METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATION OF CHANGES IN LAND USE IN SLOVENIA BETWEEN 1896 AND 1999
METODOLOGIJA VREDNOTENJA SPREMEMB RABE TAL V SLOVENIJI MED LETOMA 1896 IN 1999
Franci Petek
Village Malo Polje on Dinaric plateau, an example of cultivated landscape faced with obvious afforestation of grassland (photography M. Gabrovec). Vas Malo Polje pri Colu, primer kulturne pokrajine z o~itnim ogozdovanjem pobo~nih travinj (fotografija M. Gabrovec).
Abstract	UDC: 91:711.14(497.4)(091)
COBISS: 1.01
Methodology of Evaluation of Changes in Land Use in Slovenia between 1896 and 1999
KEY WORDS: land use, land use changes, methodology, Slovenia.
The article presents the elaboration of two work methods for land use changes assessment and their comparison. Land use changes between 1896 and 1999 were researched on the level of the entire state. The basic source in undertaking the study is the data from the land cadastre and the cadastral municipality was selected as the smallest research unit. An ever-decreasing proportion of agricultural land and an increasing proportion of forest and built-up area is the key issue emerging from this study.
Both methods are supported by the same input data, but their results differ in essence. The first one demonstrates the decreasing of agricultural land due to afforestation. The processes where most of the various land categories are being prevailingly overgrown with forest, is very significant in the western part of Slovenia. The second method shows so called extensification among the agricultural land use categories, which means that more intensive categories (cultivated fields, vineyards, orchards) are changing into less intensive categories, prevailingly into meadows.
Izvle~ek	UDK: 91:711.14(497.4)(091)
COBISS: 1.01
Metodologija vrednotenja sprememb rabe tal v Sloveniji med letoma 1896 in 1999
KLJUCNE BESEDE: raba tal, spremembe rabe tal, metodologija, Slovenija.
V tem prispevku je avtor prikazal, kako je razvil in primerjal dve metodologiji vrednotenja sprememb rabe tal. Na primeru celotne Slovenije je ugotavljal spremembe rabe tal med letoma 1896 in 1999. Podatke o rabi tal je zajemal iz zemlji{kega katastra, najmanj{a prostorska enota raziskovanja pa je katastrska ob~ina. Splošna ugotovitev je, da se je v zadnjem stoletju delež kmetijskih zemljiš~ zmanjšal, delež gozdov in pozidanih zemljiš~ pa pove~al.
Obe metodologiji slonita na istih vhodnih podatkih, rezultati ene in druge pa se vsebinsko razlikujejo. Prva je pokazala upadanje deleža kmetijskih zemljiš~ v glavnem na ra~un ve~anja deleža gozda, ki je prostorsko zna~ilno na zahodu Slovenije. Druga metodologija je pokazala tako imenovano »ekstenzifikacijo« tudi med kmetijskimi kategorijami rabe tal, pri tem gre za prehod iz bolj v manj intenzivno kategorijo rabe tal (na primer iz njiv v travnike).
The editiorialship received this paper for publishing in August 15th 2002. Prispevek je prispel v uredništvo 15. avgusta 2002.
Contents - Vsebina
1	Introduction	65
2	Methodology	67
3	Evaluation of Land use	67
3.1	First Land use Evaluation Model	67
3.1.1	First Stage of Evaluation	71
3.1.2	Second Stage of Evaluation	72
3.1.3	Third and Final Stage of Evaluation	72
3.2	Second Evaluation Model	76
3.2.1	Quotient of Transformation of the Natural Landscape
due to Agriculture	77
3.2.2	Second Stage of Evaluation	79
3.2.3	Third and Final Stage of Evaluation	81
3.3	Comparison of Final Classes of the First and
Second Evaluation Models	83
4	Conclusion	87
5	Bibliography	88
6	Summary in Slovene - Povzetek	88
Adress - Naslov: Franci Petek, M. Sc.
Anton Melik Geographycal Institute - Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU
Gosposka ulica 13
SI - 1000 Ljubljana
Slovenia - Slovenija
Phone- telefon: +386(1) 4706 351
Fax- fax: +386(1) 425 7793
E-mail - el. pošta: petek@zrc-sazu.si
1 Introduction
Land use is a dynamic landscape process and reflects complex relationships between natural and social factors in the landscape. The results of continuous or periodic monitoring of land use show us its changes, from which we can begin building a mosaic of causes for the changes. Thus, for example, we find that grassing over dominated in Slovenia between 1950 and 1970 (Medved 1970, p. 18) while afforestation dominated between 1960 and 1990 (Gabrovec, Kladnik 1997, p. 55).
Slovenia lies in the junction of the Alpine, Dinaric, Pannonian and Mediterranean worlds, a fact reflected in the diversity of sociogeographical and physical geographical elements. This is also a reason for the diverse characteristics of land use, which we studied in nine types of landscape (Gabrovec M. et al. 1998, p. 30) (see figure 2). In general, there is more arable land in the east and more forest and pasture in the west, which is the consequence of the irregularity of the relief in western Slovenia. A simple comparison of land categories indicates that over the last hundred years, the proportion of forest increased in Slovenia, the proportion of agricultural land decreased, and the proportion of other land use increased due to urbanization.
We also established that land use changed regardless of the type of surface. In general, the transformation of agricultural categories into forest is characteristic of Alpine and Dinaric landscapes, while changes within the agricultural land use categories-mostly into meadow-characterize Pannonian and Mediterranean landscapes. Urbanization is characteristic in the vicinity of larger towns and cities.
From this we can conclude that the causes for the change in land use over the last hundred years should be sought mainly in major social changes, primarily economic changes.
In the article, we focus our attention mainly on the methodology for evaluating the changes of land use in Slovenia. We present two different methods with which we can successfully evaluate the changes on the basis of average values. These methods for ascertaining changes are suitable primarily for larger areas of study (100 km2 and more) when analysis with greater spatial accuracy is too extensive or the acquisition of input data is too expensive (e. g., satellite and aerial photography).
100% -i-
90% 80% 70% 60%
50% -40%
30% -20% -10% 0%
1896	1961	1979	1999
year
I I other land	Q agricultural land	Q forest
Figure 1: Proportions of forest, agricultural, and other land between 1896 and 1999 in Slovenia (Leksikon ob~in 1906; Zemlji{ki kataster 1961, 1979, 1999).
Slika 1: Deleži gozda, kmetijskih in ostalih zemlji{~ med letoma 1896 in 1999 v Sloveniji.
Figure 2: Types of landscape in Slovenia. Slika 2: Tipi pokrajine v Sloveniji.
_| Alpine high mountain
Alpine hills HI Alpine plains I] Pannonian low hills I Pannonian plains
I Dinaric plateaus
□ Dinaric valley systems and corrosion plains I Mediterranean low hills
I] Mediterranean plateaus 0 10 20 30 40 50
Scale: 1 : 1300 000
Author: Drago Perko
Cartography: Franci Petek, Jerneja Fridl
®> Geografski inštitut AM ZRC SAZU
2 Methodology
The starting point for evaluating changes in land use was data from the land cadastres of 1896 and 1999 according to cadastral municipalities, which were also the basic spatial unit in the evaluation of land use. Cadastral municipalities are relatively small and stable since they have not changed substantially since the introduction of the Franciscan cadastre in 1825 (Gabrovec, Kladnik 1997, p. 58). We could therefore compare the data for both years and get a clear picture of the landscape characteristic of land use.
The evaluation of land use was carried out using the same input data according to two methodologies, which we designated as first and second evaluation models. The procedure of the evaluation itself is schematically illustrated in Figure 3.
In the first model, we carried out the evaluation on the basis of changes in land use between 1896 and1999 in three stages. The results of each stage were simply named after the stages, for example, classes of the 1st stage of evaluation and in the last final stage, final classes of evaluation.
In the second model, we carried out the evaluation on the basis of arable equivalents or quotients of the transformation of the natural landscape due of agriculture that we calculated from the arable equivalents. In this model, there were only two stages. In the first stage, we acquired classes comparable to the 2nd stage of evaluation in the first model. In the second stage, we again acquired final classes of evaluation comparable to the final classes of evaluation in the first model.
Using a cross-section of the two models, we established the properties of both models.
3 Evaluation of Land Use 3.1 First Land Use Evaluation Model
In the first model, the basic indicator was the change of land use between 1896 and 1999. We processed the change of land use between 1896 and 1999 according to the same methodology Medved (1970) used for the period between 1950 and 1970 and that Gabrovec and Kladnik (1997) used for the period between 1961 and 1994.
We determined the changes in six basic land categories (cultivated fields, vineyards, orchards, meadows, pastures, and forests) that reflect the activity of the primary sector. In addition, we also considered barren land whose change is the consequence of built-up land or urbanization. To make the data from 1896 and 1999 comparable, we grouped gardens and hop plantations with cultivated fields, combined forests and forest plantations, and grouped meadows, swamp meadows, and plantation and rural orchards under meadows because the data for 1896 classified orchards among meadows.
TABLE 1: PROPORTIONS OF LAND CATEGORIES IN 1896 AND 1999. PREGLEDNICA 1: DELE@I ZEMLJI[KIH KATEGORIJ LETA 1896 IN 1999.
	% 1896	% 1999	index of change/indeks spremembe
cultivated fields/njive	18.6	12.5	67
vineyards/ vinogradi	2.3	1.1	47
meadows/travniki	16.8	17.8	106
pastures/pa{niki	16.5	10.3	62
forest/gozdovi	40.9	48.9	120
barren land/nerodovitno	5.0	7.5	151
Sources: Leksikon ob~in 1900; Zemlji{ki kataster 1999.
Figure 3: Schematic illustration of the methodology of evaluation of land use. Slika 3: Shemati~ni prikaz metodologije vrednotenja rabe tal.
Medved (1970, pp. 17-18) distinguishes four types of change.
•	Afforestation. This group includes all cadastral municipalities in which the changing of agricultural land into forest dominated.
•	Grassing over. This group includes all cadastral municipalities in which the changing of land categories into grassland (meadows and pastures) dominated.
•	Intensification. This group includes cadastral municipalities where the majority of changes in land use are favour of cultivated fields, vineyards, and orchards.
•	Urbanization. This group includes cadastral municipalities where the majority of changes in land use are in favour of the increase of built-up and other land for the needs of urbanization (land category: barren or other).
Relative to the intensity of the processes, he distinguishes:
1.	Strong (for example) afforestation, where more than 75% of all changes in land categories are in favour of the increase of forests.
2.	Moderate afforestation, where more than 50% of all changes in land categories are in favour of the increase of forests.
3.	Weak afforestation, where afforestation is relatively dominant over other changes in land use.
Using the same methodology as with afforestation, we distinguish three degrees of intensity in the other
three processes of changing of land use: strong, moderate, weak.
TABLE 2: PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF INDIVIDUAL TYPES OF CHANGE IN LAND USE BETWEEN 1896 AND 1999 ACCORDING TO LANDSCAPE TYPES.
PREGLEDNICA 2: DELEŽI POVRŠIN POSAMEZNIH TIPOV SPREMEMB RABE TAL MED LETOMA 1896 IN 1999 PO POKRAJINSKIH TIPIH.
	o/ %	0/ %	0/ %	%	change/
	afforestation/	grassing over/	urbanization/	intensification/	sprememba
	ogozdovanje	ozelenjevanje	urbanizacija	intenzifikacija	>1%
Alpine high mountain/	73.1	13.5	12.5	0.0	0.9
Alpska gorovja					
Alpine hills/ Alpska hribovja	48.0	43.1	8.3	0.6	0.0
Alpine plains/	20.3	33.7	38.9	7.1	0.0
Alpske ravnine					
Pannonian low hills/	6.0	75.4	8.7	9.9	0.0
Panonska gričevja					
Pannonian plains/	23.7	33.6	27.6	15.1	0.0
Panonske ravnine					
Dinaric plateaus/	78.4	17.0	2.7	1.5	0.3
Dinarske planote					
Dinaric valley systems and corrosin plains/	56.0	34.9	8.3	0.9	0.0
Dinarska podolja in ravniki					
Mediterranean low hills/ Sredozemska gričevja	45.8	40.0	4.6	9.6	0.0
Mediterranean plateaus/	65.7	27.0	5.0	2.2	0.0
Sredozemske planote					
Slovenia/Slovenija	49.7	36.1	10.2	3.8	0.2
We calculated the processes for each cadastral municipality and present them on Figure 4. We can picture the spatial distribution of types of changes from direct comparisons of each land category. In general, we can say that grassing over is characteristic in eastern Slovenia, and afforestation in western Slovenia. Urbanization is limited to the outskirts of cities and towns, and intensification to only individual vineyard and flatland areas.
Figure 4: Changes in land use between 1896 and 1999. Slika 4: Spremembe rabe tal med letoma 1896-1999.
Afforestation	Intensification
strong	1 strong
1 1 moderate	H moderate
1 1 weak	1 1 weak
Grassing over	Urbanization
strong	strong
1 1 moderate	1 1 moderate
1 1 weak	1 1 weak
Proportion of chang	es
□ less than 1%	
1 1 above 1800 m	1 1 no data
0 10 20 30 40 50	
Scale: 1 : 1300 000	
Author: Franci Petek	
Cartography: Jerneja Fridl	
®> Geografski inštitut AM ZRC SAZU	
3.1.1 First Stage of Evaluation
An important difference between types of changes and classes in the first stage is the consideration of the size or proportion of all changes (regardless of the process) over the entire surface area of a cadastral municipality. In addition, we considered all the processes and not just the dominant one.
We defined afforestation and grassing over together as »extensification« since they indicate a decrease in the intensity of agricultural use. This by no means implies that grassing over always indicates extensification since, for example, cultivated fields were converted into intensive meadows due to changes in agricultural practices. However, the data in land cadastres does not distinguish between intensive and extensive meadows or in cases when the surface area of meadows increased at the expense of forests, which could indicate the intensification of cultivation and not merely grassing over. In any event, we did not separate such cases.
Each individual process was assigned an appropriate number of points. Afforestation and grassing over, which indicate extensification, were assigned negative points. On the other hand, positive points were assigned to intensification and urbanization. The number of points was assigned to processes relative to the proportion they reached of the total surface area of all changes, as indicated in Table 3. The points of all processes in a cadastral municipality were totaled, and cadastral municipalities with an overall prevalence of exten-sification processes were assigned -12 points, and those with an overall prevalence of intensification and urbanization, +12 points.
TABLE 3: NUMBER OF POINTS ASSIGNED ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREA AMONG CHANGES IN A CADASTRAL MUNICIPALITY.
PREGLEDNICA 3: ŠTEVILO DOLOČENIH TOČK, GLEDE NA DELEŽ POVRŠINE MED SPREMEMBAMI V KATASTRSKI OBČINI.
proportions of surface area among changes/ delež površine med spremembami	afforestation/ogozdovanje, grassing over/ozelenjevanje	intensification/intenzifikacija, urbanization/urbanizacija
less than 3.00%	0 points	0 points
3.00 do 9.99%	-1 point	1 point
10.00. do 19.99%	-2 points	2 points
20.00 do 29.99%	-3 points	3 points
30.00 do 39.99%	-4 points	4 points
40.00 do 49.99%	-5 points	5 points
50.00% and more	-6 points	6 points
We also wanted to study the intensity of these changes. For example, two cadastral municipalities were both assigned -6 points according to the point system described above. In the first municipality, all the changes occurred on only 2% of the entire surface area and on 80% in the second. Extensification therefore has much greater dimensions in the latter than in the former.
For this reason, we additionally weighted the points assigned for individual processes. Depending on the proportion of the surface area of a cadastral municipality represented by all the changes together, the points were multiplied by factors of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.
TABLE 4: MULTIPLICATION FACTORS ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF SURFACE AREA OF TOTAL CHANGES IN A CADASTRAL MUNICIPALITY.
PREGLEDNICA 4: VEČKRATNIKI GLEDE NA DELEŽ POVRŠINE SKUPNIH SPREMEMB V KATASTRSKI OBČINI. proportions of surface area of total changes/delež površine skupnih sprememb multiplication factor/ve~kratnik
less than 10.00%	1
10.00 do 19.99%	2
20.00 do 29.99%	3
30.00 do 39.99%	4
40.00 do 49.99%	5
50.00% and more	6
We ranked the acquired results into seven classes. The medial 4th class represents balanced changes and includes points between -5 and +5. Lower values indicate extensification, and higher values, intensification and urbanization. We further distinguished classes according to the intensity of processes and named them:
•	1st class, cadastral municipalities that acquired less than -26 points; strong extensification,
•	2nd class, cadastral municipalities with between -25 and -16 points; moderate extensification,
•	3rd class, cadastral municipalities with between -15 and -6 points, weak extensification,
•	4th class, cadastral municipalities with between -5 and +5 points; balanced change,
•	5th class, cadastral municipalities with between +6 and +15 points; weak intensification and urbanization,
•	6th class, cadastral municipalities with between +16 and +25 points; moderate intensification and urbanization,
•	7th class, cadastral municipalities that acquired 26 or more points, strong intensification and urbanization.
For a better understanding of the methodology of the first stage of evaluation, we described the example of a hypothetical cadastral municipality in which the land use changed on 31% of the surface area. This proportion includes 50% afforestation, 30% grassing over, 15% urbanization, and 5% intensification. Afforestation received -6 points, grassing over -4 points, urbanization +2 points, and intensification +1 point. The sum is -7 points. Considering the proportion of the surface area of the changes in the cadastral municipality, we then multiplied the sum by 4 to get a result of-21 points. Our hypothetical cadastral municipality would therefore rank in the class of moderate extensification (2nd class).
3.1.2	Second Stage of Evaluation
Among the classes of intensification and urbanization, we particularly wanted to expose those cadastral municipalities where urbanization was exceptional in the last decade, and thus at least partially isolate cadastral municipalities with predominant intensification or urbanization.
This was achieved with the following procedure: we added 100 points to all those cadastral municipalities in which urbanization represented 50% and more of all changes and the changes together represented 10.9% and more of the entire surface area of a cadastral municipality. Thus, all the cadastral municipalities in which urbanization was high acquired in each case more than the highest possible number of points (72) in the first stage of evaluation. These cadastral municipalities were ranked in a new, 8th class called »urbanization.«
3.1.3	Third and Final Stage of Evaluation
In the last stage of evaluation, we overlapped the classes of the 2nd stage with a data layer of regions with or without limiting factors for agriculture (less favourite area - LFA). This gave us final classes of evaluation of land use according to the first model.
Agriculture distinguishes and still uses five or four different regions with limiting factors (Cunder et al. 1998; p. 14):
•	regions without limiting factors for agricultural production,
•	low-hill and hill regions,
•	mountain regions,
•	karst regions, and
•	other regions with limiting factors.
Here, the first four regions are determined relative to natural factors; other regions with limiting factors are determined in a combination of natural and social factors.
For the requirements of our research, we combined the last four regions into one region and therefore only distinguish regions with limiting factors and those without them. In Slovenia, 19% of the surface area is located in regions without limiting factors for agricultural production, and 81% in regions with limiting factors (see Table 5 and Figure 5). Cadastral municipalities were previously classified in one of the five regions by the Agricultural Institute of Slovenia.
Figure 5: Regions with limiting factors (LFA).
Slika 5: Območja z omejitvenimi dejavniki za kmetijsko pridelavo.
| Out of less favorite areas Less favorite areas (LFA) Mountain regions I Low-hill and hill regions I] Karst regions ] Other LFA
0 10 20 30 40 50
^^^^	^^^^	i km
Scale: 1 : 1300 000
Source: Agrokarta 1987, KIS Cartography: Franci Petek, Jerneja Fridl ®> Geografski inštitut AM ZRC SAZU
TABLE 5: SURFACE AREA AND PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF CLASSES OF THE 2ND STAGE OF EVALUATION ACCORDING TO REGIONS WITH AND WITHOUT LIMITING FACTORS. PREGLEDNICA 5: POVRŠINE IN DELEŽI POVRŠIN RAZREDOV 2. STOPNJE VREDNOTENJA PO OBMOČJIH BREZ OMEJITVENIH DEJAVNIKOV IN Z NJIMI.
zone	class	ha	% in Slovenia	% in zone	% of class of 2nd stage
out of LFA/obmocja brez omejitvenih dejavnikov	extensification balanced change intensification urbanization all together	170950 92135 47134 68750 378969	8.5 4.5 2.3 3.4 18.7	45.1 24.3 12.5 18.1 100.0	12.4 19.5 61.4 73.8 /
LFA/obmocja z omejitvenimi dejavniki	extensification balanced change intensification urbanization all together	1208018 381434 29614 24400 1643466	59.7 18.9 1.5 1.2 81.3	73.6 23.2 1.8 1.5 100.0	87.6 80.5 38.6 26.2 /
Slovenia/Slovenija		2022435	100.0	/	/
We determined five final classes of evaluation or change of land use from the viewpoint of indicators of sustainable development relative to 1896. Since extensification in Slovenia is spatially such a widespread process, we defined two degrees for it, differentiated by the intensity of the process:
1.	strong extensification
2.	moderate extensification
3.	intensification
4.	urbanization
5.	stable regions.
In the first class we ranked cadastral municipalities from the class of the 2nd stage of evaluation of strong and moderate extensification, regardless of the difficulty of the region for agricultural production.
In the second class we ranked cadastral municipalities from the class of the 2nd stage of evaluation of weak extensification, but only those located in regions with limiting factors for production.
In the third class we ranked cadastral municipalities from the class of the 2nd stage of evaluation of strong and moderate intensification, but only those located in regions without limiting factors for agricultural production.
In the fourth class we ranked cadastral municipalities from the class of the 2nd degree of evaluation of urbanization, but only those located in regions without limiting factors for agricultural production.
In the fifth class we ranked all the remaining cadastral municipalities.
Using the final classes of evaluation of changes of land use, we selected the regions that relative to 1896 are negative from the viewpoint of the preservation of the cultural landscape or where the use changed greatly (with the exception of stable regions). Figure 6 shows all the final classes together.
The distribution of the proportions of the final classes of the first evaluation model in Slovenia and according to types of landscape is presented in Table 6 and Figure 7.
In the first evaluation model, almost all types of landscape are heavily subject to the extensification (both final classes together) of agricultural land, mostly in western and southern Slovenia. Only plains stand out, where classes of extensification encompass about 20% of the surface area. On the plains, the class of urbanization represents a significant proportion.
Figure 6: Final classes of evaluation, 1st model. Slika 6: Končni razredi vrednotenja, 1. model.
TABLE 6: PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF FINAL CLASSES ACCORDING TO TYPES OF LANDSCAPE, FIRST MODEL.
PREGLEDNICA 6: DELE@I POVR[IN KONČNIH RAZREDOV PO TIPIH POKRAJINE, PRVI MODEL.
	strong extensification	intensification	urbanization	moderate extensification	stable regions
Alpine high mountain	15.8	0.0	0.3	50.0	33.9
Alpine hills	31.8	0.2	2.0	39.2	26.7
Alpine plains	17.1	5.3	28.5	4.1	45.0
Pannonian low hills	15.6	1.4	1.5	40.6	40.9
Pannonian plains	17.3	7.4	18.3	1.7	55.4
Dinaric plateaus	35.9	0.0	0.0	36.4	27.6
Dinaric valley systems and corrosion plains	44.1	0.0	1.5	31.3	23.1
Mediterranean low hills	31.4	2.3	2.6	26.3	37.4
Mediterranean plateaus	27.7	0.0	0.0	48.0	24.4
Slovenia	27.2	1.1	3.4	35.4	32.8
Mediterranean plateaus Dinaric valley systems Dinaric plateaus Alpine hills Alpine high mountains Slovenia Mediterranean low hills Pannonian low hills Alpine plains Pannonian plains
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% proportion of classes
I I strong extensification	O moderate extensification EH intensification
O urbanization	O stable regions
Figure 7: Proportions of surface areas of final classes of the first land use evaluation model. Slika 7: Deleži površin končnih razredov prvega modela vrednotenja rabe tal.
3.2 Second Evaluation Model
As a base, we used arable equivalents, on the basis of which we calculated the quotient of transformation of the natural landscape due to agriculture, which relative to surface area most influenced the current appearance of the landscape in Slovenia.
An arable equivalent is a common denominator for comparing the surface areas of different land categories, and a corollary factor is the coefficient of intensity of cultivation (Kladnik 1999, p. 28). In the 1970's, arable equivalents were used to determine yields in agriculture. Surface areas of individual categories of land use were converted to a common denominator by multiplying them by a suitable coefficient. In individual countries, the values of coefficients were variously adapted relative to the characteristics and conditions
for agricultural production. According to the FAO, the starting point is 1.0 for cultivated fields, 0.5 for permanent meadows and pastures, and 0.25 for pastures of lesser quality. According to the method of Poniatowski, the coefficient is 3.0 for cultivated fields, gardens, and orchards, 0.4 for meadows, 0.2 for pastures, and 0.15 for forests. (Lavrič 1974, pp. 48-49). In Slovenia, the following values are most frequently used for coefficients: cultivated field 1.0, garden 2.5, meadow 0.4, vineyard 2.5, orchard 1.2, pasture
0.1.	and forest 0.15 (Kladnik 1999, p. 29).
On the basis of Lavric's formula, we calculated the quotient of transformation of the natural landscape due to agriculture (Plut 1976, p. 82):
Quotient of transformation of natural landscape _ number of arable equivalents x 100 of natural landscape due to agriculture	total surface area of spatial unit
With this quotient, it was possible to evaluate the intensity of the transformation of the environment due to agriculture relative to the input of work.
Different land uses simultaneously mean different transformations of the environment. Where there is a high proportion of cultivated surface area, the quotient of transformation is also high and vice versa.
3.2.1 Quotient of Transformation of the Natural Landscape due to Agriculture
We also calculated the quotient of transformation of the natural environment according to cadastral municipalities on the basis of data on agricultural and forest land use from the land cadastres for 1896 and 1999, adapting the data for 1999 to the start year. To avoid incongruities, we slightly changed Lavric's values for the coefficients of arable equivalents (Jeršič, Pleško 1975, p. 48). Cultivated fields, gardens, and hop plantations thus have the coefficient 1.0, plantation orchards 1.2 (for 1999, they were kept separate), meadows and orchards 0.4, vineyards 2.5, pastures 0.2, and forests 0.15.
We increased the value of the coefficient for pastures in comparison with the most frequently used value in Slovenia; otherwise, the transformation of pasture to forest would indicate intensification, but in our opinion, this is a matter of extensification in this case.
The value of the quotient of transformation of the natural landscape due to agriculture-80-is already very high for Slovene conditions. In 1896, the average value of the quotient was 40, the highest value was 201, and 201 cadastral municipalities (8%) of2,496 cadastral municipalities (the number of municipalities in the analysis) had a quotient of 80 or more.
Over the period of one hundred years, the average quotient dropped to 32 in 1999. In 1999, the highest value was 170, and only 47 cadastral municipalities (1.8%) still had quotients of 80 and more. We can see that the quotient of transformation dropped in general, which again points to extensification.
We ranked cadastral municipalities according to the magnitude of the quotient of transformation of the natural landscape:
1.	up to 20,
2.	from 20 to 40,
3.	from 40 to 60,
4.	60 to 80,
5.	80 and more.
According to the average value for 1896, the first two classes show transformation below average, and the remaining three classes above average. From the spatial distribution of the classes, we see that already in 1896, the rate of the transformation of the natural landscape due to agriculture was increasing from west to east (see Figure 8 and 9), the consequence of the natural characteristics of Slovenia. Since only six basic land
Figure 8: Quotients of transformation of the natural landscape due to agriculture in 1896. Slika 8: Koli~niki preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva leta 1896.
Figure 9: Quotients of transformation of the natural landscape due to agriculture in 1999. Slika 9: Koli~niki preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva leta 1999.
Figure 10: Proportions of classes of quotients of transformation of natural landscape in 1896 and 1999. Slika 10: Deleži razredov količnikov preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine leta 1896 in 1999.
categories (cultivated fields, vineyards, orchards, meadows, pastures, and forests) from the primary sector are considered, only the extensification of agricultural land is indicated.
On Figure 10, we see how the proportion of the surface area of classes of quotients of transformation with below-average values in 1999 increased in comparison with 1896 and the proportion with above-average values decreased.
The quotients of transformation of the natural landscape differ greatly according to types of landscape, as Table 7 illustrates.
3.2.2 Second Stage of Evaluation
We compared data layers with the quotients of transformation of the natural environment according to cadastral municipalities for 1896 and1999, comparing them not only by classes of quotients but also directly comparing the values of quotients according to cadastral municipalities.
We subtracted the values of quotients of transformation for 1999 from the values of quotients for 1896 and acquired values between +46 and -97. Positive values therefore represent an increase in the quotient or intensification, and negative values represent a decrease in the quotient or extensification. According to the average value of the quotient of transformation in the start year (40 in 1896), we defined five classes according to a 10% scale:
1.	intensification; 5% or greater increase of the quotient relative to the average value for 1896 (3% of surface areas),
2.	stagnation; between 5% increase and 5% decrease of the quotient (17%),
3.	weak extensification; between 5% and 15% decrease of the quotient (30%),
4.	moderate extensification; between 15% and 25% decrease of the quotient (22%), and
5.	strong extensification; 25% or greater decrease of the quotient relative to the average value for 1896 (28% of the surface area of Slovenia).
TABLE 7: PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF CLASSES OF QUOTIENTS OF TRANSFORMATION OF THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IN 1896 AND 1999 ACCORDING TO TYPES OF LANDSCAPE AND INDEXES OF CHANGE OF PROPORTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO YEARS COMPARED.
PREGLEDNICA 7: DELEŽI POVRŠIN RAZREDOV KOLIČNIKOV PREOBLIKOVANOSTI NARAVNE POKRAJINE LETA 1896 IN 1999 PO TIPIH POKRAJINE IN INDEKSI SPREMEMBE DELEŽEV MED PRIMERJANIMA LETOMA.
Landscape type	year	% of quotients	% of quotients	% of quotients	% of quotients	% of quotients	Average value
		less than 20,0	20,0-39,9	40,0-59,9	60,0-79,9	80,0 and more	of quotient
	1896	56.6	42.4	1.1	0.0	0.0	21.4
Alpine high mountains	1999	70.8	28.8	0.4	0.0	0.0	18.2
	index	125	68	33	0	0	85
	1896	3.4	72.0	21.0	3.1	0.6	35.4
Alpine hills	1999	10.2	83.7	5.8	0.2	0.0	27.3
	index	302	116	28	8	0	77
	1896	1.3	14.6	57.7	25.4	1.0	50.4
Alpine plains	1999	2.0	49.7	41.7	6.6	0.0	39.3
	index	159	341	72	26	0	78
	1896	0.0	7.3	44.7	31.1	17.0	60.7
Pannonian low hills	1999	0.0	23.4	53.1	19.2	4.3	47.5
	index	0	322	119	62	25	78
	1896	0.0	4.9	40.8	45.6	8.7	61.6
Pannonian plains	1999	0.0	12.5	45.0	40.1	2.3	54.7
	index	0	254	110	88	27	89
	1896	16.1	71.1	10.8	1.7	0.4	31.4
Dinaric plateaus	1999	28.3	67.6	3.7	0.4	0.0	16.7
	index	176	95	34	26	0	53
Dinaric valley systems	1896	1 8	48 3	39 5	9 3	1 1	41 6
	1999	6.7	73.4	18.8	1.1	0.0	33.3
and corrosion plains	index	366	152	48	12	0	80
	1896	0.0	37.3	26.1	9.4	27.2	57.1
Mediterranean low hills	1999	4.2	54.4	17.6	15.1	8.7	43.4
	index	42124	146	67	162	32	76
	1896	1.4	86.5	9.9	2.2	0.0	35.5
Mediterranean plateaus	1999	30.4	66.4	3.1	0.0	0.0	28.9
	index	2133	77	32	0	0	81
	1896	12.5	47.4	24.1	11.1	4.9	40
Slovenia	1999	20.1	54.4	17.4	6.9	1.2	32
	index	161	115	72	62	24	80
Since only agricultural categories of land use (and forest) were analyzed in this evaluation model, one would expect strong extensification to be most characteristic in regions with the greatest abandonment of agricultural land. According to the map of the transformation of land use and the map of the proportion of overgrown agricultural land (Cunder 1998, p. 11) and also according to the previously obtained results from the first evaluation model, strong extensification occurred mainly in western Slovenia. However, we obtained an interesting spatial distribution of the classes defined above, and the quotient of transformation of the natural landscape generally decreased most in eastern Slovenia.
We determined that regions normally considered to be the most »agricultural« also experienced a transition from more intensively to less intensively cultivated land during the century. Determining the degree of extensification within agricultural land categories is undoubtedly the greatest feature of this evaluation model. With this model, we pointed out extensification that is otherwise not clearly evident in the landscape.
The transition from more to less intensively cultivated agricultural land is also strongly conditioned by increasing urbanization or the proportion of built-up areas, which also affects the decrease of the quotient of transformation of the natural landscape.
The classes of extensification together represent as much as four fifths of the entire surface area of Slovenia, one third more than the classes of extensification represent according to the first evaluation model.
3.2.3 Third and Final Stage of Evaluation
As in the first model, we covered the classes of the 2nd stage of evaluation in this model (changes of quotients of transformation of the natural landscape due to agriculture) with a layer of regions with or without limiting factors for agricultural production. We defined the final classes in the second evaluation model according the same key we used to define them in the first evaluation model:
•	strong extensification: classes of the 2nd stage of evaluation of strong and moderate extensification regardless of limiting factors for agricultural production;
•	intensification: class of intensification of the 2nd stage of evaluation in regions without limiting factors for agricultural production;
•	moderate extensification: class of the 2nd stage of evaluation of weak extensification in regions with limiting factors for agricultural production;
•	stable regions: class of intensification of the 2nd stage of evaluation in regions with limiting factors, class of stagnation of the 2nd stage of evaluation regardless of the region of limiting factors for agricultural production, and class of weak extensification of the 2nd stage of evaluation in regions without limiting factors for agricultural production.
In this definition of final classes in the second land use evaluation model, as much as a half of all surface areas are ranked in the class of strong extensification, almost twice as much as in the first evaluation model. One quarter is in the class of moderate extensification. The two final classes of extensification together represent as much as three quarters of the surface area of Slovenia. The final class of intensification represents a good 1%, and stable regions represent 22% according to this model.
Also interesting is the finding that more than half of the regions without limiting factors (out of LFA) fall into the class of strong extensification.
Among the regions with limiting factors for agricultural production (LFA), stable regions represent only one fifth while the remainder fall into the two classes of extensification.
TABLE 8: PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF FINAL CLASSES OF THE SECOND EVALUATION MODEL ACCORDING TO REGIONS WITH AND WITHOUT LIMITING FACTORS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. PREGLEDNICA 8: DELEŽI POVRŠIN KONČNIH RAZREDOV DRUGEGA MODELA VREDNOTENJA PO OBMOČJIH Z OZIROMA BREZ OMEJITVENIH DEJAVNIKOV ZA KMETIJSTVO.
	strong extensification	intensification	moderate extensification	stable regions	total
out of LFA	58.9	8.0	/	33.1	100.0
LFA	48.7	/	31.3	20.0	100.0
Slovenia	50.6	1.5	25.5	22.4	100.0
Extensification is evident in all landscape types (see Table 9 and Figure 12). Strong extensification is greatest in the Alpine plains (urbanization!), and in Alpine hills and on Mediterranean plateaus, the two final classes of extensification represent more than 90% of the entire surface area!
Intensification appears only in plains and low hills. Most of the stable regions are located in the Alpine mountains, almost half of them.
Figure 11: Final classes of evaluation, 2nd model. Slika 11: Končni razredi vrednotenja, 2. model.
I strong extensification
intensification HI moderate extensification I] stable regions
0 10 20 30 40 50
^^^^	^^^^	i km
Scale: 1 : 1300 000
Author: Franci Petek
Cartography: Franci Petek, Jerneja Fridl
®> Geografski inštitut AM ZRC SAZU
TABLE 9: PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF FINAL CLASSES OF THE SECOND EVALUATION MODEL ACCORDING TO TYPES OF LANDSCAPE.
PREGLEDNICA 9: DELEŽI POVRŠIN KONČNIH RAZREDOV DRUGEGA MODELA VREDNOTENJA PO TIPIH POKRAJINE.
	strong extensification	intensification	moderate extensificationa	stable regions	total
Alpine high mountains	14.7	0.0	36.0	49.3	100.0
Alpine hills	62.1	0.4	30.3	7.1	100.0
Alpine plains	80.1	3.5	1.0	15.5	100.0
Pannonian low hills	68.0	2.4	12.3	17.3	100.0
Pannonian plains	49.3	12.0	0.7	38.0	100.0
Dinaric plateaus	37.0	0.0	33.2	29.8	100.0
Dinaric valley systems and corrosion plains	63.6	0.0	22.6	13.8	100.0
Mediterranean low hills	63.5	1.9	21.0	13.5	100.0
Mediterranean plateaus	39.5	0.0	55.4	5.1	100.0
Slovenia	50.6	1.5	25.5	22.4	100.0
Mediterranean plateaus Alpine hills Dinaric valley systems Mediterranean low hills Alpine plains Pannonian low hills Slovenia Dinaric plateaus Alpine high mountains Pannonian plains
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%	60% 70% 80% 90% 100% proportion of classes
I I strong extensification	Q moderate extensification
I I intensification	EH stable regions
Figure 12: Proportions of surface areas of final classes of the second evaluation model according to types of landscape. Slika 12: Deleži površin končnih razredov drugega modela vrednotenja po tipih pokrajine.
3.3 Comparison of Final Classes of the First and Second Evaluation Models
The proportions of surface areas presented by the final classes differ greatly in the first and second evaluation models.
In a direct comparison of the two evaluation models, we see that the models also differ in their spatial distribution of the final classes of evaluation (for comparison, see Figures 6 and 11).
By overlapping the final classes of the two evaluation models, we ascertained to what extent and where the results of the evaluations coincide. In our subsequent work, the comparison of the two models helped us determine the advantages of each model.
The cross-comparison table (Table 10) contains the number of cadastral municipalities according to final classes of the two evaluation models. Attention is drawn to the class of strong extensification in the second model, which to a great extent coincides with the classes of urbanization, moderate extensification, and stable regions in the first model. The proportions of the total number of cadastral municipalities in each of the final classes are shown in brackets. The first number indicates the proportion of the number of cadastral municipalities in the first model, and the second number the proportion in the second evaluation model. For a clearer spatial presentation of the distribution of an individual class of evaluation, we illustrated the individual classes of evaluation of the first and second models in parallel (see Figures 13-21).
TABLE 10: NUMBER OF CADASTRAL MUNICIPALITIES ACCORDING TO FINAL CLASSES IN THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO EVALUATION MODELS.
PREGLEDNICA 10: ŠTEVILO KATASTRSKIH OBČIN PO KONČNIH RAZREDIH PRI PRESEKU OBEH MODELOV VREDNOTENJA.
Cross table:			1st model		
# of c.m. in	strong	intensification	urbanization	moderate	stable regions
classes of 1st	ekstensification	40c.m.	113c.m.	extensification	874c.m.
and 2nd model	664c.m.			805c.m.	
strong ekstensification	506	6	105	536	420
1573 k. o.	(76.2 - 32.1)	(15.0- 0.4)	(92.9- 6.7)	(66.6- 34.1)	(48.1 - 26.7)
intensification	1	26	/	/	29
56 k.o. el	(0.2- 1.8)	(65.0- 46.4)			(3.3- 51.8)
od mo urbanization d	/	/	/	/	/
2n moderate extensification	121	/	/	213	144
478 k. o.	(18.2- 25.3)			(24.4 - 44.6)	(16.5- 30.1)
stable regions	36	8	8	56	281
389 k. o.	(5.4- 9.2)	(20.0- 2.1)	(7.1 - 2.1)	(7.0- 14.4)	(32.1 - 72.2)
Figure 13: Distribution of strong extensification, 1st model.	Figure 14: Distribution of strong extensification, 2nd model.
Slika 13: Razporeditev močne ekstezifikacije, 1. model.	Slika 14: Razporeditev močne ekstezifikacije, 2. model.
Figure 15: Distribution of moderate extensification, 1st model. Slika 15: Razporeditev zmerne ekstezifikacije, 1. model.
Figure 16: Distribution of moderate extensification, 2nd model. Slika 16: Razporeditev zmerne ekstezifikacije, 2. model.
Figure 17: Distribution of intensification, 1st model. Slika 17: Razporeditev intenzifikacije, 1. model.
Figure 18: Distribution of intensification, 2st model. Slika 18: Razporeditev intenzifikacije, 2. model.
Figure 19: Distribution of urbanization, 1st model. Slika 19: Razporeditev urbanizacije, 1. model.
To determine the differences in the distribution of final classes of the first and second evaluation models, we looked closely at the average values of indexes of changes of proportions of land categories between 1896 and 1999. Table 11 contains the average values of indexes and proportions of surface areas of land categories in each of the classes and the average values of indexes and surface areas of land categories for Slovenia.
Figure 20: Distribution of stable regions, 1st model.	Figure 21: Distribution of stable regions, 2st model.
Slika 20: Razporeditev stabilnih obmo~jih, 1. model.	Slika 21: Razporeditev stabilnih obmo~jih, 2. model.
For additional help in establishing the differences between the two models, we also used cadastral municipalities, which in the comparison did not match in the final class. In Table 12, we further calculated average indexes of changes for these cadastral municipalities. Only those combinations of the classes of the first and the second model where the number of cadastral municipalities exceeded 1% of all cadastral municipalities are presented. Here, we ignored the overlapping of the classes of strong and moderate extensification because it merely indicates the intensity of the process.
TABLE 11: AVERAGE VALUES OF INDEXES (1896-1999) OF CHANGES OF PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF LAND CATEGORIES AND PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF LAND USE CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO THE FINAL CLASSES OF THE TWO EVALUATION MODELS.
PREGLEDNICA 11: POVPREČNE VREDNOSTI INDEKSOV SPREMEMB DELEŽEV POVRŠIN ZEMLJIŠKIH KATEGORIJ MED LETOMA 1896 IN 1999 TER DELEŽI POVRŠIN ZEMLJIŠKIH KATEGORIJ RABE PO KONČNIH RAZREDIH OBEH MODELOV VREDNOTENJA.
cultivated fields meadows vineyards pastures	forest build up
index % 1999 index % 1999 index % 1999 index % 1999 index % 1999 index % 1999
	extensification	55	10.3	119	21.2	31	0.6	40	10.2	163	53.5	132	4.2
el d	intensification	115	44.6	81	19.2	91	3.2	41	3.8	88	16.9	215	12.3
o E	urbanization	60	24.9	118	22.4	45	0.6	49	2.7	91	22.5	356	26.9
1s	potencial extensification	62	8.8	117	19.0	36	0.9	80	13.0	114	51.0	120	7.4
	stable regions	79	15.8	118	18.8	65	1.6	78	8.6	103	46.8	167	8.3
	extensification	59	14.1	128	22.7	38	1.5	59	8.9	128	45.3	200	7.4
de o m	intensification	124	42.6	87	19.6	157	2.7	26	3.0	95	22.0	143	10.0
d n 2	potencial extensification	67	7.6	103	18.1	64	0.3	61	12.2	121	57.0	137	4.8
	stable regions	89	12.2	109	14.7	150	0.7	75	11.8	105	49.7	116	10.9
	extensification	51	11.0	117	22.5	30	0.8	39	9.4	175	51.9	149	4.4
n io	intensification	130	48.4	65	16.8	141	2.6	34	2.9	83	17.9	219	11.4
"o e s	urbanization	57	24.2	121	22.5	28	0.3	51	2.8	90	22.7	364	27.5
s s o	potencial extensification	64	6.7	98	18.6	65	0.2	69	13.5	119	56.4	134	4.5
CJ	stable regions	91	15.3	107	16.1	162	1.1	75	9.3	101	50.5	149	7.5
	different class	68	12.4	126	19.7	45	1.4	71	10.8	113	47.7	137	8.1
Slovenia		67	12.5	117	19.7	47	1.1	62	10.3	120	48.9	151	7.5
TABLE 12: AVERAGE VALUES OF INDEXES (1896-1999) OF CHANGES OF PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF LAND CATEGORIES AND PROPORTIONS OF SURFACE AREAS OF LAND USE CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO FINAL CLASSES OF THE TWO EVALUATION MODELS THAT DID NOT MATCH IN THE COMPARISON AND IN NUMBER OF CADASTRAL MUNICIPALITIES EXCEEDED 1% OF ALL CADASTRAL MUNICIPALITIES. PREGLEDNICA 12: POVPREČNE VREDNOSTI INDEKSOV SPREMEMB DELEŽEV POVRŠIN ZEMLJIŠKIH KATEGORIJ MED LETOMA 1896 IN 1999 TER DELEŽI POVRŠIN ZEMLJIŠKIH KATEGORIJ RABE PO KONČNIH RAZREDIH OBEH MODELOV VREDNOTENJA, KI SE PRI PRESEKU NISO UJEMALI IN SO V ŠTEVILU KATASTRSKIH OBČIN PRESEGLI 1 % VSEH KATASTRSKIH OBČIN.
different class												
at cross section		cultivated fields		meadows		vineyards		pastures		forest		build up
1st model	2nd model	index	%	index	%	index	%	index	%	index	%	index %
		1896-1999	1999	1896-1999	1999	1896-1999	1999	1896-1999	1999	1896-1999	1999 1896-1999 1999	
strong extensification	stable regions	48	2.3	79	21.5	100	0.0	78	22.2	146	42.0	112 12.1
moderate extensification	stable regions	76	3.5	103	9.3	111	0.1	84	17.8	111	51.0	100 19.0
stable regions	strong extensification	67	18.9	129	22.1	65	2.8	81	7.3	108	38.7	181 10.2
stable regions	intensification	89	37.2	134	20.5	119	2.9	44	3.1	96	25.9	132 8.7
stable regions	moderate extensification	76	9.5	105	18.2	64	0.7	82	9.9	105	55.1	150 6.7
Slovenia		67	12.5	117	19.7	47	1.1	62	10.3	120	48.9	151 7.5
4 Conclusion
From our analysis of the data in the last two tables, we established the following facts from the first model:
•	in the final class of strong extensification, the surface area of forest increased most, and the surface area of vineyards, pastures, and cultivated fields decreased greatly.
•	In the final class of moderate extensification, the decrease in the surface area of vineyards, cultivated fields, and pastures is smaller than in strong extensification, and the increase of the surface area of forests, meadows, and built-up areas is also smaller (category »other« in table).
•	In the final class of intensification, the surface area of cultivated fields increased.
•	In the final class of urbanization, the surface area of built-up areas increased greatly.
•	In the final class of stable regions, it is characteristic that the indexes of changes are only slightly higher than the Slovene average, with the exception of forest, which has a lower index of change.
We ascertained the following from the second evaluation model:
•	In the final class of strong extensification, the surface area of vineyards, pastures, and cultivated fields decreased similarly as in the first model. However, the surface area of meadows and built-up areas substantially increased in comparison with the first model while the surface area of forests increased less.
•	In the final class of moderate extensification, the surface area of meadows increased less and the surface area of forests increased more in comparison with the first model.
•	In the final class of intensification, the surface areas of cultivated fields and vineyards increased. Built-up areas increased substantially less than in the first evaluation model.
•	In the final class of stable regions, the surface area of vineyards surprisingly increased greatly.
On the basis of these findings, we defined the most important advantages of the two models, which are
outlined in the following table.
TABLE 13: ADVANTAGES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LAND USE EVALUATION MODELS. PREGLEDNICA 13: OPREDELITEV LASTNOSTI PRVEGA IN DRUGEGA MODELA VREDNOTENJA RABE TAL.
1st model
2nd model
clearly distinguishes extensification of land categories into forest distinguishes urbanization
distinguishes stable regions regardless of landscape type determines class of intensification primarily on the increase
clearly distinguishes extensification within agricultural land categories distinguishes intensification regardless of land category does not exclude urbanization; the class of surface area of cultivated fields extensification includes areas that normally belong in the class of urbanization; this model therefore shows the extensification of agricultural land in the broadest sense
5 Bibliography
Cunder, T. in ostali 1998: Zaraščanje kmetijskih zemljišč in ukrepi za preprečevanje opuščanja pridelave.
Letno poročilo. Ljubljana. Ješič, M., Pleško, M. 1975: Zasnova uporabe prostora SR Slovenije - Kmetijstvo. 88 str. Ljubljana. Gabrovec, M., Kladnik, D., Orožen Adamič, M., Pavšek, M., Perko, D., Topole, M. 1998: Pokrajine v Sloveniji,
Slovenija pokrajine in ljudje, Ljubljana, str. 30. Gabrovec, M., Kladnik, D. 1997: Some new aspects of land use in Slovenia. Geografski zbornik. str. 7-64. Ljubljana.
Kladnik, D. 1999: Leksikon geografije podeželja. Ljubljana. Lavrič, J. 1974: Kmetijska statistika - Rastlinska proizvodnja, 238 str., Ljubljana. Leksikon občin 1906 kraljestev in dežel zastopanih v državnem zboru, Izdelan po rezultatih popisa ljudstva dne 31. grudna 1900. 4 knjige. Dunaj. Medved, J. 1970: Spremembe v izrabi zemljišča in preslojevanje kmečkega prebivalstva v Sloveniji v zadnjih dveh desetletjih. Geografski vestnik 42, str. 3-30. Ljubljana. Plut, D. 1976: Koprsko Primorje in njegova valorizacija za kmetijstvo in turizem. Magistrska naloga. Ljubljana. Slovenija pokrajine in ljudje 1998. Ljubljana.
Zemljiški kataster 1999. Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana.
6 Summary in Slovene - Povzetek
Metodologija vrednotenja sprememb rabe tal v Sloveniji med letoma 1896 in 1999
Franci Petek
1 Uvod
Raba tal je dinamičen proces v pokrajini in odraža zapletene odnose med naravnimi in družbenimi dejavniki v pokrajini. Rezultati stalnega ali občasnega spremljanja rabe tal nam pokažejo njene spremembe, iz njih pa lahko začnemo sestavljati mozaik vzrokov za spremembe. Tako je na primer med letoma 1950 in 1970 v Sloveniji prevladovalo ozelenjevanje (Medved 1970, str. 18). Med letoma 1960 in 1990 pa ogoz-dovanje (Gabrovec, Kladnik 1997, str. 55).
Slovenija leži na stiku alpskega, dinarskega, panonskega in sredozemskega sveta. To se odraža v pestrosti družbenogeografskih in fizičnogeografskih prvin. Zato so pestre tudi tudi značilnosti rabe tal, ki smo jih ugotovili na 9 tipih pokrajine (Gabrovec M. et al 1998,30) (glej sliko 2). Na splošno velja, da je na vzhodu več obdelovalnih zemljišč, na zahodu pa gozda in pašnikov, kar je posledica večje razgibanosti površja na zahodu Slovenije. Že preprosta primerjava zemljiških kategorij pa kaže, da se je v stoletnem obdobju v Sloveniji (glej sliko 1) delež gozda povečal, delež kmetijskih zemljišč zmanjšal, delež kategorije ostalo pa se je povečal na račun urbanizacije.
Ugotovili smo tudi, da se je raba tal spremenila ne glede na tip površja. Tako je v splošnem za alpske in dinarske pokrajine značilna sprememba kmetijskih kategorij v gozd, za panonske in sredozemske pokrajine pa sprememba znotraj kmetijskih kategorij rabe tal - predvsem v travnike. Urbanizacija je značilna v bližini večjih mest.
Iz tega lahko sklepamo, da je vzrok za spremembe rabe tal v zadnjih stotih letih iskati predvsem v velikih družbenih spremembah, predvsem gospodarskih.
V	članku smo pozornost namenili predvsem metodologiji vrednotenja sprememb rabe tal v Sloveniji. Predstavili smo dve različni metodi, s katerima lahko uspešno vrednotimo spremembe na podlagi povprečnih vrednosti. Tako ugotavljanje sprememb je primerno predvsem za obsežnejša območja preučevanja (100 in več km2), ko je analiza s prostorsko natančnostjo preobsežna ali pa je pridobitev vhodnih podatkov (satelitski in letalski posnetki) cenovno nedostopna.
2	Metodologija
Izhodišče za vrednotenje sprememb rabe tal so bili podatki iz zemljiškega katastra leta 1896 in 1999 po katastrskih občinah, ki so bile osnovna prostorska enota pri vrednotenju rabe tal. Katastrske občine so razmeroma majhne in stabilne, saj se že vse od uvedbe franciscejskega katastra leta 1825 niso bistveno spreminjale (Gabrovec, Kladnik 1997, str. 58). Zato smo podatke za obe leti lahko med seboj primerjali, ob enem pa dobili natančno sliko pokrajinske značilnosti rabe tal.
Vrednotenje rabe tal smo z istimi vhodnimi podatki izpeljali po dveh metodologijah. Razlikovali smo jih kot prvi in drugi model vrednotenja. Potek samega vrednotenja smo shematično prikazali tudi na sliki 3.
Pri prvem modelu smo vrednotenje izpeljali na podlagi sprememb rabe tal med letoma 1896 in 1999 in sicer v treh stopnjah. Rezultate vsake stopnje posebej smo enostavno poimenovali po stopnji. Na primer razredi 1. stopnje vrednotenja, v zadnji končni stopnji pa končni razredi vrednotenja.
Pri drugem modelu smo vrednotenje izpeljali na podlagi ornih ekvivalentov oziroma količnikov preob-likovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva, ki smo jih izračunali iz ornih ekvivalentov. Pri tem modelu sta bili le dve stopnji. V prvi stopnji smo dobili primerljive razrede 2. stopnje vrednotenja s prvim modelom. V naslednji stopnji smo ponovno dobili končne razrede vrednotenja, ki so bili primerljivi s končnimi razredi vrednotenja pri prvem modelu.
S presekom obeh modelov smo ugotavljali prednosti obeh modelov.
3	Vrednotenje rabe tal
3.1 Prvi model vrednotenja
V	prvem modelu je bil osnovni kazalec sprememba rabe tal med letoma 1896 in 1999. Spremembo rabe tal med letoma 1896 in 1999 smo izdelali po enaki metodologiji kot Medved (1970) za obdobje med letoma 1950 in 1970 ter Gabrovec in Kladnik (1997) za obdobje med letoma 1961 in 1994.
Slika 3: Shematični prikaz metodologije vrednotenja rabe tal.
Spremembe smo ugotavljali med {estimi temeljnimi zemlji{kimi kategorijami (njive, vinogradi, sadovnjaki, travniki, pašniki in gozdovi), ki kažejo na dejavnost tako imenovanega primarnega sektorja. Poleg tega smo upoštevali tudi nerodovitna zemljišča, katerih sprememba je posledica pozidave zemljišč - urbanizacija. Zaradi primerljivosti podatkov med letoma 1896 in 1999 smo vrtove in hmeljišča uvrstili med njive, združili smo gozdove in gozdne plantaže, travnike in barjanske travnike, plantažne in kmečke sadovnjake pa smo združili s travniki, saj podatki za leto 1896 vodijo sadovnjake med travniki (glej preglednico 1).
Medved (1970, str. 17-18) je določil štiri tipe sprememb.
•	Ogozdovanje. V tej skupini so vse katastrske občine, v katerih je prevladovalo spreminjanje kmetijskih zemljišč v gozdove.
•	Ozelenjevanje. V tej skupini so vse katastrske občine, v katerih je prevladovalo spreminjanje zemljiških kategorij v travišča (travnike in pašnike).
•	Intenzifikacija. V to skupino so uvrščene katastrske občine, kjer gre večina sprememb v rabi tal v korist njiv, vinogradov in sadovnjakov.
•	Urbanizacija. V to skupino so uvrščene katastrske občine, kjer je večina sprememb v rabi tal v korist naraščanja zazidanih in drugih zemljišč za potrebe urbanizacije (zemljiška kategorija nerodovitno oziroma ostalo).
Glede na intenzivnost procesov pa loči:
1.	Močno (na primer) ogozdovanje, kjer je več kot 75 % vseh sprememb v zemljiških kategorijah v korist naraščanja gozdov.
2.	Zmerno ogozdovanje, kjer je več kot 50 % vseh sprememb v zemljiških kategorijah v korist naraščanja gozdov.
3.	Šibko ogozdovanje, kjer je relativna prevlada ogozdovanja nad ostali spremembami rabe tal.
Po enaki metodologiji kot pri ogozdovanju, tudi pri ostalih treh procesih spreminjanja rabe tal ločimo tri stopnje intenzivnosti: močno, zmerno in šibko.
Procese smo računali za vsako katastrsko občino in jih prikazali na sliki 4. Prostorsko razporeditev tipov sprememb smo si lahko predstavljali že iz neposrednih primerjav vsake zemljiške kategorije posebej. V grobem lahko rečemo, da je za vzhodno Slovenijo značilno ozelenjevanje, za zahodno pa ogozdovanje. Urbanizacija je omejena na mestna obmestna območja, intenzifikacija pa le na posamezna vinogradniška in ravninska območja (glej tudi preglednico 2).
3.1.1 Prva stopnja vrednotenja
Pomembna razlika med tipi sprememb in razredi prve stopnje vrednotenja, je upoštevanje velikosti oziroma deleža vseh sprememb (ne glede na proces) na celotni površini katastrske občine. Poleg tega smo upoštevali vse procese in ne le prevladujočega.
Ogozdovanje in ozelenjevanje skupaj smo označili kot ekstenzifikacijo, saj kažeta na zmanjševanje intenzivnosti kmetijske rabe. Seveda ni rečeno, da ozelenjevanje vedno kaže samo na ekstenzifikacijo, saj so na primer njive zaradi sprememb kmetijske politike spremenili v intenzivne travnike. Vendar podatki v zemljiškem katastru ne ločijo intenzivnih in ekstenzivnih travnikov. Ali pa primer, ko se je površina travnikov povečala na račun gozda. Tudi v tem primeru bi šlo za intenzifikacijo obdelave in ne samo za ozelenjevanje. Vendar takega primera nismo ločili.
Vsakemu procesu smo določili ustrezno število točk. Ogozdovanju in ozelenjevanju, ki kažeta ekstenzifikacijo, smo dali negativne točke. Nasprotno smo intenzifikaciji in urbanizaciji dali pozitivne točke. Število točk smo procesom določili glede na delež, ki so ga dosegli v skupni površini vseh sprememb, kot kaže preglednica 3. Točke vseh procesov v katastrski občini, smo nato med seboj sešteli. Katastrske občine s popolno prevlado procesov ekstenzifikacije so tako dobile -12 točk, s popolno prevlado intenzifikacije in urbanizacije pa 12 točk.
Razlikovati smo hoteli še intenzivnost sprememb. Na primer dve katastrski občini, sta po zgornjem točkovanju obe dobili -6 točk. V prvi predstavljajo vse spremembe le 2 % celotne površine, v drugi pa 80 %.
V	slednji ima ekstenzifikacija dejansko veliko večjo razsežnost kot v prvi. Zato smo dobljene točke za posamezen proces dodatno obtežili. Glede na delež površine katastrske občine, ki ga predstavljajo vse spremembe skupaj, smo jih pomnožili z večkratniki 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in 6 (preglednica 4).
Dobljene rezultate smo razvrstili v 7 razredov. Srednji, 4. razred predstavlja uravnotežene spremembe in ima število točk med -5 in 5. Nižje vrednosti kažejo ekstenzifikacijo, višje pa intenzifikacijo in urbanizacijo. Razrede smo razlikovali še po intenzivnosti procesov in jih poimenovali:
1.	razred, katastrske občine, ki so s seštevkom točk dobile manj kot -26 točk; močna ekstenzifikacija,
2.	razred, katastrske občine s točkami med -25 in -16; zmerna ekstenzifikacija,
3.	razred, katastrske občine s točkami med -15 in -6, šibka ekstenzifikacija,
4.	razred, katastrske občine s točkami med -5 in +5; uravnotežena sprememba,
5.	razred, katastrske občine s točkami med +6 in +15; {ibka intenzifikacija in urbanizacija,
6.	razred, katastrske občine s točkami med +16 in +25; zmerna intenzifikacija in urbanizacija ter
7.	razred, katastrske občine, ki so s seštevkom dobile 26 točk in več, mo~na intenzifikacija in urbanizacija.
Za boljše razumevanje metodologije prve stopnje vrednotenja smo opisali primer teoretične katastrske občine, v kateri se je raba spremenila na 31 % površine. V tem deležu je ogozdovanje predstavljalo 50 %, ozelenjevanje 30 %, urbanizacija 15 % in intenzifikacija 5 %. Ogozdovanje je dobilo -6 točk, ozelenjeva-nje -4, urbanizacija 2 in intenzifikacija 1 točko. Seštevek je -7 točk. Vsoto točk smo nato, glede na delež površine sprememb v katastrski občini pomnožili s 4, rezultat pa je -21 točk. Ta katastrska občina bi bila uvrščena v razred zmerne ekstenzifikacije.
3.1.2	Druga stopnja vrednotenja
Iz razredov intenzifikacije in urbanizacije smo želeli posebej izpostaviti še katastrske občine, v katerih je bila urbanizacija v zadnjem stoletju izjemna, in tako vsaj delno ločiti katastrske občine s pretežno intenzifikacijo oziroma urbanizacijo.
To smo dosegli po naslednjem postopku: vsem katastrskim občinam, v katerih je urbanizacija predstavljala 50 in več odstotkov vseh sprememb, spremembe skupaj pa so predstavljale 10,9 % in več celotne površine katastrske občine, smo dodali 100 točk. Tako so dobile vse katastrske občine, v katerih je bila urbanizacija visoka, v vsakem primeru več kot najvišje možno število točk (72) v prvi stopnji vrednotenja. Te katastrske občine smo dali v nov, 8. razred in ga poimenovali urbanizacija.
3.1.3	Tretja, končna stopnja vrednotenja
V	zadnji stopnji vrednotenja smo razrede 2. stopnje prekrili še s podatkovnim slojem območij z omejitvenimi dejavniki za kmetijstvo in brez njih. S tem smo dobili končne razrede vrednotenja rabe tal po prvem modelu.
Kmetijska stroka loči in še vedno uporablja pet, oziroma štiri različna območja z omejitvenimi dejavniki (Cunder in ostali 1998; str. 14):
•	območja brez omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo,
•	gričevnato hribovska območja,
•	gorska območja,
•	kraška območja in
•	druga območja z omejenimi dejavniki.
Pri tem so prva štiri območja določena glede na naravne dejavnike, druga območja z omejitvenimi dejavniki pa so določena v kombinaciji naravnih in družbenih dejavnikov.
Za potrebe naše naloge smo zadnja štiri območja združili v eno, tako da ločimo le območja brez omejitvenih dejavnikov in z njimi. V Sloveniji je 19 % površine v območjih brez omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo, 81 % pa v območjih z omejitvenimi dejavniki (glej preglednico 5 in sliko 5). Katastrske občine so v eno izmed petih območij razvrstili že na Kmetijskem inštitutu Slovenije.
Opredelili smo 5 končnih razredov vrednotenja oziroma spremembe rabe tal z vidika kazalcev sonarav-no trajnostnega razvoja glede na leto 1896. Ker je ekstenzifikacija vSloveniji prostorsko tako obsežen proces, smo zanjo opredeli dve stopnji, ki se razlikujeta po intenzivnosti procesa:
1.	močna ekstenzifikacija,
2.	zmerna ekstenzifikacija,
3.	intenzifikacija,
4.	urbanizacija in
5.	stabilna območja.
V	prvi razred smo uvrstili katastrske občine, ki so v razredu 2. stopnje vrednotenja močne in zmerne eksten-zifikacije ne glede na težavnostno območje za kmetijsko pridelavo.
V	drugi razred smo uvrstili katastrske občine, ki so v razredu 2. stopnje vrednotenja šibke ekstenzifika-cije, in sicer le tiste, ki so v območjih z omejitvenimi dejavniki za pridelavo.
V	tretji razred smo uvrstili katastrske občine, ki so v razredu 2. stopnje vrednotenja močne in zmerne intenzifikacije, in sicer le tiste, ki so v območjih brez omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo.
V	četrti razred smo uvrstili katastrske občine, ki so v razredu 2. stopnje vrednotenja urbanizacije, in sicer le tiste, ki so v območjih brez omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo.
V	peti razred smo uvrstili vse ostale katastrske občine.
S končnimi razredi vrednotenja sprememb rabe tal smo izluščili območja, ki so z vidika ohranjanja kulturne pokrajine glede leto 1896 negativna, oziroma se je raba močno spremenila (z izjemo stabilnih območij). Na sliki 6 smo prikazali vse končne razrede skupaj.
Razporeditev deležev končnih razredov prvega modela vrednotenja v Sloveniji in po tipih pokrajine smo prikazali v preglednici 6 in na sliki 7.
Pri prvem modelu vrednotenja so ekstenzifikaciji (oba končna razreda skupaj) kmetijskih zemljišč močno podvrženi domala vsi tipi pokrajine. Najbolj pa v zahodni in južni Sloveniji. Izstopajo le ravnine, kjer razreda ekstenzifikacije dosegata okrog 20 % površine. V ravninah pomemben delež predstavlja razred urbanizacije.
3.2 Drugi model vrednotenja
Za osnovo smo uporabili orne ekvivalente, na podlagi katerih smo izračunali količnik preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva, ki je površinsko najbolj vplivalo na današnjo podobo pokrajine v Sloveniji.
Orni ekvivalent je skupni imenovalec za primerjavo površin različnih zemljiških kategorij, sopomenka je koeficient intenzivnosti obdelave (Kladnik 1999, str. 28). Orne ekvivalente so v sedemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja uporabljali pri ugotavljanju donosov v kmetijstvu. Površino posameznih kategorij rabe tal so prevedli na skupni imenovalec, tako da so jih pomnožili z ustreznim koeficientom. V posameznih državah so vrednosti koeficientov različno prilagajali glede na značilnosti in pogoje za kmetijsko pridelavo. Po FAO je izhodišče 1,0 za njive, za stalne travnike in pašnike 0,5 in slabše pašnike 0,25. Po metodi Ponia-towskega je koeficient za njive, vrtove in sadovnjake 3,0, za travnike 0,4, pašnike 0,2 in gozdove 0,15
(Lavrič 1974, str. 48-49). V Sloveniji se najpogosteje uporabljajo naslednje vrednosti koeficientov: njive 1,0, vrt 2,5, travnik 0,4, vinograd 2,5, sadovnjak 1,2, pašnik 0,1 in gozd 0,15 (Kladnik 1999, str. 29).
Na podlagi Lavričeve formule smo izračunali količnik preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva (Plut 1976, str. 82).
Količnik preoblikovanosti naravne _ število ornih ekvivalentov x 100 pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva	skupna površina prostorske enote
S tem količnikom je bilo mogoče oceniti intenzivnost preoblikovanosti okolja zaradi kmetijstva glede na vloženo delo.
Različna raba tal hkrati pomeni različno preoblikovanost okolja. Tam kjer je velik delež obdelovalnih površin, je visok tudi količnik preoblikovanosti in obratno.
3.2.1 Količnik preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva
Tudi količnik preoblikovanosti naravnega okolja smo računali po katastrskih občinah na podlagi podatkov kmetijske in gozdne rabe tal iz zemljiškega katastra za leti 1896 in 1999. Podatke za leto 1999 smo priredili izhodiščnemu letu. Da smo se izognili neskladjem, smo Lavričeve vrednosti za koeficiente ornih ekvivalentov (Jeršič, Pleško 1975, str. 48) nekoliko spremenili. Njive, vrtovi in hmeljišča imajo tako koeficient 1, plantažni sadovnjaki 1,2 (za leto 1999 so posebej vodeni), travniki in sadovnjaki 0,4, vinogradi 2,5, pašniki 0,2 in gozdovi 0,15.
Vrednost koeficienta za pašnike smo v primerjavi z najpogosteje uporabljeno vrednostjo v Sloveniji povečali, saj bi sicer sprememba pašnikov v gozdove kazala intenzifikacijo, po našem pojmovanju pa gre v tem primeru za ekstenzifikacijo.
Vrednost količnika preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva 80 je za slovenske razmere že zelo visok. Leta 1896 je bila povprečna vrednost količnika 40, največja vrednost 201, količnik 80 in več pa je od 2496 katastrskih občin (kolikor jih je bilo v analizi) imela 201 katastrska občina (8 %).
V obdobju stotih let se je povprečni količnik leta 1999 zmanjšal na 32. Tega leta je bila največja vrednost 170, količnik 80 in več pa je imelo le še 47 katastrskih občin (1,8%). Vidimo, da se je količnik preoblikovanosti v splošnem znižal, kar nam ponovno kaže na ekstenzifikacijo.
Katastrske občine smo glede na velikost količnika preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine razvrstili v pet razredov:
1.	do 20,
2.	od 20 do 40,
3.	od 40 do 60,
4.	60 do 80 ter
5.	80 in več.
Glede na povprečno vrednost leta 1896 prva dva razreda predstavljata podpovprečno, ostali trije pa nadpovprečno preoblikovanost. Iz prostorske razporeditve razredov vidimo, da se je že leta 1896 intenzivnost preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva večala od zahoda proti vzhodu (glej sliki 8 in 9), kar je posledica naravnih značilnosti Slovenije. Ker je upoštevanih le šest temeljnih zemljiških kategorij (njive, vinogradi, sadovnjaki, travniki, pašniki in gozdovi) tako imenovanega primarnega sektorja, kažejo torej le ekstenzifikacijo kmetijskih zemljišč in ne tudi urbanizacije posebej.
Na sliki 10 vidimo kako se je delež površine razredov količnikov preoblikovanosti s podpovprečnimi vrednosti leta 1999 povečal v primerjavi z letom 1896, z nadpovprečnimi vrednostmi pa zmanjšal. Količniki
preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine se močno razlikujejo tudi po tipih pokrajine, kar nam kaže preglednica 7.
3.2.2	Druga stopnja vrednotenja
Podatkovna sloja s količniki preoblikovanja naravnega okolja po katastrskih občinah za leti 1896 in 1999, smo primerjali ne le po razredih količnikov, pač pa smo neposredno primerjali vrednosti količnikov po katastrskih občinah.
Vrednosti količnikov preoblikovanosti leta 1999 smo odšteli od vrednosti količnikov leta 1896. Dobili smo vrednosti med +46 in -97. Pozitivne vrednosti torej predstavljajo rast količnika oziroma intenzifikacijo, negativne vrednosti pa upad količnika oziroma ekstenzifikacijo. Glede na povprečno vrednost količnika preobrazbe ob izhodiščnem letu (leta 1896 je količnik znašal 40), smo po 10 odstotni lestvici določili 5 razredov:
1.	intenzifikacija; 5 % in večja rast količnika glede na povprečno vrednost leta 1896 (3 % površin Slovenije),
2.	stagnacija; med 5 % rastjo in 5 % upadom količnika (17 %),
3.	šibka ekstenzifikacija; med 5 % in 15 % upadom količnika (30 %),
4.	zmerna ekstenzifikacija; med 15 % in 25 % upadom količnika (22 %) in
5.	močna ekstenzifikacija; 25 % in večji upad količnika glede na povprečno vrednost leta 1896 (28 %).
Ker so bile pri tem modelu vrednotenja v analizi le kmetijske kategorije rabe tal (in gozd), bi pričakovali, da bo močna ekstenzifikacija najbolj značilna na območjih z največjim opuščanjem kmetijskih zemljišč. Ta so glede na karto sprememb rabe tal in karto deleža zaraščanja kmetijskih zemljišč (Cunder 1998, str. 11), pa tudi glede na že dobljene rezultate po prvem modelu vrednotenja v naši nalogi, predvsem na zahodu Slovenije. Dobili pa smo zanimivo prostorsko razporeditev zgoraj določenih razredov, količnik preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine se je v splošnem najbolj znižal na vzhodu Slovenije.
Ugotovili smo, da so tudi pokrajine, ki sicer veljajo za najbolj »kmetijske«, v stoletju doživele prehod iz bolj intenzivno v manj intenzivno obdelana zemljišča. Opredeljevanje ekstenzifikacije znotraj kmetijskih zemljišč je nedvomno največja kakovost tega modela vrednotenja. S tem smo opozorili tudi na ekstenzifikacijo, ki v pokrajini sicer ni močno očitna.
Prehod iz bolj v manj intenzivno obdelana kmetijska zemljišča pa je močno pogojen tudi z naraščajočo urbanizacijo oziroma deležem pozidanih površin, kar tudi vpliva na znižanje količnika preoblikovano-sti naravne pokrajine.
Razredi ekstenzifikacije skupaj predstavljajo kar štiri petine vse površine Slovenije, kar je za tretjino več kot razredi ekstenzifikacije predstavljajo po prvem modelu vrednotenja.
3.2.3	Tretja, končna stopnja vrednotenja
Razrede 2. stopnje vrednotenja pri tem modelu (spremembe količnikov preoblikovanosti naravne pokrajine zaradi kmetijstva), smo enako kot pri prvem modelu prekrili s slojem območij z omejitvenimi dejavniki za kmetijsko pridelavo in brez. Po enakem ključu kot smo ga uporabili za določevanje končnih razredov pri prvem modelu vrednotenja, smo jih opredelili tudi pri drugem modelu vrednotenja:
•	močna ekstenzifikacija. razreda 2. stopnje vrednotenja močne in zmerne ekstenzifikacije ne glede na območje omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo;
•	intenzifikacija: razred intenzifikacije 2. stopnje vrednotenja v območjih brez omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo;
•	zmerna ekstenzifikacija: razred 2. stopnje vrednotenja šibke ekstenzifikacije v območjih z omejitvenimi dejavniki za kmetijsko pridelavo;
•	stabilna območja: razred intenzifikacije 2. stopnje vrednotenja v območjih z omejitvenimi dejavniki, razred stagnacije 2. stopnje vrednotenja ne glede na območje omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo in razred šibke ekstenzifikacije 2. stopnje vrednotenja v območjih brez omejitvenih dejavnikov za kmetijsko pridelavo.
Po taki opredelitvi končnih razredov v drugem modelu vrednotenja rabe tal, je kar polovico vseh površin v razredu močne ekstenzifikacije, torej skoraj še enkrat toliko kot pri prvem modelu vrednotenja. Četrtina je v razredu zmerne ekstenzifikacije. Skupaj končna razreda ekstenzifikacije predstavljata kar tri četrtine površine Slovenije. Končni razred intenzifikacije predstavlja dober odstotek, stabilnih območij pa je po tem modelu 22 %. Zanimiva je tudi ugotovitev, da več kot polovico območij brez omejitvenih dejavnikov predstavlja razred močne ekstenzifikacije (glej preglednico 8).
V	območjih z omejitvenimi dejavniki za kmetijsko pridelavo stabilna območja predstavljajo le še petino, ostalo pa razreda ekstenzifikacije. Ekstenzifikacija se kaže v vseh pokrajinskih tipih (glej preglednico 9 in sliko 12). Močne ekstenzifikacije imajo največ alpske ravnine (urbanizacija!). V alpskih hribovjih in na sredozemskih planotah pa oba končna razreda ekstenzifikacije predstavljata več kot 90 % celotne površine! Intenzifikacija se pojavlja le v ravninah in gričevjih. Največ stabilnih območij je v alpskih gorovjih, za slabo polovico (glej tudi sliko 11).
3.3 Presek končnih razredov prvega in drugega modela vrednotenja
Že deleži površin, ki jih predstavljajo končni razredi, se pri prvem in drugem modelu vrednotenja močno razlikujejo. Pri neposredni primerjavi obeh modelov vrednotenja vidimo, da sta modela tudi po prostorski razporeditvi končnih razredov vrednotenja različna (za primerjavo glej sliki 6 in 11). S prekrivanjem končnih razredov obeh modelov vrednotenja smo ugotovili, v kolikšni meri in kje rezultati obeh vrednotenj sovpadajo. V nadaljevanju nam je presek obeh modelov, pomagal določiti kakovost enega in drugega modela.
V	križni tabeli (preglednica 10) je število katastrskih občin po končnih razredih obeh modelov vrednotenja. Pozornost zbuja razred močne ekstenzifikacije drugega modela, ki v veliki meri sovpada z razredom urbanizacije, zmerne ekstenzifikacije in stabilnih območij prvega modela. V oklepajih so deleži celotnega števila katastrskih občin v vsakem od končnih razredov. Prvo število kaže delež števila katastrskih občin prvega modela, drugo število pa drugega modela vrednotenja. Za boljšo prostorsko predstavo razporeditve posameznega razreda vrednotenja, smo vzporedno prikazali posamezne razrede vrednotenja prvega in drugega modela (glej slike od 13 do 21).
Da smo ugotovili vsebinske razlike razporeditve končnih razredov prvega in drugega modela vrednotenja, smo pod drobnogled vzeli še povprečne vrednosti indeksov sprememb deležev zemljiških kategorij med letoma 1896 in 1999. V preglednici 11 so povprečne vrednosti indeksov in deležev površin zemljiških kategorij v vsakem razredu ter povprečne vrednosti indeksov in površin zemljiških kategorij za Slovenijo.
Za dodatno pomoč pri določevanju vsebinskih razlik med modeloma so nam bile tudi katastrske občine, ki se pri preseku obeh modelov niso ujemale v končnem razredu. V preglednici 12 smo izračunali povprečne indekse sprememb še za take katastrske občine. Prikazane pa so le tiste kombinacije razredov prvega in drugega modela, kjer je število katastrskih občin preseglo 1 % vseh katastrskih občin. Pri tem smo prekrivanje razreda močne in zmerne ekstenzifikacije zanemarili, saj gre dejansko le za intenzivnost procesa.
4 Sklep
Iz pretresa podatkov v preglednicah 11 in 12 smo za prvi model ugotovili:
•	Pri končnem razredu mo~ne ekstenzifikacije se je najbolj povečala površina gozda, močno pa se je zmanjšala površina vinogradov, pašnikov in njiv.
•	Pri končnem razredu zmerne ekstenzifikacije je upad površine vinogradov, njiv in pašnikov manjši kot pri močni ekstenzifikaciji, manjši pa je tudi porast površine gozda, travnikov in pozidanih površin (v preglednici kategorija ostalo).
•	V končnem razredu intenzifikacije se je površina njiv povečala.
•	Pri urbanizaciji se je močno povečala površina pozidanih površin.
•	Za končni razred stabilnih obmo~ijje značilno, da so indeksi sprememb le malo višji od slovenskega povprečja, z izjemo gozda, ki ima indeks sprememb nižji.
Ugotovitve za drugi model vrednotenja:
•	V končnem razredu močne ekstenzifikacije se je površina vinogradov, pašnikov in njiv podobno zmanjšala kot pri prvem modelu. Površina travnikov in pozidanih površin pa se je v primerjavi s prvim modelom bistveno bolj povečala, gozdov pa manj.
•	V razredu zmerne ekstenzifikacije se je v primerjavi s prvim modelom površina travnikov manj povečala, površina gozdov pa več.
•	V končnem razredu intenzifikacije se je poleg površine njiv povečala tudi površina vinogradov. Pozidane površine so se bistveno manj povečale kot pri prvem modelu vrednotenja.
•	V razredu stabilnih območij se je presenetljivo močno povečala površina vinogradov.
Na podlagi teh ugotovitev smo opredelili najpomembnejše lasnosti obeh modelov, ki smo jih navedli v spodnji preglednici.
PREGLEDNICA 13: OPREDELITEV LASTNOSTI PRVEGA IN DRUGEGA MODELA VREDNOTENJA RABE TAL.
1. model	2. model
•	dobro lo~i ekstenzifikacijo kmetijskih kategorij v gozd
•	lo~i urbanizacijo
•	stabilna obmo~ja lo~i ne glede pokrajinski tip
•	razred intenzifikacije opredeli predvsem na pove~anju površine njiv
•	dobro lo~i ekstenzifikacijo »znotraj« kmetijskih zemljiških kategorij
•	intenzifikacijo lo~i ne glede na zemljiško kategorijo
•	ne izlo~i urbanizacije; v razredu ekstenzifikacije so tudi obmo~ja, ki površine njiv sicer sodijo v razred urbanizacije; zato ta model kaže ekstenzifikacijo kmetijskih zemljiš~ v najširšem smislu