Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches of Delineation in Detailed Mapping of Vineyard Landscape. Case Study: Vicinity of Pezinok (Slovakia)

Marián Gábor 1 , Vladimír Falťan 1  and František Petrovič 2
  • 1 Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Natural Sciences. Department of physical geography and geoecology, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava 4, Slovakia
  • 2 Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Ecology and Environment, Trieda A. Hlinku 1, 949 74, Nitra, Slovakia


The main goal of this paper is the application of qualitative and quantitative free available data for geographical delineation based on reconnaissance research in vineyard landscape. The results of delineation are useful in agricultural management or environmental planning. Our delineation may serve as the basic information on site conditions of vineyards near Pezinok (Slovakia), with historical use from the beginning of 13th century. We have studied the actual land cover and classified physiotopes of the study area into a set of relatively homogenous and coherent landscape units. The landscape units defined in this work consist of homogenous physiotopes in terms of their structural and functional characteristics, which have been shaped by natural factors (land-forms, soil type and subtype, geological base, elevation, slope, aspect, solar radiation and normal different vegetation index (NDVI)). The characteristics were used to define 23 landscape units in qualitative delineation (based on both qualitative and quantitative data). Only quantitative characteristics – elevation, aspect, slope, solar radiation and NDVI, were used in a K-means cluster analysis to define the 17 landscape units. The number of landscape units was computed by WB-index, and standardisation of data was computed by factor analysis. The whole classification process was statistically significant. The strength of the grouping procedure was tested by using Discriminant Analysis, which found that 92.70% of objects in qualitative and 98.50% of objects in quantitative delineation were correctly classified.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bailey, R.G. (1995). Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Miscellaneous publication, 1391. Washington D. C.: U.S. Forest Service.

  • Bakhsh, A. & Kanwar R.S. (2005). Spatial clusters of subsurface drainage water NO3−N leaching losses. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41, 333−341. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03739.x.

  • Bezák, A. (1993). Problems and methods of regional taxonomy (in Slovak). Geographia Slovaca, 3, 96.

  • Blažek, J. & Uhlíř D. (2002). Regional development theories. Outline, criticism classification (in Czech). Praha: Universita Karlova v Praze, Nakladatelství Karolinum.

  • Browne, R.P. & McNicholas P.D. (2012). Model-based clustering, classification, and discriminant analysis of data with mixed type. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 142, 2976−2984. DOI: 0.1016/j.jspi.2012.05.001.

  • Čech, V. & Kunáková L. (2012). Geoecological research and geoecological database (case study: cadastral area of village Kolinovce) (in Slovak). Geografický Časopis, 64, 105−118.

  • Feranec, J. & Oťaheľ J. (1999). Mapping of land cover at scale 1:50 000: draft of the nomenclature for the Phare countries (in Slovak). Geografický Časopis, 51, 19−44.

  • Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M. & Hughes R.M. (1989). Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources. Corvallis: Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory and NSI Technology Services.

  • GKÚ (1990). Base map of Slovakia 1:10 000 – raster form, Bratislava (in Slovak). Bratislava: Geodetický a kartografický ústav.

  • Hargrove, W.W. & Hoffman F.M. (2005). Potential of multivariate quantitative methods for delineation and visualization of ecoregions. Environ. Manag., 34, 39−60. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-1084-0.

  • Hartigan, J.A. (1975). Clustering algorithms. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Heino, J., Muotka, T., Paavola, R., Hämäläinen, H. & Koskenniemi E. (2002). Correspondence between regional delineations and spatial patterns in macro invertebrate assembladges of boreal headwater streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 21, 397−413. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1468478

  • Hessburg, P.F., Salter, R.B., Richmond, M.B. & Smith B.G. (2002). Ecological subregions of the interior Columbia Basin, USA. Appl. Veg. Sci., 3, 163−180. DOI: 10.2307/1478995.

  • Hraško, Ľ. (Eds.) (2013). Geology map of Slovakia 1:50 000 (in Slovak). Bratislava: Štátny geologický ústav Dionýza Štúra. Available at: http://mapserver.geology.sk/gm50js (accessed October 2013).

  • Hreško, J., Petrovič, F. & Mišovičová R. (2015). Mountain landscape archetypes of the Western Carpathians (Slovakia). Biodivers. Conserv., 24(13), 3269−3283. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-0969-6.

  • Hrnčiarová, T. (2008). Historical landscape structure - important part of landscape diversity (in Slovak). In V. Herber (Ed.), Fyzickogeografický zborník 6. fyzická geografie a trvalá udržitelnost (pp. 39−44). Příspevky z 25. výroční konference fyzickogeografické sekce České geografické společnosti konané 31. ledna 2008 v Brně. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

  • Chorley, R.J. & Haggett P. (1967). Models in geography. London: Methuen.

  • Ivan, P., Jarabicová, M. & Muchová Z. (2015). Assessment of changes in landuse by coefficient of the ecological stability. 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference and EXPO. Albena: SGEM, 1(5), 73−80.

  • Jenerette, G.D., Lee, J. & Norton D.J. (2002). Multivariate analysis of the ecoregion and delineation for aquatic systems. Environm. Manag., 29, 67−75. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-001-0041-z.

  • Jensen, M.E., Goodman, I.A., Bourgeron, P.S., Poff, N.L. & Brewer C.K. (2001). Effectiveness of biophysical criteria in the hierarchical classification of drainage basins. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37, 1155−1167. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb03629.x.

  • Johnston, R.J. (1968). Choice in classification: the subjectivity of objective methods. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 58, 575−589. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1968.tb01653.x.

  • Jusková, K. & Muchová Z. (2014). Options and trends of land consolidation in the Czech and Slovak Republic, with regard to common historical development of ownership and usage rights. 14th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference and EXPO. Albena: SGEM, 2(5), 471−478.

  • Leathwick, R.J., Overton, M.J. & McLeod M. (2003). An environmental domain classification of New Zealand and its use as a tool. Conserv. Biol., 17, 1612−1623. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00469.x.

  • Leopold, M. & Völkel J. (2005). Methodological approach and case study for the reconstruction of a (pre)historic land use model. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 139(Suppl.), 173−188.

  • Long, J., Nelson, T. & Wulder M. (2010). Regionalization of landscape pattern indices using multivariate cluster analysis. Environm. Manag., 46, 134−142. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-010-9510-6.

  • McEwen, W.M. (Eds.) (1987). Ecological districts and regions of New Zealand. Four maps (1:500 000). New Zealand Biological Resources Centre publication 5. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

  • Minár, J., Barka, I., Bonk, R., Bizubová, M., Čerňanský, J., Falťan, V., Gašpárek, J., Kolény, M., Kožuch, M., Kusendová, D., Machová, Z., Mičian, Ľ., Mičietová, E., Michalka, R., Novotný, J., Ružek, I., Švec, P., Tremboš, P., Trizna, M. & Zaťko M. (2001). Geoecological (complex physical-geographical) and mapping at large scales (in Slovak). Geografické Spektrum, 3. Bratislava: Geo-grafika.

  • Minár, J. (2003). Detailed physical-geographical (geoecological) research and mapping in the landscape ecology. Ekológia (Bratislava), 22, 141−149.

  • Minár, J. & Evans I.S. (2008). Elementary forms for land surface segmentation: The theoretical basis of terrain analysis and geomorphological mapping. Geomorphology, 95, 236−259. DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.06.003.

  • Olehowski, C., Naumann, S., Fischer, D. & Siegmund A. (2008). Geo-ecological spatial pattern analysis of the island of Fogo (Cape Verde). Global and Planetary Change, 63, 188−197. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.09.006.

  • Perko, D., Hrvatin, M. & Ciglič R. (2015). A methodology for natural landscape typification of Slovenia. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 55, 235−270. DOI: 10.3986/AGS.1938.

  • Petek, F. (2005). Typology of Slovenia’s region with emphasis on land use and changes in land use. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 45, 33−52. DOI: 10.3986/AGS45102.

  • Shaohong, W.U., Qinye, Y. & Du Z. (2003). Delineation of eco-geographic regional system of China. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 13, 309−315. doi: 10.1007/BF02837505.

  • Soto, S. & Pintó J. (2010). Delineation of natural landscape units for Puerto Rico. Applied Geography, 30, 720−730. DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.01.010.

  • Šedivá, A. & Izakovičová Z. (2015). Assessment of representative landscape types of Skalica district. Ekológia (Bratislava), 34(4), 329−338. DOI: 10.1515/eko-2015-0030.

  • Van Eetvelde, V. & Antrop M. (2009). A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterization for trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landsc. Urban Plann., 91, 160−170. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.008.

  • Van Leeuwen, C., Friant, P., Chone, X., Tregoat, O., Koundouras, S. & Dubordieu D. (2004). Influence of climate, soil, and cultivar in terroir. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 55, 207−217.

  • VUPOP (2012). Valuated soil-ecological units 1:50 000 (in Slovak). Bratislava: VÚPaOP. Available at: http://www.podnemapy.sk/bpej/viewer.htm?activelayer=2&layers=001 (accessable November 2013).

  • Wickham, J.D. & Norton D.J. (1994). Mapping and analyzing landscape patterns. Landsc. Ecol., 9, 7−23. doi: 10.1007/BF00135075.

  • Xu, Ch., Sheng, S., Chi, T., Yang, X., An, S. & Liu M. (2014). Developing a quantitative landscape regionalization framework integrating driving factors and response attributes of landscapes. Landscape Ecology Engineering, 10, 295−307. DOI: 10.1007/s11355-013-0225-8.

  • Xu, X.L., Ma, K.M., Fu, B.J., Song, C.J. & Liu W. (2008). Relationships between vegetation and soil and topography in a dry warm river valley, SW China. Catena, 75, 138−145. DOI: 10.1016/j.catena.2008.04.016.

  • Zhao, Q., Xu, M. & Fränti P. (2009). Sum-of-square based cluster validity index and significance analysis. In 9th International Conference on Adaptive and Natural Computing Algorithms (pp. 313−322). ICANNGA, Kuopio, Finland. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-04921-7_32.

  • Zhao, Q. & Fränti P. (2014). WB-index: A sum of squares based index for cluster validity. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 92, 77−89. DOI: 10.1016/j.datak.2014.07.008.

  • Zonneveld, I.S. (1995). Land ecology. Amsterdam: SPB Academic Publishing.


Journal + Issues