Advertisement

Comparative Analysis of Tourism Influence on Landscape Structure in Mallorca Using Remote Sensing and Socio-Economic Data Since the 50s

  • G. Banko
  • R. Elena
  • T. Wrbka
  • C. Estreguil
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 76)

Abstract

One of the main driving forces for changes in landscape structure and composition in Mediterranean islands like Mallorca is the extensive mass tourism. The direct influences on the spatial distribution of land cover types like the vast spreading of secondary houses, golf courses and road infrastructure can be observed in municipalities like Calvia, located nearby the coast in the vicinity of the capital city Palma. The indirect effects of tourism — due to changes in the socio-economic structure — cause the abandonment of old traditional agro-silvo-pastoral activities. The ageing of population in rural areas and the growing working opportunities in the tourist centres lead to a shortage in manpower for traditional forms of agriculture. These indirect changes effect mostly the rather remote municipalities like Escorca in the mountainous areas of the island. Using aerial images form the 50s to 90s the decline of extensively managed terraced fields of crops and olives as well as the major changes due to forest expansion could be documented in two communities (Calvia and Escorca) representing the opposed trends in landscape development. Especially the terraced fields, which expressed for a long time the sustainable use of land on the island, are threatened by the decline of management leading to walls crumbling and the erosion of valuable fields. In addition satellite images from the 80s and 90s provided an overall picture of landscape changes and enabled the assessment of the influence of these changes on biodiversity. Spatial indicators derived from remote sensing data are an essential tool to aggregate information on the landscape development and provide the base for monitoring these changes. This information is necessary to increase the awareness of the landscape changes and their effects on natural resources and to help to implement adequate policies for a sustainable land management.

Keywords

Landscape Structure Landscape Metrics Landscape Element Landscape Type Terrace Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angelstam, P., Pettersson, B. 1997. Principles of present Swedish forest biodiversity management. Ecological Bulletins 46: 191–203.Google Scholar
  2. Angelstam, P., Breuss, M., Mikusinski, G. 2000. Landscape scale indicators for the maintenance and restoration of forest biodiversity in Europe, to be published.Google Scholar
  3. Banko, G., Schneider, W., Wrbka, T., Schmitzberger, I., Estreguil, C. 2000. Einsatz von Fernerkundungs-und GIS-Methoden zur Charakterisierung europäischer Landschaften unter dem Aspekt der Erhaltung der Biodiversität. Angewandte Geographische Informationsverarbeitung XII: Beiträge zum AGIT-Symposium Salzburg 2000., J. Strobl, T. Blaschke, Salzburg, Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, S. 24–29.Google Scholar
  4. Bunce, R., Barr, C., Clarke, R., Howard, D., Lane, A. 1996. Land classification of Great Britain. Journal of Biogeography 23: 625–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dennis, J.G., Ruggiero, M.A. 1996. Biodiversity Inventory–Building and Inventory at the Scales from Local to Global. In Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes–Theory and Practice, S. 149–157. Edited by Szaro R.C., Johnston D.W, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. DG-Agriculture, EUROSTAT, JRC 2000. From land cover to landscape diversity in the European union. Brussels, European Commission, DG Agriculture.Google Scholar
  7. Dramstad, W.E. 1998. Landscape Indices–Useful Tools or Missleading Numbers?; In Key Concepts in Landscape Ecology Proceedings of the 1998 European Congress of the International Association for Landscape Ecology. Edited by Dover J.W., Bunce R. G.H., Iale Uk, S. pp. 63–69.Google Scholar
  8. Harper, J.L., Hawksworth, D.L. 1995. Preface. In Biodiversity–measurement and estimation. Edited by Hawksworth, D.L., Chapman and Hall, London. Pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
  9. Heywood, V.H. (ed.) 1995. Global biodiversity assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1140 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Kaenell, M. 1998. Biodiversity: a diversity in definition. In Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. P. Bachmann, M. Köhl, R. Päivinen (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Pp. 71–81.Google Scholar
  11. Kirby, K. 1996. Conservation of habitats; Conservation Biology, S., Longman: 141–153.Google Scholar
  12. Liaison Unit in Lisbon 1998. Third ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe. General declarations and resolutions adopted. Ministry of Agriculture, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  13. McGarigal, K., Marks, B. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-351, August 1995.Google Scholar
  14. Picket, S.T.A., White, P.S. 1985. The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, Inc. New York. 472 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Turner, M., Gardner, R. 1991. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology. New York, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forman, R., Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. London: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Voller, J., Harrison, S. 1998. Conservation biology principles for forested landscapes. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver. 243 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Wiens, J.A. 1989. The Ecology of Bird Communities. Vols 1 and 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 539+316 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Wiens, J.A., Milne, B.T. 1989. Scaling of landscapes in landscape ecology, or, landscape ecology from a beetle’s perspective. Landscape Ecology 3: 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson, E.O. 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 521 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Wrbka, T., Szerencsits, E., Moser, D., Reiter, K. 1999. Biodiversity patterns in cultivated landscapes: experiences and first results from a nationawide Austrian survey. In Heterog eneity in Landscape Ecology: Pattern and Scale; Proc.of the eigth Annual Conference of IALE: pp. 3–21. Edited by Maudsley, M., Marshall, J., Bristol.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Banko
    • 1
  • R. Elena
    • 2
  • T. Wrbka
    • 3
  • C. Estreguil
    • 4
  1. 1.Department for nature protectionFederal Austrian Environment AgencyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Escuela Universitaria de Ingenieria Tecnica Forestal, Departamento de SilvopasciculturaUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.Institute for Ecology and nature conservationUniversity ViennaViennaAustria
  4. 4.Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Land Use and Land Cover UnitJoint Research CentersIspra, VareseItaly

Personalised recommendations