Evaluation of Changes in Land Use and Their Influence on Ecological Stability of a Selected Area of the Dolný Spiš Region (Slovakia)

Abstract

In this study, the landscape and ecological stability of the Dolný Spiš region are investigated, focusing on human-induced changes and land use patterns. The purpose is to assess the impact of industrial, agricultural, and social activities on the landscape structure, using current and historical data. Field mapping and data from the DATAcube (Database of the Slovak Statistical Office) and CORINE Land Cover databases (Landscape cover layer for the whole territory of Europe) were used to evaluate land use, with ecological stability measured through the coefficient of ecological stability (CES). Three methodologies—Míchal, Löw, and Miklós—were applied and adjusted for local conditions. The study area, predominantly covered by forests (over 80%), was classified as highly stable based on CES values, with forested areas contributing significantly to this classification. Additionally, the non-forested areas were analyzed to assess the full scope of anthropic influence, revealing low-intensity human activity, as indicated by the coefficient of anthropic influence (CAI), ranging from 0 to 0.45. The results demonstrate that the landscape’s ability to resist disruptive elements is strong, particularly in forested regions. Overall, in this study, the critical role of forests is highlighted in maintaining the ecological stability in the region and suggests that the landscape structure remains resilient despite ongoing changes in agricultural land use.

1. Introduction

The landscape represents a specific space formed through the historical interaction of nature and society [1]. Changes in land use reflect the evolving relationship between humans and the environment, shaped by social, political, and economic transformations. These changes, which range from local to global scales, are associated with the expansion of settlements, the development of commercial and transportation areas, and modifications in forest structures and agricultural practices [2]. A notable trend has been the spread of built-up areas at the expense of agricultural land, significantly altering landscape dynamics.

Landscape transformation is a complex process influenced by the natural and social characteristics of an area. Its internal heterogeneity and complexity make it challenging to assess the degree of transformation. One of the most common indicators of landscape transformation is the assessment of land cover changes. In Slovakia, transformative changes became particularly evident after 1989, following societal shifts that significantly impacted agricultural production and land use patterns [3]. These societal changes also influenced the ecological stability of regions, defined by an ecosystem’s ability to return to its original state after disruptions. The greater this ability, the more stable the ecosystem.

Global trends in land use and land cover (LULC) have been extensively studied. Gbenga et al. [4] reviewed the history of scientific research and recent advancements, emphasizing the widespread use of remote sensing for assessment. For example, [5] used Sentinel-2 imagery to analyze LULC changes, while [6,7] integrated remote sensing with GIS to evaluate changes and predict future trends. Xia et al. [8] employed the random forest methodology for classifying remote sensing and geographic data, and [9] analyzed urbanization and land use dynamics using fuzzy set theory.

Research on land cover changes, particularly through the CORINE Land Cover (CLC) project, has received considerable attention, and not only in Slovakia [10,11,12]. This project involves mapping land cover using LANDSAT satellite images, providing reliable data for monitoring landscape changes. (The Landsat program is the longest-running enterprise for the acquisition of satellite imagery of the Earth. It is a joint NASA/USGS program.). Such inventorying is essential for analyzing the trends, causes, and consequences of natural and social processes. Modified CLC methodologies for mapping historical land cover changes have been proposed by [13,14]. Slovakia’s dispersed settlement patterns, a distinctive phenomenon, have been studied extensively in the context of landscape diversity and changes within settlement systems [15,16].

Dynamic changes in urbanized landscapes, climate change, deforestation, and soil degradation are closely associated with biodiversity loss. Notable studies addressing these issues include works by [17,18,19,20] and others [21,22,23,24]. The research on landscape structure evaluation is increasingly important, as it enables the analysis of land use classes over specific time horizons. Each landscape undergoes a dual process, the destruction of its original structure and the development of a new one [25,26,27].

Ecological stability is a key concept in understanding an ecosystem’s resilience and capacity to recover from environmental changes. While definitions vary, ecological stability generally refers to a region’s ability to regenerate repeatedly [28,29]. Ecological stability serves as a primary framework for understanding an ecosystem’s capacity to absorb or recover from environmental changes. In Slovakia, studies on changes in agricultural land use and its ecological stability have been conducted by [30,31,32]. Ref. [33] proposed a novel approach to ecological stability, emphasizing the independence of its components and simplifying the concept. Their methodology used field survey results to demonstrate that ecological stability can be more effectively understood when its components are analyzed separately.

Numerous methodologies have been developed to quantify ecological stability, with the majority relying on the calculation of the coefficient of ecological stability (CES). CES is a numerical value that classifies regions based on their level of ecological stability, providing a standardized approach within ecological research [34,35,36,37,38].

One practical method for CES calculation involves the use of orthophotos, as demonstrated by [39]. This approach is particularly valuable in areas lacking terrestrial data, offering faster and more accessible means of assessment. Beyond CES, additional metrics, such as the coefficient of anthropic impact and the index of landscape heterogeneity, have been evaluated to provide a more comprehensive understanding of ecological dynamics. For example, [40,41] applied these measures in studies of alluvial forests within the Protected Landscape Area of Litoveské Pomoravie.

In the Czech Republic, CES has been widely utilized by researchers, including [42,43,44], who often apply the methodologies outlined by [45,46]. In one study, [44] evaluated changes in the landscape character of the Doudleby region using data from the State Administration of Land Surveying and Cadastre, vegetation stages, the determination of megatypes sensu Meeus, and CES. Similarly, [47] assessed the ecological stability using ArcView 3.2 GIS software, where land cover class levels were analyzed within a square grid framework.

Further studies, such as those by [48,49], provided complex evaluations and comparative analyses of ecological balance in three key areas within the Kyiv region. These investigations monitored the dynamics of ecological stability within the context of general planning systems, analyzing various coefficients, including those of anthropogenic impact, anthropogenic transformation, nature protection, and ecological stability. Additionally, they evaluated coefficients representing the absolute and relative interactions between ecological and economic states.

An alternative measure for evaluating ecological stability involves assessing levels of hemeroby, which reflect the degree of human influence on landscapes. To ensure accuracy, hemeroby levels must be processed into weighted scores that account for the ecological significance of individual land use categories. These scores help identify biotopes of varying quality and provide a nuanced understanding of ecological stability [50].

The aim of our paper was to assess the current land use of the studied area based on field mapping from the year 2023 and to evaluate land use changes using data from the CORINE Land Cover (CLC) database from 1990. The ecological stability of the area was determined based on the mapped current land structure (CLS) categories, and the coefficient of anthropogenic influence on the landscape was evaluated. Since mapping CLS is a time-intensive process that requires a relatively detailed field survey and digital processing of the CLS map, we explored the possibility of using simpler data sources to assess the ecological stability of the landscape in the given area. Emphasis was placed on determining whether it is possible to use data from CLC and the DATAcube (DC) database, which are more accessible and do not require field mapping of CLS, for evaluation. Although data processing in this case is simpler and less time-consuming, it comes with less detailed data, more generalized information, less precise mapping of landscape features, and a high degree of data generalization.

2. Study Area

The study area is located in the north-western part of the Košice region. It is composed of 21 cadastral territories belonging to the Gelnica district (Figure 1). From the geomorphological point of view, it is divided into three areas. The majority of the area is in Slovak Ore Mts., Volovec Mts. (516.3 km²), and Black Mts. (45.1 km²). There is Hornád Basin (13.1 km²) and Branisko Mts. (7.5 km²) from the Fatra–Tatra area and the Podhale–Magura area is represented by a small part of Šariš Highlands (1.2 km²). The area is mainly composed of crystalline rocks that are rich in raw materials. In some places, the cover of the Paleozoic is made up of a thick formation of light-grey limestone and dolomites protruding onto the surface that increase the malleability of the mountain range. The terrain of the area was formed after the Alpine orogeny after the Early Cretaceous and before the Early Tertiary. Overall, the area has a broken submontane and mountain character with altitudes ranging from 290 to 1322 m a.s.l. There are narrow deep canyon-like V-shaped river valleys with steep cliff rocky slopes and rocky formations. The area belongs to the catchment of the river Hornád, but the largest part of the area is drained mainly by river Hnilec. Significant tributaries of the river Hnilec are Smolník, Stará voda, and Kojšovský potok.

Hnilec valley, which encompasses the largest part of the study area, belongs to the oldest valleys in the Western Carpathian Mts. It is characterized by being narrow and the slopes often touch the river banks. From the historical point of view, it is a mining area. Gold, silver, copper, mercury, lead, and iron ore were mined here. Apart from Gelnica, other mining towns were a part of mining towns union, such as Smolník, Švedlár, and Mníšek nad Hnilcom. Ore deposits were used as early as in the Middle Ages; interesting traces of early mining can be found in the form of abandoned shafts, heaps, or sinkholes even nowadays. The area belongs to the most forested areas of Slovakia; the forests take up almost 80% of the surface area here. The most important tree species that form the forest stand are common beech (Fagus sylvatica), silver fir (Abies alba), Norway spruce (Picea abies), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), and many other species of deciduous trees such as maples (Acer platanoides, A. pseudoplatanus), European ash (Fraxinus excelsior), and Wych elm (Ulmus glabra). Arolla pine (Pinus cembra) and dwarf mountain pine (Pinus mugo) were planted in higher altitudes.

3. Materials and Methods

The results of the 2023 field mapping of the current landscape structure (CLS), the 1990 and 2018 CORINE Land Cover database (CLC), and the database DATAcube of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (DC) (changes from 1996 to 2023) were used in evaluating the current land use of agricultural land and its changes.

Many tools, the majority of which are based on calculating the coefficient of ecological stability (CES), e.g., [45,46,51,52,53,54,55,56], were created to express the level of ecological stability (ES) of certain regions. When evaluating CES, the authors used varying degrees of detail of landscape elements. In calculation, the overall expanse of the individual types of landscape structural elements and the coefficient of the ecological significance of the area (CESA) [46], or the level of ecological stability [38] were taken into consideration. We based our evaluation on the coefficient of ecological significance (CES) according to the papers of [57,58] and the field mapping. Our criterion was to determine the level of naturalness of the ecosystem that was inversely related to the level of human impact on this system. We proceeded from the changes in species composition and structure of the actual flora community in comparison with the potential natural vegetation in the same site conditions.

Our evaluation was based on three different calculation methods, the Míchal methodology [45], Löw methodology [52], and Miklós methodology [46]. The individual methods were modified according to the conditions of the study area. The selection of the mentioned methodologies was based on their most frequent use in ecological studies when assessing ecological stability. Each landscape element was given a specific CESA from 0 to 1, the level of ecological quality from A to E, and differentiated into stable and unstable areas (S, U) (

Table 1. The coefficient of ecological significance according to the division of the individual landscape elements.

DC * Elements	CESA	CLC ** Elements	CESA	CLS Elements	CESA	Löw Method.	Míchal Method.
Built-up areas	0.10	Non-continuous settlement built-up areas	0.15	Settlement built-up areas	0.17	E	L
				Recreational and sports compounds	0.25	D	L
				Cottage colonies	0.25	D	L
				Meteorological station	0.05	D	L
		Industry and service compounds	0.05	Industry compounds, industry parks	0.06	E	L
		Agricultural–forest compounds	0.10	Compounds of agricultural enterprise functional or with modified functionality	0.13	E	L
				Defunct compounds of agricultural enterprise	0.15	E	L
				Forest enterprises compounds	0.15	E	L
				Transformer station	0.01	E	L
				Sewerage plant	0.01	E	L
				Train station compound, train depot	0.02	E	L
Water area	0.80	Watercourses	0.80	Water area (the area of water surface of watercourses and bodies of water)	0.80	A	S
		Bodies of water	0.80
Arable land	0.20	Not irrigated arable land	0.20	Arable land—large-scale	0.18	D	L
				Arable land—small-scale	0.22	D	L
Garden	0.30			Orchard	0.35	D	L
				Gardens	0.28	D	L
				Garden colonies	0.27	D	L
		Mosaics of fields, meadows, and permanent cultures	0.70	Mosaic structures with arable land, non-forest woody vegetation (NFWV), grasslands, with settlements	0.70	C	L
Forest	1.00	Deciduous forests	1.00	Deciduous forests	1.00	A	S
		Mixed forests	1.00	Mixed forests	1.00	A	S
		Coniferous forests	0.95	Coniferous forests	1.00	A	S
				Spruce monocultures	0.70	B	S
				Dwarf mountain pine	0.80	A	S
		Transitional woodland shrub	0.75	NFWV	0.75	B	S
				Bank covers	0.95	B	S
				Windbreak, clearing	0.65	B	S
				Young forest stands (phytocoenological not differentiated)	0.80	A	S
				Felled belt in the forest covers under the high voltage line	0.60	B	S
Grasslands	0.80	Grasslands	0.80	Intensively used grasslands	0.50	C	S
				Grasslands with NFWV	0.80	B	S
				Successively growing grasslands	0.80	C	S
		Natural meadows	0.90	Extensively used grasslands	0.85	C	S
				Alpine meadows	0.90	B	S
				Waterlogged area	0.87	B	S
				Wetlands	0.98	A	S
Other areas	0.15	Raw material mining compounds	0.20	Mining compounds	0.18	E	L
		Disposal sites	0.10	Sludge bed	0.00	E	L
				Dump site	0.10	E	L
		Other areas	0.30	Natural rock formations covered by vegetation	0.78	A	S
				Cemetery	0.55	C	S
				Park and other greenery accessible to the general public in built-up areas	0.50	C	S
				Dam	0.35	E	L
				Dry polder	0.35	C	L
				Water source	0.35	C	L
				Forest tree nursery	0.32	D	L
				Photovoltaic power station compounds	0.28	E	L
				Ruderal vegetation	0.20	D	L
				Devastated areas	0.12	E	L

* database DATAcube, ** CORINE Land Cover database.

). The value of CES is defined by ecological stability of the landscape. The calculation of CES was carried out in three different ways:

(a)

CES calculation according to Miklós methodology-modified:

$${CES}_1=\sum _{i=1}^n{\displaystyle \frac{p_i\times {cesa}_i}{p}}$$

where p_i stands for the overall expanse of the individual types of the landscape elements structure (ha); cesa_i stands for the coefficient of ecological significance of the area; p stands for the overall surface area of the study area (ha); and n stands for the number of elements of the landscape structure in the study area.

The evaluation of the ecological stability (ES), according to [46] the Miklós methodology, was as follows: if CES₁ ˂ 0.33 this represented unstable landscape (1); 0.34–0.50 low stable landscape (2); 0.51–0.66 medium stable landscape (3); >0.67 the most stable landscape (4). This method is not based on distribution into stable and unstable areas but it differentiates their ecological significance using numerical codes.

(b)

CES calculation according to the Míchal methodology, as follows:

$${CES}_2={\displaystyle \frac{S}{L}}$$

where S stands for the surface area of relatively stable areas (forest, non-forest woody vegetation, meadows, pastures) and L stands for the surface area of relatively unstable areas (arable land, built-up area). The formula was slightly modified by adding the elements of watercourses and bodies of water that are categorized as S, and technical elements, various compounds, and cottage colonies were categorized as L (Table 1). The sizes of these groups of elements are minimal and do not affect the overall coefficient of the ecological stability.

The evaluation of ES according to [45] the Míchal methodology was as follows: if CES₂ < 0.10, this represents a devastated landscape (1), the area showing the maximum disruption of natural structures, where basic ecological functions have to be intensive and replaced by long-term technical intervention; 0.10–0.30, above average used area (2), the area with significant disruption of natural structures; 0.30–1.00, intensively used area (3), the area is intensively used mainly for agricultural mass production where weakening of auto-regulatory processes causes significant ecological lability; >1.00, an almost balanced landscape (4), where technical objects in the landscape are relatively in accord with the preserved natural structures. This method defines the index number and states the ratio of stable to unstable landscape elements in the area. The method is based on a clear and definite classification of a landscape element into a stable or unstable group and it does not enable the evaluation of the specific state of these elements.

(c)

CES calculation according to Löw methodology, as follows:

$${CES}_3={\displaystyle \frac{1.5A+B+0.5C}{0.2D+0.8E}}$$

(1)

where A stands for the percentage of areas with the fifth degree of ecological quality (forests, water areas); B stands for the percentage of areas with the fourth degree of ecological quality (bank covers, groves); C stands for the percentage of areas with the third degree of ecological quality (meadows, pastures); D stands for the percentage of areas with the second degree of ecological quality (arable land); and E stands for the percentage of areas with the first degree of ecological quality (built-up areas). We adjusted the input data to include all elements of the CLS in each category (Table 1). The size of these groups of elements is minimal and do not influence the overall coefficient of the ecological stability.

The evaluation of ES according to the Löw methodology was as follows: if CES₃ < 0.1, this represents a degraded landscape (1); <1, a disrupted landscape (1); 1, a balanced landscape (2); 1–10, landscapes with dominant natural features (3); >10, a natural landscape, or a landscape close to nature (4).

Apart from CES evaluation, the coefficient of anthropic influence (CAI) of the landscape was used [55]. This coefficient represents the evaluation of the intensity of the human impact on the landscape and its development. For this purpose, CAI was defined as the ratio of areas with high intensity of use, or high anthropic pressure, to areas with lower intensity of use, i.e., it is the reversed value of the coefficient of ecological stability.

$$CAI={\displaystyle \frac{V}{N}}$$

where V stands for the expanse of the areas of higher intensity of use (arable land, built-up areas, other areas) and N is the size of the areas of lower intensity of use (forest, meadow, pasture, water areas). CAI is given values from 0 upwards; the upper limit does not exist. A value of 1 means that the size of both types of areas is equal. A value higher than 1 means that areas with a high intensity of anthropic use are prevalent.

4. Results

Human activity changes the character and the appearance of a landscape because each intervention causes a change in the landscape. The manner in which the area is used, the creation of new elements, and the cultivation of agricultural and forest soils determine the character of the current landscape. Therefore, a good indicator of the current state of the land use are the landscape structures that determine the horizontal and vertical arrangement of the landscape elements, their combinations, properties, and relations.

4.1. Use of Agricultural Land Evaluated According to CLS and Its Comparison with Land Cover 1990 CLC

In order to compare the mapped CLS and CLC, it was necessary to reclassify both legends into a unified form (

Table 2. Land cover according to CLS and CLC.

Class	Type of Land Cover	CLC 1990		CLS 2023
		Surface [ha]	Ratio [%]	Surface [ha]	Ratio [%]
1	Settlement built-up areas, industrial compounds, recreational areas	1530.37	2.62	1114.82	1.90
2	Raw material mining compounds	105.81	0.18	79.89	0.14
3	Agriculturally used land	10,935.35	18.75	6186.10	10.56
4	Deciduous forests	7086.71	12.15	8040.03	13.72
5	Coniferous forests	21,237.06	36.41	14,863.52	25.37
6	Mixed forests	14,938.89	25.61	23,197.55	39.60
7	Mosaic of natural meadows, pastures, and NFWV	2349.30	4.03	4772.90	8.15
8	Water areas	148.80	0.25	328.84	0.56

). Settlement built-up areas, industrial compounds, and recreational areas (Table 2, Figure 2) are concentrated mostly along the watercourses. According to CLS mapping, the built-up area took up 1.90% of the area’s size, and according to CLC, in 1990, it was 2.62% of the area’s size. The decreasing size of the built-up area in the individual types of imaging does not mean that the construction in the area is decreasing. It is given by the mapping precision of the individual built-up areas, where, e.g., CLC mapping recorded bigger compounds of built-up areas and CLS mapping showed the built-up area as structured in more detail and all larger plots of house-adjacent gardens, park areas, etc., within the residential area were excluded.

Countryside settlements are compact settlements situated mainly in the valleys of the rivers Hornád and Hnilec, as the main watercourses, with main road and train routes passing through them. Some municipalities are even situated outside of these main axes of settlement and are located in valleys of the main tributaries of rivers Hornád and Hnilec—those are the municipalities Hrišovce, Veľký Folkmar, Kojšov, Smolnícka Huta, Smolník, Úhorná, Stará Voda, and Henclová, or they are situated on the ridge of the mountain range—municipality Závadka. The majority of the settlements in the area were established in the places of the original mining settlements. Their original population was engaged mainly in mining, metallurgy, forest work, and agriculture. These activities significantly influenced the character and development of the area. Mining activity (extraction sites, heaps, etc.) significantly influenced the overall character of the landscape mainly in Gelnica (part Slovenské Cechy), Smolnícka Huta, and Smolník, and the surroundings of Margecany and Jaklovce are the most affected by surface mining. Agricultural activity and its changes in the time of collectivization intervened with the character of the landscape. The original structures of the agricultural land and the corresponding type of settlement were preserved in, e.g., Hrišovce, Žakarovce, Úhorná, Závadka, and in other smaller areas.

The agriculturally used land in the area represents agricultural compounds, grasslands, a mosaic of fields, meadows, and grass cultures, and arable land, and is characterized by a significant ratio of natural vegetation. Based on CLS mapping in the study area, the agriculturally used land represented 10.56% of the area and based on 1990 CLC, it was even 18.75% of the area, which is 4749.25 ha more than the CLA mapping showed. The decline in the area of agricultural land in the monitored area has a long-term trend, because over the last 30 years, its actual area has decreased by about 40% (from 10,935.35 ha to 6186.10 ha—see Table 2). The area is decreasing as a result of the gradual abandonment of agricultural use on locations less accessible for machinery, overgrowing of woody plants where some surface areas are showing even continuous overgrowing of NFWV, the change in the character of the soil use, and as a transformation of arable land into meadows and pastures.

In the past, arable land was represented in almost all cadastral areas where its occurrence was concentrated in the lower valley altitudes and in the bottom lands of the rivers Hornád and Hnilec. Nowadays, however, it is scarcely represented. Large-scale areas of arable land are almost uniquely in the cadastral area of Kluknava and Richnava. Its size is approximately 380 ha. Small-scale areas of arable land can be found in all cadastral areas in the form of crofts or individual plots, but its use is also on decline. It can be found mostly in peripheral parts of municipalities in mosaics with grasslands and house-adjacent gardens; less often, smaller plots create formations of larger size or in isolated cases, can be preserved in the form of historical structures of terraced plots.

In the study area, according to CLS, the total surface area of the forest land resources is 46,101 ha (78.69%). According to 1990 CLC, it was 43,263 ha (74.71%) and it represents the most forested area of Slovakia.

The total area of forest land (deciduous forests, coniferous forests, and mixed forests together) in the study area is 46,101 ha (78.69%) according to the CLS. According to the 1990 CLC, it was 43,263 ha (74.17%) and represents the most forested area in Slovakia (Table 2). Mixed forests are the most represented in the area. According to CLS, they cover almost 40% of the area and according to 1990 CLC, they covered only 25.61%. Coniferous forests, covering approximately 25% of the area, are less represented. According to 1990 CLC, they covered 36.41%. deciduous forests are the least represented, covering a little over than 10% of the area (according to CLS) and 12.15% according to 1990 CLC. Based on the measured areas of the individual types of forests, we can see a significant decline in coniferous forests, from 36.41% (CLC 1990) to 25.37% (CLS 2020) and on the contrary, a rise in mixed forests from 25.61% (CLC 1990) to 39.60% (CLS 2020). There has been a significant rise in the portion of deciduous trees at the expense of the coniferous ones, mainly at the expense of spruce. Several wind calamities, mainly in 2004 and in the subsequent period, where spruce monocultures were affected by natural disturbances, have significantly contributed to these changes. When revitalizing the affected covers, the ecological aspect and natural species composition of covers in given climatic and site conditions are increasingly being taken into consideration.

The mosaic of natural meadows, pastures, and NFWV has a significant ratio in land cover. This mosaic is comprised of two different groups of vegetation. The first group is grassy–herbaceous cover communities of natural meadows and pastures, i.e., meadows and pastures that have never been affected by the intensification of agricultural use of meadows, and close-to-nature agriculture has solely been realized there. Nowadays, these communities are in decline and are overgrown by a NFWV in the majority of cases. These elements were mapped in these cases as permanent grasslands with a small ratio of NFWV, mainly of a solitary character, smaller lines or small groups of tree species, or permanent grassy–herbaceous covers successively growing, with a higher level of NFWV, often in the form of continuous covers of shrubs or shrubs and trees forming the initial states of forest covers. The second group is formed mostly by various forms of NFWV, with mapped formations from bigger lines and smaller areas of shrubs to continuous bigger areas of tree and shrub covers, which gradually take the character of forest covers. The rising values of mapped unit representation of the mosaic of natural meadows, pastures, and NFWV in the study area (according to 1990 CLC, it covers 4.03% ha and according to CLS, it covers 8.15% ha of the area) are the consequence of the rising proportion of NFWV elements.

4.2. Evaluation of Ecological Stability According to CLS, CLC, and DC

The issue of the evaluation of ecological stability was used mainly in the agricultural land (in the land with a smaller forest ratio). Since our study area contains a higher forest ratio than the agricultural land does, it is evident that the ecological stability is higher here. That is why we focused on the non-forest part of the landscape and the forest part of the landscape separately when evaluating ecological stability. We compared the results and evaluated the role of the forest in the individual cadastral areas.

Changes in the land use of (not only) the agricultural land and its structure will eventually also show in the ability of the landscape to resist the disrupting influences, i.e., on the ecological stability of the landscape. One of the various means of determining the scope of ecological stability is the use of calculation with the help of the coefficients of ecological stability.

Based on the CLS data for the whole area, the ecological stability of the landscape evaluated according to Miklós methodology was categorized as the most stable landscape, and CES was between 0.73 and 0.98 (

Table 3. Coefficient of ecological stability.

Cadastral Area	CES1 (Miklós Methodology)			CES2 (Míchal Methodology)			CES3 (Löw Methodology)
	CLS	CLC 2018	DC 2023	CLS	CLC 2018	DC 2023	CLS	CLC 2018	DC 2023
Gelnica	0.93	0.86	0.92	17.93	19.27	12.67	39.93	37.74	28.45
Helcmanovce	0.79	0.69	0.76	18.68	3.35	4.17	31.53	16.63	8.55
Henclová	0.94	0.87	0.94	47.47	**	24.54	180.07	**	46.06
Hrišovce	0.87	0.78	0.89	5.73	11.27	15.13	29.24	43.45	40.71
Jaklovce	0.83	0.74	0.81	10.77	4.17	5.83	18.30	15.01	10.81
Kluknava	0.86	0.77	0.82	7.56	5.25	4.56	31.90	22.51	12.45
Kojšov	0.95	0.93	0.96	49.54	91.70	48.39	111.87	187.86	97.11
Margecany	0.86	0.76	0.87	10.36	7.71	7.50	17.99	15.30	14.30
Mníšek nad Hnilcom	0.88	0.82	0.90	28.98	11.15	12.14	60.54	42.32	22.74
Nálepkovo	0.85	0.78	0.89	22.11	7.23	18.27	50.07	43.21	29.29
Prakovce	0.95	0.93	0.95	25.41	18.01	19.84	54.93	33.47	42.86
Richnava	0.73	0.45	0.71	3.92	2.26	2.68	11.14	5.53	5.20
Rolova Huta	0.97	0.97	*	46.24	**	*	111.19	**	*
Smolnícka Huta	0.98	0.93	0.96	85.67	51.31	33.82	212.17	92.36	65.77
Smolník	0.95	0.92	0.97	86.53	91.76	39.19	200.27	173.61	78.43
Stará Voda	0.79	0.51	0.66	8.42	**	3.15	19.24	**	3.29
Švedlár	0.93	0.87	0.95	45.80	24.31	36.52	157.61	109.33	78.67
Úhorná	0.86	0.81	0.91	15.73	**	24.38	63.93	**	41.32
Veľký Folkmar	0.90	0.85	0.89	36.09	22.41	14.70	67.45	44.90	26.33
Žakarovce	0.87	0.85	0.81	8.04	18.39	8.44	26.61	53.62	11.64
Závadka	0.90	0.89	0.90	9.38	12.96	19.63	41.08	69.83	37.29

* missing data, ** calculation not possible (surface area of arable land or built-up area missing).

). In the highest category (the most stable landscape), seven cadastral territories remained (Úhorná, Henclová, Kojšov, Nálepkovo, Smolník, Žakarovce, and Závadka) (CES₁ 0.67–0.80). The reason for this was the higher representation of grasslands, NFWV, mountain meadows, and pastures in their cadastral territories. For example, in Henclová, the CES₁ for mountain meadows and grasslands reached 0.58, in Úhorna only for mountain meadows up to 0.53, and in Smolnik, 0.51. Almost 57% of the area belongs to the medium stable landscape. There are 12 cadastral territories (CES₁ 0.51–0.66). In these cadastral territories, grasslands are joined by NFWV (e.g., Gelnica, Jaklovce, Margecany, Veľký Folkmar, and others), and the CES₁ for these landscape units reached 0.29–0.44. The low stable landscapes include Kluknava and Prakovce (CES₁ 0.47–0.48). In these cadastral territories, the CES₁ for the category representing grasslands, NFWV, mountain meadows, and pastures is 0.34 and 0.27.

The ecological stability of the majority of the CLC-assessed areas was categorized as the most stable landscape, with only Stará Voda categorized as a medium stable landscape (CES₁ 0.51) and Richnava as a low stable landscape (CES₁ 0.45) (Table 3). When assessing the non-forest landscape, nine cadastral territories were classified as unstable landscapes (CES₁ 0.21–0.31), four as less stable landscapes (CES₁ 0.34–0.50), five as medium stable landscapes (CES₁ 0.53–0.65), and only Úhorná (CES₁ 0.68) was classified in the most stable landscape category (

Table 4. Coefficient of ecological stability without forest cover representation.

Cadastral Area	CES1 (Miklós Methodology)			CES2 (Míchal Methodology)			CES3 (Löw Methodology)
	CLS	CLC 2018	DC 2023	CLS	CLC 2018	DC 2023	CLS	CLC 2018	DC 2023
Gelnica	0.59	0.32	0.53	2.22	2.88	1.35	2.72	4.77	1.21
Helcmanovce	0.54	0.28	0.30	7.20	0.85	2.17	6.52	5.14	2.35
Henclová	0.77	0.46	0.65	7.48	**	3.36	21.63	**	2.37
Hrišovce	0.64	0.36	0.70	1.41	3.15	5.09	4.15	14.67	6.49
Jaklovce	0.55	0.34	0.59	3.44	0.96	2.15	3.55	4.30	2.28
Kluknava	0.48	0.21	0.47	1.21	0.80	0.91	2.58	1.19	1.05
Kojšov	0.69	0.50	0.69	6.04	10.86	5.19	6.43	36.29	3.85
Margecany	0.51	0.24	0.47	2.16	1.75	1.04	2.37	1.99	1.29
Mníšek nad Hnilcom	0.55	0.31	0.61	6.01	2.09	2.45	5.74	8.38	1.94
Nálepkovo	0.68	0.49	0.71	8.75	2.32	6.42	11.11	16.67	4.72
Prakovce	0.44	0.28	0.43	1.23	0.53	0.77	1.95	0.52	0.74
Richnava	0.57	0.30	0.51	1.93	1.53	1.17	3.28	2.49	1.21
Rolova Huta	0.66	0.53	*	3.27	**	*	6.46	**	*
Smolnícka Huta	0.65	0.21	0.60	3.49	2.41	2.25	4.24	0.68	1.70
Smolník	0.71	0.65	0.62	13.33	18.17	2.61	24.13	35.64	2.04
Stará Voda	0.65	0.23	0.63	3.37	**	2.79	4.25	**	2.40
Švedlár	0.63	0.55	0.70	7.42	4.72	5.71	16.59	25.19	4.82
Úhorná	0.80	0.68	0.73	7.57	**	7.74	23.86	**	5.59
Veľký Folkmar	0.62	0.42	0.67	7.78	4.96	4.15	7.92	12.19	3.48
Žakarovce	0.68	0.60	0.68	2.11	5.74	4.32	3.40	29.89	3.05
Závadka	0.67	0.65	0.71	2.17	2.46	6.23	5.05	28.13	5.04

* missing data, ** calculation not possible (surface area of arable land or built-up area missing).

).

Based on DC data, the ecological stability of the area evaluated according to the Miklós methodology, was also categorized as the most stable landscape, with only Stará Voda being in the category of medium stable (CES₁ 0.66). The difference in ecological stability was recorded when evaluating the non-forest part of the area. The bigger part of the area was categorized as medium stable landscape (Gelnica, Helcmanovce, Henclová, Jaklovce, Mníšek nad Hnilcom, Richnava, Smolnícka Huta, Smolník, and Stará Voda) (CES₁ 0.51–0.65), and as the most stable landscape (Hrišovce, Kojšov, Nálepkovo, Švedlár, Úhorná, Veľký Folkmar, Žakarovce, and Závadka) (CES₁ 0.67–0.73).

When comparing ES according to the individual landscape structures (Figure 3A), we can see that according to CLC, the ES in almost all areas is decreased minimally. The biggest decline can be seen in the ES of the non-forest part of the area (Figure 3B). According to DC and CLS, the big differences in ES are mainly in Prakovce, Smolnícka Huta, Smolník, Švedlár, Veľký Folkmar, and Závadka.

Ecological stability evaluated according to the Míchal methodology was categorized into the highest category—almost balanced landscape (CES₂ 3.92–86.53), based on CLS data (Table 3). It is in the same category even when evaluating the non-forest part of the area (CES₂ 1.53–18.17) (Table 4). When evaluating according to CLC (CES₂ 2.26–91.76) and DC (CES₂ 2.68–48.39), the area is in the category of almost balanced landscape. Smaller changes occur when evaluating the non-forest part of the landscape, where Helcmanovce, Jaklovce, Kluknava, and Prakovce are categorized as intensively used landscape according to CLC (CES₂ 0.53–0.96) (Table 3) and when evaluating DC, Kluknava and Prakovce are also in this category (CES₂ 0.77–0.91) (Table 4).

When comparing the individual landscape structures (Figure 4A), we can see that CES₂ is above 1 (almost balanced landscape). When evaluating the ES of the non-forest part of the area (Figure 4B) according to CLC, the CES is above 1 in 81% of the area and according to DC, it is 90% of the area.

Based on CLS, the ecological stability of the area evaluated according to the Löw methodology was in the highest category of natural landscape (CES₃ 11.14–212.17) (Table 3). A bigger part of the area without the representation of forest cover (Table 4) is in the category of landscape with dominant natural elements (CES₃ 1.95–7.92) and 24% of the area is in the category of natural landscape. Based on CLC data, the majority of the area is in the category of natural area (CES₃ 15.1–187.86); only Richnava with a CES₃ of 5.53 is in the category of landscape with dominant natural elements (Table 3). When evaluating the non-forest part of the landscape, the area is divided into three categories. A total of 47% of the area is in the category of natural landscape (CES₃ 12.19–36.29), 41% of the area is in the category of landscape with dominant natural elements (CES₃ 1.19–8.38), and Prakovce (CES₃ 0.52) with Smolnícka Huta (CES₃ 0.68) are in the category of disrupted landscape (Table 4). Based on DC data, the majority of the area was in the category of natural landscape (CES₃ 8.55–97.11), only Richnava with a CES₃ of 5.20 and Stará Voda with a CES₃ of 3.29 were categorized as landscape with dominant natural elements (Table 3). When evaluating the non-forest landscape, the area is in the category of landscape with dominant natural elements (CES₃ 1.05–6.49), except for Prakovce (CES₃ 0.74) which is in the category of disrupted landscape (Table 4).

When comparing ES according to the individual landscape structures (Figure 5A), we can see that the CES₃ is almost always above 10 (natural landscape). When evaluating the ES of the non-forest part of the area (Figure 5B) we can see that 55% of the data from all the categories have values of 1–10 (landscape with dominant natural elements) and 22% in the category above 10 (natural landscape).

In the entire study area, the sections with low intensity of anthropic pressure (use) are prevalent (Figure 6). According to CLS, DC, and CLC, the CAI values span from 0 to 0.45. The highest CAI value was calculated for Richnava (0.45—CLS, 0.37—DC, and 0.44—CLC) and the lowest for Smolnícka Huta and Kojšov.

The evaluation of ES according to CLS was in the highest category across all methodologies (Miklós methodology—the most stable landscape, Míchal methodology—almost balanced landscape, Löw methodology—natural landscape). When evaluating according to CLS without forest cover, most of the area, based on the Miklós methodology, fell into the moderately stable landscape category, while according to the Míchal methodology, no change occurred, and the area remained in the almost balanced landscape category. According to the Löw methodology, most of the area was categorized as a landscape with dominant features (Figure 7).

According to the CLC evaluation, ES, in most of the area (based on the Miklós methodology), falls into the most stable landscape category. A similar situation applies to the evaluation based on the Míchal and Löw methodologies. A greater difference arises in the CLC evaluation without forest cover, according to the Miklós methodology. Here, most of the area is categorized as a low-stability and unstable landscape, followed by moderately stable landscape. According to the Míchal methodology, most of the area remains in the almost balanced landscape category, and according to the Löw methodology, a significant part of the area is classified as natural landscape and landscape with dominant features.

The evaluation of ES according to DC is similar to the evaluation according to CLS and CLC based on the individual methodologies. When evaluating DC without forest cover, the resulting categories in each methodology are similar to the CLS evaluation without forest cover.

5. Discussion

The coefficients of ecological stability CES₂ and CES₃ for CLS, CLC, and DC follow an almost identical course (Figure 3B and Figure 4B). Higher levels of CES₃ are caused by adding weights for different degrees of ecological stability in the calculation of the coefficient of the ecological stability (1) on page 5. The missing values in the CLC database were due to missing measurements of the arable land and built-up areas.

The representation of forest cover and arable land in the study area is different when compared with other papers (e.g., [30,36,38]), which was shown in the evaluation of ecological stability. In our study area, the representation of forest covers spans from 40.57% (Richnava) to 94.82% (Smolnícka Huta), and the highest amount of arable land was recorded only in Kluknava and Richnava (8.03%; 7.95%). In [38], ES was evaluated in the area, with arable land reaching 34.32% and forest cover 16.23% (cadastral area Sveržov). The calculation of CES₁ was similar to the calculation according to the Miklós methodology and reached the value of 2.89. In our study area, the CES₁ value for CLS was between 0.73 and 0.98, for CLC from 0.45 to 0.97, and for DC from 0.66 to 0.97. In their paper, [30] evaluated the municipality of Krajné, where forest cover takes up 30.43% of the area and arable land 50%. CES evaluated according to the Míchal methodology was 0.73 and according to the Löw methodology, 3.14. In our evaluation, CES₂ for CLS was 3.92–86.53, for CLC 2.26–91.76, and for DC 2.68–48.39. CES₃ values for CLS were 11.14–212.17, for CLC 5.53–187.86, and for DC 3.29–97.11. Three areas (Jedľové Kostoľany, Malá Lehota, and Veľká Lehota), which were evaluated in the paper of [36], also had a higher ratio of arable land and grasslands. In the evaluation according to the Míchal methodology, CES was 4.16–8.11, according to the Miklós methodology, it was 0.74–0.82, and according to the Löw methodology, it was 13.87–24.44.

A similar area to ours was evaluated by [59]; it was the cadastral area Tatranská Lomnica. It is an area with a low percentage of arable land (0.03%) and grasslands (1.72%), but with a much higher representation of forests (59.94%) and woodland shrub (16.57%). According to the Míchal methodology, the CES value was 42.126. In our study area, grassland representation was from 1.20% (Prakovce) to 29.06% (Nálepkovo). The representation of arable land is very low in the whole area, 71% of municipalities do not have any arable land, and in the rest of the area, it ranges from 0.02% (Veľký Folkmar) to 8.03% (Kluknava). Forest cover representation is high, from 40.57% (Richnava) to 94.82% (Smolnícka Huta) and NFWV is from 0.37% (Henclová) to 6.25% (Stará Voda). CES₂ values can be seen in Table 3.

A similar area with a significant prevalence of stable elements is in the Doudleby municipality (the Czech Republic) where the forest cover and grasslands take up 64% of the area and according to [44], CES has a value of 3.00 (Míchal methodology) and 0.64 (Miklós methodology). Hanusová et al. [42] evaluated three areas in the Czech Republic (Čečkovice, Jerišno, Maleč). In the areas with a higher ratio of arable land, the CES values were 0.50 and 0.52 (Míchal methodology) and 0.35 and 0.32 (Miklós methodology) and in the area of a higher ratio of forest cover, CES was 1.28 (Míchal methodology) and 0.58 (Miklós methodology). Ivan and Chebeňová [60] evaluated an area with a higher representation of arable land (58.08%) than forests (8.69%) and meadows (17.86%) and used the Löw methodology in their CES calculation (1.187). Machar [40] evaluated an area where fully grown stands take up 55.9% of the area and the clear cut area is 15.4%, CES according to Míchal methodology has a value of 6.89%, according to the Miklós methodology 0.81%, and CAI 13.07.

In their paper, [61] evaluated the area of Lužianky pri Nitre which is without forest cover with a high ratio of arable land (73%) and a low ratio of grassland (1%). They calculated that CES for this area is 0.25 (according to the Míchal methodology—excessively used landscape), 0.55 (according to the Löw methodology—devastated landscape), and 0.17 (according to the Miklós methodology—unstable landscape).

The whole of our study area of the Gelnica district is characterized by a high proportion of forests. Forests as climax plant communities/climax ecosystems are the most stable element of the landscape and if they are in optimal condition, they represent the most significant positive element entering into the assessment of the overall landscape-ecological carrying capacity. Therefore, when assessing the EC of individual c.u. when the proportion of forests is above 80% of their area, the CES will always have high values, indicating a stable landscape. Therefore, we also proceeded to the assessment of individual sites without forest cover to see how stable is the rest of the landscape.

When we evaluated our study area, according to the CLS without forest cover, up to 67% of the area was classified as a medium stable and low stable landscape (CES₁ 0.44–0.66). In the CLC assessment, this difference was greater. Only one cadastral area remained in the most stable landscape category (Úhorná, CES₁ 0.68). Most (43%) of the territory fell into the unstable landscape category (CES₁ 0.21–0.32) (Table 4). This was an area where the proportion of arable land ranged from 0 to 11% and the proportion of grasslands was 3–38. In the DC assessment, 57% of the area was categorized as a medium stable landscape (CES₁ 0.43–0.65). The CES₂ rating, with no representation of forest cover, remained in the almost balance landscape category for CLS. For the CLC and DC assessment, most of the area remained in the category of almost balanced landscape, with only 19% and 10% of the area in the intensively used area category. More significant changes were observed in the CES₃ assessment for CLC, where 10% of the territory fell into the disrupted landscape category.

Based on the above results, it can be concluded that the assessment of the ES is most appropriately carried out on the basis of data from the detailed mapping of the current status of the CLS and land use. In addition to the CLS, data from DC, which are based on the data from the Land Registry and official up-to-date statistical data from the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, can also be used for the ES assessment.

The CLC data resemble the data from the mapping of the CLS in their nature. However, the individual mapped elements are very generalized and mostly mosaics of landscape structures are mapped, where the given excluded (mapped) polygon is named according to the predominant element. It also contains other elements and no rules for the representation of the elements in the polygon are set for the given mosaics. Therefore, the ES assessment is also highly biased and the CLC database is therefore not recommended for ES assessment.

6. Conclusions

The changes in landscape and landscape structure are suitable indicators in evaluating the intensity of ongoing changes in the landscape, evaluating the character and intensity of industrial, agricultural, and social influences on the landscape and its elements, and subsequent trends in the landscape development.

Agriculturally used soil represents less than one fifth of the area of Gelnica municipality. Nowadays, it takes up 10,812 ha which is 18.5% of the total area of the municipality. Only 7.42% of the agricultural soil is intensively used as arable land and agricultural soils are ranked mainly in classes with the lowest valued soil ecological units. With regards to the quality of the arable land and the cost of its intensive use, agricultural soil was abandoned to be used as arable land in recent years. These were gradually transformed into grasslands and the focus of agricultural activity has almost solely been on animal husbandry (sheep and cattle). Nowadays, plant production is very ineffective and it consists mostly of growing grains (45% of the current arable land), corn for silage (20%) and other fodder plants (35%); it is concentrated mainly in (the areas of) municipalities of Kluknava and Richnava.

Orthographic, climatic, and site conditions in the area predetermine the orientation of agriculture mainly on animal production. That is why, nowadays, grasslands are dominant in the area, taking up 9704 ha, which is 16.61% of the study area. Their use was gradually abandoned in less accessible areas on a significant part of original meadows and pastures and these were then gradually overgrown by non-forest woody vegetation. These plots of land gradually change in the process of natural successive changes into shrub or even forest biotopes, in some locations unused meadows and pastures were forested and transformed into forest covers belonging to the forest land resources. In this way, the percentage of the forest cover of the area increases, which currently represents approximately 80% of the Gelnica municipality.

The submitted study addresses the optimization of methodological approaches in evaluating ecological stability in the selected region. It assesses the potential use of various data sources, aiming to optimize and enhance the quality of landscape ecological stability assessments through the methods and data from different databases used. Our proposed method of ecological stability assessment with the use of mapping CSC can also be used in other areas.