Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Driving Forces Of The Development Of Suburban Landscape – A Case Study Of The Sulkov Site West Of Pilsen Cover

Driving Forces Of The Development Of Suburban Landscape – A Case Study Of The Sulkov Site West Of Pilsen

Quaestiones Geographicae
Volume 34 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Dec 2015
References

References

  1. Antrop M., 1998. Landscape change: Plan or chaos?41: 155–161. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00068-1.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Antrop M., 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe.67: 9–26. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. Antrop M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future.70: 21–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Antrop M., Eetvelde V. V., 2000. Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics.50: 43–58. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00079-7.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Balej M., Anděl J., Oršulák T., Raška P., 2008. Vývoj environmentálního stresu v severozápadní části Česka: nové přístupy a metody (Development of environmental stress in the northwest part of Czechia: new approaches and methods).113(3): 320–336.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. Baštová M., Dokoupil J. 2010. Negativní dopady přímých zahraničních investic na trh práce města Plzně (The negative impact of direct foreign investment on the labour market of the city of Pilsen).115(2): 188–206.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Bräuer I., 2003. Money as an indicator: to make use of economic evaluation for biodiversity conservation.98: 483–491. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00107-5.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Bürgi M., Hersperger A. M., Schneeberger N., 2004. Driving forces of landscape change: current and new directions.: 857–868. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-004-0245-8.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. Charvát T. (ed.), 1989.(Sulkov – final assessment of the hydrogeological survey) Research report. Vodní zdroje, Praha.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Charvát T. (ed.), 1990.(Sulkov – results of the regime sampling of underground water for the period July 1989 to June 1990) Research report. Vodní zdroje, Praha.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Chytrý M., Kučera T., Kočí M. (eds.), 2001.(Catalogue of habitats of the Czech Republic). AOPK ČR, Praha.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. ČTK, 2010. Energetický regulační úřad sníží výkupní ceny elektřiny z fotovoltaiky o 50 procent (The Energy regulatory authority will reduce the purchase price of electricity from photovoltaics by 50 per cent). Online:(accessed 10 May 2014).
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Daneš J. V., 1917. Obyvatelstvo království Českého v letech 1843–1910. Oblast plzeňská (Population of the Czech Kingdom in the years 1843–1910. Pilsen region).(Společnost národopisného musea českoslovanského) 12(3): 296 – 318.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Degórski M., 2003. Some Aspects of Multifunctional Landscape Character in the Interdisciplinary Environmental Study. In: Helming K., Wiggering, H. (eds),. Springer-Verlag, Berlin: 53–65.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. Ehrenfeld J. G., 2000. Evaluating wetlands within an urban context.15: 253–265. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00080-X.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Forman R.T.T., 1998. Landscape ecology, the growing foundation in land-use planning and natural-resource management. In: Kovář P. (ed.),CZ – IALE, Praha: 13–21.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Forman R.T.T., Godron M., 1986.. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Głębocki B., Perdał R., 2013. Transactions in land in the suburban zone of Bydgoszcz over the years 2007–2010.32(4): 103–116. DOI 10.2478/quageo-2013-0037, ISSN 0137-477X.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. Hataj V., 1926. Rybníky na bývalém panství chotěšovském (Ponds in the former Chotěšov domain).5: 84–87.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Hataj V., 1927. Chotěšov: část prvá (Chotěšov: Part One).7. Národopisné museum, Plzeň: 1–26.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Heilig G. K., 2003. Multifunctionality of Landscapes and Ecosytem Services with Respect to Rural Development. In: Helming, K., Wiggering, H. (eds),Springer-Verlag, Berlin: 39–51.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. Hucl V., 2010.(Change in the land use plan of the Líně municipality). Online:(accessed 12 May 2014).
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Jongman R. H. G., 2002. Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions58: 211–221 DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00222-5.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Kolejka J., Klimánek M., 2012. Typologie a vymezení postindustriální krajiny Česka (Typology and definition of Czech post-industrial landscape).117(3): 289–307.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Kopp J., 2004.(Eco-hydrological assessment of basins in the suburban landscape – case study of the Luční Brook Basin) PhD thesis. Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Praha.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Kopp J., 2005. Případová studie ekohydrologického vlivu dálnice D5 na povodí Lučního potoka (A case study of eco-hydrological influence of the D5 motorway on the Luční Brook Basin).11: 149–157.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Kopp J., 2012. Ekohydrologické důsledky rozvoje příměstské krajiny v Česku (Ecohydrological consequences of suburban landscape development in Czechia). In: Koutský J., Raška P. (eds),. Univerzita J.E. Purkyně, Ústí nad Labem: 157–175.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Kopp J., Novotná M., Matušková A., 2013. Rezidenční suburbanizace v plzeňském městském regionu v krajinně-ekologickém kontextu (Residential suburbanisation in the Pilsen urban region in the landscape-ecological context). In: Ouředníček M., Špačková P., Novák J. (eds),. Academia, Praha: 150–174.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Kovář P., 1995. Is plant community organization level relevant to monitoring landsacpe heterogeneity? Two case studies of mosic landscapes in the suburban zones of Prague, Czech Republic.32: 137–151.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. McQuillan D. A., 2010. The interface of physical and historical geography: the analysis of farming decisions in response to drought hazards on the margins of the Great Plains. In: Baker A. R. H., Billinge M. (eds),. Cambridge Studies in Historical Geography 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 136–144.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Létal A., Smolová I., Szczyrba Z., 2001. Transformace příměstské krajiny (Transformation of suburban landscape).4(4): 15–21.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Löw J., Míchal I., 2003.(Landscape character). Lesnická práce, Kostelec nad Černými lesy.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Marcucci D. J., 2000. Landscape history as a planning tool.49: 67–81. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00054-2.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. Markuszewska I., 2013. Changes of agricultural landscape pattern – non-natural driving forces analyzing based on the North-Western Region of Poland.32(1): 5–14. DOI 10.2478/quageo-2013-0001, ISSN 0137-477X.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. Martinát S., Dvořák P., Klusáček P., Kunc J., Havlíček M., Hybné síly dlouhodobých proměn industrializované krajiny (případová studie Hrušov) (Driving forces of long-term changes of industrialized landscape (case study of Hrušov)).106: 35–44.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Mulíček O., Olšová I., 2002. Město Brno a důsledky různých forem urbanizace (The city of Brno and consequences of various forms of urbanisation).4(6): 17–21.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Naveh Z., 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes.57: 269–284 DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00209-2.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Ouředníček M., 2007. Differential Suburban Development in the Prague Urban Region.89B(2): 111–125. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00243.x
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Pasqualettia M. J., Brown M. A., 2014. Ancient discipline, modern concern: Geographers in the field of energy and society.1: 122–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.016.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. Schneeberger N., Bürgi M., Hersperger A. M., Ewald K. C., 2007. Driving forces rates of landscape change as a promising combination for landscape change research–An application on the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps.24: 349–361. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.04.003.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Seják J. et al., 2011.Project of the Czech Ministry of the Environment SP/2d3/99/07 Faculty of Environment, J. E. Purkyne University in Usti nad Labem.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Seják J., 2005.(Fundamentals of sustainable economy of natural resources and the environment). Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně, Ústí nad Labem.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Soukup R., 1936.(Modification of the Luční Brook and the farm pond in the Líně municipality) Approval report. Ing. R. Soukup, Praha.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Spilková J., Šefrna L., 2010. Uncoordinated new retail development and its impact on land use and soils: A pilot study on the urban fringe of Prague, Czech Republic.94: 141–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.09.001.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  45. Stočes I., 1977. Die hydrogeologischen Verhältnisse in verlassenen Bergbauwerken des Pilsner Steinkohlenbeckens.9, Západočeské muzeum, Plzeň: 1–22.
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Suncad, 2014.(Photo-voltaic power plant Sulkov – Plzeň). Suncad s.r.o., Praha. Online:(accessed 25 May 2014).
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Svobodová H. (ed.), 2000.(On the past of Líně in 2000: reading from chronicles and memoirs of witnesses). Vydavatelství Václav Kuna, Plzeň.
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. Šlajer J., 1970. Základní tendence vývoje uhelného průmyslu Plzeňska do roku 1890 (Fundamental tendencies in the development of coal mining industry of the Pilsen region until 1890).7: 65–86.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Švoma J., 1980. Hydrogeologické poměry plzeňské karbonské pánve (Hydrogeological conditions of the Pilsen carboniferous basin).14: 83–107.
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Sýkora L. (ed.), 2002.(Suburbanisation and its social, economic and ecological consequences). Ústav pro ekopolitiku, Praha.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  51. Valk A. van der, 2002. The Dutch planning experience.58: 201–210. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00221-3.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  52. Vos V., Meekes H., 1999. Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future.46: 3–14. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00043-2.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  53. Vyskočil A., 2012. The tale of the landscape in the Czech lands in the 19th century.38(1): 119–142.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/quageo-2015-0028 | Journal eISSN: 2081-6383 | Journal ISSN: 2082-2103 (formerly 0137-477X)
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 51 - 64
Submitted on: Jun 4, 2015
Published on: Dec 30, 2015
Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
driving forces,
suburban landscape,
landscape changes,
historical analysis,
natural potencial
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geography

© 2015 Jan Kopp, Jindřich Frajer, Renata Pavelková, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 34 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)
Previous article
Next article