Advertisement

Identification of Values of the Designed Landscapes: Two Case Studies from the Czech Republic

  • Markéta Šantrůčková
  • Martin Weber
Chapter
Part of the Environmental History book series (ENVHIS, volume 5)

Abstract

Designed landscapes or big landscape park-integrated gardens, agricultural and woody landscapes have created an environment for human well-being. Several of these areas were created in the Czech lands during the nineteenth century by rich noblemen and they covered one or more cadastral units. The designed landscapes were intentionally managed to be beautiful, sustainable and productive and they had, and in many cases, continued to keep outstanding cultural and natural values. Political changes in the second half of the twentieth century caused deep changes in the ownership of landscape and management. The designed landscapes were either totally or partially disintegrated; economical profit came first from disregarding sustainability. Nevertheless, the designed landscapes still were areas with serious cultural and natural value and many of them became protected areas with more sustainable management than a common landscape. Today, the same driving forces as in other European countries influence the landscape in the Czech Republic: landscape abandonment in marginalized areas and intensification in core areas. Designed landscapes are found in both types. The paper will present new management approaches and problems for preserving both cultural and natural values of designed landscapes based on two case studies from the Czech Republic (Petrohrad and Žehušicko).

Keywords

Designed landscapes Management Czech Republic Culture Nature Biocultural diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the NAKI grant of the Ministry of Culture, Czech Republic, No. DF12P01OVV001: Protection and management of historic cultural landscapes through Landscape Conservation Areas.

References

  1. Abendroth S, Kowarik I, Muller N, Lippe M (2012) The green colonial heritage: woody plants in parks of Bandung, Indonesia. Landscape and Urban Plan 106:12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnoletti M (2014) Rural landscape, nature conservation and culture: some notes on research trends and management approaches from a (southern) European perspective. Landscape and Urban Plan 126:66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Plan 70:21–34. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black AE, Strand E, Wright RG, Scott JM, Morgan P, Watson C (1998) Land use history at multiple scales: implications for conservation planning. Landscape and Urban Plan 43(1–3):49–63. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00096-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boucníková E, Kučera T (2005) How natural and cultural aspects influence land cover changes in the Czech Republic? Ekológia Bratislava 24:69–82Google Scholar
  6. Capelo S, Barata FT, Mascarenhas JM (2011) Why are cultural landscapes of various values? Thinking about heritage landscape evaluation and monitoring tools. J Landscape Ecol 4(1):5–17Google Scholar
  7. Chytrý M, Kučera T, Kočí M, Grulich V, Lustyk P (2010) Katalog biotopů České republiky. Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  8. ČNR (1987) Zákon České národní rady č. 20, o státní památkové péči. Sbírka zákonů Československé socialistické republiky 6:214–227Google Scholar
  9. ČNR (1992) Zákon České národní rady č. 114/1992 Sb., o ochraně přírody a krajiny. Sbírka zákonů České a Slovenské federativní republiky 28:666–692Google Scholar
  10. COE (1985) Convention for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe, Granada, ETS no. 121. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  11. COE (2000) European landscape convention, Florence, CETS no. 176. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  12. Faustusová-Tomsová S (1958) Žehušický park. Botanický průvodce. Krajský dům osvěty v Pardubicích, PardubiceGoogle Scholar
  13. Gfeller AE (2013) Negotiating the meaning of global heritage: ‘cultural landscapes’ in the UNESCO world heritage convention, 1972–92. J Glob Hist 8(3):483–503. doi: 10.1017/S1740022813000387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grešlová Kušková P (2013) A case study of the Czech agriculture since 1918 in a socio-metabolic perspective—from land reform through nationalisation to privatisation. Land Use Policy 30:592–603. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gullino P, Larcher F (2013) Integrity in UNESCO world heritage sites. A comparative study for rural landscapes. J Cult Heritage 14:389–395. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2012.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gustavsson E, Lennartsson T, Emanuelsson M (2007) Land use more than 200 years ago explains current grassland plant diversity in a Swedish agricultural landscape. Biol Conserv 138(1–2):47–59. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guth J, Kučera T (2005) Natura 2000 habitat mapping in the Czech Republic: methods and general results. Ekológia Bratislava 24:39–51Google Scholar
  18. Guth J et al (2002) Metodika mapování biotopů soustavy Natura 2000 a Smaragd. AOPK ČR, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  19. Heber FA (1844) Böhmens Burgen, Vesten und Bergschlösser, Zweiter Band. C. W. Medau und Comp., PragGoogle Scholar
  20. Houda J (1977) Zámecký park v Petrohradě. Kulturní měsíčník 3:13–14, 4:13–14, 6:11–13Google Scholar
  21. Jonsell M (2012) Old park trees as habitat for saproxylic beetle species. Biodivers Conserv 21:619–642. doi: 10.1007/s10531-011-0203-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanianska R, Kizeková M, Nováček J, Zeman M (2014) Land-use and land-cover changes in rural areas during different political systems: a case study of Slovakia from 1782 to 2006. Land Use Policy 36:554–566. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kozak MW (2013) Innovation, tourism and destination development: Dolnośląskie case study. Eur Plan Stud. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.784597
  24. Kümmerling M, Müller N (2012) The relationship between landscape design style and the conservation value of parks: a case study of a historical park in Weimar, Germany. Landscape Urban Plan 107:111–117. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsson S, Nilsson C (2005) A remote sensing methodology to assess the costs of preparing abandoned farmland for energy crop cultivation in Northern Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 28:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ledr J (1884) Děje panství a města Nových Dvorů. Karel Šolc, Kutná HoraGoogle Scholar
  27. Liira J, Lõhmus K, Tuisk E (2012) Old manor parks as potential habitats for forest flora in agricultural landscapes of Estonia. Biol Conserv 146:144–154. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lipský Z, Šantrůčková M, Weber M, Skaloš J, Novák P, Vávrová V, Kučera Z, Kukla P, Stroblová L (2011) Vývoj krajiny Novodvorska a Žehušicka ve středních Čechách. Karolinum, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  29. Lipský Z, Weber M, Stroblová L, Skaloš J, Šantrůčková M, Kučera Z, Dostálek J, Trantinová M (2013) Současnost a vize krajiny Novodvorska a Žehušicka ve středních Čechách. Karolinum, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  30. Lõhmus K, Liira J (2013) Old rural parks support higher biodiversity than forest remnants. Basic Appl Ecol 14:165–173. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2012.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Losvik MH (2007) Regional species pools of hay meadows: a case study. Appl Veg Sci 10(2):239–248. doi: 10.1658/1402-2001(2007)10[239:RSPOHM]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowenthal D (2005) Natural and cultural heritage. Int J Heritage Stud 11(1):81–92. doi: 10.1080/13527250500037088 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mallinis G, Emmanoloudis D, Giannakopoulos V, Maris F, Koutsias N (2011) Mapping and interpreting historical land cover/land use changes in a natura 2000 site using earth observational data: the case of Nestos delta, Greece. Appl Geogr 31:312–320. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell N, Rössler M, Tricaud PM (2009) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage Centre UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  35. Musaoglu N, Tanik A, Kocabas V (2005) Identification of land-cover changes through image processing and associated impacts on water reservoir conditions. Environ Manage 35(2):220–230. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-0270-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Aguayo M, Echeverria C (2014) Land use change and ecosystem services provision: a case study of recreation and ecotourism opportunities in Southern Chile. Landscape Ecol 29:329–344. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9958-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nestor BA, Mann WA (1998) An archival restoration of the horticultural and design elements of Barnsley Gardens, Georgia. Landscape Urban Plan 42:107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Novák F (1932) Dějiny městyse Žehušic. Obec Žehušice, ŽehušiceGoogle Scholar
  39. Novák P (2001) Paměť krajiny. Novodvorsko—Žehušicko. Martin Bartoš—Kuttna, Kutná HoraGoogle Scholar
  40. Nutt N, Nurme S, Hiob M, Salmistu S, Kotval Z (2013) Restoring Manor Parks: exploring and specifying original design and character through the study of dendrologous plants in estonian historical Manor Parks. Baltic For 19(2):280–288Google Scholar
  41. Parlament ČR (2006) Zákon č. 183, o územním plánování a stavebním řádu (stavební zákon). Sbírka zákonů České republiky 63:2226–2290Google Scholar
  42. Pătru-Stupariu I, Stupariu MS, Cuculici R, Huzui A (2011) Understanding landscape change using historical maps. Case study Sinaia, Romania. J Maps 7(1):206–220. doi: 10.4113/jom.2011.1151
  43. Petrovszki J, Mészáros J (2010) The Great Hungarian Plain in the sheets of Habsburg military survays and some historical maps—a case study of the Körös/Criş drainage basin. Acta Geod Geoph Hung 45(1):56–63. doi: 10.1556/AGeod.45.2010.1.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ponfikl JE (1821) Vollständige Topographie der Fideikommiss—Herrschaft Petersburg im Saazer Kreise in Böhmen. Gottlieb Haase, PragGoogle Scholar
  45. Quitt E (1971) Klimatické oblasti Československa. Studia. Geographica 16:1–73Google Scholar
  46. Rogge E, Dessein J, Verhoeve A (2013) The organisation of complexity: a set of five components to organise the social interface of rural policy making. Land Use Policy 35:329–340. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosicka Z, Sykorova J (2011) Planning cultural heritage protection is easier than managing an actual disaster. Acta Univ Agric et Silvic Mendel Brun 59(4):281–286Google Scholar
  48. Rössler Chief M (2007) World heritage cultural landscapes: a UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landscape Res 31(4):333–353. doi: 10.1080/01426390601004210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rott W (1902) Der politische Bezirk Podersam. Bezirkslehrervereines Podersam, PodersamGoogle Scholar
  50. Sadilová L (1983) Dřeviny zámeckého parku v Petrohradě. MSc thesis, Charles University in PragueGoogle Scholar
  51. Šantrůčková M, Weber M, Lipský Z, Stroblová L (2013) Participative landscape planning in rural areas: a case study from Novodvorsko, Zehusicko, Czech Republic. Futures 51:3–18. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2013.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Šimek P et al (2005) Regenerace zámeckého parku Kačina. Mendel University in Brno, Lednice na MoravěGoogle Scholar
  53. Skaloš J, Weber M, Lipský Z, Trpáková I, Šantrůčková M, Uhlířová L, Kukla P (2011) Using old military survey maps and orthophotograph maps to analyse long-term land cover changes—case study (Czech Republic). Appl Geogr 31:426–438. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sklenička P, Molnarová K, Brabec E, Kumble P, Pittnerová B, Pixová K, Salek M (2009) Remnants of medieval field patterns in the Czech Republic: analysis of driving forces behind their disappearance with special attention to the role of hedgerows. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:465–473. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slámová M, Jančura P, Daniš D (2013) Methods of historical landscape structures identification and implementation into landscape studies. Ekologia (Bratislava) 32(3):267–276. doi: 10.2478/eko-2013-0023 Google Scholar
  56. Špilar V (2000) Z historie obcí Petrohrad, Černčice, Bílenec. Žaket, PetrohradGoogle Scholar
  57. Timár G, Székely B, Molnár G, Ferencz C, Kern A, Galambos C, Gercsák G, Zentai L (2008) Combination of historical maps and satellite images of the Banat region—re-appearance of an old wetland area. Glob Planet Change 62:29–38. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UN (1973) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paris, November 16, 1972. 1037 U.N.T.S. 151, 27 U.S.T. 37, 11 I.L.M. 1358Google Scholar
  59. Van Eetvelde V, Antrop M (2009) Indicators for assessing changing landscape character of cultural landscapes in Flanders (Belgium). Land Use Policy 26(4):901–910. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vos W, Meekes H (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landscape Urban Plan 46(1–3):3–14. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zald HSJ (2009) Extent and spatial patterns of grass bald land cover change (1948–2000), Oregon Coast Range, USA. Plant Ecol 201:517–529. doi: 10.1007/s11258-008-9511-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zavadil AJ (1912) Kutnohorsko slovem i obrazem. Nakl. Karla Šolce, Kutná HoraGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silva Tarouca Research Institute for Landscape and Ornamental GardeningPrůhoniceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations