Landmarks As Cultural Heritage Assets Affecting The

remote sensing

Article Landmarks as Cultural Heritage Assets Aﬀecting the Distribution of Settlements in Rural Areas—An Analysis Based on LIDAR DTM, Digital Photographs, and Historical Maps

Barbara Prus * , Magdalena Wilkosz-Mamcarczyk and Tomasz Salata

Department of Land Management and Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Land Surveying, University of Agriculture in Kraków, Balicka str.253c, 30-198 Kraków, Poland; [email protected] (M.W.-M.); [email protected] (T.S.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-12-662-40-17

Received: 28 April 2020; Accepted: 30 May 2020; Published: 1 June 2020

Abstract: The final decision of the owner of the plot who plans to build a house depends on many factors most of which are of legal and financial nature. The authors demonstrate that the decisions regarding specific location within the plot of land are influenced by intangible components as well, namely the intention to have the best view. The view is often related to the occurrence of landmarks with prominent visual impact in the landscape that determine visual connections. The rural landscape is determined by the spatial arrangement including the buildings, the shape of public spaces, ownership divisions, and the land distribution. Being an element of rural cultural heritage, the arrangement of buildings is influenced by a vast number of factors such as geographical, historical, physical, and socio-economic ones. This article focuses on determining the interaction between the settlement locations and zones with an excellent, unique view of characteristic, well-known architectural landmarks. Mapping of viewsheds of many features is a critical element of the landscape planning process and facilitates the protection of cultural heritage assets. The analysis involved LiDAR DTM (Digital Terrain Model created in Light Detection and Ranging technology), digital photographs, and historical maps. In terms of the administrative subdivision, the area comprises 20 localities. The landmark visibility analysis for locations of the buildings covered a 140 km2 area of Carpathian Foothills in southern Poland. The article combines experiences in the field of landscape architecture, spatial planning and the use of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. The examples show that the modern development layout refers to the historical structure and the development of a new settlement tissue has a cultural background and is influenced by spatial landmarks.

Keywords: spatial-settlement analysis; GIS tools; remote sensing; landscape identity; tall architectural landmarks; space preservation; arrangement of buildings

1. Introduction Individual decisions regarding the location of buildings on plots are affected by multiple factors. Apart from topography and financial aspects, it is the formal requirements of the local law that have the most significant impact. The final decision regarding the selection of a plot and location of the building on the plot is for the owner to make. It is they who make the decision regarding the view from the building and the landscape around it. The intangible aspect, the intention to have the best view, is usually considered as well. The view is often related to the occurrence of landmarks with prominent visual impact in the landscape that determine visual connections. A landmark is the main, fundamental feature, which stands out and dominates the surrounding environment [1,2]. The role of a landmark in the landscape has been researched by numerous authors.

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778; doi:10.3390/rs12111778 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 2 of 20

In architecture and landscaping, this is the element with the strongest visual impact that dominates the rest to the composition. In the panoramic view, a landmark stands out from the background with its distinctive form, colour, and height. In the landscape, it can be an eye-catcher, which is an architectural object that catches the viewer’s eye even from the furthest distance [3,4]. In some cases, a landmark has a significant location and formal, social, and economic assets; it affects the clarity of the urban planning scheme, and designates places that are important in the space, enabling their location and perception. The identified recurring pattern of location of religious buildings confirms the principle that landmarks used to be located in places of landscape significance, such as a central, important place that towers over the surroundings and is well visible. The landmark usually exerts leading visual impact and dominates the whole landscape composition, such as in a panoramic view [4]. The positioning of religious structures was usually carefully selected, which is related to the symbolics of the landscape. It is often characteristic of a specific cultural area. Symbols change in time, also through symbol content changes. The landscape symbolics is embodied in the occurrence of symbolic structures and relationships between built structures and their surroundings. Religious buildings have been essential parts of the landscape. They represent carefully selected ideas. Signs (such as the form of a building) make it clear through their content that they have special meaning [5] Religious structures such as Calvary shrines, churches, chapels, and ways were situated in an attractive landscape, usually mountainous one in order to copy the Jerusalem setting (they were often founded by knights returning from Crusades to the Holy Land [6]. Jerusalem and other locations associated with Christ are usually mountainous. Kalwaria Zebrzydowska includes the historical context of the defensive function of the Lanckorona Mountain hosting ruins of a Mediaeval castle and a Benedictine church and monastery complex. The designed landscape in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska contains an authentic transposition of the urban pilgrimage arrangement of Jerusalem as accounted by Andrichomius in 1584 into a Calvary arrangement, i.e., the topography of Kalwaria Zebrzydowska [6]. Most landmarks are monuments. Some date back to the Middle Ages. Their form, architectural style, and spatial relations alone make them cultural heritage assets of over a millennium of the Christian tradition in Poland. Landmarks change as a result of anthropogenic factors. New, higher buildings with greater landscape impact can be built. Sometimes, it can be impossible to fit them seamlessly into the landscape, which can cause the risk of the negative perception of a rural/urban landscape. Landmarks indirectly affect the location of residential estates as well. In Mediaeval Poland the landscape landmark was a church with a slender tower topped with a spire, or a castle with a tower, symbolizing the secular authority [7,8]. In the centuries to follow and to the present day, new forms of landmarks have emerged in the form of manor or residential buildings, roadside crosses, and elements of secular buildings: fire station towers, mills, industrial infrastructure elements, and other. It is not uncommon for landmarks to determine not only the cultural identity but also the landscape identity of a region in the constantly changing environment [9,10]. Viewsheds, which form abstract lines visually joining characteristic points, are extremely strongly connected with landmarks. They used to be frequently used as a design measure in garden compositions, involving improvement of visual depth and incorporating more distant landscapes extending beyond the boundaries of the actual garden into the composition interplay [4]. Geographical and historical studies indicate that the diversity of types of the concentration and dispersion of settlement has been strongly influenced not only by the natural environmental factor but also by the socio-cultural factor, i.e., tradition, religion and scenic values. One can notice a significant role of visual connections in landscape architecture and their socio-political consequences in the process of landscape designing [11]. Certain regularity can be noticed in the process of land improvement, which consists in taking into account the aesthetic aspect and the visual contact with the landmark in the location of buildings. Poland is a country with a dense network of small and very small villages, which account for approx. 81% of the total number of rural settlements [12]. Since the beginning of the formation of societies, residents have perceived the landmark as a component distinguishing an area from a larger space to emphasise their presence in this space [13,14]. In the composition of settlement units, one can notice the Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 3 of 20 principles of hierarchy in which special places, i.e., landmarks, provided the basis for the formation of cultural space with unique arrangement of settlements As the settlement unit developed, new secondary landmarks began to emerge next to the already existing landmarks and took over some of their functions [15]. After the Second World War, the previous development layouts were cancelled, and the agricultural land was developed chaotically. In many regions, the boundaries between the built-up and open areas have become blurred [16]. Poland’s settlement network has been developing particularly spontaneously and influencing the transformations of the contemporary landscape following the political transformation in 1989 [17,18]. Some suggest that the dispersion of rural settlement in Poland has been on the increase [19]. The article focuses on determining the interactions between the settlement locations and zones with an excellent, unique view of well-known landmarks, that are characteristic components of the cultural landscape. The analysis was carried out in the southern part of Poland, using LiDAR DTM, digital photographs and historical maps. The article combines experiences in the field of landscape architecture, spatial planning and the use of GIS technology.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area The analyses have been conducted in southern Poland, over an area of 139.92 km2. In terms of administrative subdivision, the area includes 20 localities (see Figure1). Nineteen of them are villages and one is a town in Wadowicki and Suski Poviats, in municipalities of Kalwaria Zebrzydowska, Lanckorona, Stryszów and Budzów, on the borderline between the Wielickie Foothills and the Maków Beskids, which are parts of the Carpathian Foothills. The study area was chosen because it is located in the vicinity of the town of Kalwaria Zebrzydowska where the main landmark is located (the Bernardine monastery tower). It is the most distinctive architectural element within this area with an advantage over the other ones due to its height, bulk, and location on a hill. Besides the landmarks, the authors took into account secondary landmarks as well (another element aﬀecting the composition following the landmark in the hierarchy of importance). The investigated area has hosted furniture- and shoe-making industries since the 17th century. They contributed to the wealth of the residents. Therefore, it has had a higher population density than other areas in the region. Hence, the regular development of settlements, mainly residential ones. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

Figure 1. The study area against the administrative subdivision (a) in Europe, (b) in Małopolska Figure 1. The study area against the administrative subdivision (a) in Europe, (b) in Małopolska Region and (c) against land cover visible in the aerial photo. Source: Centre for Land Surveying and Region andCartographic (c) against Documentation land cover in visible Warsaw in (licensed). the aerial photo. Source: Centre for Land Surveying and Cartographic Documentation in Warsaw (licensed). 2.2. Data Processing The study was carried out in several stages. The first stage included a field survey aimed at a preliminary analysis of the topography and land cover, the selection of the study area, and the selection of landmarks dominating in terms of height. The fieldwork involved site visits to all thirteen investigated objects. Historical and technical data were obtained from people who managed them to build their profiles. If no data were available in the documentation, physical measurements were carried out, including of the altitude of towers. GISs were used to determine the visual reach, viewshed (in km2) of landmarks in a digital terrain model. The research area was about 140 km2. Selected data in the form of characteristics of selected landmarks and determined area of the range of visibility (km2) within the study area are summarised in Table A1 (Appendix A). Next, each visibility determined with GIS tools was confirmed in situ during a site visit and naked-eye assessment, which included confirmation of natural obstacles for view connections from buildings to landmarks. Inventory drawings of the buildings and view profiles were performed in the field to pinpoint the particular landmark view. Research of the literature on the subject and archival materials was carried out, i.e., DTM, and Austrian cadastral maps on which the distribution of buildings in the locality of Lanckorona around the market square and the streets leading to it were analysed with a religious landmark, a parish church in the north-western part (see Figure 2).

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 4 of 20

2.2. Data Processing The study was carried out in several stages. The first stage included a field survey aimed at a preliminary analysis of the topography and land cover, the selection of the study area, and the selection of landmarks dominating in terms of height. The fieldwork involved site visits to all thirteen investigated objects. Historical and technical data were obtained from people who managed them to build their profiles. If no data were available in the documentation, physical measurements were carried out, including of the altitude of towers. GISs were used to determine the visual reach, viewshed (in km2) of landmarks in a digital terrain model. The research area was about 140 km2. Selected data in the form of characteristics of selected landmarks and determined area of the range of visibility (km2) within the study area are summarised in Table A1 (AppendixA). Next, each visibility determined with GIS tools was confirmed in situ during a site visit and naked-eye assessment, which included confirmation of natural obstacles for view connections from buildings to landmarks. Inventory drawings of the buildings and view profiles were performed in the field to pinpoint the particular landmark view. Research of the literature on the subject and archival materials was carried out, i.e., DTM, and Austrian cadastral maps on which the distribution of buildings in the locality of Lanckorona around the market square and the streets leading to it were analysed with a religious landmark, a parish church in the north-western part (see Figure2). Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

(a) (b) (c) Figure 2. The historical spatial arrangement composed of ﬁelds, roads and buildings as a component of Figurethe rural 2. culturalThe historical heritage. spatial (a) A arrangement section of the composed Austrian cadastral of fields, map roads from and 1846 buildings presenting as a acomponent landmark, ofi.e., the a monasteryrural cultural in Lanckorona heritage. ( (Wadowitzera) A section of Kreis), the Austrian and the characteristic cadastral map small-town from 1846 arrangement presenting ofa landmark,buildings. Source:i.e., a monastery The National in Lanckorona Archives in Krak(Wadowów. (itzerb) The Kreis), current and layout the ofcharacteristic buildings together small-town with arrangementthe current layout of buildings. of cadastral Source: plots. Source:The National own work Archiv basedes on in DTO10k Kraków. data. (b) (cThe) An current aerial photograph layout of buildingsshowing landtogether cover with forms. the Source:current Centrelayout forof cadastral Land Surveying plots. Source: and Cartographic own work based Documentation on DTO10k in data.Warsaw (c) (licensed).An aerial photograph showing land cover forms. Source: Centre for Land Surveying and Cartographic Documentation in Warsaw (licensed). The data were selected from the DTO10k, mentioned earlier. The data in the selected category did not needThe data to be were cleaned. selected They from were the saved DTO10k, in the mentione geodatabased earlier. PostgreSQL The data+ PostGISin the selected format category or other didformats not duringneed to computation. be cleaned. They For the were analysis, saved a digitalin the terraingeodatabase model PostgreSQL (LiDAR DTM) + withPostGIS a resolution format or of 10other10 formats m, generalised during fromcomputation. a detailed For 1 1the m model,analysis, was a applieddigital terrain (the ‘elevation’ model (LiDAR parameter). DTM) The with result a × × resolutionprocessing of technology 10 × 10 m, is ofgeneralised high accuracy from anda deta considerablyiled 1 × 1 exceedsm model, the was needs applied [20]. The(the designated‘elevation’ parameter).viewsheds wereThe result determined processing with technology an accuracy is of of high up to accuracy 10 m in and the considerably ﬁeld for the studyexceeds area the withneeds a [20]. The designated viewsheds were determined with an accuracy of up to 10 m in the field for the study area with a diameter of approx. 15 km. The DTM used for the analyses has a vertical accuracy of the order of 0.15 m, and, it does not exceed 1 m following the generalisation of the basic assessment field (Figure 3). Geographic coordinates of the main landmarks in the study area were determined and projected onto the map (the parameter ‘coordinate identifying the viewing position (x,y)’). Subsequent layers presented information on the compositions of view sheds, the topography, and the distribution of residential buildings. The information about buildings (including the functions of buildings) which are located within the visibility range of particular landmarks and secondary landmarks come from the Database of Topographic Objects (DTO10k). This database was built in Poland from 2012 to 2013, and includes units of administrative subdivision, transport network, water supply network, utility network, buildings, structures and facilities, complexes of land use, protected areas, and other objects. These data are provided in the GML format by the Centre for Land Surveying and Cartographic Documentation in Warsaw. The locations of the vertices of the buildings have been determined with the accuracy of 0.30 m. These parameters facilitated the development of a precise spatial model of the investigated features.

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 5 of 20 diameter of approx. 15 km. The DTM used for the analyses has a vertical accuracy of the order of 0.15 m, and, it does not exceed 1 m following the generalisation of the basic assessment field (Figure3). Geographic coordinates of the main landmarks in the study area were determined and projected onto the map (the parameter ‘coordinate identifying the viewing position (x,y)’). Subsequent layers presented information on the compositions of view sheds, the topography, and the distribution of residential buildings. The information about buildings (including the functions of buildings) which are located within the visibility range of particular landmarks and secondary landmarks come from the Database of Topographic Objects (DTO10k). This database was built in Poland from 2012 to 2013, and includes units of administrative subdivision, transport network, water supply network, utility network, buildings, structures and facilities, complexes of land use, protected areas, and other objects. These data are provided in the GML format by the Centre for Land Surveying and Cartographic Documentation in Warsaw. The locations of the vertices of the buildings have been determined with the accuracy of 0.30 m. These parameters facilitated the development of a precise spatial model of the investigated features. In the second stage, a statistical analysis of the current buildings was conducted to determine such parameters as the density and functions of buildings. Topography was analysed using advanced geoprocessing tools. The basic topographic landforms in the study area were classified. The literature specifies numerous landforms that can be identified based on the Terrain Position Index (TPI index), including streams, midslope drainages, upland drainages and valleys—grouped as ‘Valleys’; ‘Plains’; open slopes and upper slopes grouped as ‘Slopes’, and local ridges, midslope ridges and high ridges, grouped as ‘Ridges’ [21–23]. After preliminary analyses, the resolution of the model was decreased in order to limit the occurrence of sliver areas. This concerned the varied topography, and the occurrence of micro-landforms. An analysis of the location of buildings in relation to landforms was conducted by generating centroids of the objects (the third stage). This ensured a clear allocation of objects in the case where a building overlaps borders of two zones. Buildings situated in multiple zones were indexed in each of them. Next, visual connections between buildings and landmarks and secondary landmarks were analysed based on a LiDAR DTM using spatial analysis. Geospatial analysis, together with elements of mathematics and statistics, highlights the vital role of GIS tools in the analysis of settlement phenomena in connection with landscape aspects [24]. The visual significance is influenced by the vertical dimension as well as the distance from the observer [25]. The height of each landmark was determined (the parameter ‘viewing elevation above the ground’), with 3/4 of the height of the object adopted for calculations. The reason for such an assumption was the requirement of the clear field of view of the landmark, not just of its highest point (Figure4). On the observer’s side, an average human height reduced to the eye-level, i.e., 1.6 m was used (the parameter ‘offset of target elevation above the ground’). The analysis was limited to 20 km around the landmark to ensure a hypothetical visibility of landmarks located on the edge of the study area in all places (the parameter ‘maximum distance from the viewing point’). Due to the application of the above values, particularly the parameter ‘offset of target elevation above the ground”, the calculation of the landmark’s viewshed is not affected by the occurrence of low vegetation, cropland, or bushes. The algorithm, however, does not eliminate high obstacles such as buildings or trees. In the fourth stage, a statistical analysis was carried out for buildings (including the functions of buildings recorded in the Database of Topographic Objects (DTO10k) that are located within the range of visibility of particular landmarks and secondary landmarks. Based on the results of the viewsheds superimposition, the number of viewsheds covering the building was determined for each building. The method facilitated the quantitative aggregation of results and their statistical analysis. RemoteRemote Sens. Sens.2020 2019, 12, 11, 1778, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of6 20 of 20

Figure 3. The general diagram of the research methodology and data used in the analysis, where Figure 3. The general diagram of the research methodology and data used in the analysis, where DTO10k DTO10k is the Database of Topographic Objects. is the Database of Topographic Objects. In the second stage, a statistical analysis of the current buildings was conducted to determine such parameters as the density and functions of buildings. Topography was analysed using advanced geoprocessing tools. The basic topographic landforms in the study area were classified. The literature specifies numerous landforms that can be identified based on the Terrain Position Index (TPI index), including streams, midslope drainages, upland drainages and valleys—grouped as ‘Valleys’; ‘Plains’;

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

grouped as ‘Ridges’ [21–23]. After preliminary analyses, the resolution of the model was decreased in order to limit the occurrence of sliver areas. This concerned the varied topography, and the occurrence of micro-landforms. An analysis of the location of buildings in relation to landforms was conducted by generating centroids of the objects (the third stage). This ensured a clear allocation of objects in the case where a building overlaps borders of two zones. Buildings situated in multiple zones were indexed in each of them. Next, visual connections between buildings and landmarks and secondary landmarks were analysed based on a LiDAR DTM using spatial analysis. Geospatial analysis, together with elements of mathematics and statistics, highlights the vital role of GIS tools in the analysis of settlement phenomena in connection with landscape aspects [24]. The visual significance is influenced by the vertical dimension as well as the distance from the observer [25]. The height of each landmark was determined (the parameter ‘viewing elevation above the ground’), with 3/4 of the height of the object adopted for calculations. The reason for such an assumption was the requirement of the clear field of view of the landmark, not just of its highest point (Figure 4). On the observer’s side, an average human height reduced to the eye-level, i.e., 1.6 m was used (the parameter ‘offset of target elevation above the ground’). The analysis was limited to 20 km around the landmark to ensure a hypothetical visibility of landmarks located on the edge of the study area in all places (the parameter ‘maximum distance from the viewing point’). Due to the application of the above values, particularly the parameter ‘offset of target elevation above the ground”, the Remotecalculation Sens. 2020 of ,the12, 1778landmark’s viewshed is not affected by the occurrence of low vegetation, cropland,7 of 20 or bushes. The algorithm, however, does not eliminate high obstacles such as buildings or trees.

Figure 4.4. Viewsheds on the profile,profile, from the mainmain landmarklandmark toto secondarysecondary landmarks, where A—aA—a parish churchchurch inin KalwariaKalwaria Zebrzydowska; Zebrzydowska; B—a B—a parish parish church church in in Stanisław Stanisław Dolny; Dolny; C—the C—the Old Old Castle Castle in Lanckorona;in Lanckorona; D—a D— parisha parish church church in Lanckorona.in Lanckorona. Source: Source: own own work work based based on on DTM DTM profiles. profiles. 3. Results In the fourth stage, a statistical analysis was carried out for buildings (including the functions of buildingsThe field recorded survey in shows the Database that the topography of Topographi of thec areaObjects is formed (DTO10k) by rugged that are mountain located ranges, within hills, the andrange valley of visibility bottoms, of with particular cropland landmarks and residential and buildingssecondary among landmarks. them. Therefore,Based on itthe was results proven of thatthe religiousviewsheds buildings superimposition, (churches) the perform number the of functionviewsheds of landmarkscovering the in building the investigated was determined area best for as each they towerbuilding. over The residential method buildings.facilitated Theythe quantitative are typical objectsaggregation of the of Carpathian results and Foothills, their statistical which determine analysis. the identity and history of the region. They are located in the centres of localities, recognised by the local community,3. Results and characterised by a unique style, form, and appearance. They are often a local tourist attraction. Thanks to their excellent visibility, they facilitate orientation in the field. They determine The field survey shows that the topography of the area is formed by rugged mountain ranges, the unique nature of the traditional sub-mountain landscape and are, therefore, perceived by the hills, and valley bottoms, with cropland and residential buildings among them. Therefore, it was local community as the ‘spirit of place’ (genius loci), and build the landscape identity [10,26,27]. proven that religious buildings (churches) perform the function of landmarks in the investigated area The religious landmarks selected for the analysis, i.e., churches (13) are objects built from the 17th to best as they tower over residential buildings. They are typical objects of the Carpathian Foothills, the 20th century. In the analysed area, the viewsheds for these landmarks vary from less than 46 km2 which determine the identity and history of the region. They are located in the centres of localities, for the locality of Kalwaria to less than 3 km2 in the locality of Skawinki (see Table A1 in AppendixA).

The most extended viewshed is noted for the oldest of the landmarks, i.e., the Bernardine Shrine of Passion and Holy Mary in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska. The study area (140 km2) has almost 15 thousand buildings. Most of them (60%) are single-family housing. Agricultural production buildings of microholdings make up 32.7% of the total number of buildings. The other building classes, i.e., commercial, industrial and technical, multi-family residential buildings, as well as tourism and hotel facilities, science, culture and healthcare, and religious buildings are 7.3% of the total number of all buildings (see Table A2 AppendixA). The most significant number of buildings of all functions was found on evenly sloped areas—42.1%, 36.7% in flat areas, 11.7% in valleys, 9.5% on hills. Single-family residential buildings were located mainly on slopes and in flat areas 79.4% and only 20.6% in valleys and on hills (Figure5). As regards single-family residential buildings, 7142 objects were located on slopes and in flat areas, which accounts for 79.4% of the total number of such buildings (Table A3 in AppendixA). Other types of buildings were characterised by a similar spatial distribution: multi-family residential, commercial, industrial and technical, agricultural, and science, culture and healthcare. For this type of development, economic aspects are much more important than landscape ones. It would appear that the location has a significant importance for the allure of tourism and hotel buildings. The study does not reflect this as buildings of this type were similar to single-family residential buildings. Tourism and hotel buildings were mainly located in flat areas and on slopes (a total of 86.7% of buildings with this function). Only 10.0% of tourism and hotel buildings were located in valleys, and as few as 3.3%, on Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20 recognised by the local community, and characterised by a unique style, form, and appearance. They are often a local tourist attraction. Thanks to their excellent visibility, they facilitate orientation in the field. They determine the unique nature of the traditional sub-mountain landscape and are, therefore, perceived by the local community as the ‘spirit of place’ (genius loci), and build the landscape identity [10,26,27]. The religious landmarks selected for the analysis, i.e., churches (13) are objects built from the 17th to the 20th century. In the analysed area, the viewsheds for these landmarks vary from less than 46 km2 for the locality of Kalwaria to less than 3 km2 in the locality of Skawinki (see Table A1 in Appendix A). The most extended viewshed is noted for the oldest of the landmarks, i.e., the Bernardine Shrine of Passion and Holy Mary in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska. The study area (140 km2) has almost 15 thousand buildings. Most of them (60%) are single-family housing. Agricultural production buildings of microholdings make up 32.7% of the total number of buildings. The other building classes, i.e., commercial, industrial and technical, multi-family residential buildings, as well as tourism and hotel facilities, science, culture and healthcare, and religious buildings are 7.3% of the total number of all buildings (see Table A2 Appendix A). The most significant number of buildings of all functions was found on evenly sloped areas – 42.1%, 36.7% in flat areas, 11.7% in valleys, 9.5% on hills. Single-family residential buildings were located mainly on slopes and in flat areas 79.4% and only 20.6% in valleys and on hills (Figure 5). As regards single-family residential buildings, 7142 objects were located on slopes and in flat areas, which accounts for 79.4% of the total number of such buildings (Table A3 in Appendix A). Other types of buildings were characterised by a similar spatial distribution: multi-family residential, commercial, industrial and technical, agricultural, and science, culture and healthcare. For this type of development, economic aspects are much more important than landscape ones. It would appear that the location has a significant importance for the allure of tourism and hotel buildings. The study does not reflect this as buildings of this type were similar to single-family residential buildings. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 8 of 20 Tourism and hotel buildings were mainly located in flat areas and on slopes (a total of 86.7% of buildings with this function). Only 10.0% of tourism and hotel buildings were located in valleys, and hills.as few The as 3.3%, 19 objects on hills. marked The 19 as objects religious marked buildings as religious were located buildings mainly were onlocated hills andmainly slopes on hills (65.5%). and Fifteenslopes (65.5%). buildings Fifteen (27.3%) buildings were located (27.3%) in were flat areas, located and in only flat 4areas, (7.3%) and were only located 4 (7.3%) in valleys.were located in valleys.

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) 9 of 20

(b)

Figure 5.5. (a(a)) A A general general map map of landforms—classificationof landforms—classification of objects of objects according according to the TPIto the (Terrain TPI (Terrain Position Index)Position index-based Index) index-based landforms (examplelandforms localities). (example ( blocalities).) Distribution (b) ofDistribution buildings over of landformsbuildings withover considerationlandforms with of buildingconsideration functions. of building The localities: functions. KA—Kalwaria The localities: Zebrzydowska; KA—Kalwaria BG—Barwałd Zebrzydowska; Górny; BS—BarwałdBG—BarwałdSredni;´ Górny; BR—Brody; BS—Barwa BU—Bugaj;łd Średni; IZ—Izdebnik; BR—Brody; JA—Jastrz˛ebia;BU—Bugaj; IZ LA—Lanckorona;—Izdebnik; JA— LE—Le´ncze;Jastrzębia; LS—Le´snica;LA—Lanckorona; PO—Podolany; LE—Leńcze; PR—Przytkowice; LS—Leśnica; PO PA—Palcza;—Podolany; SK—Skawinki;PR—Przytkowice; SD—Stanisław PA—Palcza; Dolny; SK— ST—Stronie;Skawinki; SD ZA—Zakrz—Stanisławów; Dolny; ZM—Zarzyce ST—Stronie; Małe; ZW—Zarzyce ZA—Zakrzów; Wielkie; ZM— ZE—Zebrzydowice.Zarzyce Małe; ZW—Zarzyce Wielkie; ZE—Zebrzydowice. As demonstrated by detailed studies (Table1, Figure6), more than 80% of the 8893 single-family residentialAs demonstrated buildings located by detailed in the studies area had (Table visual 1, contactFigure 6), with more at leastthan one80% landmark. of the 8893 Visual single-family contact withresidential a landmark buildings was notlocated noted in forthe only area 19.95%had visual of the contact buildings with located at least in one the landmark. area. As many Visual as contact 35.29% ofwith the a buildings landmark had was visual not noted contact for with only two 19.95% landmarks, of the 19.84%buildings with located three, 11.22%in the area. with As four, many and as many35.29% as of 4.22% the buildings with ﬁve had landmarks. visual contact with two landmarks, 19.84% with three, 11.22% with four, and as many as 4.22% with five landmarks.

Table 1. The percentage of visibility of a specified number of landmarks in the total number of single- family residential buildings.

Landmark 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Visibility No % No % No % No % No % No % No % KA 13 0.7 121 6.3 406 21.1 684 35.6 671 34.9 27 1.4 0 0.0 BG 133 18.3 386 53.2 188 25.9 19 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 BS 394 49.7 253 31.9 127 16.0 16 2.0 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 BR 34 2.7 318 25.3 218 17.3 192 15.3 309 24.5 164 13.0 24 1.9 BU 12 4.0 114 38.3 160 53.7 0 0.0 9 3.0 3 1.0 0 0.0 IZ 394 31.7 393 31.6 421 33.9 35 2.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 JA 188 47.4 204 51.4 5 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 LA 162 12.8 682 54.0 285 22.6 68 5.4 15 1.2 11 0.9 28 2.2 LE 120 16.2 237 32.0 205 27.7 168 22.7 9 1.2 1 0.1 0 0.0 LS 36 21.1 100 58.5 25 14.6 1 0.6 4 2.3 5 2.9 0 0.0 PO 61 25.5 152 63.6 26 10.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 PR 414 32.1 497 38.6 232 18.0 121 9.4 16 1.2 2 0.2 7 0.5 PA 337 50.4 331 49.5 1 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 SK 253 45.5 189 34.0 99 17.8 12 2.2 3 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 SD 88 9.5 175 19.0 196 21.2 68 7.4 101 10.9 246 26.7 49 5.3 ST 153 28.9 345 65.1 28 5.3 4 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZA 120 16.9 528 74.5 57 8.0 1 0.1 3 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZM 0 0.0 25 30.9 46 56.8 10 12.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZW 36 12.8 113 40.2 67 23.8 44 15.7 21 7.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZE 42 4.7 127 14.1 181 20.1 238 26.4 115 12.8 174 19.3 23 2.6 Total 2990 19.9 5290 35.3 2973 19.8 1681 11.2 1278 8.5 633 4.2 131 0.9 The localities: KA—Kalwaria Zebrzydowska; BG—Barwałd Górny; BS—Barwałd Średni; BR—Brody; BU—Bugaj; IZ—Izdebnik; JA—Jastrzębia; LA—Lanckorona; LE—Leńcze; LS—Leśnica; PO— Podolany; PR—Przytkowice; PA—Palcza; SK—Skawinki; SD—Stanisław Dolny; ST—Stronie; ZA— Zakrzów; ZM—Zarzyce Małe; ZW—Zarzyce Wielkie; ZE—Zebrzydowice.

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 9 of 20

RemoteTable Sens. 2019 1. The, 11, x percentage FOR PEER REVIEW of visibility of a speciﬁed number of landmarks in the total number of10 of 20 single-family residential buildings. Landmark No % No % No % No % No % No % No % VLandmarkisibility 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Visibility KA No13 %0.7 No121 %6.3 No406 %21.1 No684 %35.6 No671 34.9 % No27 %1.4 No0 %0.0 BG 133 18.3 386 53.2 188 25.9 19 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 KA 13 0.7 121 6.3 406 21.1 684 35.6 671 34.9 27 1.4 0 0.0 BS 394 49.7 253 31.9 127 16.0 16 2.0 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 BG 133 18.3 386 53.2 188 25.9 19 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 BR 34 2.7 318 25.3 218 17.3 192 15.3 309 24.5 164 13.0 24 1.9 BS 394 49.7 253 31.9 127 16.0 16 2.0 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 BU 12 4.0 114 38.3 160 53.7 0 0.0 9 3.0 3 1.0 0 0.0 BR 34 2.7 318 25.3 218 17.3 192 15.3 309 24.5 164 13.0 24 1.9 IZBU 394 12 4.031.7 114393 38.331.6 160421 53.733.9 035 0.02.8 90 3.00.0 30 1.00.0 0 0 0.00.0 JAIZ 188394 31.747.4 393204 31.651.4 4215 33.91.3 350 2.80.0 00 0.00.0 00 0.00.0 0 0 0.00.0 LAJA 162188 47.412.8 204682 51.454.0 5285 1.322.6 068 0.05.4 015 0.01.2 11 0 0.00.9 028 0.02.2 LELA 120162 12.816.2 682237 54.032.0 285205 22.627.7 68168 5.422.7 159 1.21.2 111 0.90.1 280 2.20.0 LSLE 12036 16.221.1 237100 32.058.5 20525 27.714.6 1681 22.70.6 94 1.22.3 15 0.12.9 0 0 0.00.0 POLS 61 36 21.125.5 100152 58.563.6 2526 14.610.9 10 0.60.0 40 2.30.0 50 2.90.0 0 0 0.00.0 PRPO 414 61 25.532.1 152497 63.638.6 26232 10.918.0 0121 0.09.4 016 0.01.2 02 0.00.2 0 7 0.00.5 PAPR 337414 32.150.4 497331 38.649.5 2321 18.00.1 1210 9.40.0 160 1.20.0 20 0.20.0 7 0 0.50.0 SKPA 253337 50.445.5 331189 49.534.0 199 0.117.8 012 0.02.2 03 0.00.5 00 0.00.0 0 0 0.00.0 SK 253 45.5 189 34.0 99 17.8 12 2.2 3 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 SD 88 9.5 175 19.0 196 21.2 68 7.4 101 10.9 246 26.7 49 5.3 SD 88 9.5 175 19.0 196 21.2 68 7.4 101 10.9 246 26.7 49 5.3 ST 153 28.9 345 65.1 28 5.3 4 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 ST 153 28.9 345 65.1 28 5.3 4 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZA 120 16.9 528 74.5 57 8.0 1 0.1 3 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZA 120 16.9 528 74.5 57 8.0 1 0.1 3 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 ZMZM 0 0.00.0 2525 30.930.9 4646 56.856.8 1010 12.312.3 00 0.00.0 00 0.00.0 0 0 0.00.0 ZWZW 36 12.812.8 113113 40.240.2 6767 23.823.8 4444 15.715.7 2121 7.57.5 00 0.00.0 0 0 0.00.0 ZEZE 42 4.74.7 127127 14.114.1 181181 20.120.1 238238 26.426.4 115115 12.812.8 174 19.319.3 2323 2.62.6 TotalTotal 29902990 19.919.9 5290529035.3 35.3 29732973 19.819.8 16811681 11.211.2 12781278 8.58.5 633 4.24.2 131131 0.90.9 The localities:localities: KA—Kalwaria KA—Kalwaria Zebrzydowska; Zebrzydowska; BG—Barwałd BG—Barwałd Górny; Górny; BS—Barwałd BS—BarwałdSredni;´ BR—Brody; Średni; BR BU—Bugaj;—Brody; IZ—Izdebnik;BU—Bugaj; JA—Jastrz˛ebia;LA—Lanckorona; IZ—Izdebnik; JA—Jastrzębia; LE—Le´ncze;LS—Le´snica;PO—Podolany; LA—Lanckorona; LE—Leńcze; LS— PR—Przytkowice;Leśnica; PO— PA—Palcza; SK—Skawinki; SD—Stanisław Dolny; ST—Stronie; ZA—Zakrzów; ZM—Zarzyce Małe; ZW—Zarzyce Wielkie;Podolany; ZE—Zebrzydowice. PR—Przytkowice; PA—Palcza; SK—Skawinki; SD—Stanisław Dolny; ST—Stronie; ZA— Zakrzów; ZM—Zarzyce Małe; ZW—Zarzyce Wielkie; ZE—Zebrzydowice.

500 400 300 200 100 0 KA BG BS BR BU IZ JA LA LE LS PO PR PA SK SD ST ZA ZM ZW ZE

(a) 800

600

400

200

0 KA BG BS BR BU IZ JA LA LE LS PO PR PA SK SD ST ZA ZM ZW ZE

(b)

Figure 6. Cont.

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 10 of 20

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

500 400 300 200 100 0 KA BG BS BR BU IZ JA LA LE LS PO PR PA SK SD ST ZA ZM ZW ZE

(d) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 KA BG BS BR BU IZ JA LA LE LS PO PR PA SK SD ST ZA ZM ZW ZE

(e) 400

200

0 KA BG BS BR BU IZ JA LA LE LS PO PR PA SK SD ST ZA ZM ZW ZE

(f)

Figure 6. Comparison of visibility of landmarks from from single single-family-family houses houses in in the the analysed analysed localities. localities. The vertical axis shows the number of buildings,buildings, where (a) zero visibility of landmarks from single family houses; ( b) one landmark landmark visibility; visibility; ( (c)) two two landmarks landmarks visibility; visibility; ( (dd)) three three landmarks landmarks visibility; visibility; (e) four landmarks visibility; (f) ﬁvefive landmarkslandmarks visibility.visibility.

Figure 7 presents the shaded relief topographic map. The red stars indicate landmarks, including the landmark located in the area of one of the analysed objects in the village of Izdebnik. The

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 11 of 20

Figure7 presents the shaded relief topographic map. The red stars indicate landmarks, Remoteincluding Sens. 2019 the, 11 landmark, x FOR PEER located REVIEW in the area of one of the analysed objects in the village of Izdebnik.12 of 20 The viewshed for the height parameters of the Izdebnik (IZ) landmark is in light purple. Buildings, viewshed for the height parameters of the Izdebnik (IZ) landmark is in light purple. Buildings, dark dark grey points, in this area are in the zone of the direct inﬂuence of the landmark. grey points, in this area are in the zone of the direct influence of the landmark.

Figure 7. An example of a single viewshed of the Izdebnik (IZ) landmark. Figure 7. An example of a single viewshed of the Izdebnik (IZ) landmark.

FigureFigure 8 8presents presents the the effect e ﬀ ectof the of superimposition the superimposition of several of several viewsheds viewsheds on the on study the area. study The area. localitiesThe localities with the with most the mostconsiderable considerable number number of visible of visible landmarks landmarks include include Kalwaria Kalwaria Zebrzydowska Zebrzydowska (KA),(KA), Zebrzydowice Zebrzydowice (ZE), (ZE), Stanisław Stanisław Dolny Dolny (SD) (SD) an andd Brody Brody (BR). The highest proportionproportion of of buildings buildings for forwhich which no no landmark landmark visibility visibility was was noted noted were were found found in in the the localities localities of of Przytkowice Przytkowice (PR), (PR), Izdebnik Izdebnik (IZ), (IZ)and, and Barwałd BarwałdSredni´ Średni (BS), (BS), which which may may result result from from the the topography topography and and the the large large proportion proportion of highof highforest for vegetationest vegetation in the in coverthe cover of the of area. the Onearea. hundred One hundred and one and buildings one buildings in all the in analysed all the analy placessed had placesan unobstructed had an unobstructed view of six view landmarks. of six landmarks Kalwaria. Kalwaria Zebrzydowska Zebrzydowska (KA) is among (KA) is the among towns the that towns stand thatout stand in terms out ofin theterms landmark of the landmark visibility. visibility. A detailed A analysis detailed with analys theis use with of LiDARthe use DTMof LiDAR and DTO10k DTM anddata DTO10k demonstrated data demonstrated that in Kalwaria that in Zebrzydowska Kalwaria Zebrzydowska (KA), only (KA), 13 (i.e., only 0.7%) 13 (i.e. of, the 0.7%) total of numberthe total of numberbuildings, of buildings i.e., 1922, i.e. did, 1922 nothave did not visual have contact visual with contact any with of the any analysed of the analy landmarkssed landmarks or secondary or secondarylandmarks, landmarks 6.3% of, the6.3% buildings of the buildings (121) had (121) visual had contact visual withcontact one with landmark, one landmark 21.1% (406), 21.1% with (406) two withlandmarks, two landmarks 35.6% (684), 35.6% with (684) three with landmarks, three landmarks and slightly, and slightly fewer, i.e., fewer 34.9%, i.e. of, 34.9% the buildings of the buildings (671) had (671)a contact had a withcontact four with landmarks. four landmarks As many. As as many 1.4% as of 1.4% the buildings of the buildings (27) had (27) visual had contact visual contact with ﬁve withlandmarks five landmarks (Figure 8(F).igure 8).

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 12 of 20

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20

FigureFigure 8. An 8. An example example of multiple of multiple landmarks’ landmarks’ viewsheds viewsheds (landmarks (landmarks in inIzdebnik, Izdebnik, Kalwaria Kalwaria and and Leńcze). Leńcze). 4. Discussion 4. Discussion The analyses have demonstrated that in the area with long settlement history, improvements on The analyses have demonstrated that in the area with long settlement history, improvements on land comprise several interconnected elements: land, buildings, and facilities made by inhabitants, land comprise several interconnected elements: land, buildings, and facilities made by inhabitants, which was confirmed by Heathcott [28] as well. The shape of a settlement unit, emerging from the which was confirmed by Heathcott [28] as well. The shape of a settlement unit, emerging from the compositioncomposition of of buildings buildings and and transport transport system together together w withith the the natural natural environment environment (relief), (relief), creates creates a functionala functional whole developedwhole developed over a specific over a time, specific specific time, space, specific and under space, specific and under physicogeographical specific andphysicogeographical socioeconomic conditions and socio [economic29,30]. As conditions the case [29,30 study]. demonstrates,As the case study view demonstrates, connections view between buildingsconnections and landmarks between buildings are also anand important landmarks part are of also the awarenessan important of residents part of the who awareness shape their of space Thereresidents are well-known who shape examplestheir space that There show are well local‒known interactions examples between that show human local settlements interactions andbetween the natural environmenthuman settlements [31,32], and between the natural ecosystem environment components [31,32], andbetween human ecosystem societies components [33], or urban and human settlements processessocieties [26 [33,34], or]. Asurban early settlements as the 19th processes century, [26,34 humans]. As early were as foundthe 19th not century, always humans to act were reasonably found when not always to act reasonably when organising the space in which they live and work. The example in organising the space in which they live and work. The example in southern Poland shows that humans southern Poland shows that humans perceive the environment they live in at various levels, e.g., perceive the environment they live in at various levels, e.g., from the angle of cultural, religious, from the angle of cultural, religious, social, and other traditions, which was confirmed in a Norway social,study, and for other example traditions, [35]. The whichrural landscape was confirmed, being a particularly in a Norway valuable study, space for examplein terms of [35 cultural]. The rural landscape,heritage, being reflect as particularlythe character valuable of the environment, space in terms space, of cultural culture, heritage,and tradition reflects—and the as character we can of the environment,observe—of space, uniqueness culture, and and diversity tradition—and [36]. as we can observe—of uniqueness and diversity [36]. AnalysisAnalysis of of the the locations locations ofof buildings suggests suggests that that they they should should be considered be considered in terms in termsof internal of internal andand external external conditions conditions (general (general location properties). properties). As Asa place a place chosen chosen based based not only not by only physical by physical andand geographical geographical factors factors butbut alsoalso by behavio behaviouralural ones ones,, i.e. i.e.,, thethe perception perception of a particular of a particular place and place and featuresfeatures of placesof places particularly particularly preferredpreferred by by various various social social and and cultural cultural groups groups [12,37 [12]. It,37 has]. Italso has been also been proven that with an increase in the number of buildings within a specific area, the attractiveness of proven that with an increase in the number of buildings within a specific area, the attractiveness of the place increases, that is the aggregating element can be historical, religious, and other centres [38], the place increases, that is the aggregating element can be historical, religious, and other centres [38], as was demonstrated here with selected localities. A study into the dependence of the type of as wasbuildings demonstrated in a location here on with a particular selected landform localities. confirms A study theses into thewhich dependence may appear of obvious the type and of buildingsbe in agenerally location considered on a particular to be robust landform. The confirmsresidential theses buildings which are located may appear in general obvious in flat and areas be and generally consideredon slopes, to and, be to robust. a lesser The extent, residential on hills and buildings in valleys. are Hotel located and intourism general buildings in flat prefer areas flat and areas on slopes, and, to a lesser extent, on hills and in valleys. Hotel and tourism buildings prefer flat areas followed by slopes. At the same time, commercial buildings and sports facilities were identified almost only in flat areas. There are surprisingly few buildings on hills where the potentially best landscape and viewing Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 13 of 20 conditions occur. The study suggests that cultural (religious) buildings are located mostly on hills. One can assume the fundamental prerequisite for their construction was excellent visibility from as far as possible. It made them inherently landmarks that determined the development in the investigated area. This supports the thesis suggested throughout the paper that landmarks played an essential role in building social bonds and relations, also in spatial terms. Hence the reference landform category that was not used for other classes, ridges. Profiles and the viewsheds confirm the existence of visual connections between the landmarks selected for analyses. Besides, the cross-sections along the lines of viewsheds between landmarks confirm the previously presented studies according to which buildings are mainly found in flat areas and on small slopes [12,39]. The study has confirmed the crucial role of the tall landmark in the spatial and social structure of settlement units in relation to the concept of familiarity. According to this concept, a positive emotional connection can exist between a human and a place. A community living in the zone of influence of a tall landmark has a sense of being at home and provides the place with a host who cares for it [40]. This psycho-sociological perception of a place in a spatial-cultural space (considered as cultural heritage), can be considered a landscape identity [41]. The relationship with the visibility of landmarks may indicate an influence of the location of spatial landmarks on decisions concerning the location of homesteads taken by inhabitants [36]. The distribution of buildings in the area concerned is not random but, to a certain extent, ordered, and results from informed decisions of citizens and their perceptions and social valuation of landscape [42]. The analysis indicates an important relationship between human settlements and cultural landscape elements. The area of ecumene has been continuously growing (which is indicated, among other things by the increasing number of buildings, in Poland particularly following the 1989 political transformation). Anthropogenic transformations occur within it. Each part of the settlement unit was subject not only to the influence of strictly determined factors but also random phenomena; however, as presented in the results, deliberate human influence also takes into account (more or less consciously) the cultural aspect in the development of buildings. The analysis of settlement localisations, conducted in the article, shows bonds between people and their surroundings (landmarks in this case) [43]. In addition, the studies presented in the article confirm that the high landmarks in southern Poland’s landscape accentuate the space and make it more explicit by setting directions of viewsheds as the region’s treasures [30,44]. Therefore, they can be considered an intangible component of the regional cultural heritage. It has been proven that in the analysed area, a landmark indicates the centre of a village’s or a town’s life and is a significant factor for spatial identification and orientation. Thus, it can be perceived as a determinant of the quality of both urban and rural space, a historical value, a spatial symbol, a specific identifier in the landscape space, and a means of conveying the identity [10,45]. It was noted that transport, visual, and cultural connections were being established between the distinctive objects (landmarks), which, while creating spatiotemporal relations, may influence the local identity of the areas [46,47], which is particularly evident in the Carpathian Foothills. The role of landmarks may change over time, also due to significant changes and transformations of functional and spatial structures [47]. However, landmarks will always be a ‘good continuation’ in the development of landscape structures and the urban and architectural development of towns and villages. They are a factor that remains constant over time, which from a historical point of view, could have affected the shape and distribution of housing estates, as being the determinant of the location of individual buildings, not only in the past but also today.

5. Conclusions The article conﬁrms the fundamental statements of human geography according to which places interact with one another. A viewshed ensuring contact with a spatial landmark as an intangible aspect is a factor that plays an essential role in the location of residential buildings in the Polish sub-mountain area, which is conﬁrmed by the geospatial analysis carried out for 20 settlement units. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 14 of 20

According to the authors, this analysis can be used to carry out historical and compositional studies and landscape analysis for local zoning plans, which should be a future research. An analysis of a settlement and description of rural settlements from various perspectives are very important for the spatial planning and sustainable development of the settlement network as well as preservation of rural cultural heritage, particularly in highly developed countries where urban-to-rural migration trend is observed. From the spatial point of view, this study facilitates the broadening of the scope of spatial analyses and settlement typology to include an abstract interaction between the settlement network and the cultural landscape, represented in this case by landmarks. At the policy level, the proposed approach requires the consideration of all significant natural and human components and their interaction at a specific place and time in the settlement network creation. It should be taken into account that a phenomenon observed and researched on a local and regional scale may manifest itself on a global scale as well. On the other hand, an analysis of the settlement structure perceived in the context of visual connections is a part of the morphogenesis of settlement units, explaining the concept of geographical space development. Although it may be a priori assumed that many of the new buildings did not consider the landmark visibility factor, the present study representing the bulk approach to the calculation of the number of landmarks visible from each building in the investigated area clearly indicates that such a relationship exists. This conclusion is also confirmed by the analysis of the mutual distribution of residential buildings and their concentration around the landmark. As the distance from a landmark and village centre increases, the dispersion of residential buildings can be noticed as well as maintaining the visual contact with the landmark, which can confirm its emotional and aesthetic influence on residents. The present study may indicate well-thought-out, planned, or designed activities or only an approach unconsciously applied by residents, related to the use of landmarks as a borrowed view, where a part of the landscape (view) or panorama located outside the boundaries of one’s property (often a garden) is incorporated into the composition interplay. The study confirmed the particularly good visibility of landmarks from Kalwaria Zebrzydowska, which can be attributable to the monastery established there in the 17th century as well as the landscape pilgrimage park (Kalwaria was listed as a UNESCO heritage site in 1999). One of the ideological assumptions for Kalwaria was to form a harmonious combination of religious facilities (the monastery, shrines) while maintaining visual connections between them. This principle could be continued by inhabitants of the localities established in the vicinity of the monastery. Thus, it could strengthen and emphasise the significance of the religious zone and its influence on the nearby localities. The protection of the cultural landscape of historical rural systems requires that their most valuable features should remain clear, and the new elements should be coherent with them.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S.; methodology, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S.; software, T.S.; validation, T.S. and B.P.; formal analysis, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S.; investigation, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S.; resources, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S.; data curation, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S.; writing—review and editing, B.P.; visualization, T.S., M.W.-M.; supervision, B.P.; project administration, B.P.; funding acquisition, B.P., M.W.-M. and T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by Project ‘Cultural heritage of small homelands’ no. PPI/APM/2018/1/00010/U/001 financed by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange as a part of the International Academic Partnerships. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thorough work with the manuscript and for providing constructive and insightful comments on this paper. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. RemoteRemote Sens. Sens. 2019 2019, ,11 11, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1616 of of 20 20 RemoteRemote Sens. Sens. 2019 2019, ,11 11, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 1616 of of 20 20 AppendixAppendix A A Appendix A Remote Sens. 2020Appendix, 12, 1778 A 15 of 20 TableTable A1. A1. Examples Examples of of analysed analysed landmarks landmarks and and secondary secondary landmarks landmarks. . TableTable A1. A1. Examples Examples of of analysed analysed landmarks landmarks and and secondary secondary landmarks landmarks. . DeterminedDetermined A Arearea of Appendix A Determined Area Determinedofthe the R Rangeange A of reaof CharacteristicsCharacteristics of of Selected Selected of the Range of No.No. ObjectObject/ /Landmark Landmark Visibilit Visibilityy Sketch Sketch Characteristics of Selected ofVVisibility isibilitythe Range [km[km of22] ] No. Object/ Landmark Visibility Sketch CharacteristicsLandmarksLandmarks of Selected Visibility [km2] No. Object/ Landmark VisibilityTable Sketch A1. Examples of analysedLandmarks landmarks and secondarywithinVwithinisibility landmarks. thethe [km SStudytudy2] Landmarks within the Study withinA Atherearea S tudy Area Determined Area of the Range of No. Object/Landmark Visibility Sketch Characteristics of Selected LandmarksArea 2 TheThe Bernardine Bernardine Shrine Shrine of of Visibility [km ] within the Study Area The Bernardine Shrine of PassionPassionThe Bernardine and and Holy Holy Shrine Mary Mary inof in Passion and Holy Mary in KalwariaPassionKalwaria and Zebrzydowska Zebrzydowska Holy Mary in TheKalwaria Bernardine Zebrzydowska Shrine of Passion and Holy Mary 11 UNESCOKalwariaUNESCO list Zebrzydowskalist (1999); (1999); built built 45.98145.981 1 UNESCOin Kalwaria list Zebrzydowska (1999); built UNESCO45.981 list (1999); 1 1 UNESCObetweenbetween 1600 list 1600 (1999); and and 1617 1617 built 45.981 45.981 between 1600built and between 1617 1600 and 1617 ElevationElevationbetween in cl.incl. 1600 the the tower:and tower: 1617 405 405 + ElevationElevation incl. incl. the the tower: tower: 405 405 + 35 = 440 m ASL Elevation35+ 35 = incl. 440= 440 mthe mASL tower: ASL 405 ++ 35 35 = = 440 440 m m ASL ASL

Lanckorona—a parish LanckoronaLanckorona—a parish—a parish church Lanckoronachurch—a parish Builtchurch in 1649 22 Lanckorona—aBuiltchurch in 1649 parish churchBuilt20.48620.486 in 1649 2 2 Elevation incl.Built the in tower:1649 488 + 20.486 20.486 2 ElevationElevationBuilt incl. incl.in the 1649 thetower: tower: 488 488 + 30 =20.486518 m ASL Elevation30 = 5incl.18 m the ASL tower: 488 Elevation+ 30 incl. = 518 the m tower: ASL 488 ++ 30 30 = = 5 51818 m m ASL ASL

IzdebnikIzdebnik——a aparish parish church church Izdebnik—a parish church DateDateIzdebnik of of establishment: establishment:—a parish church 183 1838–8 – Date of establishment: 1838– 33 Date of establishment:18411841Izdebnik—a 1838 parish– church5.3335.333 3 3 Date1841 of establishment: 1838–18415.333 5.333 3 ElevationElevation incl. incl.1841 the the tower: tower: 27 270 +0 5.333 ElevationElevation incl. incl. the the tower: tower: 270 270 + 22 = 292 m ASL Elevation22+ 22 = incl. 2=92 292 mthe mASL tower: ASL 270 ++ 22 22 = = 2 29292 m m ASL ASL

Brody—a parish church Date of establishment: 1615– Brody—a parishBrody—a church parish church 4 Brody—1642a parish church 9.085 4 DateBrody of establishment:—Datea parish of establishment: church 161 5– 1615–1642 9.085 ElevationDateElevation of incl. establishment: the incl. tower: the tower: 311619 5+– 319 + 20 = 339 m ASL 4 Date of establishment:1642 1615– 9.085 4 20 = 3391642 m ASL 9.085 4 Elevation incl.1642 the tower: 319 9.085 PrzytkowiceElevation —incl.a parish the tower: church 319 Elevation+ 20 incl. = 339 the m tower: ASL 319 Date of+ + establishment:20 20 = = 3 33939 m m ASL ASL 194 8– 5 1953 8.675 Elevation incl. the tower: 293 + Przytkowice27 = 320 m— ASLa parish Przytkowice—a parish Przytkowicechurch—a parish Leńcze—a churchparish church Date of establishment:church 1948– 5 DateDate of of establishment: establishment: 193 1941–8– 8.675 5 Date of establishment:1953 1948– 8.675 5 19381953, 8.675 Elevation incl.1953 the tower: 293 6 DateElevation of tower incl. establishment: the tower: 29 3 14.739 Elevation+ 27 incl. = 320 the m tower: ASL 293 1958–1959 ++ 27 27 = = 3 32020 m m ASL ASL Elevation incl. the tower:

Leńcze325 + 27— =a 3parish52 m ASL church Leńcze—a parish church DateLeńcze of establishment:—a parish church 193 1– SkawinkiDate of establishment:—a parish church 193 1– Date of establishment:1938, 1931– Date of establishment:1938, 1733 6 Date of tower1938 establishment:, 14.739 67 Date of(196 tower2–1964 establishment:) 14.7392.989 6 Date of tower1958 –establishment:1959 14.739 Elevation incl.195 the8–1959 tower: 379 + Elevation195 incl.8–1959 the tower: Elevation20 = 399 incl. m ASL the tower: Elevation325 + 27 incl. = 352 the m tower: ASL 323255 + + 27 27 = = 3 35252 m m ASL ASL

Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20

Appendix A

Table A1. Examples of analysed landmarks and secondary landmarks.

Determined Area Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 20 Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW of the Range of16 of 20 Characteristics of Selected No. Object/ Landmark Visibility Sketch Visibility [km2] Appendix A Landmarks Appendix A within the Study Area Table A1. Examples of analysed landmarks and secondary landmarks. Table A1. Examples of analysed landmarks and secondary landmarks. The Bernardine Shrine of Determined Area of Passion and Holy Mary in Determined Area of the Range of CharacteristicsKalwaria Zebrzydowska of Selected the Range of No. Object/ Landmark Visibility Sketch Characteristics of Selected Visibility [km2] 1No. Object/ Landmark Visibility Sketch UNESCOLandmarks list (1999); built Visibility45.981 [km2] Landmarks within the Study between 1600 and 1617 within the Study Area Elevation incl. the tower: 405 Area The +Bernardine 35 = 440 m ShrineASL of The Bernardine Shrine of Passion and Holy Mary in Passion and Holy Mary in Kalwaria Zebrzydowska Kalwaria Zebrzydowska 1 UNESCOLanckorona list —(1999);a parish built 45.981 1 UNESCO list (1999); built 45.981 betweenchurch 1600 and 1617 between 1600 and 1617 2 ElevationBuilt incl. inthe 1649 tower: 405 + 20.486 Elevation incl. the tower: 405 + Elevation35 =incl. 440 the m ASLtower: 488 35 = 440 m ASL + 30 = 518 m ASL

Lanckorona—a parish church Lanckorona—a parish church Built in 1649 2 IzdebnikBuilt—a inparish 1649 church 20.486 2 Elevation incl. the tower: 488 + 20.486 ElevationDate of establishment: incl. the tower: 183 4888– + 30 = 518 m ASL 3 30 = 5184118 m ASL 5.333 Elevation incl. the tower: 270

+ 22 = 292 m ASL

Izdebnik—a parish church Izdebnik—a parish church Date of establishment: 1838– Date of establishment: 1838– 3 Brody—a 1841parish church 5.333 3 1841 5.333 ElevationDate of establishment: incl. the tower: 161 2750– + Elevation incl. the tower: 270 + 4 22 = 2164292 m ASL 9.085 22 = 292 m ASL Elevation incl. the tower: 319

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 + 20 = 339 m ASL 16 of 20 Brody—a parish church Brody—a parish church Date of establishment: 1615– Date of establishment: 1615– 4 1642 9.085 4 Table1642 A1. Cont. 9.085 ElevationPrzytkowice incl. the— tower:a parish 31 9 + Elevation incl. the tower: 319 + 20 = church339 m ASL Determined Area of the Range of No. Object/Landmark Visibility Sketch 20 Characteristics = 339 m ASL of Selected Landmarks 2 PrzytkowiceDate of establishment:—a parish church1948– Visibility [km ] within the Study Area 5 Przytkowice—a parish church 8.675 Date of establishment:1953 1948– Date of establishment: 1948– 5 Elevation incl.1953Przytkowice—a the tower: 293 parish church8.675 5 1953 8.675 5 Elevation+ 27 incl. =Date 320 the ofm tower: establishment:ASL 293 + 1948–1953 8.675 Elevation incl. the tower: 293 + Elevation27 = 320 incl. m ASL the tower: 293 + 27 = 320 m ASL 27 = 320 m ASL Leńcze—a parish church Leńcze—a parish church Date of establishment: 1931– Date of establishment: 1931– 1938,, 1938Le´ncze—aparish, church 6 6 Date of towerDate establishment: of establishment: 1931–1938,14.73914.739 6 6 Date of tower establishment: 14.739 14.739 Date1958 of–1959 tower establishment: 1958–1959 1958–1959 ElevationElevation incl. incl. the the tower: tower: 325 + 27 = 352 m ASL Elevation incl. the tower: 325 + 27 = 352 m ASL 325 + 27 = 352 m ASL

Skawinki—a parish church Skawinki—a parish church Date of establishment: 1733 Date of establishment:Skawinki—a 1733 parish church 7 (1962–1964) 2.989 7 7 Date(1962 of–1964 establishment:) 1733 (1962–1964)2.989 2.989 Remote Sens. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Elevation incl. the tower: 379 + 17 of 20 ElevationElevation incl. incl.the tower: the tower: 379 + 379 + 20 = 399 m ASL 20 = 399 m ASL 20 = 399 m ASL Zebrzydowice—a parish Zebrzydowice—achurch parish church 8 8 Built in 1620Built in 1620 12.615 12.615

ElevationElevation incl. incl. the thetower: tower: 281 281+ + 20 = 301 m ASL 20 = 301 m ASL

Table A2. Characteristics of the functions of buildings in the investigated area.

Buildings’ SFR MFR HTF OF CS RST GIW SCH AF R ONR Total functions KA 1090 98 19 18 93 4 245 17 328 9 1 1922 BG 447 0 0 2 9 1 22 2 241 2 0 726 BS 436 0 0 1 4 0 30 2 318 0 1 792 BR 827 6 17 7 32 0 64 2 296 7 1 1259 BU 175 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 96 19 0 298 IZ 693 3 3 5 29 0 37 5 464 3 1 1243 JA 237 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 152 0 0 397 LA 770 4 12 9 5 0 17 8 433 4 1 1263 LE 469 3 0 2 8 1 8 4 243 2 0 740 LS 92 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 75 0 0 171 PO 135 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 101 0 0 239 PR 762 1 0 3 30 1 36 10 444 2 0 1289 PA 335 1 0 0 4 0 4 2 322 1 0 669 SK 314 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 234 1 0 556 SD 583 1 0 1 5 0 41 2 287 2 1 923 ST 338 1 0 2 3 0 3 6 177 0 0 530 ZA 379 3 5 1 6 1 12 4 297 1 0 709 ZM 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 0 0 81 ZW 182 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 92 0 0 281 ZE 580 5 2 2 4 0 34 3 268 2 0 900 Total 8990 127 60 58 241 8 566 75 4905 55 6 14,990 Where buildings’ functions: SFR—single-family residential housing, MFR—multi-family residential, HTF—hotels, tourism facilities, OF—offices, CS—commercial and service, RST—railway stations and terminals; GIW—garages, industrial and warehousing, SCH—science, culture and health; AF— agricultural farms; R—religious ONR—other non-residential purposes. The localities: KA—Kalwaria Zebrzydowska; BG—Barwałd Górny; BS—Barwałd Średni; BR—Brody; BU—Bugaj; IZ—Izdebnik; JA—Jastrzębia; LA—Lanckorona; LE—Leńcze; LS—Leśnica; PO—Podolany; PR—Przytkowice; PA— Palcza; SK—Skawinki; SD—Stanisław Dolny; ST—Stronie; ZA—Zakrzów; ZM—Zarzyce Małe; ZW— Zarzyce Wielkie; ZE—Zebrzydowice.

Table A3. Building types according to landform classes.

Valleys Plains Slopes Ridges Buildings’ Types No % No % No % No % SFR 960 10.68 3263 36.30 3879 43.15 888 9.88 MFR 1 0.01 8 0.09 13 0.14 8 0.09 HTF 6 0.07 31 0.34 21 0.23 2 0.02 CS 25 0.28 220 2.45 54 0.60 9 0.10 IT 33 0.37 351 3.90 139 1.55 44 0.49 SCH 6 0.07 47 0.52 20 0.22 2 0.02 AF 715 7.95 1564 17.40 2168 24.12 458 5.09 R 4 0.04 15 0.17 17 0.19 19 0.21 Where buildings’ functions: SFR—single-family residential housing, MFR—multi-family residential, HTF—hotels, tourism facilities, CS—commercial and service, IT—industrial and technical, SCH— science, culture and health; AF—agricultural farms; R—religious.

References

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 17 of 20

Table A2. Characteristics of the functions of buildings in the investigated area.

Buildings’ SFR MFR HTF OF CS RST GIW SCH AF R ONR Total Functions KA 1090 98 19 18 93 4 245 17 328 9 1 1922 BG 447 0 0 2 9 1 22 2 241 2 0 726 BS 436 0 0 1 4 0 30 2 318 0 1 792 BR 827 6 17 7 32 0 64 2 296 7 1 1259 BU 175 0 0 2 0 0 5 1 96 19 0 298 IZ 693 3 3 5 29 0 37 5 464 3 1 1243 JA 237 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 152 0 0 397 LA 770 4 12 9 5 0 17 8 433 4 1 1263 LE 469 3 0 2 8 1 8 4 243 2 0 740 LS 92 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 75 0 0 171 PO 135 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 101 0 0 239 PR 762 1 0 3 30 1 36 10 444 2 0 1289 PA 335 1 0 0 4 0 4 2 322 1 0 669 SK 314 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 234 1 0 556 SD 583 1 0 1 5 0 41 2 287 2 1 923 ST 338 1 0 2 3 0 3 6 177 0 0 530 ZA 379 3 5 1 6 1 12 4 297 1 0 709 ZM 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 0 0 81 ZW 182 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 92 0 0 281 ZE 580 5 2 2 4 0 34 3 268 2 0 900 Total 8990 127 60 58 241 8 566 75 4905 55 6 14,990 Where buildings’ functions: SFR—single-family residential housing, MFR—multi-family residential, HTF—hotels, tourism facilities, OF—oﬃces, CS—commercial and service, RST—railway stations and terminals; GIW—garages, industrial and warehousing, SCH—science, culture and health; AF—agricultural farms; R—religious ONR—other non-residential purposes. The localities: KA—Kalwaria Zebrzydowska; BG—Barwałd Górny; BS—Barwałd Sredni;´ BR—Brody; BU—Bugaj; IZ—Izdebnik; JA—Jastrz˛ebia;LA—Lanckorona; LE—Le´ncze;LS—Le´snica; PO—Podolany; PR—Przytkowice; PA—Palcza; SK—Skawinki; SD—Stanisław Dolny; ST—Stronie; ZA—Zakrzów; ZM—Zarzyce Małe; ZW—Zarzyce Wielkie; ZE—Zebrzydowice. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 18 of 20

Table A3. Building types according to landform classes.

Buildings’ Valleys Plains Slopes Ridges Types No % No % No % No % SFR 960 10.68 3263 36.30 3879 43.15 888 9.88 MFR 1 0.01 8 0.09 13 0.14 8 0.09 HTF 6 0.07 31 0.34 21 0.23 2 0.02 CS 25 0.28 220 2.45 54 0.60 9 0.10 IT 33 0.37 351 3.90 139 1.55 44 0.49 SCH 6 0.07 47 0.52 20 0.22 2 0.02 AF 715 7.95 1564 17.40 2168 24.12 458 5.09 R 4 0.04 15 0.17 17 0.19 19 0.21 Where buildings’ functions: SFR—single-family residential housing, MFR—multi-family residential, HTF—hotels, tourism facilities, CS—commercial and service, IT—industrial and technical, SCH—science, culture and health; AF—agricultural farms; R—religious.

References

1. Nita, J. The importance of the determinants and discriminants in the landscape research. Diss. Cult. Landsc. Comm. 2015, 30, 59–70. 2. Nied´zwiedzka-Filipiak,I. Features of Landscape and Architecture of the Countryside of South-West Poland; Publishing House of University of Life Sciences: Wrocław, Poland, 2009; pp. 1–228. 3. Fekete, A.; Van Den Toorn, M. Sacred Eye-Catchers, Urban Planning and Architecture Committee Book; Polska Akademia Nauk, Oddział w Krakowie, Politechnika Krakowka, Wydział Architektury (Polish Academy of Sciences, Cracow Branch, Cracow University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture): Kraków, Poland, 2018; Volume 46, pp. 303–311. 4. Siewniak, M.; Mitkowska, A. Garden Art Thesaurus; Publishing House RYTM: Warsaw, Poland, 1998; pp. 59, 75, ISBN 83-87897-03-X. 5. D ˛abrowska-Budziłło, K. Symbolika w Kształtowaniu i Odnowie Krajobrazu, Czasopismo Techniczne, R104, z. 5-A; Politechnika Krakowska im. Tadeusza Ko´sciuszki:Kraków, Poland, 2007; pp. 129–131. 6. Mitkowska, A. Polskie Kalwarie; Publishing Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich:Wrocław, Poland, 2003. 7. Bogdanowski, J. Landscape Architecture; Publishing House PWN: Warsaw-Kraków, Poland, 1981; pp. 14–150. 8. Plit, J.; Plit, F. Landscape dominants—The symbols of the authority in contemporary Poland. Diss. Cult. Landsc. Comm. 2017, 35, 63–73. 9. Ramos, I.L.; Bernardo, F.; Ribeiro, S.C.; Van Eetvelde, V. Landscape identity: Implications for policy making. Land Use Policy 2016, 53, 36–43. [CrossRef] 10. Dossche, R.; Rogge, E.; van Eetvelde, V. Detecting people’s and landscape’s identity in a changing mountain landscape. An example from the northern Apennines. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 934–949. [CrossRef] 11. Raaphorst, K.; Duchhart, I.; van der Knaap, W.; Roeleveld, G.; van den Brink, A. The semiotics of landscape design communication: Towards a critical visual research approach in landscape architecture. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 120–133. [CrossRef] 12. Szymańska,D. Geography of Settlements; Publishing House PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2009. 13. Sevenant, M.; Antrop, M. Settlement models, land use and visibility in rural landscapes: Two case studies in Greece. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 80, 362–374. [CrossRef] 14. Graczyk, R. The role of dominants in shaping space, selected aspects. Sci. J. Sil. Univ. Technol. Arch. 2004, 43, 61–66. 15. Graczyk, R. Architectural dominant—A special sign and element of the composition of a small town. Sci. J. Sil. Univ. Technol. Arch. 2006, 44, 35–39. 16. Banski, J.; Wesolowska, M. Transformations in housing construction in rural areas of Poland’s Lublin region-Influence on the spatial settlement structure and landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 116–126. [CrossRef] Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 19 of 20

17. Bogdanowski, J. Historical Cultural Landscape and Problems of Its Protection. Monuments Protection 51/1 (200). 1998, pp. 4–13. Available online: http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Ochrona_Zabytkow/Ochrona_ Zabytkow-r1998-t51-n1_(200)/Ochrona_Zabytkow-r1998-t51-n1_(200)-s4-13/Ochrona_Zabytkow-r1998- t51-n1_(200)-s4-13.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2020). 18. Prus, B. Landschaftsveränderungen von Kleinstädten in Polen von 1945 bis 1989 sowie nach der politischen Transformation von 1989 (Landscape changes of small towns in Poland from 1945 to 1989 and after the political transformation of 1989). In Transformation und Landschaft. Die Folgen Sozialer Wandlungsprozesse auf Landschaft; Kühne, O., Gawronski, K., Hernik, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 203–218. 19. Prus, B.; Szylar, M. The analysis of settlement network’s dispersion using Ward’s taxonomy method. Surv. Rev. 2019, 51, 273–279. [CrossRef] 20. Zhang, W.; Qi, J.; Wan, P.; Wang, H.; Xie, D.; Wang, X.; Yan, G. An easy-to-use airborne LiDAR data filtering method based on cloth simulation. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 501. [CrossRef] 21. Zevenbergen, L.W.; Thorne, Z. Quantitative analysis of land surface topography. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. Br. Soc. Geomorphol. 1987, 12, 47–56. [CrossRef] 22. Judex, M.; Thamm, H.P.; Menz, G. Improving land-cover classification with a knowledgebased approach and ancillary data. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop of the EARSeL SIG on Land Use and Land Cover, Center for Remote Sensing of Land Surfaces, Bonn, Germany, 28–30 September 2006. 23. Deumlich, D.; Schmidt, R.; Sommer, M. A multiscale soil–landform relationship in the glacial-drift area based on digital terrain analysis and soil attributes. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2010, 173, 843–851. [CrossRef] 24. Bishop, I.D. Assessment of visual qualities, impacts, and behaviours, in the landscape, by using measures of visibility. Environ. Plan. B-Plan. Des. 2003, 30, 677–688. [CrossRef] 25. Nutsford, D.; Reitsma, F.; Pearson, A.L.; Kingham, S. Personalising the viewshed: Visibility analysis from the human perspective. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 62, 1–7. [CrossRef] 26. Antrop, M. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 67, 9–26. [CrossRef] 27. Silva, K. The spirit of place of Bhaktapur, Nepal. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2015, 21, 820–841. [CrossRef] 28. Heathcott, J. Heritage in the dynamic city: The politics and practice of urban conservation on the swahili coast. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013, 37, 215–237. [CrossRef] 29. Paquette, S.; Domon, G. Trends in rural landscape development and sociodemographic recomposition in southern Quebec (Canada). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 55, 215–238. [CrossRef] 30. Yiannakou, A.; Eppas, D.; Zeka, D. Spatial interactions between the settlement network, natural landscape and zones of economic activities: A case study in a Greek region. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1715. [CrossRef] 31. Liu, J.G.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Folke, C.; Alberti, M.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Ostrom, E.; Pell, A.N.; Lubchenco, J.; et al. Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 2007, 38, 639–649. [CrossRef] 32. Feng, Z.M.; Yang, Y.Z.; Zhang, D.; Tang, Y. Natural environment suitability for human settlements in China based on GIS. J. Geogr. Sci. 2009, 19, 437–446. [CrossRef] 33. Blondel, J. The ‘Design’ of Mediterranean landscapes: A millennial story of humans and ecological systems during the historic period. Hum. Ecol. 2006, 34, 713–729. [CrossRef] 34. Steiner, F. Landscape ecological urbanism: Origins and trajectories. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100, 333–337. [CrossRef] 35. Swensen, G. Between romantic historic landscapes, rational management models and obliterations - urban cemeteries as green memory sites. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 33, 58–65. [CrossRef] 36. Poerwoningsih, D.; Antariksa; Leksono, A.S.; Hasyim, A.W. Integrating visibility analysis in rural spatial planning. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 227, 838–844. [CrossRef] 37. Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. Attractive, climate-adapted and sustainable? Public perception of non-native planting in the designed urban landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 49–63. 38. Niedomysl, T. Towards a conceptual framework of place attractiveness: A migration perspective. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2010, 92B, 97–109. [CrossRef] 39. Nied´zwiedzka-Filipiak,I. The distinguishing features of the cultural heritage of rural areas. Landsc. Arch. 2012, 2, 38–48. 40. Pawłowska, K. The Idea of the Familiarity of the City; Publishing House of Cracow University of Technology: Kraków, Poland, 2001; ISBN 83-7242-201-X. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1778 20 of 20

41. Stobbelaar, D.J.; Pedroli, B. Perspectives on landscape identity: A conceptual challenge. Landsc. Res. 2001, 36, 321–339. [CrossRef] 42. Mercado-Alonso, I.; Fern{ndez-Tabales, A.; Muñoz-Yules, O. Perceptions and social valuations of landscape. Objectives and methodology for citizen participation in landscape policies. Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 95–111. [CrossRef] 43. Antrop, M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 70, 21–34. [CrossRef] 44. Stephenson, J. The cultural values model: An integrated approach to values in landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 127–139. [CrossRef] 45. Przył˛ecki,M. Dominants in a landscape. Landsc. Arch. 2006, 1–2, 5–9. 46. Gustin, S. Changing functions and identity of the Istrian rural landscape. Ann. Anali Istrske Mediter. Stud. Ser. Hist. Sociol. 2016, 26, 537–552. 47. de Mezer, E. The consequences of changing the rank of old routes in the contemporary communication system on the example of the village of Raczkowo. In Polish Countryside Landscapes—Former and Contemporary; Zbigniew Kuriata; Komisja Krajobrazu Kulturowego Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograﬁcznego: Sosnowiec, Poland, 2009; pp. 150–157.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).