The Characterisation of “Living” Landscapes: The Role of Mixed Descriptors and Volunteering Geographic Information

  • Ernesto Marcheggiani
  • Andrea Galli
  • Hubert Gulinck
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6782)


Over the last decade the need for public bodies to characterise the vitality and degree of sustainability of their territories is well acknowledged. Still it remains unclear how to integrate the different categories of values of our daily life places in a comprehensive way in order to develop appropriate and well balanced policies. An experimental case has been designed to provide novel sets of indicators by integrating information extracted from custom maps, spatial descriptors of land use and land cover and socio-economic indicators. In order to fully grasp the character of a living place, the nuances of less tangible aspects should be also understood. To do so, the results developed during first steps have been subsequently refined by incorporating relevant volunteering geographical information available on Google Earth® platform.


Volunteered Geographic Information Complexity assessment and mapping Mixed open spaces characterization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abd-Elrahmana, A.H., et al.: A community-based urban forest inventory using online mapping services and consumer-grade digital images. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 12, 249–260 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amichai-Hamburger, Y.: Potential and promise of online volunteering. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 544–562 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cruickshank, J. A.: A play for rurality – Modernization versus local autonomy. Journal of Rural Studies 25, 98–107 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klosterman, R.E.: The appropriateness of geographic information systems for regional planning in the developing world. In: Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. European Landscape Convenction, ETS No 176, vol. 19(1), p. 13. Council of Europe, Florence (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cushman, S.A., McGarigal, K., Neel, M.C.: Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength, universality, and consistency. Ecological Indicators 8, 691–703 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilg, A.: An Introduction to Rural Geography. Arnold, London (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leitão, A.B., et al.: Measuring Landscapes: A Planners Handbook. Island Press, Washington, D.C (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Linehan, J., Meier, G.: Back to future, back to basic: the social ecology of landscape and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 42, 207–223 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marcheggiani, E., module, M., Colantonio R., V., Galli, A.: Integrated indicators in environmental planning: methodological considerations and applications. Ecological Indicators 6(1), 228–237 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marcheggiani, E., Bomans, K., Galli, A., Gulinck, H.: New ways of landscape diagnosis. In Living Landscape: The European Landscape Convention in Research Perspective 9, 256–270 (2010) ISBN: 978-88-8341-458-9 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matthews, K.B., Sibbald, A.S., Craw, S.: Implementation of a spatial decision support system for rural land use planning: integrating geographic information system and environmental models with search and optimisation algorithms. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 23, 9–26 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J.: FRAGSTATS: a spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA Forest Service. GTR PNW 351 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A., Stafford, S.G.: Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research. Springer, New York (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A., Neel, M.C., Ene, E.: FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. In: Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA (2002), Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, p. 245 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regione Marche, Programma di Sviluppo Rurale 2007-2013, Reg.CE 1698/05 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mountrakis, G., AvRuskin, G.: Modeling Rurality using Spatial Indicators (2005),
  18. 18.
    Nowak, D.J., Noble, M.H., Sisinni, S.M., Dwyer, J.F.: People & trees: assessing the US urban forest resource. Journal of Forestry, 37–42 (March 2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riitters K.H., O’Neil R.V., Hunsaker C.T., Wickham J.D., Yankee D.H., Timmins S.P., Jones K.B., and Jackson B.L.: A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics, Landscape Ecology 10(1) 23-39,(1955) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rizov, M.: Rural development and welfare implications of CAP reforms. Journal of Policy Modeling 26, 209–222 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uuemaa, E., Antrop, M., Roosaare, J., Marja, R., Mander, U.: Landscape Metrics and Indices: An Overview of Their Use in Landscape Research. Living Rev. Landscape Res. 3, 1 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernesto Marcheggiani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrea Galli
    • 2
  • Hubert Gulinck
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Forest, Nature and Landscape, Department of Earth and Environmental SciencesKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Department SAIFET – Section of Agricultural Engineering and LandscapeTechnical University of MarcheAnconaItaly

Personalised recommendations