Sustainability and Slovenian Karst Landscapes: Evaluation of a Low Karst Plain
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Area
2.2. Methods
3. Results
3.1. Karst Disturbance Index
- Quarrying/mining: Quarry locations were first identified from a 1984 map of quarrying and mining activities in Bela krajina [37], and then these locations were verified with Lidar data from 2014 and DOF from 2014/2015. The size of inactive quarries was measured using GIS. All identified quarrying and mining activities in the region are classified as minor. A rating of 3 was assigned to this indicator for the municipality of Črnomelj, where ten quarry/mining sites are located, with one large coal mine. In the municipality of Semič there are seven small mining sites, therefore this indicator was assigned a score of 2. In the municipality of Metlika there are three small quarries, therefore we assigned a score of 1 to this indicator.
- Surface flooding (artificial surfaces): Taking into consideration the flood hazard maps for rare floods [34], we concluded that there are no catastrophic or frequent floods in Bela krajina, but only some occasional flooding. Therefore, this indicator is 0 in all three municipalities.
- Storm water drainage (% of total stormwater funnelled into ponors): From the classification of registered caves, we identified eight ponors within the study region [38]. However, it is important to note that all of the water bodies in the study region are small in size and none of these eight ponors have a high disturbance impact, therefore the maximum rating is 2.
- Infilling caves (% of infilled caves): Bela krajina has 622 registered caves [38]. Almost 19% (118) of Bela krajina’s caves are considered degraded (destroyed and polluted), of which 1.4% are destroyed and 17.5% are polluted [39]. 70 degraded caves are located in the municipality of Črnomelj, 15 in the municipality of Metlika and 33 degraded caves in the municipality of Semič. In all three municipalities, the percentage of degraded caves is ranked on a scale of 1–33%, so this indicator was rated 1 for all three municipalities.
- Illegal waste dumping: In Črnomelj there are 98 illegal landfills covering a total area of 20,755 m2, which is 0.006% of the Črnomelj municipality. In Metlika there are 32 illegal landfills covering 2870 m2 or 0.003% of the municipality area. In Semič, 57 illegal landfills were identified, covering a total of 16,834 m2 [40] or 0.011% of the municipality area. From these numbers, we assigned Črnomelj and Metlika a score of 1 and Semič a score of 2, as this municipality has a comparatively higher number of areas affected by waste disposal than the other two municipalities. In reality, this number could be higher than indicated, as there could be many more illegal dumpsites that have not yet been identified/mapped. However, these figures are a good estimate of the environmental impact that this activity could have in the study region.
- Soil erosion: More than 38% of the cultivated land within the Črnomelj municipality poses a severe erosion risk due to its slope. Only about 8% is classified as low erosion risk and slightly more than 25% as moderate erosion risk. About the same percentage of the area has a high erosion risk. Approximately 42% of the cultivated land within the Metlika municipality is located in areas considered to have a severe erosion risk, while 12% is at low risk of erosion. 25% of the cultivated land has a moderate erosion risk and 21% has a high erosion risk. These values are very similar to those of Črnomelj municipality, so both municipalities were assigned a high erosion risk (considering that about 40% of cultivated land has a severe erosion risk). According to erosion indicators, Semič is the most affected municipality in the region, where almost 75% of cultivated land is located in places with severe erosion risk. Only slightly more than 1% have low erosion risk, about 8% have moderate erosion risk and the rest have high erosion risk. Therefore, this municipality was given a score of 3.
- Compaction due to livestock or humans: The share of land use activities causing soil compaction (in pastures and built-up areas) is quite similar in all three municipalities and is 2.9% in Črnomelj, 4.6% in Metlika and 2.2% in Semič. All three municipalities have a share of pastures and urban infrastructure between 1–33%, therefore all of them were assessed as 1, which corresponds to some isolated concentrated areas of compaction due to livestock and people.
- Subsurface flooding (human-induced cave flooding due to surface alteration): No dams have been built in the study region. Natural flooding events occur due to high rainfall, but not due to dams, therefore this indicator is zero in all three municipalities.
- Cave formation removal or vandalism: Many of the registered caves in the study region were recently discovered and had never been visited before; at least, there was no evidence of human intervention in these newly-registered caves. Cave tourism is not a significant economic activity in Bela krajina. There is one known tourist cave, Malikovec cave, located in Semič municipality. Nevertheless, some cases of speleothem mining were found in all three municipalities through the survey of Cave Registry [38]. In Črnomelj, six caves with speleothem removal were found. In Semič municipality, only one cave identified was affected by the removal of cave formations. Also, in Metlika, one cave was identified with cave formation removal. As these cases are isolated examples of removal compared to the total number of existing caves in the study region, this indicator was scored as 1 for all three municipalities.
- Mineral and sediment removal: In Slovenia, the extraction of minerals and sediments from caves is prohibited for economic reasons [41], nevertheless, while reviewing cave records, we found one case of sediment extraction that is located in Metlika municipality. Therefore, we assigned a 1 for Metlika municipality. The other two municipalities were considered untouched in terms of mineral and sediment removal.
- Floor sediment compaction-destruction: This indicator is zero for all three municipalities. Since only one cave can be considered as touristic (Malikovec Cave) within the study region, the path through Malikovec Cave is not limited to a single small path used by cave visitors, but the entire cave floor has been damaged or even destroyed. However, the impact can be disregarded in terms of its significance for the assessment of sediment compaction-destruction of the ground in the municipality/region.
- Desiccation: Only Malikovec Cave was considered a touristic cave that could be affected by desiccation. Since there are no artificial entrances in the Malikovec Cave that affect the desiccation of the cave, this indicator was evaluated as 0 for the Semič municipality, as well as for the other two municipalities, since there are no touristic caves where this impact is usually greater.
- Human-induced condensation, corrosion: This indicator is scored zero for all three municipalities for the same reasons as the previous four indicators.
- Pesticides and herbicides: If we consider the impact of this indicator only through the share of cultivated fields, orchards and vineyards, the share of land on which herbicides and pesticides are applied is 7.2% in Črnomelj, 13.7% in Metlika and 1.8% in Semič. Thus, this percentage is below 33% in all three municipalities and we therefore believe that these values indicate low use of chemicals in all three municipalities, which is why they were scored as 1. However, through literature research we discovered information about one pig farm located in Črnomelj municipality. This pig farm is considered problematic due to the spreading of manure, which leads to an unbearable smell [42]. Although there is no evidence (monitoring) of groundwater pollution, it is possible that this activity may cause groundwater pollution (this issue has been reported in the media, e.g., [43]). Therefore, this indicator for the municipality of Črnomelj was assessed as 2.
- Industrial and petroleum spills or dumping: We summarised all wastewater treatment plants according to their location within the three municipalities, as well as in all existing industries. According to these data, Črnomelj was rated 2 because there are 11 wastewater treatment plants and industries that pose a potential risk for spillage and dumping. Metlika was also rated 2, as there are 13 facilities in the municipality. Although there are only four facilities in Semič, we assigned the highest score to this municipality. An anthropogenic disaster in the mid-1980s due to improper handling of hazardous PCBs from the dumping of condensers in the unprotected karst hinterland of the Krupa River slowly leached PCBs into the sub-surface, which later reappeared in the Krupa spring. Long-term monitoring measurements show that the pollution of the Bela krajina with PCBs has gradually decreased, but the concentration in the area of the Krupa River and in the immediate surroundings of the Iskra factory in Semič, as well as in individual elements of the food chain, is still high. The Krupa River is still the main source of PCB emissions in the environment through water evaporation [44].
- Occurrence of algal blooms: According to the Map of Sensitive Areas due to Eutrophication [34], there are no sensitive areas due to eutrophication in the study region, therefore this indicator was scored 0 for the three municipalities.
- Changes in the water table (decline in meters): The variability of water levels could not be calculated because the national hydrological monitoring data from the Slovenian Environmental Agency are not complete, so the comparison of these values between different years is not possible. Thus, there is a lack of data for this indicator.
- Changes in cave drip waters: We do not have available data for this indicator because there are no studies on the relationship between land use activities outside caves and cave drip water in Slovenian caves; this type of monitoring has not been carried out in Slovenia so far. Kogovšek [45] demonstrated that runoff water entering karst waters after precipitation was polluted due to the proximity of a highway. However, this study did not take place in Bela krajina, and therefore a “Lack of Data” was assigned to this indicator for the three municipalities.
- Vegetation removal (% of the total): Since in Slovenia “clear-cutting is prohibited as a form of forest management” [46] and there had been no recent fires in any of the three municipalities, this indicator was scored 0 for all three municipalities.
- Species richness in caves (% decline): The number of cave-dwelling species in Slovenia is among the highest in the world [47,48]. The best-known cave-dwelling species is the Proteus or Olm (Proteus anguinus), an endemic amphibian of the underground waters of Dinaric Karst [47,49]. Two subspecies of Proteus occur in Bela krajina, the White Olm (Proteus anguinus anguinus) and the Black Olm (Proteus anguinus parkelj). The latter subspecies is rare and endemic to and known only in the Bela krajina region [47]. Culver and colleagues [48] studied patterns of species richness in Slovenian caves. The authors found an increase in species richness in the Bela krajina region from 1940 to 2000, but comparisons between years are difficult because new caves and new species are constantly being discovered [48], which complicates the monitoring process. In the absence of species richness studies separated by decades for the study region to show some degree of disturbance, a “Lack of Data” was assigned.
- Population density in caves (% decline): As the Olm is a habitat specialist among cave dwellers, it would be a suitable indicator species for the condition of subterranean habitats [47]. Therefore, we could use population data for this species as an indicator since it is an umbrella species; yet, there is no systematic monitoring of groundwater quality at the national level, and especially for the study region, limited to sites of Olm or other cave fauna [47], so a “Lack of Data” was assigned for the three communities here as well.
- Groundwater species richness (% decline): Slovenia has a remarkable concentration of groundwater fauna compared to other countries [50]. Studies of groundwater species in Slovenia exist, but they do not take into account temporal variation in species numbers, and these studies have not been conducted for the study region. Therefore, we assigned “Lack of Data” for the same reason as for the previous two indicators.
- Destruction/removal of historical artefacts (% taken): This indicator refers to historical artefacts that have been removed from their original locations. Through literature research (e.g., [53]) we found two cases located in the Črnomelj municipality. The tumulus cemetery Veliki Nerajec originally had at least seven tumuli, but only two of them are partially ploughed up today. In the Šipek cemetery, locals ploughed up various objects, destroying and scattering them [53]. There are probably more cases of destruction or removal of historical artefacts, although only these two cases have been identified. We assigned a rating of 2 to the Črnomelj municipality and 0 to the other two municipalities.
- Regulatory protection: Although the entire region is not fully protected, all three municipalities have protected areas that directly or indirectly protect the karst environment; therefore, the Regulatory Protection indicator was scored as 1 for all municipalities. The regulatory protection present in the study region is as follows:
- Natura 2000;
- Lahinja Landscape Park;
- Kolpa Landscape Park;
- The Underground Cave Protection Act.
- Enforcement of regulations: Through literature searches we could not find any information on this indicator. During the fieldwork we noticed some information boards near protected areas and some caves. However, no additional enforcement measures were found, so we gave a score of 2 to all three municipalities on this issue.
- Public education: During the research we had contact with many people from the region, and we found that many people from Bela krajina are also active in nature conservation. There are several non-profit organisations connected with nature conservation (Proteus, Eko društvo Krupa, various caving clubs). The NGO Proteus was founded to participate in environmental protection and to intervene in cases and processes that harm nature in Bela krajina. Among the caving associations active in Bela krajina are Novo mesto Caving Club, Krka Caving Club and Črnomelj Caving Club, which organise annual caving schools aimed specifically at schoolchildren. This educational programme aims to teach people about karst and karst phenomena, focusing on the characteristics of the Dolenjska karst (i.e., karst of southeast Slovenia); the living environment of caves and the fauna of the Dolenjska karst; together with the risks and protection of karst and the Underground Cave Protection Act [41,54]. These topics are also covered in some subjects of the school curriculum, where students learn about karst features and the vulnerability of the karst environment (e.g., [55,56]). Therefore, based on the above initiatives, we have given all three municipalities a score of 1, as we believe that more activities could take place with local residents.
- Building of roads: There are no highways in Bela krajina, only national and regional roads. It is important to mention that in Slovenia roads have a great impact on the environment even in winter due to the heavy use of road salt during icy conditions [57]. In the summer months, traffic in Bela krajina increases greatly because Bela krajina is a border region with Croatia, which allows the passage of people towards the Croatian coast. Therefore, we assigned a value of 1 to all three municipalities, as all three are similarly affected by roads and traffic.
- Building on karst features: The highest rating of this indicator (3) represents the presence of large cities, but as only towns and villages are present in the region, this indicator was rated as 2 for all three municipalities.
- Construction within caves: Although there is a path through the Malikovec Cave, its impact can be neglected compared to its importance for the municipality in which it is located, therefore this indicator has been assigned a value of 0 for the municipality of Črnomelj and also for the other two municipalities where no construction work inside caves is recorded.
3.2. Quantitative Assessment of Sustainable Development (Sustainable Development Indicators)
3.3. Qualitative Assessment of the Sustainable Development (Structured Interviews)
3.4. Model Matrix and Plausible Future Scenarios for Bela Krajina
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 999–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Beynen, P.; Brinkmann, R.; van Beynen, K. A sustainability index for karst environments. J. Cave Karst Stud. 2012, 74, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brinkmann, R.; Jo Garren, S. Karst and Sustainability; Karst, M., van Beynen, P.E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 361–378. [Google Scholar]
- Burri, E.; Castiglioni, B.; Sauro, U. Agriculture, Landscape and Human Impact in Some Karst Areas of Italy. Int. J. Speleol. 1999, 28, 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Urich, P.B. Land Use in Karst Terrain: Review of Impacts of Primary Activities on Temperate Karst Ecosystems; Science Publishing, Science & Research Unit: Wellington, New Zealand, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Zorn, M.; Kumer, P.; Ferk, M. Od gozda do gozda ali kje je goli, kamniti Kras? [From Forest to Forest or Where is the Bare Rocky Karst?]. Kronika 2015, 63, 561–574. [Google Scholar]
- Breg, M. Degradation of dolines on Logaško polje (Slovenia). Acta Carsol. 2007, 36, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Earth Summit. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; UNCED: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- World Summit on Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
- Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
- Van Beynen, P.; Townsend, K.A. Disturbance Index for Karst Environments. Environ. Manag. 2005, 36, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smrekar, A.; Urbanc, M.; Kladnik, D.; Breg, M.; Erhartič, B.; Nared, J.; Petek, F. Kras kot razvojni potencial: V iskanju ravnovesja med varovanjem in razvojem [Karst as a development potential: In search of a balance between protection and development]. In Veliki Razvojni Projekti in Skladni Regionalni Razvoj; Nared, J., Perko, D., Ravbar, M., Horvat, A., Hren, M., Juvančič, L., Piry, I., Rončević, B., Eds.; Založba ZRC: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2007; pp. 91–101. [Google Scholar]
- Luthar, O.; Dobrovoljc, H.; Fridl, J.; Mulec, J.; Pavšek, M. (Eds.) Kras, Trajnostni Razvoj Kraške Pokrajine [Karst, Sustainable Development of Karst Landscapes]; Založba ZRC: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bonacci, O. (Ed.) Sustainability of the Karst Environment Dinaric Karst and Other Karst Regions. In Proceedings of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Conference, Plitvice Lakes, Croatia, 23–26 September 2009; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gabrovšek, F.; Knez, M.; Kogovšek, J.; Mihevc, A.; Mulec, J.; Perne, M.; Pipan, T.; Prelovšek, M.; Slabe, T.; Šebela, S.; et al. Development challenges in karst regions: Sustainable land use planning in the karst of Slovenia. Carbonate Evaporite 2011, 26, 365–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gams, I. Kras v Sloveniji v Prostoru in Času [Karst in Slovenia in Space and Time]; Založba ZRC: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Lah, A. Voda-Vodovje: Poglavitni Življenjski vir Narave in Gospodarstva; Svet za varstvo okolja Republike Slovenije: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Gams, I.; Lovrenčak, F.; Ingolič, B. Krajna vas: A study of the natural conditions and of agrarian land utilization on the Karst. Geogr. Zb. 1971, 12, 221–261. [Google Scholar]
- Kladnik, D.; Senegačnik, J. Opredelitev Naselij s Kraškim Površjem [Definition of Settlements with Karst Surface]; Inštitut za Geografijo Univerze Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1983.
- Kladnik, D. Dinarski svet. In Slovenija—Pokrajine in Ljudje; Perko, D., Orožen Adamič, M., Eds.; Mladinska Knjiga: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1998; pp. 296–309. [Google Scholar]
- Cunder, T. Območja z Omejenimi Dejavniki za Kmetijstvo in Reforma Kmetijske Politike v Sloveniji; Učinki Reforme Slovenske Kmetijske Politike: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2001; pp. 83–100. [Google Scholar]
- Ciglič, R.; Hrvatin, M.; Komac, B.; Perko, D. Karst as a criterion for defining areas less suitable for agriculture. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2012, 52, 61–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Habič, P. Hidrografska rajonizacija krasa v Sloveniji. Krs Jugosl. 1969, 6, 79–91. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, D. Bela Krajina—Sustainability in a Karst Landscape; Razpotnik Visković, N., Šmid Hribar, M., Eds.; Založba ZRC: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravbar, M. Razvojni potenciali slovenskih občin. IB Rev. 2014, 48, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Vintar Mally, K. Regional differences in Slovenia from the viewpoint of achieving Europe’s sustainable development. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2018, 58, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rovan, J.; Malešič, K.; Bregar, L. Blaginja občin v Sloveniji [Well-being of the municipalities in Slovenia]. Geod. Vestn. 2009, 53, 70–91. [Google Scholar]
- Kazalniki Blaginje v Sloveniji. Available online: http://www.kazalniki-blaginje.gov.si/ (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Statistični Register Delovno Aktivnega Prebivalstva; Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2015. Available online: http://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/5198 (accessed on 9 February 2017).
- Slovene Statistical Regions and Municipalities in Numbers; Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2008 2011 2015. Available online: http://www.stat.si/obcine/en (accessed on 24 March 2017).
- Raba Kmetijskih Zemljišč, po Občinah, Slovenija; Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2000 2010. Available online: http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Kmetijstvo_2010/00_kazalniki/05_15P92_obcine/05_15P92_obcine.asp (accessed on 10 May 2017).
- Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation. Nature Conservation Atlas; Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2000. Available online: https://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/web/DefaultNvaPublic.aspx?culture=en-US (accessed on 11 May 2017).
- Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. Land Use Data Base; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2016. Available online: http://rkg.gov.si/GERK/ (accessed on 25 April 2016).
- Slovenian Environmental Agency. Atlas of the Environment; Slovenian Environmental Agency: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2016. Available online: http://gis.arso.gov.si/atlasokolja/profile.aspx?id=Atlas_Okolja_AXL@Arso (accessed on 12 May 2016).
- MacDonald, D.H.; Bark, R.; MacRae, A.; Kalivas, T.; Grandgirard, A.; Strathearn, S. An interview methodology for exploring the values that community leaders assign to multiple-use landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Filepné Kovács, K.; Valánszki, I.; Sallay, Á.; Jombach, S.; Mikházi, Z.; Kollányi, L. Landscape function analysis as a base of landscape visions. Acta Univ. Sapientiae Agric. Environ. 2015, 7, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bukovac, J.; Poljak, M.; Šušnjar, M.; Čakalo, M. Tumač za List Črnomelj: L 33-91: Osnovna Geološka Karta, 1:100 000; Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija: Beograd, Serbia, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Jamarska Zveza Slovenije. Cave Registry; Jamarska Zveza Slovenije: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, D.; Tičar, J. The problematics of cave pollution in Bela krajina. Nat. Slov. 2017, 19, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
- Register of Wild Landfills. Available online: http://register.ocistimo.si/RegisterDivjihOdlagalisc/ (accessed on 8 April 2016).
- Zakon o Varstvu Podzemnih Jam [Underground Cave Protection Act]; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 2/2004, 61/2006 and 46/2014; Uradni List Republike Slovenije: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2004.
- Društvo Proteus. Stanje Območij Natura 2000 za Človeško Ribico, Okoljske Nevarnosti na Terenu in Predlog Ukrepov; Društvo Proteus: Črnomelj, Slovenia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Rajšek, B. Stariha za Smrad Krivi Prebavne Težave Prašičev. Available online: http://www.delo.si/novice/slovenija/stariha-za-smrad-kriviprebavne-tezave-prasicev.html (accessed on 20 September 2016).
- Plut, D. Bela krajina. In Regionalnogeografska Monografija Slovenije; Perko, D., Ed.; Geografski Inštitut Znanstvenoraziskovalni Center SAZU: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1996; pp. 40–60. [Google Scholar]
- Kogovšek, J. Podrobno spremljanje kvalitete vode, odtekajoče z avtoceste in njen vpliv na kraško vodo. Annales 1995, 5, 149–154. [Google Scholar]
- Zakon o Gozdovih [Act on Forests]; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 30/93, 56/99, 67/02, 110/02, 115/06, 110/07, 106/10, 63/13, 101/13, 17/14, 24/15, 9/16 in 77/16; Uradni List Republike Slovenije: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1993.
- Hudoklin, A. Are we guaranteeing the favourable status of the Proteus anguinus in the Natura 2000 network in Slovenia? In Pressures and Protection of the Underground Karst–Cases from Slovenia and Croatia; Prelovšek, M., Zupan Hajna, N., Eds.; Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU: Postojna, Slovenia, 2011; pp. 169–181. [Google Scholar]
- Culver, D.C.; Christman, M.C.; Sket, B.; Trontelj, P. Sampling adequacy in an extreme environment: Species richness patterns in Slovenian caves. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004, 13, 1209–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljančič, G.; Năpăruș-Aljančič, M.; Stanković, D.; Pavićević, M.; Gorički, Š.; Kuntner, M.; Merzlyakov, L. A Survey of the Distribution of Proteus Anguinus by Environmental DNA Sampling; CEPF Final Project Completion Report; Society for Cave Biology: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culver, D.C.; Sket, B. Hotspots of subterranean biodiversity in caves and wells. J. Cave Karst Stud. 2000, 62, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
- Sket, B. Biotic diversity of hypogean habitats in Slovenia and its cultural importance. In Biodiversity International Biodiversity Seminar; UNESCO: Gozd Martuljek, Slovenia, 1996; pp. 59–74. [Google Scholar]
- Sket, B. High Biodiversity in Hypogean Waters and Its Endangerment: The Situation in Slovenia, the Dinaric Karst, and Europe. Crustaceana 1999, 72, 767–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plut, D. Osnovne geografske značilnosti Bele krajine. In Bela Krajina in Krajinski Park Lahinja; Plut, D., Ed.; Znanstvena Založba Filozofske Fakultete: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2008; pp. 9–24. [Google Scholar]
- Program Jamarske Šole. Jamarski Klub Novo Mesto: Novo Mesto, Slovenia. Available online: http://www.jknm.si/si/izobrazevanje/program/ (accessed on 12 April 2016).
- Križnik, K.; Purkat, N. Učni Načrt. Geografija: Gimnazija: Splošna, Klasična, Ekonomska Gimnazija; Ministrstvo za Šolstvo in Šport; Zavod RS za Šolstvo: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2008. Available online: http://www.mss.gov.si/fileadmin/mss.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/ss/programi/2008/Gimnazije/UN_GEOGRAFIJA_gimn.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- Štrukelj, A. UČNI Načrt. Program. Osnovna Šola. Geografija; Ministrstvo za Šolstvo in Šport, Zavod RS za Šolstvo: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2011. Available online: http://www.mss.gov.si/fileadmin/mss.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/devetletka/predmeti_obvezni/Geografija_obvezni.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2016).
- Kogovšek, J.; Petrič, M. Ogroženost kraškega sveta. In Nesreče in Varstvo Pred Njimi; Ušeničnik, B., Ed.; Uprava RS za Zaščito in Reševanje, Ministrstvo za Obrambo: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2002; pp. 170–183. [Google Scholar]
- Hladnik, D. Spatial structure of disturbed landscapes in Slovenia. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 24, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paudel, S.; Yuan, F. Assessing landscape changes and dynamics using patch analysis and GIS modeling. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2012, 16, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swetnam, R. Rural land use in England and Wales between 1930 and 1988: Mapping trajectories of change with a high resolution spatio-temporal dataset. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Černe, A. Regional development perspectives of Slovenia. Dela 2003, 19, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ravbar, M. Razvojni Dejavniki v Sloveniji Ustvarjalnost in Naložbe; Založba ZRC: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Dissart, J.-C. Landscapes and regional development: What are the Links? Cah. D’economie Sociol. Rural. 2007, 84, 61–91. [Google Scholar]
- Deller, S.C.; Tsai, T.-H.; Marcouiller, D.W.; English, D.B.K. The role of amenities and quality of life in rural economic growth. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2001, 83, 352–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calò, F.; Parise, M. Evaluating the Human Disturbance to Karst Environments in Southern Italy. Acta Carsologica 2006, 35, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- North, L.A. Application and Refinement of the Karst Disturbance Index in West Central, Florida. Master’s Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Prelovšek, M.; Zupan Hajna, N. Pressures and Protection of the Underground Karst—Cases from Slovenia and Croatia; Inštitut za Raziskovanje Krasa ZRC SAZU: Postojna, Slovenia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Perko, D. The Regionalization of Slovenia. Geogr. Zb. 1998, 38, 12–57. [Google Scholar]
- Adamič, M.; Plut, D.; Kambič, A.; Kambič, M.; Štukelj, P. Strategija Razvoja Občine Semič do Leta 2020; Občina Semič: Semič, Slovenia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Nared, J.; Bole, D.; Breg Valjavec, M.; Ciglič, R.; Goluža, M.; Kozina, J.; Razpotnik Visković, N.; Repolusk, P.; Rus, P.; Tiran, J.; et al. Central Settlemens in Slovenia in 2016. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2017, 57, 57–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaltenborn, B.P.; Bjerke, T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, J.W. The Importance of Rural Development in the 21st Century—Persistence, Sustainability, and Futures. Future Aust. Ctry. Towns 2001, 19–31. [Google Scholar]
- Bisht, I.S.; Rana, J.C.; Pal Ahlawat, S. The Future of Smallholder Farming in India: Some Sustainability Considerations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kneafsey, M.; Venn, L.; Schmutz, U.; Balázs, B.; Trenchard, L.; Eyden-Wood, T.; Bos, E.; Sutton, G.; Blackett, M. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics; European Commission—JRC: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Palomo, I.; Martín-López, B.; López-Santiago, C.; Montes, C. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: The doñana social-ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Plut, D.; Brečko Grubar, V. Hidrogeografske značilnosti Lahinje in Krajinskega parka Lahinja [Hydrogeographical characteristics of Lahinja and Lahinja Landscape Park]. In Bela Krajina in Krajinski Park Lahinja; Znanstvena Založba Filozofske Fakultete: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lampič, B.; Mrak, I.; Plut, D. Geographical Identification of Development Potential for the Sustainable Development of Protected Areas in Slovenia. Hrvat. Geogr. Glas. 2011, 73, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruban, D. Karst as Important Resource for Geopark-Based Tourism: Current State and Biases. Resources 2018, 7, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kukovič, S.; Haček, M. Cross-Border Cooperation as a Tool of Escaping Crisis Conditions in Slovenia. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2018, 53, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokolpje Poslovna Priložnost [Pokolpje Business Opportunity]. Available online: https://www.pokolpje.si/ (accessed on 5 May 2017).
- Ribeiro, D.; Šmid Hribar, M. Assessment of land-use changes and their impacts on ecosystem services in two Slovenian rural landscapes. Acta Geogr. Slov. 2019, 59, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Questions | Farmers | Resident Non-Farmers | Professionals of Nature Protection | Tourism Professionals | Representatives of Local Governments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. What does the landscape provide you with? | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
2. What makes this landscape attractive? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
3. Does the landscape contribute to your well-being? How? | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
4. What are the characteristics of this landscape that distinguish this place from other landscapes? | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ |
5. Has the landscape changed from the past until now? Has it changed for better or worse, how and why? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
6. What are the main factors that influence landscape change? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
7. What role do you play in landscape management? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
8. What do you consider to be a valuable landscape? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ |
9. Do you think that agricultural activities affect the appearance of this landscape? | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
10. Do you recognise the overgrowth of the agricultural landscape? | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
11. Do the karst features of the landscape influence your activities? | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
12. Do you think that the karst characteristics of this landscape influence local development? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ |
13. Do you think that nature protection influences your activities? | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
14. Do you think that nature protection influences local development? | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ |
15. In your opinion is this landscape developed? Why? | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
16. What is the goal of the regional development process? | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
17. What problems have you encountered in reaching this goal? | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
18. Do you think that it is important to involve local stakeholders in decision-making processes on landscape management? | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
19. Are local stakeholders involved in the decision-making processes on landscape practices or management? How? | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
20. Do you see the increase in self-sufficiency in food as an employment opportunity for rural development? | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ | ✓ |
21. How do you see this landscape in 2030? | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Category | Attribute | Indicator | Črnomelj | Metlika | Semič |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Geomorphology | Surface landforms | Quarrying/mining | 3 | 1 | 2 |
Surface flooding | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Stormwater drainage | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
Infilling caves | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Illegal waste dumping | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
Soils | Soil erosion | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
Compaction due to livestock or humans | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Subsurface karst | Subsurface flooding | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Cave formation removal or vandalism | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Mineral and sediment removal | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Floor sediment Compaction— destruction | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Atmosphere | Air quality | Desiccation | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Human-induced condensation, corrosion | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Hydrology | Water quality (Surface practices) | Pesticides and herbicides | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Industrial and petroleum spills or dumping | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||
Water quality (springs) | Occurrence of algal blooms | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Water quantity | Changes in water table | LD | LD | LD | |
Changes in cave drip waters | LD | LD | LD | ||
Biota | Vegetation disturbance | Vegetation removal | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Subsurface biota, cave | Species richness in caves | LD | LD | LD | |
Population density in caves | LD | LD | LD | ||
Subsurface biota, ground water | Groundwater species richness | LD | LD | LD | |
Groundwater population density | LD | LD | LD | ||
Cultural | Human artefacts | Destruction/removal of historical artefacts | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Stewardship of Bela krajina | Regulatory protection | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Enforcement of regulations | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
Public education | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Building infrastructure | Building of roads | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Building on karst features | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
Construction within caves | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Municipality | Rating | Degree of Disturbance |
---|---|---|
Črnomelj | 0.26 | Low disturbance |
Metlika | 0.22 | Low disturbance |
Semič | 0.22 | Low disturbance |
Theme | Indicator | Črnomelj | Metlika | Semič | Bela Krajina |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Welfare | Purchasing power per capita (€) | = | – | + | 6906.7 |
Added value per employee (€) | – | – | + | 31,165.7 | |
Average annual gross salary per employee (€) | + | – | – | 1276.9 | |
Gross investment in new fixed assets per 1000 inhabitants (in 1000 €) | – | + | + | 5705.6 | |
Labour market | Job density (number of jobs per 1000 inhabitants) | – | = | + | 357.3 |
Location divergence | – | + | + | 88.6 | |
Registered unemployment rate (%) | – | + | + | 17.6 | |
Proportion of population with service occupations, by place of residence (%) | + | + | – | 45.1 | |
Proportion of population with tertiary education (%) | + | = | – | 9.5 | |
Traffic-geographical accessibility | Average travel time by car to the nearest accessible regional centre (minutes) | – | + | + | 32 |
Average travel time by car to the nearest accessible motorway or highway connection (minutes) | = | + | – | 29 | |
Proportion of population living within a radius of 0.5 km from the nearest public transport stop (%) | + | – | – | 71.6 |
Theme | Indicator | Črnomelj | Metlika | Semič | Bela Krajina |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agriculture | Organically farmed land (%) | – | – | + | 18.1 |
Wooded areas (m2/capita) | – | – | + | 22,077.2 | |
Intensively farmed land (cropland/grassland) | – | – | + | 0.70 | |
Infrastructure/ technology | Built-up areas (%) | + | – | + | 3.8 |
Housing with district heating (%) | + | + | – | 8.3 | |
Road freight transport growth index | / * | / | / | / | |
Motorisation rate (cars/100 people) | + | = | – | 52 | |
Livestock | Livestock density index (LSU/ha) | – | + | = | 0.54 |
Protected areas | Natura 2000 sites (%) | + | – | + | 43.4 |
Average expenditure on environmental protection (% GDP) | / | / | / | / | |
Management of natural resources | Water consumption (m3/capita) | / | / | / | / |
Treated wastewater (m3/capita) | / | / | / | / | |
Air quality (monitoring parameters) | / | / | / | / | |
Municipal waste (kg/capita) | + | – | = | 378.7 |
Theme | Indicator | Črnomelj | Metlika | Semič | Bela Krajina |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographic strength | Population density (people/km2) | – | + | – | 48.6 |
Ageing index | – | – | + | 126.4 | |
Natality (births per 1000 inhabitants) | – | = | + | 9.4 | |
Population growth (population index between 2010 and 2015) | = | + | = | 99.0 | |
Migration balance (%) | – | + | – | –3.4 | |
Proportion of economically active population among inhabitants, by place of residence (%) | – | = | + | 38.6 | |
Social situation | Proportion of population which receives social assistance (number of recipients/1000 people) | – | – | + | 37.3 |
Number of associations per 1000 inhabitants | = | + | – | 13.5 |
Domain of Sustainable Development | Črnomelj | Metlika | Semič |
---|---|---|---|
Economic | −2 | +2 | +2 |
Environmental | +1 | −3 | +3 |
Social | −6 | −2 | +1 |
Total score (sum) | −7 | −3 | +6 |
Economic Value | Environmental Value | Social Value | Landscape Type | Population Retention Capacity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Low | Low | Low | Degraded landscape | Low population retention capacity. |
Low | High | Low | Natural landscape | / |
Low | High | High | Traditional landscape with extensive agriculture and little industry. Agriculture is not retreating to a great extent but farms are extensively managed. This results in a traditional agricultural landscape. | Low population retention in the long-term due to low profitability. |
Low | Medium/High | Medium | Abandoned rural landscape characterised by a marked ageing of the population and a particularly sharp decline in agriculture, largely due to the poor transport infrastructure in these areas. These areas are at risk of depopulation. | Low population retention in the long-term due to low profitability, depopulation and land abandonment. |
Medium | High | High | Multifunctional cultural landscape | Strong ability to retain long-term population. |
Medium | High | Medium | Valuable natural and cultural landscape; landscape is preserved by agricultural subsidies and tourism | Ability to retain population through subsidies and tourism income. |
High | Low | High | Intensive agricultural (or industrial) landscape | Low population retention in the long-term due to consumption of environmental goods. |
Črnomelj | Metlika | Semič | |
---|---|---|---|
Economic value | Low | Medium-high | High |
Environmental value | High | Low | High |
Social value | Low | Medium | Medium |
Landscape type | Natural landscape | Intensive agricultural landscape | Valuable natural and cultural landscape |
Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 |
---|---|---|
The first scenario is based on the interpretation of the current situation of the Črnomelj municipality and assumes that the current situation will continue in the future, so that the landscapes of Bela krajina will become completely overgrown as a result of the poor demographic structure (depopulation, ageing population). The abandonment of agricultural land will continue and forests will expand regardless of agricultural potential. This scenario is likely to lead to a loss of cultural landscape. | The second scenario is based on the situation of Metlika municipality, which predicts that industry will grow on the account of nature and that built-up areas and infrastructure will expand. This will lead to an increase in job opportunities, migration will decrease and karst systems will be more affected. Agricultural activities will be more intensive, and an increase in the number of agricultural holdings and a decrease in the number of farms will take place. This scenario leads to unsustainable development of the study region. | The third scenario is based on the interpretation of the Semič municipality and assumes that agricultural land will be more or less preserved due to financial incentives, especially through the promotion of organic farming. The overgrowth process will stabilise. The number of small enterprises will increase, as will the creation of new jobs. Tourism will develop. Population growth will increase slightly. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ribeiro, D.; Zorn, M. Sustainability and Slovenian Karst Landscapes: Evaluation of a Low Karst Plain. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041655
Ribeiro D, Zorn M. Sustainability and Slovenian Karst Landscapes: Evaluation of a Low Karst Plain. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):1655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041655
Chicago/Turabian StyleRibeiro, Daniela, and Matija Zorn. 2021. "Sustainability and Slovenian Karst Landscapes: Evaluation of a Low Karst Plain" Sustainability 13, no. 4: 1655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041655