1. Introduction
Agriculture is considered a very important activity worldwide, securing most of the food required by humanity, and also having a significant influence on the shape of the landscape and its ability to fulfil various environmental functions and ecosystem services (ES) of benefit to society. All of these aspects vary according to the agricultural practices and technologies used [
1,
2]. The most significant development in Central and Eastern European agriculture in the second half of the 20th century was the collectivization process carried out as a part of a broad change of the socio-political system. Collectivization in Slovakia aimed at large-scale production of crops and meat by merging not only individual plots but also whole agricultural farms, which were then managed by centralized planning [
3,
4]. This process has had consequences for the overall landscape structure and quality [
5,
6]. As a result, a homogeneous large-scale agricultural landscape emerged, at the expense of the loss of the mosaic structure of traditional agricultural landscapes (TAL), as well as significant loss of small-scale patterns of non-forest permanent landscape vegetation [
7,
8,
9].
The remnants of TAL in the European countryside represent many ingenious agricultural systems that have been shaped by the dynamic interaction of people and nature for centuries and as a result have also sustained high levels of agro-biodiversity [
10]. The traditional practices deployed also represent a wealth of unique cultural heritage [
11]. TAL in Slovakia constitute extensively utilized agricultural plots or mosaics of cultivated fields, meadows, pastures, orchards and vineyards, or early abandoned plots with a low degree of succession. They are characterized by some of the following features: (1) Small-scale structure of plot division, and/or (2) primary land use unchanged by the collectivization of agriculture under socialism, and/or (3) the presence of typical agrarian landforms [
12,
13]. Generally, TAL tend to be more diverse, smaller in scale, and more clearly structured and ordered than other agricultural landscapes [
14,
15]. TAL often survive as small remnants as a consequence of land use changes and intensification of agriculture and could be considered as “islands of biodiversity” in the present landscape [
16,
17,
18].
Many scientific studies at the European level have shown that habitats with favorable conservation status tend to be characterized by higher species richness and that they show greater ability to provide ES than habitats with unfavorable status [
19]. A high level of landscape biodiversity is closely linked to traditional methods of agricultural practices, which are now gradually disappearing across Europe [
20,
21]. From this point of view, landscape features and visual forms could be a very important indicator [
22]. Several studies have confirmed that maintaining the TAL (and also the landscape character, or genius loci) is important with respect not only to wilderness protection due to the presence of semi-natural habitats [
23], but also to informed regional management [
21,
24,
25]. Also, a variety of studies have pointed out the importance of assessing the impact of the landscape structure and its spatial patterns [
26,
27,
28,
29,
30]. The spatial patterns of the agricultural landscape affects biodiversity, function, dynamics of landscapes, landscape-based values and other landscape features.
Nowadays, global socio-economic trends are reflected at the regional level, which is a serious threat in that it causes homogenization of the landscape [
31,
32,
33,
34]. For a better understanding of the drivers and subsequent impacts of agricultural intensification that have occurred as a result of land use changes, identification of archetypal patterns of landscape systems is needed [
35,
36]. Another possibility for assessing the importance of landscape structure and biodiversity for the quality of landscape is the use of evaluation methods based on the ES approach, which we have applied in this study. The term ES is simply defined as the benefits obtained by people from nature, its processes and its functions. The ES approach is becoming more widespread (see e.g., refs. [
37,
38,
39,
40]). There are various methods and many examples of ES assessment for a wide range of purposes and applications—current ES research includes (among others) such topics as the evaluation of the role of ES in different types landscape (agricultural, forest, urban or wetland landscape) on local and national level [
41,
42,
43,
44,
45], the role of ES in agricultural landscape diversity and productivity [
2,
46,
47,
48,
49,
50], and the impact on ES delivery of different land use [
51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
56]. In ES assessment, the agricultural landscape belongs to the most studied types of ecosystems.
This study aims to evaluate the potential of different types of agricultural landscape for the provision of functions and services to society, with regards to landscape utilization and management practices (traditional small-scale agriculture vs. large-scale cultivation patterns). Attention is paid to extensively cultivated farmland and TAL that are characterized by a higher diversity of landscape pattern and by the presence of semi-natural habitats. The hypothesis is that the traditional agricultural practices which are typical for TAL or extensively utilized farmland significantly contribute to the provision of ecological functions in the landscape and provide multifunctional services and benefits for society. The study is oriented towards (1) assessing the functional diversity of representative types of agricultural landscape in relation to the landscape stability, biodiversity and presence of semi-natural habitats; and (2) evaluating the selected ES in the chosen case-study areas, which represent different types of agricultural landscapes varying in form of land use and intensity of management.
3. Materials and Methods
To attain the objective, the research was organized into two main steps—mapping and assessment of selected landscape features in the four case-study areas, followed by an assessment of the main ecosystem functions and services based on the expert assessment and GIS procedures by application of two different approaches.
3.1. Mapping and Assessment of Selected Landscape Features
Field mapping was performed, principally to assess the bio- and landscape diversity in four case-study areas. Landscape diversity was assessed based on the natural conditions and the land cover concerning the presence of semi-natural habitats and their biodiversity. During the field research, which was conducted in 2010–2015, special attention was paid to semi-natural habitats (grassland, shrubs and trees), and their species composition, spatial distribution and connectivity of landscape elements, and their ability to support ecosystem function and ES provision. The assessment of expected functions and services (e.g., provision of food, nesting sites, dispersal routes, regulation & maintenance) provided by the species or species group(s) of interest was based on the concept of functional landscape heterogeneity [
62]. The following indicators representing the structural and functional features of ecosystems were mapped in detail in the field:
Wild plants and their outputs: Wild plants species and their outputs, expressed by the amount of harvested fruits, herbs collected
Fodder, fiber, timber, firewood: Material by amount, type, use
Mediation of waste, toxins and other pollutants: Species composition of biota supporting biological filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation of pollutants in land/soil, freshwater; visual screening of transport corridors e.g., by trees; green infrastructure to reduce noise and smells
Mediation of flows: Flood or erosion protection by appropriate land coverage like grassland, small woodland, agrarian landforms; vegetation cover protecting/stabilizing terrestrial and riparian ecosystems
Pollination and seed dispersal: Pollination by bees and other insects, number of hives; species’ relation to seed dispersal by insects, birds and other animals, or by wind, or to vegetative reproduction
Pest and disease control: Naturalness of habitats that contribute to pest and disease control including resistance to invasion by alien species
Recreational, physical and experiential interactions: By visits/use data, plants, animals, ecosystem type and preferred activities like walking, hiking, leisure fishing and leisure hunting
Landscape aesthetics and inspiration: The subject matter of or inspiration for publications, artists, folklore.
The field survey was also focused on the intensity of land use (intensively utilized, extensively utilized, and abandoned) as the aim was to compare the traditional farming practices with modern intensive agriculture concerning their impact on the landscape and its provision of ES. Three different types of agricultural landscapes were taken into consideration, differing in landscape diversity, agricultural management and intensity of land use: small-scale agriculture linked to the TAL structures, intensively-utilized large-block agricultural plots, and new mosaics of small agricultural plots. The large-block agricultural landscape is a result of intensification and collectivization of agriculture; the new mosaics of small agricultural plots were created after 1989 by restoration of the land to the original owners.
For the ES division, we have used the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES [
63]), adapted for simple expert assessment of ES supply based on the field observation of indicators. In total 21 ES were considered, divided into 3 main sections: provisioning, regulation & maintenance, and cultural ES. The benefits of ES were assessed by 8 experts based on the fieldwork, using the observed indicators, and assigned a value from the following scale: 2—very positive effect, 1—positive, 0—neutral, −1—negative, −2—very negative effect or none at all. The final ES value was expressed as an average value of the individual experts´ assessments, given separately for each case-study area.
3.2. Assessment of Landscape Preconditions for ES Provision (Matrix-Based Approach)
The “matrix-based approach” has been used as a complementary method for ES assessment [
64,
65] in case-study areas. It is based on the combination of the spatial GIS analytical tools and expert evaluation. This method could be considered useful for “rapid assessment”—it is very flexible and can be applied at all spatial and temporal scales [
65]. Matrix assessment is often based on the reclassification of land cover/land use data, but other data could also be involved. By using this method, the study aims to demonstrate the differences in the landscape’s preconditions for ES provision between the basic types of agricultural landscape management as found in the study areas—TAL, large-block intensively utilized landscape, and extensively utilized agricultural areas.
As a basis for comparison, land cover maps of the case-study area cadasters were prepared by the digitization and interpretation of aerial photographs (orthophotomaps) taken in the year 2012 [
66,
67], using the ArcGIS software tools. Identification of the individual land cover elements was performed by “on screen digitalization” method the scale of 1:5000. Land cover classes were then assigned by visual interpretation of used aerial orthophotomaps, using a unified legend based on the CORINE land cover classes (CLC) [
68]. All 5 of the main Level 1 classes in the CLC nomenclature are represented in the study areas (artificial surfaces, agricultural areas, forests and semi-natural areas, wetlands and water bodies); in level 2 there are 13 from 15 groups represented. In level 3, of the 30 classes documented in the study areas, 23 are identical with the basic CLC legend, and 7 were modified. Finally, the level 4 classes were adapted for better determination of the TAL structures—in total, 68 classes were determined, of which 27 belong to the agricultural areas and 18 to the TAL structures (which are classified mainly as class 24, heterogeneous agricultural areas). The total size of the case study areas is 287.40 km
2, of which 21.4% (61.52 km
2) is agricultural land, and 29.3% (18.00 km
2) of that we have classified as TAL. The list of documented CLC classes found in the 4 case-study areas, and their spatial extents, is presented as
Supplementary S1.
For further assessment, relevant ES were selected based on a deliberative and expert-based approach (discussion at a scientific meeting, followed by a questionnaire aimed at selection of ES and their importance in the context of a Slovak countryside). This process was developed in the framework of the OpenNESS case study in Slovakia [
69], but is also suitable for the purpose of this research. The final list of evaluated ES was extended compared to the ES assessment approach based on selected landscape features. In total, 26 individual ES were chosen (
Table 2), grouped into 7 subsections and 3 main sections according to CICES classification [
63]. Based on some studies [
69,
70], the most important ES of the Slovakian countryside could be considered to be: 3 provisioning services (P1, P7, P9 from
Table 2), 6 regulation and maintenance ES (R1, R2, R4, R5, R7, R9) and 3 cultural ES (C1, C5, C6).
The next assessment step was the reclassification of CLC classes according to their preconditions for ES delivery; this was performed for all 26 relevant ES. The suitability value was expressed in a 6-degree scale (0–5), [
64] where 0 means no relevant preconditions and 5 means a very high relevant preconditions for ES delivery—this could be understood as an ES supply approach according to Burkhard et al. [
64]. These values were assigned by the team of experts involved in this study, and based not only on theoretical knowledge but also on the opinions of local stakeholders. Spreadsheet reclassification tables for the 3 main sections of ES are presented as
supplementary data in S3.
The final step of the assessment was the calculation of the CLC classes’ preconditions for ES provision—firstly for the 7 ES sub-sections and then for the 3 main ES sections. For this process, the relative importance (weight) values from
Table 1 were used, assigned by the same expert procedure as in the former assessment stage. Although the matrix-based analyses were conducted for whole cadastral areas of case-study areas, the focus was on the comparison of the TAL structures with other agricultural landscapes when evaluating the results. The interpretation of the results was therefore aimed at assessing the importance of ES provision of different agricultural landscape management approaches. Indices of landscape preconditions for ES provision were calculated for the 3 main ES sections—firstly for all agricultural landscape and then also for TAL alone and for the non-TAL agricultural area. These values were calculated as area-weighted averages in all case-study areas.
The matrix-based approach gives results and comparisons in terms of the overall importance of different landscape features for ES provision; but it cannot explain the issues of relative significance and functional variability of landscape elements for different ES. For such purposes, the complementary comparison of significance (ES_C) and the functional variability (volatility of the functions expressed as a standard deviation of obtained values, ST_DEV) of all agricultural land use classes occurring within the case-study areas were calculated. The main assumption in such an assessment is that a higher significance and higher functional variability (lower value of standard deviation) means a higher precondition of a given land use class towards the provision of a certain ES. By considering these two indicators together, the differences between the main types of agricultural landscape—large-block intensively utilized agricultural landscape, large-block extensively utilized agricultural areas, and TAL—should be clarified.
5. Discussion
The increasing interest in agro-environmental management requires the provision of tools to assess, monitor and map agro-environmental functions and ES in different regional contexts [
76]. The study aims at assessing the importance of landscape diversity for maintaining human well-being, with emphasis on the role of traditional small-scale agricultural patterns (TAL). When analyzing the benefits for humans, an “ES approach” can be very effective [
37,
38,
40]. In our research, we have tried to demonstrate the principal relationships between land use patterns, management intensity, and ecosystem functions and related services obtained from the agricultural landscape.
In the context of land use, several authors have underlined the importance of ecological quality and stability measures in the process of landscape planning, and their relationship with the provision of ES [
77,
78]. The role of landscape elements with high biodiversity and ecological stability in the preconditions of the landscape for ES provision has been confirmed by this study—despite the particular importance of forests and woodlands, the agricultural landscape also plays a vital role in ES provision. In this context, traditional farming is especially important for regulation, maintenance and cultural services [
46,
48,
79]. TAL typically consists of mosaics of small plots of different types of agricultural landscape, supplemented by a range of vegetation elements, and these landscape features are the most important for ES provision, as demonstrated in presented research.
On the other hand, the intensification of agriculture has led to increasing agricultural production, but this poses serious threats to biodiversity and other ecosystem functions and services [
52,
79]. For example, the loss of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems through agricultural intensification and habitat loss negatively affects the maintenance of pollination systems, which is currently causing a loss of pollinators worldwide [
80]. This research has also demonstrated the lower preconditions of intensively utilized agricultural landscape for ES provision other than provisioning services, which is in accordance with findings of other researchers [
51,
76]. Intensification of the agricultural landscape, and the associated decrease in TAL structures, is also reflected by the occurrence of ecological disturbances, increased water erosion, and air and water pollution.
The loss of traditional farming and its consequences for biodiversity and ES is generating concerns among both the scientific community and the public [
81], so it is very important to look for solutions. In Slovakia after 1990, the landscape structure was partially diversified due to the return of land to the original owners. Such newly emerging agricultural mosaics generally consist of small parcels with a diverse representation of annual crops, permanent crops, and grasslands; but, compared to TAL, it has a lower share of semi-natural and natural vegetation. On the other hand, compared to large-scale arable land, it has a hydrologically more effective spatial structure, and its positive effect on water retention in the landscape has been documented [
82,
83].
The restoration of TAL is also beneficial for the promotion of the original, “closed” cycles of production and consumption, leading to almost waste-free management. Traditional management practices are generally friendlier to the soil and water resources. In the current context of global climate change and its consequences, TAL with typical agrarian landforms contributes to water retention in the landscape, which is important for the mitigation of desertification, and for protection against floods and soil erosion [
46,
84].
The two presented approaches to ES assessment highlight the benefits of TAL for society. Both methods required expert knowledge for ES valuation, but the first approach required more time and data, since it was based on field research and subsequent data processing. However, it has provided more specific data to understand the relationships between ecosystems, their spatial distribution and related functions. The matrix approach is well-documented and flexible and has a wide community of users around the world. In addition, the land cover data using adapted version of the 4th classification level has helped to determine the impact of management intensity on ES provision.
These results can contribute to highlighting the importance of the preservation and revitalization of ecosystems and their services at the local and national levels [
2,
49]. Such or similar approaches could be used for decision-making and implementation of policies in many areas relating to ecosystem management and decision making, such as nature and biodiversity protection, spatial planning, agriculture, forestry, water management, and development of rural tourism [
14,
33]. The spatial dimension of sustainability involves processes and relationships between different land uses, ecosystems and biotopes at different scales, and over time [
85].
Additionally, the ES approach can potentially provide new arguments for green economy enhancement, rural development, and optimal agro-environmental policy promotion, and thus contribute to noticeable improvements to the protection of agro-biodiversity and the living conditions for the species and habitats in agricultural landscapes [
46,
50]. Finally, by highlighting the significance of TAL and their services to the stakeholder community (mainly by promotion of their cultural and historical values), it could also contribute to the multi-functionality of the landscape and development of tourism in these regions [
1,
48], which are often economically underdeveloped marginal areas.
6. Conclusions
The results of this study confirm that TAL provide a wide range of ES due to their diversified spatial and functional patterns, thus benefiting society and having irreplaceable provisional, ecological, cultural and historical value.
Regarding provisioning services, natural conditions predetermine the possibilities for agricultural production, which is reflected in the different types of TAL structures. Products from TAL regions are marketed with a quality label, e.g., wine from Svätý Jur, fruit brandies from Lednica, and dairy products from Liptovská Teplička. Although the production function is lower than in the case of intensified large fields, traditional farming produces healthy food and is generally friendlier to the soil, water and biodiversity.
The small-scale structure of TAL and its higher proportion of semi-natural habitats (grassland, orchards, small woodlands) usually provides more regulation and maintenance ES than intensified large-block fields or new mosaics of small agricultural plots. TAL play an important role in local climate regulation, water retention, and soil erosion prevention, which are very relevant to climate change. TAL structures also promote maintenance of the physical, chemical, and biological conditions. Some regulating ES (erosion control, water flow maintenance) could also be promoted by appropriate management practices in large-block agricultural landscape—e.g., application of ecological farming in Liptovská Teplička, changing large-block fields to grassland on the steep slopes in Lednica or Liptovská Teplička, and management of vineyards by terracing in Svätý Jur; but these are usually dependent on additional funding and technical measures.
A diversified and well-balanced structure of the landscape, managed in a traditional way, is also attractive from an aesthetic point of view and supports spiritual, symbolic and other interactions with the landscape as a “live museum”. The highest proportion of TAL and related cultural value was recorded in Hriňová village, but the historical and cultural heritage is the most visible in Liptovská Teplička. However, the TAL structures in Lednica and Svätý Jur also clearly contribute to the villages´ cultural-historical value.
The results of this study could contribute to a better understanding of the value of the natural and semi-natural TAL ecosystems in the landscape and their benefits to the quality of the environment and well-being of society. Appreciating such values should ultimately lead to improved biodiversity conservation of these important landscape structures. Dissemination of research results and further promotion of traditional farming and its benefits may contribute to the development of agro-tourism in less favored areas, as has happened in Liptovská Teplička and Hriňová. Environmentally friendly practices should also be applied to intensely utilized agricultural landscape in order to increase its potential to provide particular regulation ES.