ACTAGEOGRAPHICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK SLOVENICA 2019 59 2 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 59-2 • 2019 Contents Drago PERKO, Rok CIGLIČ, Mauro HRVATIN The usefulness of unsupervised classification methods for landscape typification: The case of Slovenia 7 Vladimir M. CVETKOVIĆ, Kevin RONAN, Rajib SHAW, Marina FILIPOVIĆ, Rita MANO,Jasmina GAČIĆ, Vladimir JAKOVLJEVIĆ Household earthquake preparedness in Serbia: A study of selected municipalities 27 Iwona CIEŚLAK Spatial conflicts: Analyzing a burden created by differing land use 43 Ivan PAUNOVIĆ, Verka JOVANOVIĆ Sustainable mountain tourism in word and deed: A comparative analysis in the macroregions of the Alps and the Dinarides 59 Nikola Darko VUKSANOVIĆ, Dragan TEŠANOVIĆ, Bojana KALENJUK, Milijanko PORTIĆ Gender, age and education differences in food consumption within a region: Case studies of Belgradeand Novi Sad (Serbia) 71 Special issue – Franciscean cadaster as a source of studying landscape changes Matej GABROVEC, Ivan BIČÍK, Blaž KOMAC Land registers as a source of studying long-term land-use changes 83 Ivan BIČÍK, Matej GABROVEC, Lucie KUPKOVÁ Long-term land-use changes: A comparison between Czechia and Slovenia 91 Lucie KUPKOVÁ, Ivan BIČÍK, Zdeněk BOUDNÝ Long-term land-use / land-cover changes in Czech border regions 107 Drago KLADNIK, Matjaž GERŠIČ, Primož PIPAN, Manca VOLK BAHUN Land-use changes in Slovenian terraced landscapes 119 Daniela RIBEIRO, Mateja ŠMID HRIBAR Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenianrural landscapes 143 Mojca FOŠKI, Alma ZAVODNIK LAMOVŠEK Monitoring land-use change using selected indices 161 ISSN 1581-6613 9 771581 661010 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 2019 ISSN: 1581-6613 COBISS: 124775936 UDC/UDK: 91© 2019, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika Internationaleditorialboard/mednarodniuredniškiodbor: DavidBole(Slovenia),MichaelBründl(Switzerland),RokCiglič(Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), BlažKomac (Slovenia), Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCharty (United Kingdom), SlobodanMarković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Nika Razpotnik Visković(Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia) Editor-in-Chief/glavni urednik: Blaž Komac; blaz@zrc-sazu.si Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko; drago@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for physical geography/glavni urednik za fizično geografijo: Matija Zorn; matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for human geography/glavna urednica za humano geografijo: Mimi Urbanc; mimi@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for regional geography/glavni urednik za regionalno geografijo: Drago Kladnik; drago.kladnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for spatial planning/glavni urednik za regionalno planiranje: Janez Nared; janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si Chiefeditorforruralgeography/glavnaurednicazageografijopodeželja:NikaRazpotnikVisković;nika.razpotnik@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for urban geography/glavni urednik za urbano geografijo: David Bole; david.bole@zrc-sazu.si Chief editor for geographic information systems/glavni urednik za geografske informacijske sisteme: Rok Ciglič; rok.ciglic@zrc-sazu.siChief editor for environmental protection/glavni urednik za varstvo okolja: Aleš Smrekar; ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si Editorial assistant/uredniški pomočnik: Matjaž Geršič; matjaz.gersic@zrc-sazu.si Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZUPublished by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/Naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija The papers are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznike, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove. Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznike, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove. Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Tiskarna Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 450 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia coreresearchprogramme(P6-0101)/revijaizhajaspodporoJavneagencijezaraziskovalnodejavnostRepublikeSlovenijein nastajav okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded, Scopus, JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost,Geoscience e-Journals, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google scholar,and CrossRef. Oblikovanje/Design by: Matjaž Vipotnik Front cover photography: Exploration of the collapse dolines, such as the one at the Small Natural Bridge in RakovŠkocjan, has enabled a deeper understanding of karst processes in recent years (photograph: Matej Lipar).Fotografija na naslovnici: Raziskave udornice, kot je ta pri Malem Naravnem mostu v Rakovem Škocjanu, so v zadnjihletih omogočile globlje razumevanje kraških procesov (fotografija: Matej Lipar). LONG-TERMLAND-USECHANGES: ACOMPARISONBETWEENCZECHIA ANDSLOVENIA Ivan Bičík, Matej Gabrovec, Lucie Kupková Many elements of the 19th century land use patterns are preserved at Sorško polje Plain in Slovenia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7005 UDC: 913:711.14:63(437.3+497.4)«18/20« COBISS: 1.01 Long-term land-use changes: A comparison between Czechia and Slovenia ABSTRACT: Detailed information about land use is available from the mid-nineteenth century onward forthecountriesoftheformerHabsburgMonarchy.ForSloveniaandCzechia,databaseshavebeencreated that make it possible to analyze the period from the first half of the nineteenth century to the beginning ofthetwenty-firstcentury.Theprocessesofchanginglandusewerecomparableduringtheperiodexamined. Nonetheless, the cultural landscape in Czechia was significantly more transformed. Because of the nationalizationoflandaftertheSecondWorldWarandtheestablishmentofstate-ownedcollectivefarms andcooperatives,todaylargecomplexesoffarmlandpredominate,whereasinSloveniafragmentedproperties stillpredominate,andtheculturallandscapethereforepreservesmanymoreelementsfromthenineteenth century. KEYWORDS:geography,agrariangeography,historicalgeography,land-usechanges,Francisceancadaster, Slovenia, Czechia Dolgoročne spremembe rabe zemljišč: Primerjava med Češko in Slovenijo POVZETEK: Za države nekdanjeHabsburške monarhije so podrobni podatki o rabi zemljišč navoljo od sredine19. stoletja. V Sloveniji in na Češkem je urejenapodatkovnabaza,ki omogoča analize zaobdobje odprvepolovice19.dozačetka21.stoletja.Procesispremembrabezemljiščsobilivobravnavanemobdobju primerljivi.KljubtemupasejekulturnapokrajinanaČeškembistvenoboljpreobrazila.Zaradipodržavljenja zemljišč po 2. svetovni vojni in ustanavljanja državnih kmetijskih posestev in zadrug danes prevladujejo veliki kompleksi kmetijskih zemljišč, medtem ko v Sloveniji še vedno prevladuje razdrobljena posest, v kulturni pokrajini je zato ohranjenih mnogo več elementov iz 19. stoletja. KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija, agrarna geografija, historična geografija, spremembe rabe zemljišč, franciscejski kataster, Slovenija, Češka Ivan Bičík CharlesUniversityinPrague,FacultyofScience,DepartmentofSocialGeographyandRegionalDevelopment bicik@natur.cuni.cz Matej Gabrovec Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical Institute matej@zrc-sazu.si Lucie Kupková CharlesUniversityinPrague,FacultyofScience,DepartmentofAppliedGeoinformaticsandCartography lucie.kupkova@natur.cuni.cz The paper was submitted for publication on March 8th, 2019. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 8. marca 2019. 1 Introduction Analysestodateofchangesinlong-termlanduse,whichcoveraperiodofatleasttwohundredyears,are limited to the territories of individual countries (Himiyama et al. 2001; Gillmor 2001; Bičík et al. 2015; GabrovecandKumer2019).Thereisalackofstudiescomparingchangesinlanduseacrossmultiplecoun­triesforsuchatimespan.Thisarticleaddressesthisresearchgapbycomparinglong-termland-usechanges in Slovenia and Czechia. These two countries were selected because databases on land use are available for their territories; these databases were created based on archival cadastral material and they cover the period from the first halfof the nineteenth centuryto the beginning of the twenty-first century. The data are available at the level of cadastral units, and analyses of land-use changes during this period have alsobeenpublished(Bičík,JelečekandŠtěpánek2001;Bičíket al.2015;GabrovecandKumer2019).Thesepub­lications have shown the processes of land-use change using various statistical methods, supplemented by extensive cartographic material. These findings are only conditionally comparable because of the use of different methods. In this article, the databases for both countries are arranged in the same manner, which means that various land-use categories have been combined into the same groups. For the period fromthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcenturytothebeginningofthetwenty-firstcentury,atypologydeve-loped by Czech geographers (Bičík and Jeleček 2009) was used to show land-use changes, and an index ofchangewascalculatedthathasalsoalreadybeenusedmultipletimesinCzechia(Bičíket al.2015).This makesdirectcomparisonspossible,andthedifferencesareexplainedbelowthroughvariousdrivingforces behind the changes resulting from differences in both countries’ economic and political development, as well as their natural features. Outside of Slovenia and Czechia, studies of land-use changes based on detailed cadastral data for the timeperiodstudiedareavailableonlyatthelevelofindividualcasestudies(Cousins2001;Kanianskaet al. 2014; Harvey, Kaim and Gajda 2014; Prokop 2018), which make it possible to identify individual proces­ses,butdonotallowanalysesordeterminationofpatternsatthecountrylevel.ManycasestudieshavealsobeencarriedoutinSloveniaandCzechia(AžmanMomirskiandGabrovec2014;Bičík,KupkováandŠtych 2012; Gabrovec 1995; Gabrovec, Komac and Zorn 2012; Mares, Rasin and Pipan 2013; Paušič and Čarni2012;PetekandUrbanc2004;RašínandChromý2010;ŠmidHribar2016;Štychetal.2012;Geršič,GabrovecandZwitter;Žiberna2018),andtheseallowamoredetailedexplanationofthedrivingforcesbehindland­use changes. 2 Methods The index of change (Bičík and Kupková 2002; Bičík et al. 2015) was used in our study. It is an aggregate indexandindicatestheintensityofland-usechanges(in%)overacertainperiodoftime;itdoesnot,how­ever, assess the »quality« (structure) of such changes. is the index of change between year A and year B; n indicates the number of land-use classes; PiA is ICA–B theproportionofrelevantland-useclassatthebeginningoftheperiodexamined,andPiB isthesamepro-portion at the end. The higher the index of change, the more intensive the land-use change in the area examined. This index ranges from 0 to 100 and – put in a simple way – indicates the proportion of area whereanyland-usechangeoccurred,basedonacomparisonofthebeginningandend(changesthatmay occur during the period examined are not reflected). Territorial »shifts« without a change in size are also ignored, although these are relatively frequent, especially in the case of agricultural land. Inthisarticle,fiveland-useclassesaretakenintoconsideration:arableland,permanentcultures,per­manentgrassland,forestedareas,andotherareas.Theunitofanalysisiscadastralmunicipalitiesor,inthe Czechcase,basicterritorialunits,whicharecomprisedofoneormorecadastralmunicipalities.TheSlovenian and Czech land-use categories differ somewhat in their details. Nonetheless, there are no major difficul­ties incombining them intofiveidentical land-use classes. Thegreatestdifferencebetweenthe Slovenian and Czech categorization (Bičík et al. 2015; LUCC Czechia 2018) is in protected areas. This was a special categoryintheCzechcasein2010thatwasincludedamongotherareas,andinSloveniathiscategorydoes not exist; with regard to land cover, protected areas are included among the other areas only in the case of land above the tree line, otherwise they are primarily classified as permanent grassland or forest areas. Aggregatechanges in land-use structure canbepresented inanumberof typologies. Theoneusedin thisarticleisbasedonarealincreases(ordecreases)inselectedland-useclasses(BičíkandKupková2002; Bičíketal.2015).Theclassesthatshowanincreaseordecreaseovertheperiodoftimeexaminedaremarked + or -; by using combinations of increases and decreases (related to different classes), various types are created. Changes in the three aggregate classes (agricultural land, forest areas, and other areas) over time are compared in this manner. To sum up, this typology is a simple one and indicates directions only, but not any significance of the changes observed. 3 Driving forces of land-use changes »Change in land use and land cover can be conceptualized as the result of the operation of pressures or dri­vingforces:animpulseisapplied,andachangeofstateresults«(Mather2006,179).Fivefactorscommonly appear: population, economic development, technology, institutions, and culture (Mather 2006). In the case of Slovenia andCzechia, the driving forces weresimilar in certain historicalperiods and different in others. Similar processes were characteristic until the First World War, when both countries were part of theAustrianMonarchy,andafter2004,whenbothcountriesjoinedtheEuropeanUnion.Thedrivingforces differred the most in the second half of the twentieth century. Even though both countries had a com-munistgovernment,theireconomicpoliciesandespeciallytheiragriculturalpoliciesdifferedsignificantly. Themostimportanttrendduringtheperiodexaminedwasthegrowingimportanceofeconomicandsocial factors in the context of rapidly spreading technological and social innovations. Regarding the value of land as a natural resource, in fertile regions the economic aspects prevailed, and in less fertile areas the environmental aspect was the most important one (Bičík and Jeleček 2005; Bičík et al. 2015). 3.1 From the nineteenth century to the First World War The land-usedata fromthe firsthalfof thenineteenthcenturyshowland-usestructure as a result ofcen­turies-longgradualagriculturalusebeforeindustrialization.Theeconomicandtechnologicallimitsofthe preindustrial production mode were behind the relatively low regional differences. Transport remained slowandcostly,andlong-distancetradeandcompetitionwerelimited.Mostproductswereconsumedlocal­ly, and the spatial division of labor and specialization remained weak. Most material goods, energy, and sooncirculatedwithinalimitedspaceonly(i.e.,farmsandvillages).Consequently,differentland-usetypes hadtobespatiallyinterconnected.Everywhere,includinginmountainousregions,itwasessentialtopos­sess enough arable land (to provide food), grassland (for livestock), and forests (to provide fuel and construction material) (Hampl 2000; Jepsen et al. 2015; Krausmann et al. 2003; Bičík et al. 2015). The re­volutionary movements of 1848–1849 resulted in the end of feudalism: serfdom was abolished, the industrialrevolutionwasaccomplished,andthepathtowardanewsocialandeconomicorganization,free-market capitalism, was opened. Much of the land that had previously been owned (and rented out) by landlords became the property of small farmers (Bičík et al. 2015). The long-term increase in arable land came to an end in both countries at the end of the nineteenth century. Industrialization took place more slowlyinSlovenianterritorythaninCzechterritory,andsowiththegrowingpopulationtherewasanincrease inagrarianoverpopulationinSlovenia,whichreacheditsapexattheendofthenineteenthcentury(Petek 2005). In Slovenia, at the end of nineteenth centurymost of the population still earned a living through agriculture, standing at 76% in 1890. Despite labor-intensive agricultural production, it was impossible to feed the entire population and there were not many jobs outside of farming, and so there was signifi­cantemigration,especiallytoNorthAmerica(KladnikandAndrič2013).Industrializationandagricultural intensificationinCzechterritoryonthecontrarycauseddevelopmentofurbanization,movementofrural population to the cities and increase of working class in the cities. 3.2 The interwar period Following the war, Czechoslovakia was among the newly emerged nation states. Slovenia became part of thenewKingdomofSerbs,Croats,andSlovenes,whichwasrenamedtheKingdomofYugoslaviain1929. One quarter of the territory of present-day Slovenia belonged to Italy until the end of the Second World War. The structure of Czech (or Czechoslovak) agriculture changed significantly after the country’s inde­pendence. The Land Reform Act was passed in 1919, and transfers of land started in 1920. The new laws stipulatedthatlandownerscouldpossessamaximumof150hectaresofagriculturalland,or250hectares of land altogether. The excess land was purchased by the state. The land reform of the 1920s fundamen­tallychangedthelandownershippatternsandtenureinruralareas.Inthepast,thelargeestatesingeneral hadbeenfocusedoncashcrops.Incontrast,mostnewlandownerswereforcedtobecomesubsistencefar­mers and had to labor intensively in the fields. This is why the amount of arable land slightly increased and permanent grassland decreased in terms of size in the mid-1920s. The driving forces that influenced theeconomyandsocietyalsounderwentsubstantialchanges.Agriculturewaslessimportant;industryand tosome extent also services became theleadingsectors. These trendsare reflectedin thechanging struc­tureoftheworkforcebysectors.Residentialandindustrialdevelopmentswerebooming,especiallyinurban areas. Consequently, built-up and remaining areas increased. However, this was a regionally unbalanced process (Bičík et al. 2015). In Slovenia, agriculture was characterized by land fragmentation, as seen in the smaller average size offarmsandthegrowingnumberofplotsoflandonfarms.In1931theaveragefarmmeasured8.3hectares. Marketproductionwasmodest.Themostmarket-orientedsectorswereviticultureandfruitgrowing,and hopproductioncontinuedtoremainprofitable,whereassilkproductiondiedoutduringthisperiod. The entireperiodwasalsocharacterizedbyconsiderableindustrializationinSlovenia(KladnikandAndrič2013). 3.3 From the Second World War to 1990 From1948to1990,Czechoslovakiawasruledbyacommunistgovernment.Itisimportanttounderstand that all crucial decisions were de facto made by the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party,whichinfluencedthesocialandeconomicconditions,includingland-usepatterns.Themostimpor­tantland-usechangesduringthelast170yearstookplacebetween1948and1960.Thiswasatimeofmajor economicandsocialchanges,whichincludedtheeffectsoftheexpulsionofethnicGermans,anewpolit­icalandgeopoliticalorientationandeconomicsystem,large-scaleindustrialization,introductionofcollective farming,emergenceofmilitarytrainingareas,andthedepopulationofruralareas(BičíkandJeleček2005). Thecommunistgovernmentreliedonoutdated,inefficientenergyandrawmaterials,andaverydemand­ing industrial structure that could not compete with advanced western European countries. Shortly after thecommunistcoupd’état(inFebruary1948),theIronCurtainfellacrossthewesternborder,largetracts of land became inaccessible, and in many cases new settlers had to move back. In this case, the effects on land-usepatternsweregreatandalmostimmediate.Farmingwasseverelyrestrictedinareasalongthebor­der(onlystate-ownedfarmswereallowed)andwasoftencompletelyforbidden.Muchofthewesternborder islocatedatratherhighelevations(25%ofborderregionsareover700m),despitethefactthattheGerman­speakingpopulationhadformerlyintensivelycultivatedtheseregions.AftertheexpulsionoftheGerman population from 1945 to 1947, hundreds of villages and towns (up to 1,200) ceased to exist, and much of thearablelandwascompletelyabandoned.CommunistreformsofCzechoslovakagriculturewerecarried out in three stages. First, the land previously owned by ethnic Germans and Nazi sympathizers was con­fiscated. In 1947 and 1948, mostly forests were nationalized. Finally, the new land reform that started in March 1948 confiscated all properties over fifty hectares. Even after these dramatic shifts, some 60% of farmlandwasstillownedbyprivatefarmers –untiltheriseofcooperatives. Privatefarmerswereencour-aged, often violently, to join cooperatives and state farms; this process happened virtually in every single village. Later,cooperativesweregraduallyamalgamatedintolargeunits. Collectivizationwasrapidinthe early 1950s, slowed down after 1955/1956, and came to an end in 1960. By the end of the 1980s, cooper­atives and state farms managed 98.5% of all agricultural land. Cooperatives and state farms gradually introduced large-scale agricultural production on amalgamated fields. Settlement patterns changed fun-damentallyaftertheSecondWorldWar,andthestatereactedbyintroducinganewofficialsettlementnetwork. Startingintheearly1970s,itattemptedtoconcentratethedispersedpopulationintoso-calledcentralset­tlements. Large-scale industrialization and intensive exploitation of raw materials were among the most important driving forces in the landscape during this period. Large residential projects, usually prefabri­catedblocksofflats,werebuiltinminingandindustrialregionstoprovideaccommodationfortheworkforce, mostly migrating from rural areas. These new massive urban developments appeared almost exclusively on greenfields (Bičík et al. 2015). In Slovenia, agricultural and rural development following the Second World War resulted from the impact of diffuse industrialization, which fostered urbanization. This urbanization remained hidden to somedegree, however, due to extensive dailycommuting. Thesplitwith the Soviet Unionanditssatellites in1948hadasignificantimpactonYugoslavia’sdevelopmentofanindependentapproachtocommunism. Despite agrarianreform pressuresand other ongoing pressuresfor nationalization, in Yugoslavia nation­alization was only carried out on a small scale, and in Slovenia the proportion of private land never fell below 85%. The agrarian reform act of December 1945 enacted the seizure without compensation of all land owned by »capitalist« landowners (i.e., banks, companies, joint-stock companies, monasteries, and churches) that encompassed more than twenty-five hectares of cultivated land. Other farm owners with more than twenty-five hectares of land received monetary compensation for their surplus land that was seized, as did nonfarminghouseholds, which were allowedto keep only three hectares of cultivated land. Itwasenvisagedthatcompensationfortheseizedlandwouldbepaidoutintheamountofoneyear’syield per hectare. Half of the land acquired in this way was allotted to people without land and other poor far-merswith lessthan2.5 hectaresofland. Thesize of privatefarmswas limitedto tenhectaresofcultivated land after 1953 (Kladnik and Andrič 2013; Čepič 1995). In the 1973, the maximum permitted landhold-inginSloveniawasincreasedtotwentyhectaresinmountainandkarstareas(Avsec1988).Becauseofthe small and fragmented properties, income from farming was not sufficient to make a living, and so far-mersstartedtotakejobsinindustry,workingtheirlandintheafternoonandonweekends.Anincreasingly largestratumofpart-timefarmerstookshape.Theirincomefromnonagriculturalactivitywaslargelyinves­ted in modernizing the farms. Job opportunities in industry and other activities for the rural population prevented the abandonment of farmland and made it possible to preserve farming activity and the rural culturallandscape(Klemenčič1968;Klemenčič1974;Logar2013; RazpotnikVisković 2013;2015). Inan effort to offset the negative impact of permanent land loss due to urbanization, an extensive program of landreclamationwasbeguninthe1970s,thecenterpieceofwhichwasirrigationanddrainage,whichwas ecologicallyhighlycontroversial(KladnikandAndrič2013).Duetotheseprocesses,in1990theSlovenian rural landscape was completely differentfrom the Czech one. Whereas large state-owned properties pre­dominatedinwhatisnowtheCzechRepublic,inSloveniaafragmentedpropertycompositionwaspreserved that did not differ significantly from that of the nineteenth century. 3.4 After 1990 After 1990, full-scale political and economic liberalization was achieved, the central European countries becameEUand NATO members, andstandard capitalistanddemocraticregimeswereestablishedbased onamarketeconomy.InCzechia,theformerstate-ownedfarmshavebeentransformedintolimitedcom­paniesthroughprivatization.Thecommunist-stylecollectivefarmshavebeentransformedintocooperatives managed by landowners that nowadays constitute relatively functional units. People do not have an affil­iation with the land. In most cases, the new owners that regained their land through restitution did not start farmingbutinstead rentedthe landout. The greatestshare of agriculturalland is managed either by limited companies (46%) or by transformed cooperatives (23%). In the European context, these compa­nies are rather large, which allows cost-effective farming andcompetitiveness. As Havlíček (2018)points outalsoalargepartoflandseizedbycommunistregimefromchurchesbetween1948and1989wasreturned tothechurches mainlyin 2014 and 2015. Overall, the period after 1990 was characterized by a declinein total agricultural production. Czech agriculture as a whole continuesto profitfrom EU membership and fromthesubsidiesintheframeworkoftheCommonAgriculturalPolicy.Thecontinuingdecreaseinarable landisthemostimportantland-usechangeafter1990. Inmostcases,arableland wasconverted intoper­manentgrassland,also(sub)urbanizationwasimportantprocessoflandscapechangeinthisperiod(Bičík et al. 2015). Slovenia has been caughtup in a storm of rapid tertiarizationand,in the past two decades,also glob-alization,whichhasexposedthegreatvulnerabilityofSlovenianagriculturethatdoesnotmeettheagricultural production standards in developed countries around the world. With accession to the European Union, state protectionism was also dropped, and Slovenian farmers found themselves in a tough battle to sur-viveontheglobalmarket.ThisstartedwithindependenceofSlovenia(in1990).Byfarthemostimportant incentive that still motivates farmers to continue their rural way of life is preserving their farm tradition, somethingthathasusuallyprovidedworkforseveralgenerations.Otherreasonsincludeenjoymentoffarm work, the desire to have one’s own produce, and attachment to the land. Regardless of these motives to preserve agricultural land use, financial instruments as part of European Union rural development mea­sureshaveasignificantimpact.Oneofthemega-driverspreventingmoreefficientuseoffarmlandremains landfragmentation,butnonethelessthereisaslowdecreaseinthenumberoffarmsandanincreaseinthe concentrationofland.Thereisalsogrowinginterestinlandconsolidationandagglomeration(Kladnikand Andrič 2013; Lampič et al. 2017). 4 Results 4.1 Overview of land use changes A comparison of land-use changes in Slovenia and Czechia (Figures 1 and 2) shows that the processes in both countries were similar. During individual periods, the shares of individual types of use changed in the same direction and in comparable dimensions. However, the initial composition of land use already significantlydifferedinthenineteenthcentury,whichwasaresultofnaturalgeographicalconditions.Thus, in Czechia the share of arable land is approximately twice as large as in Slovenia, and the share of fores­ted land and permanent grasslands is correspondingly smaller (Gabrovec and Kladnik 1997; Gabrovec, Petek and Kladnik 2001; Bičík et al. 2015). 4.2 Index of change In both countries, the index of change (Figures 3 and 4) shows a similar picture, with the highest values intwotypesofareas. Itseemsreasonablethatthehighestvaluesarerecordedinthecoreareaswithinten-sivesocialandeconomicdevelopment.However,themajorityofperipheral,mountainousborderregions have also witnessed rather intensive changes. In both countries, the greatest changes took place in areas fromwhichtheethnicGermanpopulationmovedorwasexpelledduringorimmediatelyaftertheSecond WorldWar.InSloveniathisistheKočevjeareainthesoutheastpartofthecountry(Mares,RasinandPipan 2013), and in Czechia the hilly Sudetenland along the border with Germany. In addition, in Slovenia the Kras Plateau in the southwest part of the country should be highlighted. The Franciscean cadaster shows thatamongallSlovenianregionsnaturalforestvegetationwasclearedthemostontheKrasPlateau,which wasatthattimesynonymouswiththebarrenanddesolatekarstlandscape.Todayforestcoversmorethan half of the Kras Plateau, which is the result of planned reforestation at the end of the nineteenth century (Kladnik, Petek and Urbanc 2008; Kladnik 2011; Zorn, Kumer and Ferk 2015) followed by natural suc­cession of meadows and pastures. 4.3 Typology of land-use changes Themapsofthetypologyofland-usechangesinSlovenia(Figure5)andCzechia(Figure6)showarough­ly similar picture, in which Class C predominates in both, showing a simultaneous increase in forested areasandotherareas;thatis,acombinationofurbanizationandafforestation.Thenext,withamuchsmal­lershareofcadastralmunicipalities,isClassA,correspondingtoanincreaseinotherareas –thatis,primarily built-up land, and at the same time a decrease in farmland and forested areas. In Slovenia, in contrast to Czechia, Class B – which indicates the expansion of forested areas and a simultaneous decrease in farm-landandbuilt-upland –correspondstojustunderatenthofcadastralmunicipalities.InSlovenia,inaddition to the Kočevje region, which the ethnic German population was expelled from, this class includes some Water areas Remaining areas Arable land Permanent grassland Permanent cultures Forest areas Built–up areas Figure 1: Czech land use between 1845 and 2010. Arable land Permanent cultures Permanent grassland Forest areas Water areas Built–up areas Remaining areas Figure 2: Slovenian land use between 1825 and 2012. 98 sparselysettleddepopulationareas,especiallyinwesternSlovenia.Thisclasswouldalsoincludehillybor­derareasinCzechia,butintermsoflandusemuchoftheforestedlandtherehasbeenclassifiedasprotected areas(asmentionedinSection2),whichwasincludedamongotherareas.Inthetypologyofland-usechange these areas are therefore mostly included in Class C. 5 Discussion and conclusion Thisarticleisthefirstcomparativestudyofland-usechangesintwocentralEuropeancountriesoveraperi­odoftwocenturiesusinguniformquantitativemethods.Itusestheindexofchangeandtypologyofchanges based on the calculated increase or decrease in farmland, forested land, and other land. The processes of land-usechangewerebasedonthedrivingforcesbehindthechangesfromthefirsthalfofthenineteenth century to the present, and these differed the most between the two countries during the twentieth cen­tury. The consequence of different agricultural policies in the period after the Second World War is not reflected so much in different land use, but in the different sizes of parcels and the diversity of land use. Although the driving forces behind the changes are presented in the framework of short time peri­ods, land-use changes are cartographically presented and analyzed only between the beginning of their study in the nineteenth century and 2010 or 2012. In the future it would therefore make sense to exa­minethesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyingreaterdetailbecausetheprocessesofchangeweremost intense during this period and at the same time there were also the greatest differences between the two countries. As a result, one would expect greater differences in the processes of land-use changes, but the analysis showed that these were comparable during the period analyzed. Nonetheless, the cultural land­scapeintheCzechRepublichasbeenvisuallytransformedtoasignificantlygreaterextent.Becauseofthe nationalizationoflandaftertheSecondWorldWarandtheestablishmentofstate-ownedcollectivefarms andcooperatives,todaylargecomplexesoffarmland predominate,whereasSloveniaisstillcharacterized by fragmented properties and the cultural landscape therefore preserves many more elements from the nineteenth century. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This work was supported by project GA ČR GBP410/12/G113 »Historical GeographyResearchCentre«(FacultyofScience,CharlesUniversityinPragueandTheInstituteofHistory, AcademyofSciencesoftheCzechRepublic,v.v.i.)andbytheresearchprogrammeGeographyofSlovenia (P6-0101) financed by the Slovenian Research Agency. Figure 3: Index of change between 1825 and 2012 in Slovenian territory. p p. 100 Figure 4: Index of change between 1825 and 2012 in Czech territory. p p. 101 Figure 5: Typology of land-use change in Slovenian territory (1825–2012). p p. 102 Figure 6: Typology of land-use change in Czech territory (1845–2010) (LUCC Czechia 2018). p p. 103 MurskaSobota Maribor Slovenj Gradec Kranj Celje Trbovlje Ljubljana Nova Gorica Krško Legend < 14.9 15.0–29.9 Novo mesto Postojna 30.0–44.945.0–59.9 <60.0 regional border Koper 0 10 20 30 km Content by: Matej GabrovecMap by: Mauro Hrvatin, Manca Volk Bahun© 2018, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Legend < 14.915.0–29.930.0–44.945.0–59.9 <60.0 regional border 0 50 km Content by: Ivan Bičík, Lucie Kupková Map by: Lucie Kupková© 2018, Charles University Faculty of Science Liberec Ústínad Labem Hradec Králové Karlovy Vary PRAHA Pardubice Ostrava Plzeň Olomouc Jihlava Zlín Brno České Budějovice MurskaSobota Maribor Slovenj Gradec Kranj Celje Trbovlje Ljubljana Increase/decrease of share: agricultural land, 2. forest1.Nova Gorica areas, 3. other areas Krško A - - + B - + ­ C - + + Novo mesto Postojna D + - ­ E + - + F + + ­ no data regional border Koper 0 10 20 30 km Content by: Matej GabrovecMap by: Mauro Hrvatin, Manca Volk Bahun© 2018, ZRC SAZU Anton Melik Geographical Institute Liberec Ústínad Labem Hradec Králové Karlovy Vary PRAHA Pardubice Ostrava Plzeň Olomouc Jihlava Increase/decrease of share:Brno Zlín1. agricultural land, 2. forestareas, 3. other areas České Budějovice A - - + B - + ­ C - + + + - ­ D + - + E F + + ­ no data regional border 0 50 km Content by: Ivan Bičík, Lucie Kupková Map by: Lucie Kupková © 2018, Charles University Faculty of Science 6 References Avsec, F. 1988: Zemljiški maksimum kot omejitev lastninske pravice. Zemljiški maksimum, Raziskave in študije 69. Ljubljana. Ažman Momirski, L., Gabrovec, M. 2014: Changes in land use in the Mediterranean terraced landscapes between1819and2012:thecaseoftwoselectedvillagesinSlovenia.Landuse,coverchangesinselected regions in the world 9. Prague. Bičík, I., Jeleček, L. 2005: Political events factoring into land-use changes in Czechia in the 20th century. Understanding land-use and land-cover change in global and regional context. Enfield. Bičík, I., Jeleček, L. 2009: Land use and landscape changes in Czechia during the period of transition 1990–2007. Geografie 114-4. Bičík, I., Jeleček, L., Štěpánek, V. 2001: Land-use changes and their social driving forces in Czechia in the 19th and 20th centuries. Land Use Policy 18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00047-8 Bičík,I.,Kupková,L.2002:Long-termandtransformationallandusechangesinCzechia.Landuse/cover changes in selected regions in the World 2. Prague. Bičík,I.,Kupková,L.,Jeleček,L.,Kabrda,J.,Štych,P.,Janoušek,Z.,Winklerová,J. 2015:Landusechanges in the Czech Republic 1845–2010. Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London. Bičík,I.,Kupkova,L.,Štych,P.2012:ChangesoflandusestructureinCzechia:Fromlocalpatternstoamore complex regional organization. Land use/cover changes in selected regions in the World 7. Prague. Cousins, S. A. O. 2001: Analysisofland-covertransitionsbased on17thand18thcenturycadastralmaps and aerial photographs. Landscape Ecology 16-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008108704358 Čepič, Z. 1995: Agrarna reforma ni kolonizacija v Sloveniji (1945–1948). Ljubljana. Gabrovec,M.1995:DolomiteareasinSloveniawithparticularconsiderationofreliefandlanduse.Geografski zbornik 35. Gabrovec, M., Kladnik, D. 1997: Some new aspects of land use in Slovenia. Geografski zbornik 38. Gabrovec,M.,Komac,B.,Zorn,M.2012:Vplivspremembrabetalnageomorfneprocesevzadnjihstoletjih naprimeruZgornjegaPosočja.Dolgoročnespremembeokolja1.OperaInstitutiArchaeologiciSloveniae 25. Ljubljana. Gabrovec, M., Kumer, P. 2019: Land-use changes in Slovenia from the Franciscean Cadaster until today. Acta geographica Slovenica 59-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.4892 Gabrovec,M.,Petek,F.,Kladnik,D.2001:Landusechangesinthe20thcenturyinSlovenia.Landuse/cover changes in selected regions in the World 1. Asahikawa. Geršič,M.,Gabrovec,M.,Zwitter,Ž.2018:PrimerjavakulturnepokrajineHraškihlistnekovintamkajšnjega kmetovanjavprvipolovici19.stoletjaindanes.Geografskivestnik90-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/ GV90104 Gillmor, D. A. 2001: Land Use/Cover since the Mid Nineteenth Century in the Republic of Ireland. Land use/cover changes in selected regions in the World 1. Asahikawa. Hampl,M.2000:Reality,societyandgeographical/environmentalorganization:searchingforanintegrated order. Prague. Harvey,F.,Kaim,D.,Gajda,A.2014:AnalysisofhistoricalchangeusingcadastralmaterialsintheCarpathian foothills. European Journal of Geography 5-3. Havlíček,T.2018:DemarginalizationandChurchproperty:ThecaseofCzechia.Nature,tourismandethnicity as drivers of (de)marginalization. Cham. Himiyama, Y.,Arizono,S., Fujita,Y.,Todokoro,T. 2001:LandUse/CoverChanges inJapansincetheMid 19th Century. Land use/cover changes in selected regions in the World 1. Asahikawa. Jepsen, M. R., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, P. H., Haberl, H., Vesterager, J. P., Andrič, M., Kladnik, D. et al. 2015: Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003 Kanianska,R.,Kizeková,M.,Nováček,J.,Zeman,M.2014:Land-useandland-coverchangesinruralareas duringdifferentpoliticalsystems:AcasestudyofSlovakiafrom1782to2006.LandUsePolicy36.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.018 Kladnik, D. 2011: Širjenje gozda na krasu kot dejavnik prostorskega razvoja. Geografski vestnik 83-2. Kladnik,D.,Andrič,M.2013:Slovenia.Volante,DeliverableNo.4.3:Technological,institutionalandeconomic driversoflandusechange.Internet:https://www.volante-project.eu/images/stories/DELIVERABLES/ VOLANTE_D4.3_Technological_institutional_and_economic_drivers_of_land_use_change.pdf(3.8.2018). Kladnik, D., Petek, F., Urbanc, M. 2008: Pogozdovanje in ogozdovanje. Kras, Trajnostni razvoj kraške pokrajine. Ljubljana. Klemenčič,M.1974:Socialnainekonomskastrukturamešanihdelavsko-kmečkihgospodinjstevnakmečkih gospodarstvih. Geografski vestnik 46. Klemenčič,V.1968:ProblemimešanestrukturegospodinjstevinkmečkihgospodarstevvSloveniji.Geografski vestnik 40. Krausmann,F.,Haberl,H.,Schulz,N.B.,Erb,K.-H.,Darge,E.,Gaube,V.2003:Landusechangeandsocio­economicmetabolisminAustria,PartI:Drivingforcesofland-usechange:1950–1995.LandUsePolicy 20-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(02)00048-0 Lampič,B.,Bedrač,M.,Cunder,T.,Klun,M.,Mrak,I.,SlabeErker,R.2017:Trajnostnanaravnanostkmetijstva v slovenskih regijah. GeograFF 20. Ljubljana. Logar, E. 2013: Sodobne razvojne smeri polkmetov na primeru Voklega. Dela 39. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.4312/dela.39.4.67-86 LUCC Czechia 2018: Výzkumné centrum změn využití ploch Česka. Internet: https://web.natur.cuni.cz/ ksgrrsek/lucc/index.php/data/ (1.6.2018). Mares, P., Rasin, R., Pipan, P. 2013: Abandoned landscapes of former German settlement in the Czech Republic and in Slovenia. Cultural Severance and the Environment, Environmental History 2. Dordrecht. Mather,A.S.2006:DrivingForces.OurEarth’schangingland,AnEncyclopediaofland-useandland-cover change 1.Westport. Paušič, A., Čarni, A. 2012: Landscape transformation in the low karst plain of Bela krajina (SE Slovenia) over the last 220 years. Acta geographica Slovenica 52-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS52102 Petek, F. 2005: Spremembe rabe tal v slovenskem alpskem svetu. Geografija Slovenije 11. Ljubljana. Petek, F., Urbanc, M. 2004: The Franziscean Land Cadastre as a key to understanding the 19th-century culturallandscapeinSlovenia.ActageographicaSlovenica44-1.DOI:https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS44104 Prokop, P. 2018: Tea plantations as a driving force of long-term land use and population changes in the EasternHimalayanpiedmont.LandUsePolicy77.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.035 Rašín, R., Chromý, P. 2010: Land use and land cover development along the Czech-Austrian boundary. Land use/cover changes in selected regions in the World 5. Prague. Razpotnik Visković, N. 2013: Vloga polkmetij v preobrazbi slovenskih obmestij. Georitem 21. Ljubjana. RazpotnikVisković,N.2015:Evaluatingthedevelopmentpotentialoffarmsonurbanoutskirts:methodology. Acta geographica Slovenica 55-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.704 Šmid Hribar, M. 2016: Varovanjein trajnostni razvoj kulturne pokrajine na primeru Ljubljanskega barja. Georitem 27. Ljubljana. Štych, P., Bičík, I., Spazierová, K., Janoušek, Z., Blaha, J. D. 2012: Case study areas Rudná: Change of land use patterns 1840–2005. Land use/cover changes in selected regions in the World 7. Prague. Zorn, M., Kumer, P., Ferk, M. 2015: Od gozda do gozda ali kje je goli, kamniti Kras? Kronika 63. Žiberna,I.2018:Landusechangesinrelationtoselectedphysicalgeographicalfeaturesfromtheviewpoint ofmarginalization–ThecaseofSvečinskeGorice,Slovenia.Nature,TourismandEthnicityasDrivers of (De)Marginalization. Cham.