environments

Article
Integrated Approach to Sustainable Land
Use Management
Zita Izakovičová 1 , Jana Špulerová 1, * ID
and František Petrovič 2
1 Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefanikova 3,
814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia; [email protected]
2 Department of Ecology and Environmentalist, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Constantine the Philosopher
University Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +421-2-2092-0341

Received: 21 December 2017; Accepted: 27 February 2018; Published: 1 March 2018

Abstract: This article presents the integrated approach to sustainable land use management based on
the assessment of land use and related land cover changes. Land use changes are conditioned by
human activities producing changes in landscape cover and initiating processes which cause many
environmental problems. It is therefore important to determine the drivers and causality of landscape
changes which can then be negated to ensure sustainable land use management. The integrated
landscape research approach is based on understanding landscape as a geo-ecosystem with natural,
human, cultural, and historical potential. Our aim is to define the aspects of land use management
which can regulate social development. The proposal for optimal land use is based on the interaction
between natural capital, represented by the supply of natural regional resources and environmental
conditions as well as demand represented by community need for development. The conflict between
the supply of natural capital and demands lacking respect for landscape resources is an important
determining factor in environmental and human problems. The integrated approach is focused on
long-term rational utilization of the natural and cultural-historical resources, urban development,
and the elimination of current environmental and socioeconomic problems as well as the prevention
of new ones. Multi-criteria analysis is required for final environmental decision-making.

Keywords: land use; land cover; sustainable landscape management; geo-ecosystem; environmental
problems; landscape processes

1. Introduction
Sustainability is an essential precondition for the continued existence of human society.
The issue of sustainable land use has increasing importance because of accumulated environmental
problems. These include increased demand for natural resources, climate change, regional climate
extremes, the threat of environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, disturbed landscape stability,
economic globalization, energy security, water supply, and increasing conflicts between sociocultural,
political-economic, and environmental goals [1,2].
Approaches and definitions of sustainable land use development on a global scale are numerous,
heterogeneous, and based on a variety of aspects. The most frequently quoted definition is the
Brundtland Report’s “Our Common Future”—“development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [3]. Sustainability is
the foundation of today’s leading global framework for international cooperation described in
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [4].
Most definitions stress that sustainable development requires socioeconomic development which
preserves the principles of sustainable land use and respects the natural and cultural-historical

Environments 2018, 5, 37; doi:10.3390/environments5030037 www.mdpi.com/journal/environments

Environments 2018, 5, 37 2 of 16

resources and potential of the territory [4–6]. The focus of our research should especially support
two of the latest SDG specifics for sustainable land use: (i) goal 15 “Life on land” and (ii) goal 11
“Sustainable cities and communities”; as sustainable land use contributes to halting and reversing
land degradation and natural hazards, it also halts biodiversity loss and supports landscape stability.
The outputs of the proposal can be applied in spatial and urban planning. Requirements for sustainable
land use management issue from:

• the need to ensure and improve spatial stabilization of the territory. The stated criterion here is
the demand to achieve biological balance in the country;
• needs for nature protection and rational utilization of natural resources; in particular,
the protection of the land, water, forests, and gene pool;
• needs for the protection of cultural and historical resources;
• needs for the regeneration of human resources and the protection of human health;
• demands on the humanization and aesthetic appeal of the landscape.

These requirements incorporate the fundamental principles of sustainable societal development.

Sustainable development accentuates caring for the Earth by putting sustainable living principles into
practice and integrating conservation and development: the conservation to maintain human actions
within the Earth’s capacity and the development to enable people everywhere to enjoy long, healthy,
and fulfilling lives [7].
Land use and land cover are interconnected, as land use initiates land cover changes [8].
Land cover is continually transformed by anthropogenic land-use influences on the properties,
processes, and components of service provision. Changes in land use or management will therefore
change service supply, not only for specific services but for the complete array of services provided
by that (eco)system [9]. It is therefore important to study not only land use and land cover changes,
but also to assess all drivers of land use change; the position and correlation of landscape elements;
causality and the consequence and impacts of such changes. The main driving forces of land use are
political, economical, cultural, technological, and natural [10–12].
It is not possible to evaluate and propose optimal land use based on one landscape parameter.
We must therefore examine the relationships between the different landscape features and emphasize
that all decision-making should apply an integrated approach based on understanding landscape as
a geo-ecosystem. Landscape is envisaged in integrated scope, combining all layers of the following
resources; the geological base, water and soil, climate, and biotic and morphometric parameters [13].
The geo-ecosystem encompasses a complex system of space, position, relief, and all other functionally
interconnected physical landscape features of the geo-sphere where man and other organisms live and
act. These features of each landscape elements comprise natural, semi-natural, and anthropogenic
ecosystems [14,15]. Integrated approaches to sustainable land use management are therefore based on
assessing the natural capital and human interaction aspects of landscape structure using appropriate
landscape evaluation approaches, as well as multi-scale analysis and modeling [10,13–19]. The effects of
individual land use changes over a particular time period determine a study area’s rate of sustainability
of coexistence between nature and social subsystems. Sustainable land use management must be based
on integrated landscape research in the three basic dimensions: environmental, social, and economic.
Moreover, analysis of connections and dependencies between these dimensions should aim to define
the type of management that will regulate socioeconomic land use development and maintain its
natural, human, cultural, and historical potential.
The aim of this study is to develop an integrated approach to sustainable land use management
based on the understanding of landscape as geo-ecosystem including different landscape features.
The focus is on long-term rational use of the natural and cultural-historical resources, the elimination of
current environmental and socioeconomic problems, and the prevention of new ones. These approaches
are generally well-recognized, but their application to land use has been inadequate. The specific
goals concentrate on developing a method of decision-making for sustainable land use based on
Environments 2018, 5, 37 3 of 16

Environments 2018,
limit-setting, 5, x FOR PEER
establishing theREVIEW 3 of 16
degree of anthropogenic changes, and identifying the type and intensity
of environmental problems in a given territory. Determination of these specifics leads to proposals for
identifying the type and intensity of environmental problems in a given territory. Determination of
eliminating the negative factors that influence the area. This methodological approach is applied in
these specifics leads to proposals for eliminating the negative factors that influence the area. This
the case study of the Trnava region of Slovakia.
methodological approach is applied in the case study of the Trnava region of Slovakia.
2. Methods
2. Methods
2.1. Methodological Approach
2.1. Methodological Approach
The integrated approach to sustainable land use management is a coherent system of interrelated
The integrated approach to sustainable land use management is a coherent system of
steps, which can be modified based on the type and scale of the study area. The methodology focuses
interrelated steps, which can be modified based on the type and scale of the study area. The
on methodology
decision-making processes
focuses based on confrontation
on decision-making andbased
processes subsequent proposal forand
on confrontation harmony in (1) the
subsequent
supply of landscape
proposal properties
for harmony in (1) as
thenatural
supplycapital and complex
of landscape natural
properties resources
as natural and (2)
capital andthe demands
complex
and influences of human activities (Figure 1).
natural resources and (2) the demands and influences of human activities (Figure 1).

Figure1.1.Integrated
Figure Integrated approach
approach to
to sustainable
sustainableland
landuse
usemanagement.
management.

The approach for applying sustainable land use is therefore based on the methodology of
The approach
landscape forplanning
ecological applying[7]sustainable landisuse
(Figure 2). This oneisoftherefore based
Agenda 21’s on the methodology
recommendations for the of
landscape ecological planning [7] (Figure 2). This is one of Agenda
integrated protection of natural resources, and has the following steps: 21’s recommendations for the
integrated protection of natural resources, and has the following steps:
I. Analysis
I. Analysis
The principal objective of analysis is to choose, quantify, and describe the main features of
landscape elements
The principal which define
objective and map
of analysis is the abiotic, biotic,
to choose, and socioeconomic
quantify, features
and describe the mainoffeatures
a given of
territory.elements
landscape The mostwhich
important analyses
define are: the abiotic, biotic, and socioeconomic features of a given
and map
territory.
• The most important
analysis analyses are:features, geological, hydrological, soil, and climatic
of geomorphological
conditions. This establishes the properties of abiotic complexes in the territory.
• analysis of geomorphological features, geological, hydrological, soil, and climatic conditions.
• analysis of fauna and flora and their conditions determines the properties of the biotic
This establishes the properties of abiotic complexes in the territory.
complexes.
• analysis of fauna
• analysis and
of the flora and their
socioeconomic conditions
activities determines
and their the
negative properties
influences of the biotic
supplies complexes.
the properties
• analysis of the
of the socioeconomic
socioeconomic activities and their negative influences supplies the properties of
complexes.
the socioeconomic complexes.

Data was obtained from several databases, sectoral statistics, and available mapping sources.
These features can have different relationships to individual human activities which support their
development or restrict or limit it. It is necessary to initially concentrate on the basic selection
Environments 2018, 5, 37 4 of 16

of landscape features which definitively influence the location of human activities in a given area.
Our choice is inextricably bound to the aims of the task, the degree of processing, and the specifics of the
territory. This then provides maps in ArcGIS 10.1., which identify the abiotic, biotic, and socioeconomic
conditions of the study area.
Specification of human activities requires detailed analysis of the demands of all forms of human
activity on the landscape. These include all activities involved in industry, agriculture, forestry,
water economy, urban development, tourism, and nature protection. It is also necessary to specify the
results and risks associated with their performance. Miklós and Izakovičová [20] stress the performance
of the following individual activities in the landscape:

• areas used for building construction and complexes, industrial and agricultural complexes,
and communication lines and facilities.
• extensive use of the landscape for agriculture and forestry.
• definition of functional zones and protected areas. These include recreational zones and areas
protected for soil and water resources and nature.
• The pressures connected with the performance of these activities can also initiate atmospheric
pollution and soil and water contamination.

II. Synthesis

Synthesis involves the interaction of individual features which create homogeneous areas with
different combinations of abiotic, biotic, and socioeconomic features fully integrated in the regional
geo-ecosystem. Synthesis herein is achieved by the spatial superimposition of GIS analytic maps.

III. Evaluations

Evaluation establishes the regulations for specific human activities through justification and
limit-setting on landscape elements and features involved in human activities. Discrete knowledge of
regional landscape vulnerability and specification of regulated environmental limits and restrictions
create the basis for decisions to permit specific human activities in a given area, to accept them
with provisos, or to exclude them entirely [21]. Comparative research into spatial planning systems
typically adopts a structural/legal approach and an integrated perspective embracing system structure
and concrete planning practices. Sensitive discourse on planning theory towards culturally-oriented
interpretation lies at the heart of appropriate decision-making [22]. The expression of spatial limits
confronts landscape ecological complexes with proposed human activity. This enables the mapping of
regulations for spatial limits and restrictions on the development of human activities. The limiting
values of different landscape features occur in different combinations, where limiting and restricting
values from any given combination determine the possibility and advisability of locating a particular
activity in a given area. If one landscape feature is above the limit, the particular activity is not
possible in the given area. Superimposition of the limiting values of all chosen features provides a
comprehensive map of limits which decides:

• activities possible in the given area. This includes multiple ranking of suitability from
different perspectives.
• activities not possible in the given area.
• limits and restrictions, including a combination of limits and restrictions, required to exclude
particular activities from target localities.

IV. Propositions

The proposal for ecologically optimal land use is as follows. It is necessary to determine functions
for each area not limited or restricted by landscape features. This establishes functions harmonious with
 Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

IV. Propositions
Environments
The2018, 5, 37 for ecologically optimal land use is as follows. It is necessary to determine
proposal 5 of 16

functions for each area not limited or restricted by landscape features. This establishes functions
harmonious with the natural and socioeconomic conditions of the region and also satisfies societal
the natural and socioeconomic conditions of the region and also satisfies societal development needs.
development needs. Environmental decision-making involves the identification and comparison of
Environmental decision-making involves the identification and comparison of different alternatives
different alternatives based on multiple objectives and criteria. Here, multi-criteria analysis (MCA)
based on multiple objectives and criteria. Here, multi-criteria analysis (MCA) provides the framework
provides the framework for integrating factual information on stakeholders’ preferences, values,
for and
integrating
associatedfactual information
impacts. on stakeholders’
MCA is increasingly used inpreferences,
combination values,
with GIS and associated
spatial impacts.
multi-criteria
MCA is increasingly used
analysis (SMCA) [23]. in combination with GIS spatial multi-criteria analysis (SMCA) [23].

Figure 2. Methodological approach for sustainable land use management.

Figure 2. Methodological approach for sustainable land use management.
2.2. Study Area
2.2. Study Area
The Trnava study area (Figure 3) has typical western Slovak agricultural landscape.
The Trnava study
Administratively, areaof (Figure
it consists the Trnava 3) town,
has surroundings,
typical western Slovak
and 45 villageagricultural landscape.
areas. This covers 741
Administratively,
km2 with 131,167itinhabitants,
consists ofthusthe ranking
Trnava as town, surroundings,
a medium-sized anddistrict.
Slovak 45 village areas. This covers
741 km2Agricultural
with 131,167landinhabitants, thus ha
covers 53,107 ranking as a medium-sized
and 71.6% Slovak
of the district area as district.
the dominant landscape
Agricultural land covers 53,107 ha and 71.6% of the district area as the dominant
element. Up to 93.1% of this is intensively utilized as large-block arable land, with landscape
cereals
dominating
element. Up to the central
93.1% andissouth
of this part ofutilized
intensively the study area. Forestsarable
as large-block cover land,
13,190with
ha, cereals
17.7%, and these
dominating
theareas are
central andmainly
south in
partsub-mountain villages
of the study area. in the
Forests northern
cover 13,190 part of theand
ha, 17.7%, area under
these theareSmall
areas mainly
Carpathian Mountains (Malé Karpaty) Protected Landscape Area. Industrial
in sub-mountain villages in the northern part of the area under the Small Carpathian Mountains sites are mainly
situated
(Malé in the
Karpaty) TrnavaLandscape
Protected township Area.surroundings,
Industrialwhere Peugeot
sites are mainlyand Samsung
situated in thecomplexes have
Trnava township
recently been constructed with good transport accessibility and proximity to
surroundings, where Peugeot and Samsung complexes have recently been constructed with good the capital, Bratislava.
transport accessibility and proximity to the capital, Bratislava.
Environments 2018, 5, 37 6 of 16
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

Figure3.
Figure 3. Land use
use of
ofthe
thestudy
studyarea.
area.Legend:
Legend: 1. Water flows;
1. Water 2. Railways;
flows; 3. Roads;
2. Railways; 4. Highways;
3. Roads; 5.
4. Highways;
5.Forests;
Forests;6.6.Semi-natural
Semi-natural small woodland;
small woodland; 7. Planted small
7. Planted woodland;
small 8. Riparian
woodland; vegetation;
8. Riparian 9. Lines
vegetation; 9. Lines
ofoftrees
treesoror shrubs;
shrubs; 10. 10. Wetlands;
Wetlands; 11. Wet
11. Wet meadows;
meadows; 12. Extensively
12. Extensively managedmanaged grasslands;
grasslands; 13.
13. Intensively
Intensively managed meadows; 14. Intensively managed pastures; 15.
managed meadows; 14. Intensively managed pastures; 15. Dry grasslands; 16. Large-block arable Dry grasslands; 16.
Large-block
land; 17. Smallarable land;fields;
arable 17. Small
18.arable fields; 18.
Large-block Large-block
vineyards; 19.vineyards; 19. Small-block
Small-block vineyards;vineyards;
20. Orchards;
20. Orchards; 21. Gardens; 22. Mosaic of arable lands and grasslands; 23.
21. Gardens; 22. Mosaic of arable lands and grasslands; 23. Wooded grasslands; 24. Natural Wooded grasslands; 24.body;
water
Natural water body; 25. Channels; 26. Water reservoirs; 27. Rocks; 28. Abandoned fields;
25. Channels; 26. Water reservoirs; 27. Rocks; 28. Abandoned fields; 29. Brown fields; 30. Industrial 29. Brown
fields; 30. Industrial areas; 31. Mining areas; 32. Industrial pond; 33. Agricultural farms; 34. Field
areas; 31. Mining areas; 32. Industrial pond; 33. Agricultural farms; 34. Field airport; 35. Urban
airport; 35. Urban areas; 36. Rural settlement; 37. Recreational zone; 38. Garden zones with cottages;
areas; 36. Rural settlement; 37. Recreational zone; 38. Garden zones with cottages; 39. Cottages;
39. Cottages; 40. Abandoned areas; 41. Transport areas.
40. Abandoned areas; 41. Transport areas.
Environments 2018, 5, 37 7 of 16

3. Results

3.1. Landscape Features and Proposed Limits

Analysis provided a set of study area maps identifying the abiotic, biotic, and socioeconomic
conditions. Superimposition then established the geo-ecosystem and allowed us to determine
environmental limits. This determination enabled objective and scientific decision-making on locating
human landscape activities. Limit-setting is very complex and time-consuming, because it demands a
multi-disciplinary and synergistic approach. This approach normally begins with the existing natural
conditions and societal norms, but when there is no established norm for a given phenomenon or
human activity, this process must be assumed by collective experts’ and stakeholders’ evaluation.
The determination of limiting values requires extensive collection of data on the operation of the
landscape system as a complex while acknowledging its individual features. This is essential,
because the implementation of human activity without conflict depends on the wide variety of
environmental conditions where the activity is performed.
We divided the set of regulations enforcing limits and restrictions into the following categories:

A. Abiotic regulations are based on abiotic complexes including geo-mechanical, hydrological,

aerodynamic, and soil limitations. The limits have a permanent character including the relative
stability of the geological substratum and local climate, and these cannot be easily changed
by technology.
B. Biotic regulations are based on the biotic complexes required by living organisms. The gene pool,
biodiversity, and landscape ecological stability are threatened by pressures from human activity
and land use changes.
C. Anthropogenic regulations result from the competitive requirements and demands of human
activities which limit the development of other activities through negative effects or by simply
occupying an area. These include technical, hygienic, protective, and other limits, and these
indicators are relatively easier to change than in the preceding categories. Although anthropogenic
regulations are applied to very serious hygienic and environmental security demands, the limits
imposed can be temporary and depend on altered circumstances.
D. Complex landscape regulations are based on the principles of landscape functioning as a
complex. They include eco-stabilization, localization, carrying-capacity, behavioral, aesthetic,
and cultural-historical limits. These limits are very dynamic as they result from principles
of the operation of landscape as an entity and the set limits must strictly respect its
historical development.

Landscape limits and restrictions are not isolated but act synergistically, so that the locality of
given human activity can be limited or restricted by two or more factors. The determination of limiting
and restricting factors for a given activity proceeds from the evaluation of the functional relationships
between landscape elements. These center on combining the abiotic, biotic, and socioeconomic complex
with requested human activity. Moreover, the process of creating regulations is most frequently
performed in conjunction with decision-making tables (Table 1), and this defines three degrees of
availability for performance of human activity on an area; acceptable, limited, and restricted activities.
Environments 2018, 5, 37 8 of 16

Table 1. Example of creation of environmental regulation based on environmental stress factors.

Stress Factors Polluted Damage of Radio Protected Zone of

Air Pollution Noise Load Area Soil Contamination Nature Reserve
Land Use Activities Water Flows Vegetation Activity Water Resources

forests (F) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
grassland (G) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
pastures (P) L 1 L - L L L L
vineyards (V) L 1 L - L L L 0
forage-crops (C) L 1 L - L L L 0
arable land (A) 0 1 0 - 0 0 L 0
orchards (O) 0 1 L - L 0 L 0
gardens (GS) L 1 L - L L L 0
recreation (R) L L L L L L L 0
sport areas (S) L L L L L L L 0
medical areas (M) L L L - L L L 1
housing areas (H) L L L - L L L L
farm animals (FA) L L L - 0 L L L
industrial areas (I) 1 1 1 - 1 1 L L
transport areas (T) 1 1 1 - 1 1 L L
Unlimited
I, T, F, G/A, O F, G, P, V, C, A, O, GS, I, T I, T, F, G/A F, G I, T, F, G/A, FA F, G, I, T/O, A F, G/- F, G, M/V, C, A, O, GS, R, S
activities/acceptable activities
Legend: L—environmental limit (limited activities); 0—environmental restriction (restricted activities); 1—acceptable activities.
Environments 2018, 5, 37 9 of 16

The determined values and indicators which significantly limit the intensity of a given activity
in an area are restrictions and not absolute exclusion. Examples here are; (1) the size of protected
areas limits, but does not restrict, the development of recreational space, and (2) although agricultural
production is not excluded in areas with water resource protection, its intensity is considerably
restricted by recommended crop structure, chemical use, and mechanization.

3.2. The Impact of Land Use Changes

Landscape-ecological evaluation of current land use aims to define landscape-ecologically
problem areas where the present land use does not correspond to the criteria. This identifies areas
where the present land use is restricted by landscape-ecological limits. Current knowledge [24] enables
us to identify the following most significant changes in the study area and interconnected problems.

• Conflicts between the socioeconomic development of nature protection; (1) building stones are
extracted in the Small Carpathian Mts. Protected Landscape Area. Extraction is profitable only
for entrepreneurs and the employment rate is insignificant. It is therefore deemed necessary
to eliminate these mining activities in the protected areas; (2) recreational areas have been
developed in the Small Carpathian Mts. and in the Trnavske rybníky fishponds Protected Area.
Planned tourist attraction there can negatively affect the natural landscape and especially the
avian population. This presents conflict between economical development and nature protection.
• Conflicts in socioeconomical development and natural resource protection; (1) there is competing
interest in industrial development and the protection of the most fertile Trnava soils. The recent
building boom has appropriated ‘green fields’, with the best quality soils to be used for industry,
industrial parks, and housing, while many existing industrial sites lay abandoned with decreased
economic value. It would be advantageous for sustainable development and regional economics
if these abandoned sites were refurbished and re-used instead of expanding the industrial
occupation of ecologically-valuable green fields; (2) intensive agricultural practices have led
to both surface and underground water endangerment; and (3) inappropriate soil management
promotes soil degradation, including compaction and erosion.
• Conflicts in nature protection and society; for example, protected areas for hygienic water resource
protection and other protective zones limit the land use of some areas. These zones require
essential limits in socioeconomic and urban development, including inappropriate property
acquisition and utilization rights. However, unsatisfactory compensation and loss of profit
create competing interests between nature protection and social justice, and this conflict requires
urgent solutions.
• Conflicts in socioeconomic development and environmental quality; while industrial operators
are significant employers, fundamental regional economics compete with extreme environmental
load. It is currently impossible to close industries because of significant unemployment and
regional economical efficiency. It is therefore essential to promote effective technology which
limits contaminant production and ensures sustainable development.

3.3. Proposal for Sustainable Land Use Management

The aim of the proposal for optimal land use is to eliminate all problem areas, to anticipate possible
new problems, and to create a structure harmonious with the territory’s natural and socioeconomic
conditions. Here, decision-support methods and tools such as multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and
spatial multi-criteria analysis (SMCA) help achieve complex choice settings. These tools collect,
organize, and analyze information which supports discussion and value elicitation and enables a better
understanding of the implications of different options in sustainable land use (Figure 4).
Environments 2018, 5, 37 10 of 16
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16

Figure 4. Example
Figure ofofspatial
4. Example spatialmulti-criteria
multi-criteria analysis for optimal
analysis for optimalallocated
allocatedrecreational
recreational activity.
activity.

WeWe developedthe
developed theproposal
proposal for
forsustainable
sustainableland useuse
land management from analysis,
management synthesis,
from analysis, limit
synthesis,
setting, and conflict identification (Figure 5). Moreover, we defined the following principles of
limit setting, and conflict identification (Figure 5). Moreover, we defined the following principles of
limit-setting, which can be generalized for other areas:
limit-setting, which can be generalized for other areas:
• Abiotic conditions are the determining factors in a given area’s diversity. They establish
• Abiotic conditions
appropriate are the determining
area utilization. The abiotic factors
elements’in permanent
a given area’s diversity.
and unique They become
attributes establish
appropriate area utilization. The abiotic
determining factors in human development. elements’ permanent and unique attributes become
• determining factors in human
Land use management mustdevelopment.
reduce the risk factors in sensitive localities which are otherwise
• Land use management
predisposed must reduce
to anthropogenic the riskprocesses
degradation factors in sensitive
including localities
erosion, which are
subsidence, otherwise
landslides,
and earthquakes.
predisposed to anthropogenic degradation processes including erosion, subsidence, landslides,
• andItearthquakes.
is essential to support development in NATURA 2000 protected territories and ecologically
• It isvaluable
essentialareas of stability.
to support This enables
development in NATURAscientific andprotected
2000 medical territories
research centers, which
and ecologically
encourage appropriate recreational areas and reduce threats to natural landscape
valuable areas of stability. This enables scientific and medical research centers, which encourage units.
• Similarly, the development of human activities with negative impacts must be excluded in
appropriate recreational areas and reduce threats to natural landscape units.
areas where natural resources are legally protected, and explicit priority must be given to
• Similarly, the development of human activities with negative impacts must be excluded in areas
developing activities which protect individual natural resources.
•
where natural resources are legally protected, and explicit priority must be given to developing
All detrimental activities must be excluded from sensitive areas with strong pressure burden.
activities which protect
These include individual
areas with natural
air-pollution, soilresources.
or water contamination, and noise pollution.
• • All detrimental activities must be excluded
Areas without pressure loads should be maintained from sensitive
free fromareas withwhich
activities strong pressure
can burden.
harm current
These include
living areas
quality. withareas
These air-pollution, soil for
are suitable or water contamination,
high-quality and noise pollution.
living development with adequate
• Areasagricultural, ecological,
without pressure and recreation
loads should beservices.
maintained free from activities which can harm current
living
The quality.
followingThese areas
outcomes are from
result suitable for high-qualityprocess:
this decision-making living development with adequate
agricultural, ecological, and recreation services.
• Selection and exclusion of activities which cannot be located on a given area because of possible
Thelandscape-ecological
following outcomesharm.
result from this decision-making process:
• Selection and restriction of activities which can be conducted on an area, but which can cause
• Selection and exclusiondamage
landscape-ecological of activities which cannot be located on a given area because of possible
if unrestricted.
• landscape-ecological harm.
Selection of a hierarchy of activities which maintain the area’s optimal landscape-ecological
• Selection and restriction of activities which can be conducted on an area, but which can cause
function.
• landscape-ecological
Selection of complexdamage if unrestricted.
measurements required to protect the area’s nature, natural resources, and
• environment.
Selection of a hierarchy of activities which maintain the area’s optimal landscape-
ecological function.
This requires the implementation of effective technology for the following: eliminating excess
• production
Selection of
ofpolluting
complexsubstances,
measurements required
minimizing to protect theand
the allochthonous area’s nature,
other natural
contaminant resources,
substance
and environment.
effects on environmental elements, and applying appropriate maintenance technology in agriculture
and forestry.
This requires the implementation of effective technology for the following: eliminating excess
production of polluting substances, minimizing the allochthonous and other contaminant substance
effects on environmental elements, and applying appropriate maintenance technology in agriculture
and forestry.
Environments 2018, 5, 37 11 of 16
Environments 2018, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Figure 5. Proposal for optimal land use of the study area. Legend: 1. Green infrastructure of
Figure 5. Proposal for optimal land use of the study area. Legend: 1. Green infrastructure of industrial
industrial zone; 2. Extensive forest management; 3. Protected forests; 4. Extensive agriculture—small
zone; 2. Extensive forest management; 3. Protected forests; 4. Extensive agriculture—small arable fields;
arable fields; 5. Erosion control on small arable fields; 6. Intensive agriculture—large-block arable
5. Erosion control on small arable fields; 6. Intensive agriculture—large-block arable lands; 7. Extensive
lands; 7. Extensive agriculture for protected karst areas; 8. Extensive agriculture for water protection;
agriculture for protected karst areas; 8. Extensive agriculture for water protection; 9. Extensive
9. Extensive agriculture for the protection of water resources and mineral resources; 10. Agriculture
agriculture for the protection of water resources and mineral resources; 10. Agriculture with special
with special management for contaminated soil; 11. Agriculture with special management for soil
management
contamination forand
contaminated soil; 11.12.Agriculture
water protection; Intensivelywith special
managed management
meadows; for soil contamination
13. Extensively managed
and water protection; 12. Intensively managed meadows; 13. Extensively
wooded grasslands; 14. Recreational park; 15. Extensively managed grasslands; managed wooded grasslands;
16. Extensive
14.agriculture
Recreational park; 15.and
in gardens Extensively managed
orchards; 17. grasslands;
Extensive 16.inExtensive
agriculture mosaics ofagriculture in gardens
gardens, arable lands,and
orchards; 17. Extensive
and grasslands; agriculture
18. Extensive in mosaicsinofvineyards;
agriculture gardens, arable lands,protected
19. Water and grasslands; 18. Extensive
area—floodplain
agriculture
vegetation; in 20.
vineyards;
City green19. infrastructure;
Water protected 21.area—floodplain vegetation;
Extensive agriculture 20. City
of mosaics green infrastructure;
of arable lands and
21.grasslands;
Extensive22. agriculture
Nature protection; 23. Open landscape green infrastructure; 24. Recreation zone23.
of mosaics of arable lands and grasslands; 22. Nature protection; Open
with
landscape green infrastructure; 24. Recreation zone with cottages; 25. Recreation zone for
cottages; 25. Recreation zone for water sport; 26. Recreation zone for fishing; 27. Recreation zone for water sport;
26.fishing,
Recreation zone for
with nature fishing;restriction;
protection 27. Recreation
28. Waterzone for fishing,
reservoir with nature
for irrigation; protection
29. Living restriction;
area—block of
28.flats;
Water30.reservoir
Living area—individual
for irrigation; 29.houses;
Living31. Built-up area—agricultural
area—block of flats; 30. Livingbuildings; 32. Built-up
area—individual houses;
31.area—industrial buildings; 33. buildings;
Built-up area—agricultural Industrial zone.
32. Built-up area—industrial buildings; 33. Industrial zone.
Environments 2018, 5, 37 12 of 16

4. Discussion
Sustainable land use management remains a hot topic because it focuses on actual problems
and ensures the integration of the natural, cultural-historical, and socioeconomical resources of a
given area. Appropriate land use management arises from the necessity to solve both environmental
and human existential problems. These include impacts associated with climate change, effects on
health and extreme events, such as flooding, which can arise from the prevailing strategies employed
in land use and protection [25,26]. An integrated approach to sustainable land use management
helps resource users, managers, and stakeholders to manage resources sustainably by considering,
reconciling, and synergizing conflicting interests and activities.
Sustainable land use management must be based on recognizing landscape as an integration
of natural resources in an individual area. Each point on the Earth’s surface presents a specific
homogeneous entity of these combined sources. These form the landscape components and its features
which satisfy human needs. Understanding the relationship between these natural resources is required
to ensure sustainable land use by society. However, it is impossible to satisfy all competing aims,
and dangerous to promote the land use and protection of one resource at the expense of another.
An example here is the application of intensive soil use in areas with significant groundwater while
ignoring the high risk of water contamination. Schulte et al. [27] support this supposition, stressing
that the main global policy challenges today are the efficient and prudent use of the world’s natural
resources and managing the conflicting demands on land use. Labuda [28] and Surova et al. [29]
add that sustainable land use must be linked with multi-functionality. This rationale addresses
the interdependence of social, economic, and environmental effects of land use, with appropriate
consideration of existing commodities and negative and positive external factors. Land and the rural
environment provide a variety of functions, with their goods and services covering information,
habitat, production, and regulation. Therefore, modifying the landscape to increase multi-functionality
and reduce trade-offs with concurrent services will enhance sustainability in human-dominated
landscapes [30].
The proposal for optimal land use is based on multi-criteria analysis of the natural capital,
represented by the natural resources and environmental condition of the region, as well as demand
represented by the community needs for development. Conflict between supply and demand
which lacks respect for landscape resources is the determining factor in both environmental and
human problems [31]. The proposed approach focuses on overcoming the stated difficulties by
eliminating current environmental and socioeconomic problems in addition to preventing new ones.
Miklos [17] agrees that this positive action will secure rational long-term utilization of natural and
cultural-historical resources, and other authors [32] highlight that the proposal of eco-stabilizing
elements must form part of the planned measures for both the agricultural landscape and urban areas.
The application of sustainable development principles in practice contributes to eliminating
environmental problems and harmonizing intensified socioeconomical development and natural
resources in a given area. This methodological approach to optimal land use has been applied in sectors
of Slovakia and in other countries. The most practical result of the agricultural landscape-ecological
evaluation is based on the suitability of using abiotic complexes on selected study area crops [33,34].
The conceptual framework for the quantification of supply and demand in agricultural soil-based
ecosystem services is taken from Irish agriculture. This involved a case study with proxy-indicators
determining the demand for individual soil functions [27]. The localizing precondition of tourism
development was then evaluated using complex landscape-ecological geo-database data, land cover,
selected morphometric indicators, selected town-planning, and demographical and socioeconomic
indicators [35,36]. The pressures were found to be greatest on urban ecosystems, with high population
density and multiple activities with different influences on the environment. These can cause
unpredictable responses to environmental quality [37]. Investment in conservation, restoration,
and sustainable ecosystem use are increasingly considered a “win-win situation” which generates
substantial ecological, social, and economic benefits [9].
Environments 2018, 5, 37 13 of 16

The optimal landscape-ecological solution for spatial land use is the major outcome of sustainable
land use management. This comprises an initial proposal of the most suitable localization of demanded
human activities in the given territory, and a subsequent proposal of measurements which ensure
the activities’ appropriate environmental functioning in that locality. This answers the questions of
how and where to provide human activities in the territory that would least conflict with the natural
conditions, and how to apply them in the most suitable land use management methods to reduce
natural risks and hazards [38–40]. The solution to environmental problems and sustainable land use
has (1) aspects of spatial organization, which provide optimal land-use, and (2) aspects ensuring
technical expertise in landscape ecology.
The application of limits is most important, because they form the basis for optimal
landscape-ecological decision-making processes in land use. The limits are applied to both evaluating
the territory’s current functional use and establishing proposals for optimal allocation and management
of the many different land use options [38,41,42]. Multi-criteria decision analysis determined the
multiple well-being dimensions of ecological, economic, cultural, and moral aspects of policy and
management problems [43,44]. Complex spatial multi-criteria analysis planning with modeling then
created quality outcomes which helped identify impacts on both the environment and residents. These
outcomes also have an important function in the decision-making and draft measure phases which
mitigate negative impacts on the environment [45].

5. Conclusions
This paper presents the integrated approach to land use management based on limit-setting
and other regulative measures, which we developed as a basis for the decision-making process.
It can be used to process development documents and strategies from the local scale of cities or
municipalities to the regional scale. Integrated land use management is based on landscape research
in three basic dimensions: environmental, social, and economic, as well as on examining their
interrelationships and contexts. In particular, economic and social benefits are directly dependent
on an organization’s property including land use, ownership, and other rights, without which any
planning activity in the landscape is practically impossible. Our presented method can contribute to
the improvement of existing methods of land use assessment, such as land consolidation or the
territorial system of ecological stability [46–48]. These methods are aimed at efficient land use
and a new land arrangement in accordance with the conditions for improving the environment,
soil protection, water management, increasing the ecological stability of the landscape, and improving
the quality of rural life. The successful application of sustainable land use management requires
multiple social measures at all levels of legislation, economic outcomes, education, and teaching.
Successful sustainable development in actual practice demands the following essential measures:

• The regulations for optimal land use must be applied to sector plans—it is unavoidable that
the regulated use of particular resources by production and non-production entities favors the
development of one area over another and/or fails to avoid conflicts of interest.
• The principles of sustainable development should be implemented with as much population
awareness as possible, especially for stakeholders and policymakers—this requirement is based on
creating an effective system of education in sustainable development and land use management,
because adequate education enhances public acceptance of the principles and criteria for practical
sustainable development.
• To ensure the promotion of effective tools for legislative protection and economic outcomes,
it is essential that legislative rules and regulations support the rational use of natural resources
and protect both the environment and human health. Economic tools such as taxes, duties, and
fees support both decision-making and sustainable landscape-ecological policy. Fines imposed
for inappropriate land use, environmental pollution, human health endangerment or injury,
and breach of regulations help eliminate environmental problems. Finally, subsidies from
Environments 2018, 5, 37 14 of 16

rural development programs and other sources help reduce marginality and social disparity
in rural communities.

Acknowledgments: This paper is the result of funding from the Slovak Research and Development Agency
(Project No. APVV-0866-12, “Evaluation of ecosystem functions and services of the cultural landscape”) and
Scientific Grant Agency of Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (No. 1/0496/16 “Assessment of natural
capital, biodiversity and ecosystem services in Slovakia”). We thank Raymond Marshall for English proof-reading.
Author Contributions: The research was conceived, designed and implemented by Zita Izakovičová and
Jana Špulerová. František Petrovič contributed with technical knowledge of ArcGIS and with developing
methodology scheme. All authors contributed to revision of the article and have given final approval of the
version to be published.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Axelsson, R.; Angelstam, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Stryamets, N.; Johansson, K.-E. Sustainable Development and
Sustainability: Landscape Approach as a Practical Interpretation of Principles and Implementation Concepts.
J. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 4, 5–30. [CrossRef]
2. Findell, K.L.; Berg, A.; Gentine, P.; Krasting, J.P.; Lintner, B.R.; Malyshev, S.; Santanello, J.A., Jr.; Shevliakova, E.
The impact of anthropogenic land use and land cover change on regional climate extremes. Nat. Commun.
2017, 8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Brundtland, G.; Khalid, M.; Agnelli, S.; Al-Athel, S.; Casanova, P.G.; Chidzero, B.; Padika, L.; Hauff, V.;
Lang, I.; Shijun, M.; et al. Our Common Future; Brundtland Report; Oxford University Press: Oslo, Norway,
1987. Available online: www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2018).
4. IISD. Sustainable Development. 2016. Available online: http://www.iisd.org/topic/sustainable-
development (accessed on 4 December 2017).
5. IUCN. Caring for the Earth. In A Strategy for Sustainable Living; IUCN, UNEP, WWF: Glad, Switzerland, 1991.
6. Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R. Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services.
Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1053–1065. [CrossRef]
7. Ružička, M.; Miklós, L. Basic Premises and Methods in Landscape Ecological Planning and Optimization.
In Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective; Zonneveld, I.S., Forman, R.T.T., Eds.; Springer: New York,
NY, USA, 1990; pp. 233–260. Available online: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-3304-
6_13 (accessed on 8 December 2014).
8. De Sherbinin, A. A CIESIN Thematic Guide to Land-Use and Land-Cover Change (LUCC); Center for International
Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) Columbia University Palisades: Palisades, NY, USA, 2002;
Available online: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/guides (accessed on 28 November 2017).
9. De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of
ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex.
2010, 7, 260–272. [CrossRef]
10. Bürgi, M.; Hersperger, A.M.; Schneeberger, N. Driving forces of landscape change—Current and new
directions. Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 19, 857–868. [CrossRef]
11. Hersperger, A.M.; Buergi, M. Driving Forces of Landscape Change in the Urbanizing Limmat Valley,
Switzerland. In Modelling Land-Use Change: Progress and Applications; Koomen, E., Stillwell, J., Bakema, A.,
Scholten, H.J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 45–60.
12. Wohlmeyer, H.F.J. The unconscious driving forces of landscape perception and formation. In Sustainable
Development of Multifunctional Landscapes; Helming, K., Wiggering, H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA,
2003; pp. 79–93.
13. Miklós, L.; Izakovičová, Z. Krajina Ako Geosystém (Landscape as Geo-Ecosystem); VEDA Publishing of the
Slovak Academy of Sciences: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1997.
14. Braunisch, V.; Patthey, P.; Arlettaz, R.L. Spatially explicit modeling of conflict zones between wildlife and
snow sports: Prioritizing areas for winter refuges. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 955–967. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Frost, P.; Campbell, B.; Medina, G.; Usongo, L. Landscape-Scale Approaches for Integrated Natural
Resource Management in Tropical Forest Landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11. Available online: https:
//www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art30/ (accessed on 30 November 2017). [CrossRef]
Environments 2018, 5, 37 15 of 16

16. Falt’an, V.; Krajcirovičová, L.; Petrovič, F.; Khun, M. Detailed Geoecological Research of Terroir with the
Focus on Georelief and Soil—A Case Study of Kratke Kesy Vineyards. Ekologia (Bratislava) 2017, 36, 214–225.
[CrossRef]
17. Miklos, L. Landscape-ecological theory and methodology: A goal oriented application of the traditional
scientific theory and methodology to a branch of a new quality. Ekologia (Bratislava) 1996, 15, 377–385.
18. Antrop, M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 70, 21–34.
[CrossRef]
19. Barančoková, M.; Kenderessy, P. Assessment of Landslide Risk Using Gis and Statistical Methods in Kysuce
Region. Ekologia (Bratislava) 2014, 33, 26–35. [CrossRef]
20. Jakab, I.; Petluš, P. The Use of Viewshed Analysis in Creation of Maps of Potential Visual Exposure. In GIS
OSTRAVA 2013—Geoinformatics for City Transformation; Ivan, I., Longley, P., Fritsch, D., Horak, J., Cheshire, J.,
Inspektor, T., Eds.; Publisher VSB-TECH UNIV Ostrava: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2012; pp. 375–390.
21. Vyskupova, M.; Pavlickova, K.; Baus, P. A landscape vulnerability analysis method proposal and its
integration in the EIA. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 1193–1213. [CrossRef]
22. Reimer, M.; Getimis, P.; Blotevogel, H.H. Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe. A comparative
perspective. In Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe: A Comparative Perspetive on Continuity and
Changes; Reimer, M., Getimis, P., Blotevogel, H.H., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014; pp. 1–20.
23. Orsi, F.; Geneletti, D.; Borsdorf, A. Mapping wildness for protected area management: A methodological
approach and application to the Dolomites UNESCO World Heritage Site (Italy). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013,
120, 1–15. [CrossRef]
24. Izakovičová, Z.; Mederly, P.; Petrovič, F. Long-Term Land Use Changes Driven by Urbanisation and Their
Environmental Effects (Example of Trnava City, Slovakia). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1553. [CrossRef]
25. Bastian, O. Ecosystem and Landscape Services: Development and Challenges of Disputed Concepts.
In Landscape and Landscape Ecology; Halada, L., Baca, A., Boltiziar, M., Eds.; ILE SAS: Bratislava, Slovakia,
2016; pp. 215–226.
26. Izakovičová, Z.; Moyzeová, M.; Oszlányi, J. Problems in Agricultural Landscape Management Arising
from Conflicts of Interest—A Study in the Trnava Region, Slovak Republic. In Innovations in European
Rural Landscapes; Wiggering, H., Ende, H.-P., Knierim, A., Pintar, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2010; pp. 77–95. Available online: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-04172-3_6
(accessed on 8 December 2014).
27. Schulte, R.P.O.; Creamer, R.E.; Donnellan, T.; Farrelly, N.; Fealy, R.; O’Donoghue, C.; O’hUallachain, D.
Functional land management: A framework for managing soil-based ecosystem services for the sustainable
intensification of agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 38 (Suppl. C), 45–58. [CrossRef]
28. Labuda, M. Multifunkčné pol’nohospodárstvo ako nástroj ekologickej ochrany kultúrnej krajiny
(Multifunction Agriculture as the Instrument of Ecological Cultural Landscape Protection). Životné Prostr.
2011, 45, 38–42.
29. Surova, D.; Surovy, P.; de Ribeiro, N.A.; Pinto-Correia, T. Integrating differentiated landscape preferences
in a decision support model for the multifunctional management of the Montado. Agrofor. Syst. 2011, 82,
225–237. [CrossRef]
30. Sturck, J.; Verburg, P.H. Multifunctionality at what scale? A landscape multifunctionality assessment for the
European Union under conditions of land use change. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 481–500. [CrossRef]
31. Böhmelt, T.; Bernauer, T.; Buhaug, H.; Gleditsch, N.P.; Tribaldos, T.; Wischnath, G. Demand, supply, and
restraint: Determinants of domestic water conflict and cooperation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29 (Suppl. C),
337–348. [CrossRef]
32. Reháčková, T.; Pauditšová, E. Evaluation of urban green spaces in Bratislava. Boreal Environ. Res. 2004, 9,
469–477.
33. Miklós, L.; Miklisova, D.; Reháková, Z. Systematization and Automatization of Decision-Making Process in
Landep Method. Ekologia ČSFR 1986, 5, 203–231.
34. Hrnčiarová, T. Abiotic complexes—An important part of ecological decision making in agricultural landscape.
Ekologia (Bratislava) 2005, 24, 397–410.
35. Drábová-Degro, M.; Krnáčová, Z. Assessment of Natural and Cultural Landscape Capacity to Proposals
the Ecological Model of Tourism Development (case Study for the Area of the Zamagurie Region).
Ekologia (Bratislava) 2017, 36, 69–87. [CrossRef]
Environments 2018, 5, 37 16 of 16

36. Wade, A.A.; Theobald, D.M.; Laituri, M.J. A multi-scale assessment of local and contextual threats to existing
and potential US protected areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101, 215–227. [CrossRef]
37. Krnáčová, Z.; Hrnčiarova, T. Landscape-ecological planning—A tool of functional optimization of the
territory (case study of town Bratislava). Ekologia (Bratislava) 2006, 25, 53–67.
38. Antrop, M. From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In From Landscape
Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application; Tress, B., Tres, G., Fry, G.,
Opdam, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 12, pp. 27–50.
39. Gratton, M.; Morin, S.; Germain, D.; Voiculescu, M.; Ianas, A. Tourism and natural hazards in Balea Glacial
area valley, Faragas massif, Romanian Carpathians. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2015, 10, 19–32.
40. Hrnčiarová, T.; Izakovičová, Z.; Miklós, L.; Lehotský, M.; Tremboš, P.; Durajková, N.; Ot’ahel’, J.
Environmental-Conditions of Formation and Development of Regions in Slovakia. Ekologia (Bratislava)
1994, 13, 87–94.
41. Belčáková, I.; Pšenáková, Z. Specifics and Landscape Conditions of Dispersed Settlements in Slovakia—
A Case of Natural, Historical and Cultural Heritage. In Best Practices in Heritage Conservation and Management:
From the World; Piscitelli, M., Ed.; Scuola Pitagora Editrice: Napoli, Italy, 2014; Volume 46, pp. 261–268.
42. Lambin, E.F.; Turner, B.L.; Geist, H.J.; Agbola, S.B.; Angelsen, A.; Bruce, J.W.; Coomes, O.T.; Dirzo, R.;
Fischer, G.; Folke, C.; et al. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 2001, 11, 261–269. [CrossRef]
43. Muchova, S.; Svecova, A.; Pavlickova, K.; Zelenakova, M. Evaluation of the development potential in
optimisation of the area using. Ekologia (Bratislava) 2006, 25 (Suppl. 1), 179–189.
44. Saarikoski, H.; Mustajoki, J.; Barton, D.N.; Geneletti, D.; Langemeyer, J.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.;
Marttunen, M.; Antunes, P.; Keune, H.; Santos, R. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22,
238–249. [CrossRef]
45. Pauditšová, E.; Slabeciusova, B. Modelling as a Platform for Landscape Planning. In Geoconference on
Informatics, Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing; Stef92 Technology Ltd.: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2014; Volume III,
pp. 753–760.
46. Sklenicka, P. Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect to three contrasting study areas in
the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 502–510. [CrossRef]
47. Juskova, K.; Muchova, Z. Land Consolidation as an Instrument for Land Ownership Defragmentation.
In MENDELNET 2013; Skarpa, P., Ryant, P., Cerkal, R., Polak, O., Kovarnik, J., Eds.; Mendel Univ Brno: Brno,
Czech Republic, 2013; pp. 444–448.
48. Muchova, Z.; Leitmanova, M.; Petrovic, F. Possibilities of optimal land use as a consequence of lessons
learned from land consolidation projects (Slovakia). Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 294–306. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).