Landscape ecological principle) are defined here in accordance with three main aims on landscape ecological studies (in sensu Forman and Godron 1986): (i) landscape structure, (ii) changes of land cover, and (iii) functions of landscape. We used LEP in a four-step approach. Landscape function was especially assessed in the first step investigating abiotic and socio-economic conditions of the area. Land cover changes were analysed in the second step and landscape structure is crucial for the second and third step as well. Finally, all these steps were integrated into the fourth step, creating a proposal for territorial nature conservation priorities. The individual steps are described below as (also in Fig. 1, Table 1):

Figure 1.

Diagram of relationships between steps within proposed LEP approach: The first step in our LEP approach is a blue part; conditions of the area influencing each other. Conditions as management, physical-geographical framework and human activities influence the second step (purple part, landscape dynamics). Blue and purple parts are inputs for interaction between landscape, human and species. This third step (green) consists of modelling biodiversity (habitat suitability models). All three steps together are inputs for synthesis – a yellow fourth step for prioritisation regarding the protected areas. It, again, influences management of the area and starts another circle of processes.

1. Summarising conditions of a study area from natural, socio-economic and management points of view;

1. Characterization of the study area based on landscape or physical-geographical typology (Chuman and Romportl 2010; Romportl et al. 2013; Janík and Romportl 2016). This also serves as a framework for further analysis.
2. Mapping of human activities and management in the area (Brandon and Wells 1992; Mayer and Job 2008; Brown et al. 2015; Janík and Romportl 2017; Janík 2020).

1. Based on summarised conditions, landscape dynamics driven by rather human (Kupková et al. 2013; Janík et al. 2019; Janík et al. 2022) or rather natural processes (Turner 1989; Janík and Romportl 2018) on various scales were analysed. Broader context to highlight main trends, values, problems and differences, which are important for protection and management of the area, were included. By a synthesis of knowledge derived from step 1 and step 2, it is possible to evaluate landscape dynamics according to different existing management (e.g., ownership; Křenová et al. 2022).
2. Capacity for harbouring and enhancing species was assessed - habitats and species occurrence, habitat requirements of target species, and suitable habitat capacities of a study area were analysed (Janík et al. 2021b).
3. The last step is the integration of the previous ones. It shows landscape ecology in practice as a synthesis of knowledge about landscape and its values. Objective data about habitats and key species occurrence are essential tools for proper and effective protection resulting in prioritisation of protection (Moilanen et al. 2005; Moilanen 2007; Janík and Romportl 2023).

All four steps, further in this chapter, are described generally in detail and in the Results chapter as a case study from our model area. These steps are imprinted to nature protection and management of PAs. We propose integrating all these perspectives, bridge the gap between science and practical conservation (Müller and Opgenoorth 2014), and support evidence-based conservation (Sutherland et al. 2004).

Šumava National Park was established in 1991, after the fall of communism, in the south-western part of Czechia. ŠNP was demarcated within Šumava Protected Landscape Area (ŠPLA), which now creates the surroundings of ŠNP (Janík and Romportl 2018). ŠNP covers 683.4 km² and it is almost three times larger than its German neighbour – Bavarian Forest National Park (BFNP) (Fig. 2). Formerly, ŠNP was divided into three conservation zones. The first zone was the most protected; it covered 22% in 1991 and it even shrank to 13% in 1995 (Křenová and Hruška 2012). Large fragmentation of this strictly protected area, together with different forest management applied in different zones (including large-scale logging during the bark beetle outbreak), negatively affected ecosystems in ŠNP (Šantrůčková et al. 2010; Křenová and Hruška 2012). Therefore, these management steps led to the concerning interest of scientists and conservationists in the further development of ŠNP.

Figure 2.

Case study area; Šumava and Bavarian Forest NPs in Central European landscape. Data sources: Corine Land Cover (European Environment Agency), Open Street map.

Scientists criticised these changes of zonation and forest management (Křenová and Kindlmann 2015; Zýval et al. 2016) and delivered a proposal of zonation based on mapping of habitats and species for the NATURA 2000 sites network: an easy-to-make proposal was made using an overlay of key layers (valuable habitats, core areas of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus - the umbrella species)); the proposal delimited 51.9% of the area of ŠNP for the most valuable first zone (Bláha et al. 2013); however, this proposal has not been accepted. Based on an amendment of the Czech Nature Conservation Act, a new zonation with four zones came into force in 2020. A natural zone, the most strictly protected one with non-intervention management, currently covers 27.7% of ŠNP. Nevertheless, there are still some shortcomings regarding management of valuable habitats, especially in forests (Křenová et al. 2022). In the context of these turbulent changes, we systematically and continually focused on the research of landscape protection and nature conservation in ŠNP, as it is an interesting study site and a suitable laboratory for our approach.

Typology of ŠNP and neighbouring BFNP was created using topography and climate data. It shows several different physical landscapes in the study area (Janík and Romportl 2016, see Fig. 3). There is a difference between the flatted core area of the upper mountain plateau along the borderline and subsequent steep parts and those with lower altitudes, in particular. This internal differentiation of the study area enables further investigation, for example for evaluation of forestry changes after disturbances (Křenová et al. 2022).

Figure 3.

Landscape typology of Šumava and Bavarian Forest NPs (Janík and Romportl 2016).

ŠNP and BFNP, a transboundary area with two national parks, is a very suitable site for investigation of this layer. These two NPs share the same ecosystems, key species, and very similar conservation targets (Křenová and Kiener 2012). However, the historical development and path dependency of management, economy, and society differ; mainly in the period after World War II, political decisions resulted in a discontinuity of settlement, access restriction, and delay in upgrading the protection status of ŠNP on the Czech side (Janík and Romportl 2017; Janík 2020). Therefore, history led to different institutional environment, management, and nature protection between countries (Brown et al. 2015; Křenová and Kindlmann 2018). This is particularly evident in the Czech and German parts of the area, especially concerning wildlife management, management and zonation of the national parks with a lower level of protection in ŠNP (Janík 2020). Since the 1990s, following the transition to democracy and capitalism in Czechia, varying perceptions of ŠNP management among key stakeholders have persisted, leading to disagreements regarding the management and development of the area on the Czech side (Brandon and Wells 1992; Janík and Romportl 2017). It is also given by mixed ownership in ŠNP, which makes the management even more challenging. However, in case of transboundary harmonisation, coordination has improved, e.g. enlarging of a zone with strict non-hunting area regarding wildlife management (Janík 2020). From an economic perspective, tourism has been recognized as a significant part of the economy for BFNP and its profit is higher than from the potential timber industry (Mayer and Job 2008). The results of the similar study for ŠNP have not been published yet (Harmáčková et al. 2016). However, the Czech NP also yields significant economic benefits for the region, which could be further enhanced if tourists extended their stays (Dickie et al. 2014; Bílá et al. 2019). ŠNP is three-times larger, includes the settlements and also the number of visitors is higher than in BFNP; estimations are 760,000 for BFNP and 2,000,000 for ŠNP annually (Mayer and Job 2008; Perlín and Bičík 2010). Therefore, we identify main the anthropogenic structures such as built-up areas and recreational zones to characterise human activities.

Using this detailed knowledge on the specific PA (here ŠNP), its attributes, qualities, and values, as well as the threats and costs, can be determined for further steps (Kujala et al. 2018).

General trends show extensification and abandonment of agricultural activities in peripheral mountainous regions, coupled with forest growth across Europe and in Central Europe and Czechia as well (Latocha 2009; Kupková et al. 2013; Kupková and Bičík 2016; Ameztegui et al. 2021). The abandonment contributes to the ecological stability (Guerra et al. 2019) of the landscape but could threaten biodiversity by reducing habitat diversity in agricultural landscapes (Queiroz et al. 2014; Zakkak et al. 2015). On the other hand, land use of part of the mountainous regions, including ŠNP, is being intensified, for example by recreational activities (Verburg et al. 2009; Janík et al. 2019). These long-term (decades) changes of the landscape were caused predominantly by human-induced driving forces (political, economic and social processes) (Kupková et al. 2013).

In the case of ŠNP, a clear trend of land use extensification is evident, with agricultural practices shifting from intensive, such as arable land, to more extensive forms like permanent grassland, pastures, and meadows, resulting in an increase in forest cover (Janík et al. 2019, 2022). In ŠNP, the forest has remained stable over time roughly since protection was established (Janík et al. 2019). Regarding BFNP and ŠNP, this stable area can host species requiring large suitable habitats, such as large carnivores like wolves (Canis lupus) and lynx (Lynx lynx) and herbivores like moose (Alces alces), and it also leads to higher quality of habitats (Müller et al. 2014; Janík et al. 2021b; Bluhm et al. 2023).

However, in the geographical context of ŠNP, as one the largest Central European relatively natural and forested area, we can analyse also the dynamics after disturbance and subsequent natural and anthropogenic reactions (Dale et al. 2001; Bengstsson et al. 2003; Turner 2005; Turner 2010). In the forests of ŠNP, and similar natural mountainous forests, disturbances are an inherent part of their dynamics (Fischer et al. 2002; Grodzki et al. 2006; Heurich 2009; Brůna et al. 2013; Čada et al. 2013; Nováková and Edwards-Jonášová 2015). Forests in the case of ŠNP are able to regenerate (Brůna et al. 2013; Červenka et al. 2014; Janda et al. 2014). However, also human-induced interventions, such as logging or new clear-cuts were made in the vicinity of the area, which was affected by bark beetle infestation after the wind disturbance. It is a consequence of disagreement of main actors on future development of the area leading to its suboptimal management (Janík and Romportl 2018, see Fig. 4).

Figure 4.

Forest changes 2006–2012 in Šumava NP (Janík and Romportl 2018).

The second step provided us with data on landscape and its change as a key information for understanding ecosystems and their dynamics. In NPŠ, forest dynamics is primarily driven by natural disturbance. But human intervention, such as management practices, still plays a significant role, varying according to ownership (Křenová et al. 2022). It is also different in various geographical conditions according to framework originated in typology from the first step (Janík and Romportl 2016; Křenová et al. 2022).

In the case of ŠNP, there are suitable habitats for some species. Therefore, we selected fifty key species and developed habitat suitability models as inputs for the fourth step to capture priority areas of their occurrence (Janík and Romportl 2023).

The region of our study and its core area of BFNP and ŠNP is a significant area for harbouring large mammals, because migration from the source population is impossible due to surroundings of the ŠNP with open cultural and inhabited landscape (Bluhm et al. 2023).

The suitability of this area for these species is high due to the presence of large forested areas and lower anthropogenic pressure (Anděl et al. 2010). Recently, a more detailed suitability analysis for moose (Alces alces) was assessed and published. It demonstrates that there is a suitable habitat for moose in ŠNP, yet the population has decreased (Janík et al. 2021b, see Fig. 5). Similar above-mentioned suitability maps were used as an indicator for suitability and consequence for protection of biodiversity.

Figure 5.

Habitat suitability index for moose (Alces alces) within the Bohemian Forest Ecosystem (Janík et al. 2021b).

Mapping anthropogenic activities and fragmentation of landscape by anthropogenic structures is another task crucial for preserving viable populations of target species regarding fragmentation of population or additional mortality. From this point of view, illegal hunting and wildlife-vehicle collisions pose serious threats to the lynx and moose populations in BFNP and ŠNP (Heurich et al. 2018; Janík et al. 2021b).

In a case of ŠNP, after comprehensive analyses and based on knowledge and results from previous steps: 1a) typology (Janík and Romportl 2016), 1b) anthropogenic activities (Janík and Romportl 2017; Janík 2020), 2) analysis on landscape dynamics (Janík and Romportl 2018; Janík et al. 2019, 2022), 3) evaluation of habitat suitability for key species (Janík et al. 2021b), a synthesis of the three above-mentioned levels was prepared. Specifically, the NATURA 2000 habitat mapping layers (in sensu Chytrý et al. 2010) with detailed resolution and information on habitat quality and stability during the last circa 15 years and habitat suitability models for selected key fifty species were the main inputs used to create prioritisation of landscape protection (Janík and Romportl 2023).

However, in the geographical reality of Central Europe, with high human population density, human activities and social and economic interests must also be included into consideration (Brown et al. 2015). By balancing these parts, sustainability is a desired aim (Kušová et al. 2008). Therefore, in our case, built-up and recreational areas were placed in the prioritisation process and treated as areas used by humans.

The result shows a prioritisation map suitable for finding core areas for protection and also highlights the differences between the model and current management zonation of ŠNP. It can be used by the ŠNP administration as material for management of the PA to fill the gaps (Janík and Romportl 2023, see Fig. 6).

Figure 6.

Prioritisation analysis of Šumava NP showing scale of priorities for protection from lowest (red) to highest (green) as a material for evaluation of NP´s zonation (based on Janík and Romportl 2023).

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

No ethical statement was reported.

This work was supported by the SVV grant 244-260694 of the Faculty of Science, Charles University, by institutional support from the Silva Tarouca Research Institute for Landscape and Ornamental Gardening (VUKOZ-IP-8025) and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of Czech Republic within the CzeCOS programme, grant number LM2023048.

Conceptualization: DR, TJ. Data curation: TJ. Funding acquisition: DR. Methodology: TJ. Supervision: DR. Validation: ZK. Writing - original draft: TJ. Writing - review and editing: TJ, ZK, DR.

Tomáš Janík https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0111-9754

Dušan Romportl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3533-5623

Zdenka Křenová https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3539-601X

All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the text and original articles cited in this paper.