EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 171 (2020) E3S Web Conf., 171 (2020) 02011 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 171, 2020
The 9th International Scientific-Technical Conference on Environmental Engineering, Photogrammetry, Geoinformatics – Modern Technologies and Development Perspectives (EEPG Tech 2019)
Article Number 02011
Number of page(s) 6
Section Photogrammetry, Geoinformatics
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017102011
Published online 09 June 2020
  1. Swetnam R.D.; Tweed F.S. A tale of two landscapes: Transferring landscape quality metrics from Wales to Iceland. Land Use Policy (2018); 76, pp. 565–576. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cassatella, C.; Peano, A. (Eds.). Landscape Indicators. Assessing and Monitoring Landscape Quality. Springer (2011), Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-NewYork. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Santé, I.; Fernández-Ríos, A.; Tubío J.M.; García-Fernández, F.; Farkova, E.; Miranda, D. The Landscape Inventory of Galicia (NW Spain): GIS-web and public participation for landscape planning. Land Res. (2018), 44, 212–240. [Google Scholar]
  4. Vizzari, M. Spatial modelling of potential landscape quality. Appl. Geogr. (2011), 31, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B; Michalik-Śnieżek, M. The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study. Sustainability (2020), 12(7), 2810; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072810 [Google Scholar]
  6. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; Chmielewski T.J. A new approach of the identification of Landscape Quality Objectives (LQOs) as a set of indicators. J Environ. Manag. (2016)., 184, pp. 596–608. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Database of Topographic Objects Available online: http://www.gugik.gov.pl/strona-glowna (accessed on 10 December 2019). [Google Scholar]
  8. Ortofotomapa. Available online: http://www.gugik.gov.pl/pzgik/zamow-dane/ortofotomapa (accessed on 10 December 2019). [Google Scholar]
  9. Borzacchiello M.T., Nijkamp, P., Koomen, E., Accessibility and Urban Development: A Grid-Based Comparative Statistical Analysis of Dutch Cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. (2010) doi:10.1068/b34126 [Google Scholar]
  10. Wolf, T., Meyer B.C. Suburban scenario development based on multiple landscape assessments. Ecological Indicators (2010), 10 (1), pp.74–86 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cabrera-Jara, N.; Orellana, D., Hermida M.A. Assessing sustainable urban densification using geographic information systems. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE Building Technology and Urban Development. (2017), 8(2), pp. 237–243. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B. Review of cultural heritage indicators: types, categorisation schemes and their usefulness in landscape quality assessment. Ecol. Indic. (2017); 81, pp. 526–542. [Google Scholar]
  13. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega J.F., Cañas-Madueno J.A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, (2004), 69, pp. 115–125. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bulut, Z., & Yilmaz, H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, (2008), 141, pp.121–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Howley, P. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, (2011),72, pp.161–16. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; Soszyński, D. The index of the Prognosis Rural Landscape Preferences (IPRLP) as a tool of generalizing peoples’ preferences on rural landscape. J. Environ. Manag. (2019); 248, pp. 109272. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; Chmielewski T.J. Comparative Assessment of Public Opinion on the Landscape Quality of Two Biosphere Reserves in Europe. Environ. Manag. (2014); 54; pp. 531–556. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Amaral Y.T.; Santos E.M.D.; Ribeiro M.C.; Barreto, L. Landscape structural analysis of the Lençóis Maranhenses national park: Implications for conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 51, 125725. [Google Scholar]
  19. ICOMOS, International Cultural Tourism Charter. Principles And Guidelines For Managing Tourism At Places Of Cultural And Heritage Significance. ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee. (2002). [Google Scholar]
  20. Ginting, N., Wahid, J. Exploring identity’s aspect of continuity of urban heritage tourism. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. (2015), 202, pp. 234–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.227 [Google Scholar]
  21. Nahuelhual, L., Carmona, A., Laterra, P., Barrena, J., Aguayo, M., 2014. A mapping approach to assess intangible cultural ecosystem services: the case of agriculture heritagein Southern Chile. Ecol. Indic. 40, 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Pert P.L., Hill, R., Maclean, K., Dale, A., Rist, P., Schmider, J., Talbot, L., Tawake, L., 2015. Mapping cultural ecosystem services with rainforest aboriginal peoples: integrating biocultural diversity, governance and social variation. Ecosys. Serv. 13, 41–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.012 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Han, F., Yang, Z., Liu, X., Di, F., 2011. Impact assessment and protection of outstanding landscape integrity in a natural heritage site: Fairy Valley, KanasNature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. J. Mt. Sci. 8, 46–52. [Google Scholar]
  24. Uuemaa, E., Antrop, M., Roosaare, J., Marja, R., Mander, U., 2009. Landscape metricsand indices: an overview of their use in landscape research. Living Rev. Landsc.Res. 3, http://dx.doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2009-1. [Google Scholar]
  25. La Rosa, D., Privitera, R., Martinico F., La Greca P. Measures of safeguard and rehabilitation for landscape protection planning: a qualitative approach based on diversity indicatorset. Journal of Environmental Management. (2013), pp.73–83 doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.033 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Almenar, J. B., Boliwich, A., Eliot, T., Geneletti D., Sonnemann, G. Assessing habitat loss, fragmentation and ecological connectivity in Luxembourg to support spatial planning. Landscape and Urban Planning. (2019), 189, pp. 335–351. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.05.004 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.