Similarity Assessment of Natural Landscapes Based on Taxonomic Distance

Abstract

Abstract. The degree of similarity/dissimilarity between landscapes is important information for landscape classification, potential assessment and evaluation. In geographical assessments, similarity in landscape functioning and visual attributes is commonly analysed by using landscape factors (e.g., relief, water balance and soil fertility), land use and built-up area. In this study the similarity and dissimilarity of Hungarian landscape units were investigated to reveal the appropriateness and uncertainty of the current delimitation methods. Nine indicators for 230 landscape units, delineated by the traditional methods, were integrated into a data matrix. Dissimilarity coefficients were calculated for each unit to determine the Euclidean distance between all indicators. Dissimilarity analysis was performed by multidimensional scaling using Kruskal's stress test and hierarchical clustering. The applied method enabled a more objective determination of taxonomic distance. Based on the results, the similarity and dissimilarity of landscapes could be evaluated by more accurate and quantitative datasets. Several neighbouring landscape units should require increased attention in spatial planning because these landscapes differ from each other: they belong to different clusters based on the investigated indicators, though they are adjacent.

A Renewed Approach to the ABC Landscape Assessment Method: An Application to Muntanyes d’Ordal, Barcelona Metropolitan Area

“…This facet of the method is important because other land classifications operate with closed hierarchical typologies that are not flexible (e.g. CORINE, LANMAP) and can only be adapted to different realities with difficulty, which makes highlighting regional differences or singularities problematical (Mezősi et al 2016).…”

“…On the other hand, it gives no cultural, historical or socioeconomic information and neither does it consider perceived values (Mücher et al 2003). From a spatial point of view, the landscape approach provides a final map at a scale of ±1.2 M (a minimum mapping unit of 11km 2 ), which allows a full pan European scope but makes it difficult to zoom in at the regional level, so it may underestimate local and regional landscape differences (Mezősi et al 2016).…”

The aesthetic evaluation of forest landscape in four urban forest parks: A case study of Nanjing hilly areas, China

“…Hierarchical clustering analysis (Mezosi et al, 2016;Campos and Oliveira, 2016) is utilized to determine the optimal number of clusters. And the scores of the comprehensive indexes and the aesthetic values of the 64 samples were employed as the variables and cases, respectively.…”

Integrated Approach to the Management of the Landscape for the Implementation of the Danube Strategy

“…The Danube Region comprises of remarkable variety of landscape structures, where lowlands with an important stock of water sources and top quality agricultural land alternate with mountain ranges of the Carpathians and the Alps with unique flora and fauna, down to the exclusive natural landscape in the Danube delta, which needs really a very comprehensive system of management (Bastian et al, 2006;Csorba, Szabó, 2009;Divíšek et al, 2014;Mezősi et al, 2016).…”

“…Coming out of the above mentioned principles of integrated management, the material basis for such a process must be a complex -integrated -material entity (Miklós et al, 2015). Integrated landscape management is based on understanding the landscape as geosystem -an integrated system of the space, georelief and all other natural, maninfluenced and man-made components of the landscape -material resources in certain area -as geological, water, soil and biotic sources, climate, land-use, man-made objects (Naveh, Lieberman, 1993;Miklós, Izakovičová, 1997;Mezősi et al, 2016), non-material socio-economic phenomena in the landscape and their relations. The space is the integrating frame of particular natural sources in a given area.…”