily based on 1:25,000 vectorized geological maps of Slovenia. The map has 938 units, which were combined into fif- teen lithological types (Perko, Hrvatin, and Ciglič 2015): • Clay and silt; • Sand; • Carbonate gravel, rubble, and till; • Silicate gravel; • Claystone and siltstone; • Carbonate conglomerate; • Silicate sandstone, and conglomerate; • Sandstone and marl (flysch); • Marl; • Carbonate and clastic rocks; • Limestone; • Dolomite; • Metamorphic rocks; • Tuffs and tuffites; • Igneous rocks. The vegetation layer (Figure 3) is based on a 1:400,000 map of potential natural vegetation (Zemljevid potencialne naravne vegetacije 1998), which was produced by the ZRC SAZU Jovan Hadži Biology Institute. The map has sixty-two different units, which were combined into fifteen vegetation types (Perko, Hrvatin, and Ciglič 2015): • Downy oak, European hophornbeam; • Downy oak; • Durmast; • European hornbeam, oak, occasional black alder; • Oak, occasional elm; • European hornbeam, fir; • European hornbeam; • Beech; • Beech, fir; • Beech, European hophornbeam, occasional European hophornbeam; • Beech, chestnut, oak; • Fir; • Spruce; • Red pine; • Dwarf pine and other highland vegetation. First, we calculated the relief diversity (Figure 5). Using a moving window, we calculated the ratio between the number of relief types that occur within a radius of 1 km and the total number of relief types for each cell. The number of all relief types is seven, so the minimum ratio is 1:7 or 0.1429 if only one relief type occurs in a 1 km radius, and the maximum ratio is 7:7 or 1.0000 if all seven relief types occur in a 1 km radius. We calculated the lithological and vegetation diversity in the same way. Their minimum ratio is 1:15 or 0.0667 if only one lithological or vegetation type out of a possible fifteen occurs in a 1 km radius. Finally, we calculated the average of these three partial diversities. This is the landscape diversity (Figure 4). The minimum ratio is 3:37 or 0.0810 if only one relief type, one lithological type, and one vegetation type occur in a 1 km radius, and the maximum ratio is 37:37 or 1.0000 if all seven relief types, fifteen litho- logical types, and fifteen vegetation types occur simultaneously in a 1 km radius. For example, a landscape diversity of 0.2500 means that 25% or a quarter of all thirty-seven possible relief, lithological, and vegetation types occur in a 1 km radius. 12 Figure 3: Vegetation layer with fifteen types. p Figure 4: Landscape diversity of Slovenia. p p. 14 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 12 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 13 Ve ge ta tio n ty pe s D ow ny o ak , E ur op ea n ho ph or nb ea m D ow ny o ak D ur m as t Eu ro pe an h or nb ea m , o ak , oc ca si on al b la ck a ld er O ak , o cc as io na l e lm Eu ro pe an h or nb ea m , f ir Eu ro pe an h or nb ea m B ee ch B ee ch , f ir B ee ch , E ur op ea n ho ph or nb ea m , oc ca si on al E ur op ea n ho ph or nb ea m B ee ch , c he st nu t, oa k Fi r Sp ru ce R ed p in e D w ar f p in e an d ot he r hi gh la nd v eg et at io n 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 13 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia 14 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU L an ds ca pe d iv er si ty 0. 43 24 (m ax im um ) 0. 08 10 (m in im um ) 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 14 3 Landscape hotspots and landscape coldspots Areas with high landscape diversity are landscape hotspots, and areas with low landscape diversity are land- scape coldspots. One-tenth of Slovenia with the highest landscape diversity was defined as landscape hotspots, and one- tenth of Slovenia with the lowest landscape diversity was defined as landscape coldspots (Figure 6). The number of landscape hotspots is 912 and the number of landscape coldspots is 681, which is 25% less. The total area of the hotspots is 1,688.85 km² and the total area of coldspots is 1,805.69 km², which is 7% more. The average size of the hotspots is 185 ha and the average size of the coldspots is 265 ha, which is 43% more. The largest hotspot covers 12,453 ha and the largest coldspot covers 16,187 ha, which is 30% more. Most landscape hotspots are located in Alpine Slovenia, encompassing more than two-thirds of their total area, and the fewest in the Mediterranean Slovenia, corresponding to barely one-tenth of their total area. Most landscape coldspots are located in Dinaric Slovenia, encompassing almost half of their total area, and the fewest in Alpine Slovenia, corresponding to one-sixth of their total area. The ratio between landscape hotspots and coldspots varies greatly between landscape types. On the Mediterranean plateaus, the area of hotspots is almost one hundred times less than the area of coldspots. In the Alpine mountains, the area of hotspots is ten times greater than the area of coldspots (Table 1). 4 Conclusion The results have applicability in various fields, such as tourism (development and promotion of tourist destinations), spatial planning (transfer of good practices), environmental protection, education, and research (Gray 2004; Erhartič 2012). Biodiversity is a common topic in environmental studies. Peters and Goslee (2001) stated that maintenance of biodiversity requires management at higher levels of organization, particularly Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 15 A A AA A AA A C B B B B B B B B C C C C C C A AAA D B D C D D D D D 3 A A AA A AA A C B B B B B B B B C C C C C A AAA D D D D D D D D D C 43 Map of relief types/ zemljevid reliefnih tipov ap of relief diversity/ zemljevid reliefne raznolikosti M etermination of diversity (counting the number of relief types in certain radius)/ postopek dolocanja raznolikosti (preštevanje števila reliefnih tipov v dolocenem radiju) D Figure 5: Schematic presentation of the determination of landscape diversity. Figure 6: Landscape hotspots and coldspots of Slovenia. p p. 16 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 15 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © A nt on M el ik G eo gr ap hi ca l I ns tit ut e ZR C S A ZU La nd sc ap e ho ts po ts La nd sc ap e co ld sp ot s 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 16 at the landscape scale. Mocior and Kruse (2016) proved that spatial heterogeneity or diversity is the most important criteria of landscape features (both biotic and abiotic) for evaluating educational values. Landscape diversity also plays an important role in various studies that include sampling. In homogeneous areas, the monitoring or sampling network may be smaller, but in diverse areas it must be denser (Bonar, Fehmi, and Mercado-Silva 2011) Thus high importance is given by the European Union to landscape diversity. Diversity is also regard- ed as an important natural resource by European landscape convention (2000), which acknowledges that »the quality and diversity of European landscapes constitutes a common resource, and that it is important to co-operate towards its protection, management and planning.« Diversity was also emphasized in the older EU document »Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy«, which was published in 1996 (Pan-European … 1996). As this is an ongoing research, in the next phases we will identify, analyze, classify, and evaluate Slovenia’s landscape hotspots. Fieldwork will be of great importance in verifying the theoretical findings on partic- ular landscape hotspots. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors acknowledge financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency and the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (project no. L6-6852: Landscape Diversity and Hotspots of Slovenia). 5 References Bailey, R. G. 1996: Ecosystem geography. New York. Bastian, O. 2000: Landscape classification in Saxony (Germany) – a tool for holistic regional planning. Landscape and urban planning 50, 1–3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00086-4 Bonar, S. A., Fehmi, J. S., Mercado-Silva., N. 2011: An overview of sampling issues in species diversity and abundance surveys. Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. New York. Bunce, R. G. H, Barr, C. J., Clarke, R. T., Howard, D. C., Lane, A. M. J. 1996: Land classification for strate- gic ecological survey. Journal of environmental management 47-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ jema.1996.0034 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 17 Table 1: Area of landscape hotspots and coldspots by landscape types in Slovenia. Landscape types Area of hotspots (%) Other areas (%) Area of coldspots (%) Total (%) Alpine mountains 12.46 86.33 1.21 100.00 Alpine hills 14.10 82.55 3.35 100.00 Alpine plains 15.84 72.79 11.37 100.00 Pannonian hills 6.31 89.90 3.80 100.00 Pannonian plains 5.31 77.71 16.98 100.00 Dinaric plateaus 3.20 80.43 16.37 100.00 Dinaric plains 5.17 82.92 11.90 100.00 Mediterranean hills 3.86 81.95 14.18 100.00 Mediterranean plateaus 0.29 72.24 27.46 100.00 Slovenia 8.33 82.76 8.90 100.00 Alpine mountains 22.59 15.75 2.05 15.10 Alpine hills 38.90 22.93 8.65 22.99 Alpine plains 7.68 3.55 5.16 4.04 Pannonian hills 11.18 16.04 6.30 14.77 Pannonian plains 4.07 6.01 12.20 6.40 Dinaric plateaus 7.22 18.26 34.55 18.79 Dinaric plains 5.81 9.38 12.51 9.36 Mediterranean hills 2.43 5.18 8.34 5.23 Mediterranean plateaus 0.12 2.90 10.24 3.32 Slovenia 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 17 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Determination of landscape hotspots of Slovenia Ciglič, R., Perko, D. 2013: Europe’s landscape hotspots. Acta geographica Slovenica 53-1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3986/AGS53106 Digitalni model višin z ločljivostjo 12,5 m, 25 m, 100 m, Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije, 2014. Dramstad, W. E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W. J., Skar, B., Helliksen, W., Sollund, M.-L. B., Tveit, M. S., Geelmuyden, A. K., Framstad, E. 2001: Integrating landscape-based values–Norwegian monitoring of agricultural land- scapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 3–4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00208-0 Erhartič, B. 2012: Geomorfološka dediščina v Dolini Triglavskih jezer. Geografija Slovenije 23. Ljubljana. European landscape convention, 2000. Internet: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/ DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802f80c6 (24. 5. 2016) Gray, M. 2004: Geodiversity, valuing and conserving abiotic nature. London. Hou, W., Walz, U. 2013: Enhanced analysis of landscape structure: Inclusion of transition zones and small- scale landscape elements. Ecological Indicators 31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.11.014 Litostratigrafska karta Slovenije. Geološki zavod Slovenije, naročnik ARSO, revizija 2011. Ljubljana. Loveland, T. R., Merchant, J. M. 2004: Ecoregions and ecoregionalization: geographical and ecological per- spectives. Environmental Management 34, S1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-5181-x Mocior, E., Kruse, M. 2016: Educational values and services of ecosystems and landscapes – An overview. Ecological indicators 60. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.031 Mücher, 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. Wageningen, Alterra. Pan-European Biological and Landscape diversity strategy, 1996. Internet: http://www.unibuc.ro/prof/ patru-stupariu_i_g/docs/2014/noi/03_11_52_38paneurop_strategie.pdf (24. 5. 2016) Perko, D. 2001: Analiza površja Slovenije s stometrskim digitalnim modelom reliefa. Geografija Slovenije 3. Ljubljana. Perko, D., Hrvatin M., Ciglič, R. 2015: A methodology for natural landscape typification of Slovenia. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1938 Peters, D. P. C., Goslee, S. C. 2001: Landscape diversity. Encyclopedia of biodiversity 3. San Diego. Podobnikar, T. 2002: Koncept izdelave novega digitalnega modela reliefa Slovenije. Geografski vestnik 74-1. Runhaar, H. J., Udo de Haes, H. A. 1994: The use of site factors as classification characteristiccs for eco- topes. Ecosystem Classification for Environmental Management. Dordrecht. Šímová, P., Gdulová, K. 2012: Landscape indices behavior: A review of scale effects. Applied geography 34. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.01.003 Walz, U., Syrbe, R.-U. 2013: Linking landscape structure and biodiversity. Ecological indicators 31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.032 Zemljevid potencialne naravne vegetacije. Biološki inštitut Jovana Hadžija ZRC SAZU, 1998. Ljubljana. 18 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 18 19 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 19 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Do ločanje po kra jin skih vročih točk Slo ve ni je Do ločanje po kra jin skih vročih točk Slo ve ni je DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4618 UDK: 911.52(497.4) COBISS: 1.01 IZVLEČEK: Na te me lju di gi tal nih po dat kov o re lie fu, kam ni nah in rast lins tvu, ki so naj po memb nej še se - sta vi ne no tra nje se sta ve slo ven skih po kra jin in hkra ti nji ho ve zu na nje po do be, smo z upo ra bo geo graf ske ga in for ma cij ske ga si ste ma izra ču na li po kra jin sko raz no li kost Slo ve ni je. Ob moč ja z vi so ko po kra jin sko razno - li kost jo so po kra jin ske vro če toč ke, ob moč ja z niz ko po kra jin sko raz no li kost jo pa po kra jin ske mrz le toč ke. Kot vro če toč ke smo opre de li li de se ti no Slo ve ni je z naj viš jo po kra jin sko raz no li kost jo, kot mrz le toč ke pa de se ti no Slo ve ni je z naj niž jo po kra jin sko raz no li kost jo. Naj več po kra jin skih vro čih točk le ži v alp skem delu Slo ve ni je (več kot dve tret ji ni nji ho vih po vr šin), naj več po kra jin skih mrz lih točk pa v di nar skem delu Slo - ve ni je (sko raj po lo vi ca nji ho vih po vr šin). KLJUČNE BESEDE: geo gra fi ja, re lief, kam ni ne, rast lins tvo, po kra jin ska raz no li kost, po kra jin ska vro ča točka, po kra jin ska mrz la toč ka, geo graf ski in for ma cij ski si stem, Slo ve ni ja Ured niš tvo je pris pe vek pre je lo 25. maja 2016. NASLOVI: dr. Drago Perko Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana E-pošta: drago@zrc-sazu.si dr. Mauro Hrvatin Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana E-pošta: mauro@zrc-sazu.si dr. Rok Ciglič Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti Novi trg 2, SI – 1000 Ljubljana E-pošta: rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.si 20 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 21 1 Uvod Vse več ra zi sko val cev se uk var ja z vred no te njem in po me nom po kra jin ske raz no li ko sti (Run haar in Udo de Haes 1994; Bai ley 1996; Bun ce s so de lav ci 1996; Ba stian 2000; Mücher s so de lav ci 2003; Lo ve land in Merc hant 2004; Šímová in Gdu lová 2012; Mo cior in Kru se 2016). Ob moč ja, kjer se pre ple ta jo raz lič ni na - rav ni de jav ni ki, so po memb na za bio di ver zi te to ter raz no li kost ha bi ta tov in vrst (Dram stad s so de lav ci 2001; Hou in Walz 2013; Walz in Syr be 2013). Po kra jin sko pe stra ob moč ja ima jo lah ko pred nost v gos po dar skem raz vo ju, še po se bej v tu riz mu, saj »… člo ve ko vo zaz na va nje ceni raz no li kost, kom plek snost, vzor ce in lo kal ni zna čaj …« (Er har tič 2012). Gray (2004) meni, da je po men raz lič nih ti pov re lief nih ob lik in bo gas tva po vr šin skih de taj lov za pri ljub - lje nost tu ri stič nih ob mo čij moč no pod ce njen. Po dru gi stra ni pa so ob moč ja, kjer se pre ple ta jo raz no li ki na rav ni vpli vi, lah ko tudi ob moč ja, kjer pre nos do brih praks za ra di raz lič ne ga od zi va po kra ji ne na člo ve - ko ve po se ge ni pre prost. Po kra jin ska raz no li kost ne ke ga ob moč ja lah ko to rej po nu ja ne kaj pred no sti, pa tudi sla bo sti in iz zivov. Ve li ka po kra jin ska raz no li kost je zna čil na pred vsem za ob moč ja na sti ku in pre ple tu raz lič nih po kra - jin skih ti pov. Ana li za raz lič nih geo graf skih čle ni tev ka že, da po kra jin sko naj bolj raz no li ka ob moč ja v Evro pi le ži jo v juž ni Skan di na vi ji ter na obrob ju Pi re ne jev in Alp. Med naj bolj raz no li ka ob moč ja spa da tudi Slo - ve ni ja (Ci glič in Per ko 2013). Glav ni na men ra zi ska ve je to rej poi ska ti po kra jin sko naj bolj in naj manj raz no li ka zao kro že na ob močja v Slo ve ni ji, na ka te re se na ve zu je jo gos po dar ske in dru ge pred no sti ali po manj klji vo sti. V član ku pred stav - lja mo prvi del ra zi ska ve, to je pred vsem kvan ti ta ti ven na čin do lo ča nja ob mo čij s po ve ča no po kra jin sko raz no li kost jo. S po moč jo vred no te nja, ki bo te me lji lo tako na de jan skih po dat kih, te ren ske mu delu kot tudi na eks pert ni oce ni bomo v pri hod nje opre de li li še po men po kra jin ske raz no li ko sti za na pri mer po - go stost in vr ste po jav lja nja na rav nih ne sreč, za po se li tev (pro stor sko na čr to va nje), kme tijs tvo, tu ri zem in gos po dars tvo nas ploh. Tako vzpo stav ljen si stem vred no te nja po kra jin ske he te ro ge no sti bo mo go če upo - ra bi ti na raz lič nih ob moč jih po sve tu. 2 Me to de Za no tra njo se sta vo, de lo va nje in zu na njo po do bo slo ven skih po kra jin so naj po memb nej še tri na rav ne po - kra jin ske se sta vi ne: re lief, kam ni ne in rast lins tvo. Z os ta li mi na rav ni mi po kra jin ski mi se sta vi na mi so po ve za ne tako moč no, da lah ko do volj ka ko vost no na rav no re gio na li za ci jo ali ti pi za ci jo iz de la mo samo z upo števa - njem teh treh po kra jin skih se sta vin (Per ko, Hr va tin in Ci glič 2015). Ker so v Slo ve ni ji na raz po la go do volj na tanč ni di gi tal ni po dat ki o re lie fu, kam ni nah in rast lins tvu, je mo go če s po moč jo geo graf ske ga in for ma cij ske ga si ste ma do lo či ti po kra jin sko raz no li kost ter po kra jinske vro če in mrz le toč ke. Kot te melj ni sloj v geo graf skem in for ma cij skem si ste mu smo upo ra bi li geo mor fo loš ko te sti ra ni 25-me - tr ski di gi tal ni mo del vi šin (Po dob ni kar 2002, Di gi tal ni mo del vi šin … 2014), ki nudi kar 32.436.693 ce lic z os nov ni co 25 m in po vr ši no 6,25 ara. Do da li smo vek tor ske slo je z re lief ni mi, li to loš ki mi in ve ge ta cij ski mi eno ta mi ozi ro ma tipi ter jih ra - ste ri zi ra li na 25-me tr ski ra str ski za pis, saj smo upo ra bi li geo graf ska in for ma cij ska orod ja za ob de la vo ra str skih po dat kov nih slo jev. Re lief ni sloj (sli ka 1) te me lji na zem lje vi du enot raz gi ba no sti po vrš ja v me ri lu 1 : 400.000 (Per ko 2001). Na zem lje vi du je 195 raz lič nih enot, ki smo jih smi sel no zdru ži li v 7 ti pov re lie fa (Per ko, Hr va tin in Ci glič 2015): • rav ni ne, • raz gi ba ne rav ni ne, • gri čev ja, • raz gi ba na gri čev ja, • hri bov ja, • raz gi ba na hri bov ja, • go rov ja. Sli ka 1: Re lief ni sloj s 7 tipi. p str. 22 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 21 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Do ločanje po kra jin skih vročih točk Slo ve ni je 22 Ti pi r el ie fa ne ra zg ib an a ra vn in a ra zg ib an a ra vn in a ne ra zg ib an o gr ič ev je ra zg ib an o gr ič ev je ne ra zg ib an o hr ib ov je ra zg ib an o hr ib ov je go ro vj e 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © G eo gr af sk i i nš tit ut A nt on a M el ik a ZR C S A ZU 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 22 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 23 Li to loš ki sloj (sli ka 2) te me lji na vek tor ski Li to stra ti graf ski kar ti Slo ve ni je (Li to stra ti graf ska kar ta Slo - ve ni je 2011), ki jo je iz de lal Geo loš ki za vod Slo ve ni je, pred vsem na pod la gi vek to ri zi ra nih geo loš kih kart Slo ve ni je v me ri lu 1 : 25.000. Na zem lje vi du je 938 raz lič nih enot, ki smo jih smi sel no zdru ži li v 15 ti pov kam nin (Per ko, Hr va tin in Ci glič 2015): • gli na in melj, • pe sek, • kar bo nat ni prod, grušč in til, • si li kat ni prod, • gli na vec in me lje vec, • kar bo nat ni kon glo me rat, • si li kat ni peš če njak in kon glo me rat, • peš če njak in la po ro vec (fliš), • la po ro vec, • kar bo nat no-kla stič ne kam ni ne, • ap ne nec, • do lo mit, • me ta morf ne kam ni ne, • tuf in tu fit, • mag mat ske kam ni ne. Ve ge ta cij ski sloj (sli ka 3) te me lji na zem lje vi du po ten cial ne na rav ne ve ge ta ci je (Zem lje vid po ten cialne na rav ne ve ge ta ci je 1998), ki ga je v me ri lu 1 : 400.000 iz de lal Bio loš ki in šti tut Jo va na Ha dži ja ZRC SAZU. Na zem lje vi du je 62 raz lič nih enot, ki smo jih smi sel no zdru ži li v 15 ti pov po ten cial ne ve ge ta ci je (Per ko, Hr va tin in Ci glič 2015): • pu ha sti hrast, ga bro vec, • pu ha sti hrast, • gra den, • beli ga ber, dob, po ne kod čr na jel ša, • dob, po ne kod z bre stom, • beli ga ber, jel ka, • beli ga ber, • bu kev, • bu kev, jel ka, • bu kev, ga bro vec, po ne kod ga bro vec, • bu kev, ko stanj, hra sti, • jel ka, • smre ka, • rde či bor, • ru šev je in dru go vi so ko gor sko rast je. Naj prej smo izra ču na li re lief no raz no li kost (sli ka 4). Za vsa ko ce li co smo s po moč jo pre mič ne ga okna izra ču na li raz mer je med šte vi lom re lief nih ti pov (enot), ki se po jav lja jo v ra di ju 1 km, in šte vi lom vseh re lief nih ti pov (enot). Šte vi lo vseh re lief nih ti pov je 7, zato je naj manj še mož no raz mer je 1 pro ti 7 ali 0,1429, če se v ki lo me tr skem ra di ju po ja vi le 1 re lief ni tip, naj več je mož no raz mer je pa 7 pro ti 7 ali 1,0000, če se v ki lo me tr skem ra di ju po ja vi vseh 7 re lief nih ti pov. Na enak na čin smo izra ču na li tudi li to loš ko in ve ge ta cij sko raz no li kost. Pri nji ju je naj manj še mož no raz mer je 1 pro ti 15 ali 0,0667, če se v ki lo me tr skem ra di ju po ja vi le 1 li to loš ki ali ve ge ta cij ski tip od 15 mož - nih. Na kon cu smo izra ču na li pov preč ja teh treh del nih raz no li ko sti. To je po kra jin ska raz no li kost (sli ka 5). Naj manj še mož no raz mer je je 3 pro ti 37 ali 0,0810, če se v ki lo me tr skem ra di ju po ja vi le po 1 re lief ni, lito - loš ki in ve ge ta cij ski tip, naj več je mož no raz mer je pa 37 pro ti 37 ali 1,0000, če se v ki lo me tr skem ra di ju po ja vi hkra ti vseh 7 re lief nih ti pov, 15 li to loš kih ti pov in 15 ve ge ta cij skih ti pov. Sli ka 2: Li to loš ki sloj s 15 tipi. p str. 24 Sli ka 3: Ve ge ta cij ski sloj s 15 tipi. p str. 25 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 23 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Do ločanje po kra jin skih vročih točk Slo ve ni je 24 Ti pi k am ni n gl in a in m el j pe se k ka rb on at ni p ro d, g ru šč in ti l si lik at ni p ro d gl in ov ec in m el je ve c ka rb on at ni k on gl om er at si lik at ni p eš če nj ak in k on gl om er at pe šč en ja k in la po ro ve c (f liš ) la po ro ve c ka rb on at no -k la st ič ne k am ni ne ap ne ne c do lo m it m et am or fn e ka m ni ne tu f i n tu fit m ag m at sk e ka m ni ne 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © G eo gr af sk i i nš tit ut A nt on a M el ik a ZR C S A ZU 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 24 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 25 Ti pi v eg et ac ije pu ha st i h ra st , g ab ro ve c pu ha st i h ra st gr ad en be li ga be r, do b, p on ek od č rn a je lš a do b, p on ek od z b re st om be li ga be r, je lk a be li ga be r bu ke v bu ke v, je lk a bu ke v, g ab ro ve c, p on ek od g ab ro ve c bu ke v, k os ta nj , h ra st i je lk a sm re ka rd eč i b or ru še vj e in d ru go v is ok og or sk o ra st je 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © G eo gr af sk i i nš tit ut A nt on a M el ik a ZR C S A ZU 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 25 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Do ločanje po kra jin skih vročih točk Slo ve ni je Na pri mer po kra jin ska raz li ka 0,2500 po me ni, da se v ki lo me tr skem ra di ju hkra ti po ja vi 25 % ali četrtina od vseh 37 mož nih re lief nih, li to loš kih in ve ge ta cij skih ti pov. Sli ka 4: She ma ti čen pri kaz do lo ča nja po kra jin ske raz no li ko sti. Glej an gleš ki del pris pev ka. 3 Po kra jin ske vro če in mrz le toč ke Ob moč ja z vi so ko po kra jin sko raz no li kost jo so po kra jin ske vro če toč ke, ob moč ja z niz ko po kra jin sko raz - no li kost jo pa po kra jin ske mrz le toč ke. Kot vro če toč ke smo opre de li li de se ti no Slo ve ni je z naj viš jo po kra jin sko raz no li kost jo, kot mrz le točke pa de se ti no Slo ve ni je z naj niž jo po kra jin sko raz no li kost jo (Sli ka 6). Po kra jin skih vro čih točk je 912, po kra jin skih mrz lih točk pa 681, kar je 25 % manj. Skup na po vr ši na vro čih točk meri 1688,85 km2, mrz lih točk pa 1805,69 km2, kar je 7 % več. Pov preč na ve li kost vro čih točk je 185 ha, mrz lih točk pa 265 ha, kar je 43 % več. Naj več ja vro ča toč ka meri 12.453 ha, naj več ja mrz la točka pa 16.187 ha, kar je 30 % več. Naj več po kra jin skih vro čih točk le ži v alp ski Slo ve ni ji, več kot dve tret ji ni nji ho vih po vr šin, naj manj pa v sre do zem ski Slo ve ni ji, ko maj sla ba de se ti na nji ho vih po vr šin. Naj več po kra jin skih mrz lih točk le ži v di nar ski Slo ve ni ji, sko raj po lo vi ca nji ho vih po vr šin, naj manj pa v alp ski Slo ve ni ji, še sti na nji ho vih površin. Raz mer je med po kra jin ski mi vro či mi in mrz li mi toč ka mi je med po kra jin ski mi tipi zelo raz lič no. Na sre do zem skih pla no tah je po vr ši na vro čih točk sko raj sto krat niž ja od po vr ši ne mrz lih točk, v alp skih go - rov jih pa je po vr ši na vro čih točk de set krat več ja od po vr ši ne mrz lih točk (pre gled ni ca 1). Preglednica 1: Razporeditev pokrajinskih vročih in mrzlih točk po pokrajinskih tipih v Sloveniji. pokrajinski tipi površina vročih točk (%) ostale površine (%) površina mrzlih točk (%) skupaj alpska gorovja 12,46 86,33 1,21 100,00 alpska hribovja 14,10 82,55 3,35 100,00 alpske ravnine 15,84 72,79 11,37 100,00 panonska gričevja 6,31 89,90 3,80 100,00 panonske ravnine 5,31 77,71 16,98 100,00 dinarske planote 3,20 80,43 16,37 100,00 dinarska podolja in ravniki 5,17 82,92 11,90 100,00 sredozemska gričevja 3,86 81,95 14,18 100,00 sredozemske planote 0,29 72,24 27,46 100,00 Slovenia 8,33 82,76 8,90 100,00 alpska gorovja 22,59 15,75 2,05 15,10 alpska hribovja 38,90 22,93 8,65 22,99 alpske ravnine 7,68 3,55 5,16 4,04 panonska gričevja 11,18 16,04 6,30 14,77 panonske ravnine 4,07 6,01 12,20 6,40 dinarske planote 7,22 18,26 34,55 18,79 dinarska podolja in ravniki 5,81 9,38 12,51 9,36 sredozemska gričevja 2,43 5,18 8,34 5,23 sredozemske planote 0,12 2,90 10,24 3,32 Slovenia 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 26 Sli ka 5: Po kra jin ska raz no li kost Slo ve ni je. p Sli ka 6: Po kra jin ske vro če in mrz le toč ke Slo ve ni je. p str. 28 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 26 Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 27 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © G eo gr af sk i i nš tit ut A nt on a M el ik a ZR C S A ZU Po kr aj in sk a ra zn ol ik os t 0, 43 24 (n aj vi šj a) 0, 08 10 (n aj ni žj a) 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 27 Drago Perko, Mauro Hrvatin, Rok Ciglič, Do ločanje po kra jin skih vročih točk Slo ve ni je 28 0 10 20 30 40 50 km © G eo gr af sk i i nš tit ut A nt on a M el ik a ZR C S A ZU po kr aj in sk e vr oč e to čk e po kr aj in sk e m rz le to čk e 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 28 4 Sklep Re zul ta ti so upo rab ni na raz lič nih po droč jih, kot so na pri mer tu ri zem (raz voj in pro mo ci ja tu ri stič nih de - sti na cij), pro stor sko pla ni ra nje (pre nos do brih praks), vars tvo oko lja, izo bra že va nje in ra zi sko va nje (Gray 2004; Er har tič 2012). Po go sto se na po droč ju ved o oko lju ome nja bio di ver zi te ta. Pe ters in Go slee (2001) sta ome - ni la, da je za ohra nja nje bio di ver zi te te tre ba pra vil no ukre pa ti tudi na viš ji rav ni, rav ni po kra ji ne. Mo cior in Kru se (2016) sta v svo ji ra zi ska vi do ka za li, da je raz no li kost po kra ji ne naj bolj po mem ben de jav nik pri oce nje va nju izo bra že val ne ga po me na po kra ji ne ozi ro ma nje nih pr vin. Raz no li kost po kra ji ne je pomemb - na tudi pri mar si ka te ri ra zi ska vi, kjer se upo rab lja vzor če nje. Na ho mo ge nih ob moč jih je lah ko mre ža za opa zo va nje ali vzor če nje red kej ša, na raz no li kih ob moč jih pa mora biti go stej ša (Bo nar, Feh mi in Mer ca - do-Sil va 2011). Evrop ska uni ja daje za ra di na ve de nih in dru gih vzro kov po kra jin ski raz no li ko sti že od nek daj ve lik po men, saj se po kra jin ska raz no li kost (pe strost) kot po mem ben na rav ni vir ome nja v Evrop ski kon ven - ci ji o (po)kra ji ni (Eu ro pean lands ca pe con ven tion 2000), ki iz po stav lja, »…da sta ka ko vost in pe strost evrop skih kra jin sku pen vir in da si je tre ba sku paj pri za de va ti za nje go vo vars tvo, uprav lja nje in na čr to va nje …«. Raz - no li kost (pe strost) pou dar ja tudi pred hod ni do ku ment »Pan-Eu ro pean Bio lo gi cal and Lands ca pe di ver sity stra tegy« iz leta 1996 (Pan-Eu ro pean … 1996). V na da lje va nju ra zi ska ve bomo po kra jin ske vro če toč ke Slo ve ni je opre de li li, ana li zi ra li, raz vr sti li in ovred no ti li. Po memb no bo te ren sko delo s ka te rim bomo pre ver ja li teo re tič ne re zul ta te. ZAHVALA: Pris pe vek te me lji na ra zi sko val nem pro jek tu Po kra jin ska raz no li kost in vro če toč ke Slo ve ni - je (L6-6852), ki sta ga so fi nan ci ra li Jav na agen ci ja za ra zi sko val no de jav nost Re pub li ke Slo ve ni je ter Slo ven ska aka de mi ja zna no sti in umet no sti. 5 Li te ra tu ra Glej an gleš ki del pris pev ka. Acta geographica Slovenica, 57-1, 2017 29 57-1_01_4618-Drago Perko_acta49-1.qxd 5.5.2017 9:28 Page 29