RSCY15 Paper Submitted

Please verify that (1) all pages are present, (2) all figures are correct, (3) all
fonts and special characters are correct, and (4) all text and figures fit within the red
margin lines shown on this review document. Complete formatting information is available at http://SPIE.org/manuscripts
Return to the Manage Active Submissions page at http://spie.org/submissions/tasks.aspx and approve or disapprove this submission. Your manuscript will not
be published without this approval. Please contact author_help@spie.org with any questions or concerns.
Travelling in the eastern Mediterranean with landscape

character assessment
Abu Jabera, N., Abunnasrb Y, Abu Yahya Ac, Bouladc, N., Christoud, O., Dimitropoulose, G.,
Dimopoulose, T., Gkoltsiouf, K., Khreisa, N., Manolakig, P., Michaeld, K., Odeha, T.,
Papatheodouloud, A., Sorotoue, A., Sinnoh, S., Sulimanc, O., Symonsd, N., Terkenlif, T., Trigkasg,
V., Trovatob, M.G., Victorad, M., Zomenig, M., Vogiatzakisg*, I.N.
a
German Jordanian University,
b
American University of Beirut
c
The Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature
d
Laona Foundation
e
Mediterranean Institute for Nature and Anthropos-
f
University of the Aegean
g
Open University of Cyprus
h
Society for the Protection of Nature Lebanon
*contact author: ioannis.vogiatzakis@ouc.ac.cy
ABSTRACT
Following its application in Northern Europe, Landscape Character Assessment has also been implemented in Euro-
Mediterranean countries as a tool for classifying, describing and assessing landscapes. Many landscape classifications
employed in the Euro-Mediterranean area are similar in philosophy and application to the ones developed in Northern
Europe. However, many aspects of landform, climate, land-use and ecology, as well as socio-economic context are
distinctive of Mediterranean landscapes. The paper discusses the conceptual and methodological issues faced during
landscape mapping and characterisation in four East-Mediterranean countries (within the MEDSCAPES project):
Cyprus, Greece, Jordan and Lebanon. The major hurdles to overcome during the first phase of methodology
development include variation in availability, quality, scale and coverage of spatial datasets between countries and also
terminology semantics around landscapes. For example, the concept of landscape - a well-defined term in Greek and
English - did not exist in Arabic. Another issue is the use of relative terms like 'high mountains,' ‘uplands’ ‘lowlands’ or
' hills'. Such terms, which are regularly used in landscape description, were perceived slightly differently in the four
participating countries. In addition differences exist in nomenclature and classification systems used by each country for
the dominant landscape-forming factors i.e. geology, soils and land–use- but also in the cultural processes shaping the
landscapes - compared both to each other and to the Northern-European norms. This paper argues for the development
of consistent, regionally adapted, relevant and standardised methodologies if the results and applications of LCA are to
be transferable and comparable between countries.
Keywords: Cultural heritage, GIS, landscape typology, natural heritage, Remote Sensing
RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.1 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM
SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

Please verify that (1) all pages are present, (2) all figures are correct, (3) all fonts and special characters are correct, and (4) all text and figures fit within the red
1. INTRODUCTION
LCA assessment has been advocated as a framework to identify and assess landscapes, understand landscape change,
and develop landscape quality objectives in partnership with stakeholders – all specific measures of the ELC1. LCA has
a long history in Europe2 including many Mediterranean countries3,4,5. The LCA process involves the distinct stages of
characterisation, evaluation and decision-making (Figure 1). Characterization comprises the identification of areas of
distinct character (Land Description Units, LDUs), the classification and mapping of LDUs and the description and
explanation of their character. LDUs are distinct and relatively homogenous units of land each defined by a series of
definitive attributes. The definitive attributes describe key aspects of the landscape and are derived from nationally
available datasets. The various attempts applied in different areas, have used various procedures and as expected they
came up with a wide range of mapped landscape units. Landscape character mapping, a fundamental element of LCA, is
based on the premise that particular combinations of physical and cultural attributes occurring in different areas result in
similar landscapes. These attributes are used to describe the variability in the landscape at various spatial scales
depending on the scope6.
The MedScapes project “Development of Landscape character assessment as a tool for effective conservation of natural
heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean” is funded by the multilateral cross-border cooperation "Mediterranean Sea Basin
Programme" and brings together eight partners from four countries: Cyprus, Greece, Jordan and Lebanon.
Figure 1: The three stages of the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) process and their steps

The project aims to support stronger protection of and reduced risk to the landscape heritage through the introduction of
an integrative landscape character assessment (LCA) framework for enhanced and sustainable territorial planning and
decision-making. The project’s specific objective is (a) to develop and apply a best-practice methodology for
identifying, mapping and assessing landscape character in pilot areas, and (b) to promote the results as a tool for
sustainable land use decision-making and landscape-scale protection of the natural and cultural heritage in the east
Mediterranean context. In this paper we report on the first objective of the project. The paper argues for the
development of consistent, regionally adapted, relevant and standardized methodologies if the results and applications
of Landscape Character Assessment are to be transferable and comparable between countries.
2. METHODOLOGY: LCA IMPLEMENTATION IN THE EAST MEDITERRANEAN

The study involved review and evaluation of the LCA methodology in the context of its original principles and
objectives as developed and applied in the U.K. The evaluation also considered how improvements and additions in the
UK_LCA methodology will better measure the heterogeneity of the eastern Mediterranean landscapes.
2.1. Study areas

Six study areas were selected for their rich cultural and natural heritage, which are briefly described below (Figure 2):
Cyprus: is the third largest Mediterranean island with an area of 9,251 km2. The physical environment is characterized by
a rugged morphology and varied geology. The island is divided into three geomorphological zones, the Troodos
Mountain, the Pentadaktylos Range and the Mesaoria plain. The climate of Cyprus is in general at the drier end of the
Mediterranean-type climates. The rural landscape is dominant and usually intermixed with natural elements.
Mujib – Jordan: the study area is located within Madaba and Kerak governorates and extends over 3800 km². The area
extends from the Jordan Rift Valley (JRV) escarpment in the west at 420 meters below sea level (m.b.s.l.) to the central
highlands plateau in the east with elevations exceeding 700 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l). Besides the biodiversity
importance of the area, it is also known for its cultural and religious value. In addition, the area is one of the therapeutic
tourism destinations in Jordan.
Al Yarmouk catchment area – Jordan: located in the north-western part of Jordan, with a total area 6,790 km², of which
1,160 km² lie within the Jordanian border. Al Yarmouk catchment area has high relief topography with elevations from
about 26 m.b.s.l. to about 1,200 m.a.s.l. The catchment comprises of large urban centers (Irbid and Al Ramtha) in
addition to extensive agricultural activities (around 50% of the total catchment area), and includes unique heritage and
historical places of Jordan.
Epirus-Greece: The study area is located in the Region of Epirus, Greece. The area is predominantly mountainous
characterized by significant landscape diversity. High mountains with dense forest cover below 1,700 m and alpine
meadows at their peaks are traversed by wide cultivated valleys and steep unsettled gorges; cultivated, settled areas and
extensive grazed pastures. The rich natural heritage of the area is complemented by its significant historic and cultural
heritage, characteristically portrayed through the plethora of traditional settlements, stone bridges and footpaths.
Lesvos-Greece: is the third largest island in the Aegean Sea, with an area of 1,632 km2, and 320 kilometers of coastline.
Agriculture and tourism are the main economic activities on the island. Approximately 41.3% of the island’s surface is
olive plantations, 34% maquis and garrigue, 17% forest, 4.3% other crops, while the remaining land has various uses
such as constructions, wetlands, etc.
Lebanon: the study area is approximately 4,747.40 km², c.45 % of the total area of Lebanon. It contains 15 cazas that
reach an altitudinal range of 1,700 m, with exceptions of high peaks in mountainous areas, and low altitudes in deep
valleys. Moreover, it encompasses four distinct geomorphological regions, which are: coastal plain, Lebanon mountain
range, Bekaa valley, and the Anti-Lebanon mountain range.

Figure 2: Location of the six study areas, different color indicates study areas located in different countries
2.2. Prior to the implementation

The implementation of landscape mapping in the study sites consisted of direct linked steps. A training course on the
techniques and application of Landscape Character Assessment was attended by the scientific teams from all partners in
order to increase consistency and objectivity in the implementation of LCA among and within partners. Additionally, a
protocol for landscape mapping was produced in order to be used in a complementary manner to the training manual in
an attempt to address issues that arose during training. By now there are more than one ways to carry out Landscape
Character Assessment in Europe all of which are valid and come with their own tools and trade-offs. According to the
project’s aims the development of a common language and eventually a method which reflects the geographical area
targeted in the East Mediterranean region is essential if results are to be transferable. For such reasons, the protocol
aimed to reduce subjectivity throughout the process and to ensure that the Mediterranean characteristics will be included
in the typology. In this context we have firstly set and defined the minimum mapping unit for level 1 to five square
kilometers (5 km2). There were of course exceptions such as wetlands, coastal dunes, which are distinct in character and
do not conform with landscape typologies in general. Our first concern was data collection (Table 1) and thereafter the
evaluation and reclassification of attribute categories used in the UK approach to LCA in order to attain the unique
characteristics of Mediterranean landscapes.

Table 1: Description of the four definitive attributes used for level 1 mapping and classification along with the required data
for their mapping.
Definitive attributes Data Required
Landform is the relative relief and shape of the land
surface as derived from interpretation of contour Although the principal dataset required is a topographic
data. It is use to describe the Physiography of the contour map (contour lines 20m or 50m isolines) ancillary
Landform
area which is influenced both by the underlying data such as Digital Elevation Models, Google Earth and
Natural geology and the effect of subsequent Landform maps where available can be used.
geomorphological processes.
Is an expression of soil forming environment and its
Ground type
influence in determining the surface pattern of National Soil maps 1:250 000
analysis
vegetation and land use.
Is the physical material at the surface of the earth.  Recent Land cover map (CORINE or equivalent) -
Land covers include grass, trees, bare ground, water, reflecting surface vegetation
Landcover
etc. There are two primary methods for capturing  Recent Satellite images (Landsat, MODIS etc.) if land
Analysis
information on land cover: field survey and analysis cover maps are not available (using standard image
of remotely sensed imagery. classification techniques)
Cultural
Location of settlements as points-features centroids (Latest
Settlement pattern is an expression of the structural data available). Supplementary information for possible
Settlement
component of the cultural landscape reflected in the explanation of pattern (causal factors): Historical data and
Pattern
historic pattern of settlement. maps (ancient settlements), Spring supplies, Groundwater,
Rivers etc.
2.3. Implementing LCA

Landscape mapping, as is common practice within LCA, consisted of two phases: the desktop mapping and the
fieldwork mapping. Desktop mapping comprises of gathering raw GIS data, reclassifying the data, and overlaying data in
order to create a map with landscape description units. Landscape description units (LDUs), were derived, which are
homogenous units of land, each defined by a series of attributes; landform, ground type, landcover, and settlement. For
ground type analysis the World Reference Base (WRB) international standard for soil classification system was used.
The four attributes were derived through a process of GIS map overlay. Mapping is undertaken visually on-screen
through an iterative process of sub-division of polygons. This is described more in detail in Figure 3. The end result was
a thematic map at a scale of 1:250,000, divided into a series of discrete (provisional) Land Description Units (LDUs).
LDUs, the building blocks of the landscape map form the framework on which all subsequent description, classification
and evaluation is based. Every LDU is assigned a combination of natural (permanent indicators) and cultural attributes
(non-permanent indicators), known as “definitive attributes” because they defined the boundaries of the LDUs.
Fieldwork mapping was then carried out in order to validate all the information collated during the desktop mapping.
The primary function of the field survey is to observe the characteristics that contribute to local distinctiveness, verify
the content of the LDU as compared to the maps, amend boundaries of the units, complete a field assessment for each
unit, carry out a photographic survey and also to collect information about the ecological and cultural integrity of the
unit. The primary function of the field survey is to identify the key characteristics that contribute to local distinctiveness
and to gather information about the condition of the landscape, in particular the impact of recent change.
In the UK LCA methodology the use of GIS is a core part the whole procedure. Although our approach was also based
on GIS desk study we increased accuracy and speed in gathering landscape information using Google Earth for
reconnaissance work prior to fieldwork but also for correcting LDUs boundaries in areas of uncertainty following
fieldwork. In addition, Google Earth served as a current imagery of current land use/land cover conditions that allowed
the teams, where data was not recent enough, to refine the LDUs.Following mapping and field validation (including
corrections) of LDUs the next step is defining Landscape Character Types, i.e. relatively homogenous in character
(Swanwick and Land use Consultants, 2002). They are generic in nature in that they may occur in different parts of the
country, but wherever they occur they share broadly similar combinations of geology, topography, drainage patterns,
vegetation and historical land use and settlement pattern.

Figure 3: Successive stages of landscape mapping
2.4. Data analysis

First, we performed area, diversity and form analysis for the six case study areas by calculating landscape indices. We
used the following landscape indices:
 LCT Richness (LCTR) measures the number of LCTs present; it is not affected by the relative abundance of each
LCT or the spatial arrangement of LCTs. Richness is partially a function of scale. Larger areas are generally richer
because there is generally greater heterogeneity over larger areas than over comparable smaller areas.
 Shannon's diversity index (SHDI) (range SHDI ≥ 0) measures the diversity of LCTs. SHDI = 0 when the landscape
contains only 1 LCT (i.e., no diversity). SHDI increases (without limit) as the number of different LCTs (i.e., LCT
richness) increases and/or the proportional distribution of area among LCTs becomes more equitable.
 Shannon's evenness index (SHEI) (range 0 ≦ SHEI ≦ 1) represents the proportion of maximum evenness. Evenness
is expressed as the observed level of diversity divided by the maximum possible diversity for a given LCT richness.
Maximum diversity for any level of richness is achieved when there is an equal distribution of area among LCTs. As
the evenness index approaches 1, the observed diversity approaches perfect evenness.
 Dominance (range 0 ≦ dominance ≦ 1) can be expressed as the compliment of evenness (i.e., evenness = 1 -
dominance). Dominance approaches 0 for maximum equitability and increases for higher dominance, in other words
dominance is high when the distribution of area among LCTs is uneven.

 Mean Shape index (MSI) (range MSI ≥ 0) measures the complexity of patch shape compared to a standard shape
(square) of the same size; it is the simplest and perhaps most straightforward measure of shape complexity. MSI = 1
when the patch (i.e. LDU) is square and increases without limit as LDU shape becomes more irregular.
Then, a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was used to eliminate redundant metrics and to test whether the six case
study areas can be grouped. The PCA was done on landscape level metrics i.e. at the case study area level.
Landscape indices were calculated using V-LATE 2.0 beta (Vector-based Landscape Analysis Tools, Extension for
ArcGIS 10)7 and PCA was performed using CANOCO 4.58.
3. RESULTS
Following field validation, the derived typology was based on the two dominant attributes characterizing LDUs proven
to be landform and land use in most of the cases. Special emphasis was given on the natural dimension of the landscape,
not only because it provides a context for analysing the historical evolution of the landscape, but also because the
attributes of relief, geology and soils have ‘real’ boundaries that can be readily extracted from existing published maps.
Cultural attributes do not usually have such clearly defined boundaries, but because of the constraints that have
historically been imposed on land utilisation by slope, soil fertility and drainage it is often possible to map cultural
patterns at the landscape scale assisted by the pre-existing physiographic mapping.
3.1. Landscape metrics

Table 2 shows the results from landscape metrics calculations for the six case study areas. Lesvos and Yarmouk although
comparable in area, demonstrate a large divergence in their number of LDUs which suggests that LDUs are generally
larger in Yarmouk and more irregularly shaped as indicated by the higher MSI value. Although smaller, Yarmouk has
higher LCT richness but as indicated by the higher dominance value they are not evenly distributed across the landscape.
Mujib is comparable to area with Epirus and Lebanon case studies; however it has much fewer LDUs while it
demonstrates the highest LCT richness among the three. This suggests that LDUs are larger and irregularly shaped (as
indicated by the MSI) while the distribution of area among LCTs is uneven i.e. a few LCTs are dominant. The largest
number of LDUs is found in Cyprus, the largest case study, having also the highest richness of LCTs. The island
demonstrates the highest dominance value (ergo the lowest SHEI) compared to the rest case studies suggesting that the
distribution among different LCTs is more uneven and therefore a few LCTs dominate the landscape in Cyprus. The
lower dominance values in Lesvos and Lebanon indicate that LCTs cover equal surfaces in these case studies.
Comparisons among the landscape character types indicated that out of 104 landscape character types (LCTs) identified,
11 types were found in at least two study areas. The similarities among case studies’ landscape character types (LCTs)
are shown in Table 3.
Table 2: Landscape metrics for the 6 case study areas
Area Analysis Lesvos Epirus Mujib Yarmouk Lebanon Cyprus
2
Total Area in km : 1795 3908 4207 1390 4757 9307
Number of LDUs: 101 159 58 22 103 210
Diversity Analysis
Landscape Character Type Richness (LCTR): 11 16 23 16 21 35
Shannon's Diversity (SHDI): 2.152 2.28 2.601 2.321 2.742 2.717
Shannon's Evenness (SHEI): 0.897 0.822 0.83 0.837 0.901 0.764
Dominance: 0.246 0.493 0.534 0.452 0.303 0.838
Form Analysis
Mean Shape Index (MSI): 1.95 1.747 2.215 2.203 2.263 2.073

Table 3: Common landscape character types (LCTs) among study areas.

GrL GrE JoM JoY Leb CY
GrL 3 3 2 2 2
GrE 3 2 4 1
JoM 1 1 1
JoY 1 1
Leb 2
CY
3.2. Principal component analysis

The results of Principal component analysis between the landscape classification and landscape indices are illustrated in
the plot of Figure 4. According to the results the main axis of PCA explains 90% of the total variation of the data and it is
positively correlated with Mean Shape Index (MSI) and negatively correlated with the Number of Patches (NP) i.e.
number of LDUs. The second axis is positively correlated with Shannon's Evenness index and negatively correlated with
Richness i.e. number of LCTs.
Figure 4: Principal component analysis (PCA) plot showing the 4 non-collinear statistically significant (p < 0.05) landscape
indices as explanatory variables and the six study areas

The two PCA axes separate the six study areas on the basis of the number and shape of the LDUs as well as their
proportional distribution of area among LCTs. According to the resulted plot, the study sites can be clustered into three
distinguished groups. The first group is located at the right bottom of PCA graph. It consists of Al Yarmouk and Mujib
areas which are characterized by less number of LDUs mainly due to the smaller size of the study area. This group is
also characterized by irregularly shaped LDUs and uneven distribution of LCTs. The left side of the plot distinguishes
study sites with higher number of LDUs clustered in two groups. The first group consists of Epirus and Lesvos study
areas which are characterized by small number of LCTs, only few of which are dominant. Finally, at the left bottom part
of the plot, Lebanon and Cyprus are grouped due to the high richness of LCTs few of which are dominant, as well as
high number of regularly shaped LDUs.
4. DISCUSSION
An important component of this project is to develop a landscape typology for the partner countries that can be applied
in a Mediterranean region from nationally to locally. It was obvious from the outset of this project that MEDSCAPES
partner teams did not lack technical expertise but rather had different opinions and experience in interpreting and
mapping landscapes. Although this is a recurring matter in many landscape related studies, within a multi-partner
project it is imperative to develop a common methodology early on. Therefore the protocol developed attempted to
provide the necessary flexibility to partners to account for the individualities of their countries and landscapes, whereas
at the same time codifies the mapping process to avoid unnecessary mistakes.
4.1. Typology
This work mapped a wide range of landscape types (104) in all four countries. This is by no means an exhaustive list
since only in two cases i.e. Lesvos and Cyprus we mapped the whole range of landscapes within their geographical
boundary. The development of the typology requires the sampling of the whole range of landscape units in a
geographical area in order to identify the attributes that discriminate between the full complements of landscape types.
This is a complex task and is influenced by a whole range of factors, including the objectives and scale of the project,
data attributes, the sampling scheme the diversity and complexity of the landscape types and the techniques to classify
the samples into a consistent typology.
However some of the types already identified can be used in the development of a Mediterranean-wide typology since
they can easily be identified elsewhere in the region. The study demonstrated that the classification remains dependent
on the country applied for. Therefore and although there are common landscape types among countries there are also
categories which were not applicable for the whole range of countries and case studies in this work. Examples include
“Desert”, “deep valleys”, etc. In addition there are differences in nomenclature and classification systems which each
country has used for the dominant landscape-forming factors such as geology, soils and land–use- but also in the cultural
processes which have shaped the respective landscapes - compared both to each other and to the Northern European
norms. Two of the case studies are islands with extensive coastline. This is something that usually land-based typologies
neglect and which has led to the development of Seascapes Assessment9. Moreover, at this level of mapping emphasis on
the natural character prevails over cultural character. This has been a long standing debate which has resulted in Europe
in the development of Historical Landscape Mapping led by historians and archaeologists 10.
4.2. Mapping and fieldwork constraints

The background of the team members that interpreted the datasets and conducted the fieldwork was very diverse.
Although there was an attempt to address this issue through training and protocol development, there were still different
interpretations of landscapes in the field. Availability and quality of datasets was another constraint in this mapping
attempt. Although a lot of scientific work has been carried out, in several institutes, universities, public authorities, etc.,
concerning the physiographic and cultural landscape in the various countries and study areas, this information is not
habitually shared among relevant authorities, it is not published on the Internet, or it is simply not accessible. Even today
many datasets are found only in printed rather than digital format.

The process of obtaining and processing the required data was an extremely time-consuming task. Another problem was
the incompatibility of the cartographic data collected from different sources (different agencies). The cartographic
process, was often perplexed over attributes of geology and soils; for instance, in cases of LDU subdivision. Field work
became indispensable at this point, as it helped make decisions on an actual landscape basis, in situ. In some cases the
minimal mapping unit set (5 km²), led to an over subdivision of LDUs, which meant we had to merge them afterwards,
in order to attain broader landscape character types. In many cases e.g. Lebanon, raw data reclassification was really
difficult and required extensive time and effort in order to become compatible with the Level 1 attributes and to ensure a
harmonious nomenclature with other teams.
Accessibility remains an issue particularly in mountainous areas in Epirus and Lebanon case studies, and in many parts
of the Dead Sea escarpment and steep valleys in Jordan as well as safety and security in some parts of Lebanon. Almost
all fieldworks commented on the difficult to map valleys, according to the methodology, especially with regards
presence and extent of settlements and agricultural uses and how this affects the LDU boundaries.
Specifically, in the case of Lesvos land use on mountain slopes has triggered the question of whether LDUs should be
enlarged to include such settled landscapes. As seen from the field survey, landscapes within valleys could either be
considered as part of the valley or be characterized as part of the mountain, depending each time on their relationship and
continuity with the valley. Similar comment arises from Jordan where most of the valleys are almost entirely rangeland,
with some small areas of agriculture here and there.
In the case of Mujib pilot area in Jordan, landform codes had to be recalibrated to match the codes and description in the
LCA Protocol as elevations ranged from around 420 m.b.s.l. at the Dead Sea to over 1000 m a.s.l. in the south eastern
highlands. Some areas which would have been identified as lowlands according to the Medscapes protocol were
identified as uplands when using the Dead Sea as a baseline for elevation range instead of the global mean sea level.
4.3. Semantics
Semantics is more important than one would have expected. The very concept of landscape - a well-defined term in
Greek and English - does not exist in Arabic. Even when the term is well-defined, landscape continues to have different
meaning and interpretation by different people/groups. This also applies to the components which compose the landscape
character. For example the use of relative terms, such as 'high mountains,' ‘uplands’ ‘lowlands’ or ' hills'. Such terms,
which are habitually used in landscape description, were perceived slightly differently in the four participating countries
perhaps due to significant altitudinal variation. Another example is the use of the term settlements. Compared to other
places settlements In Lesvos, settlements belong only to the nucleated type. As a result there was insufficient variation
within this component of the typology. From the point of view of a geographer, a settlement is an autonomous unit,
while sparsely spaced buildings in the landscape are not considered settlements.
4.4. Future work

Amendments and changes in the originally proposed types following fieldwork have resulted in significant changes in
the final typology. This was also the case after mentoring, since many issues that cropped up in one case study were also
applicable to others. Therefore developing the typology in parallel in more than one case study remains a dynamic
process. As larger areas will be sampled more landscape types will arise and as a result of the variation more changes
will be necessary. Classification is commonly developed empirically based mainly on the definitive attributes in a
subjective manner. The results need to be compared with an objective classification with the help of statistical techniques
(e.g. cluster analysis) based on the four attributes recorded for the LDUs. Developing a finer scale typology, or in the
language of the MEDSCAPES project moving from Level 1 to Level 2 should provide increased thematic, and, where
possible, spatial resolution. In other words information at level 2 should be a) more detailed with respect to level 1 and b)
nested within level 1 i.e. info at Level 2 is a subset of info Level 1.

REFERENCES
[1] Washer, D. and Jongman R., “European Landscapes: classification, evaluation and conservation,” European
Environment Agency, Environment Technical Reports, Copenhagen. (2003)
[2] Griffiths, G.H., Porter, J., Simmons, E., and Warnock, S., “The living Landscapes Project: landscape character and
biodiversity”, English Nature Report no 475 (2004).
[3] Pinto-Correia, T., Cancela d’Abreu, A. and Oliveira, R., “Landscape Units in Portugal and the Development and
Application of Landscape Indicators”, NIJOS/OECD Expert Meeting –Agricultural Landscape Indicators, Oslo, (2002).
[4] Marušič, J. and Jančič, M., “Regional Distribution of Landscape Types in Slovenia: Methodological Bases”, Ministry
of Environment and Physical Planning, Ljubljana (1998).
[5] Blasi C., Carranza, M. L., Frondoni, R., Rosati, L., “Ecosystem classification and mapping: a proposal for the Italian
landscapes”, Appl. Veg. Sci. 3, 233-242 (2000).
[6] Symons, N.P., Vogiatzakis, I.N., Warnock, S., Griffiths, G.H., Vassou, V., Zomeni, M., & Trigkas, V., “Geospatial
tools for landscape character assessment in Cyprus ", Proc. SPIE 8795, First International Conference on Remote
Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment (RSCy2013), 87951B (2013)
[7] Lang S, Tiede D (2003) vLATE Extension für ArcGIS – vektorbasiertes Tool zur quantitativen
Landschaftsstrukturanalyse, ESRI Anwenderkonferenz 2003 Innsbruck. [CDROM]
[8] Ter Braak, C.J.F., Smilauer, P., 2002. CANOCO. Reference Manual and User’s Guide to Canoco for Windows:
Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Ithaca, NY, 500pp.
[9] Hill, M., Briggs, J., Minto, P., Bagnall, D., Foley, K., Williams, A., “Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment,
Maritime Ireland / Wales” INTERREG Report NO.5 (2003).
[10] Fairclough, G., “Historic Landscape Characterisation”, English Heritage, London (1999)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The MedScapes Project is funded by the multilateral cross-border cooperation "Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme"
which is a part of the new European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and its financing instrument (European Neighborhood
and Partnership Instrument - ENPI) for the 2007-2013 period. We would like also to acknowledge the support of the
Town Planning Department, Republic of Cyprus.

RSCY15 Paper Submitted

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RSCY15 Paper Submitted

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Please verify that (1) all pages are present, (2) all figures are correct, (3) all

Travelling in the eastern Mediterranean with landscape

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.1 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.2 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

2. METHODOLOGY: LCA IMPLEMENTATION IN THE EAST MEDITERRANEAN

2.1. Study areas

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.3 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

2.2. Prior to the implementation

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.4 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

2.3. Implementing LCA

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.5 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

Figure 3: Successive stages of landscape mapping

2.4. Data analysis

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.6 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

3.1. Landscape metrics

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.7 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

Table 3: Common landscape character types (LCTs) among study areas.

3.2. Principal component analysis

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.8 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

4.2. Mapping and fieldwork constraints

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.9 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

4.4. Future work

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.10 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

RS100 - 51 V. 1 (p.11 of 11) / Color: No / Format: A4 / Date: 3/10/2015 6:19:22 PM

SPIE USE: ____ DB Check, ____ Prod Check, Notes:

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes:

SPIE USE: DB Check, Prod Check, Notes: