Effect of natural risk factors upon the evolution of Chalcolithic human settlements in Northeastern Romania (<I>Valea Oii</I> watershed). From ancient times dynamics to present days degradation

GIS-based Landform Classification of Eneoli thic Archaeological Sites in the Plateau-plain Transition Zone (NE Romania): Habitation Practices vs. Flood Hazard Perception

“…The summaries of archaeological site placement classified into 10 landform classes for the four combined versions of small-TPI and large-TPI neighbourhood sizes according to Criterion (2) are shown in Table 2 and Figure 6. were extracted using a 1000 m buffer zone around an Eneolithic site selected randomly from the study area: (a) calculation of TPI rasters for 100 m, 300 m, 600m, 1000 m, and 2000 m thresholds using the algorithm developed by [3] and [55]; (b) calculation of standardized TPI for each threshold rasters based on SD and Mean after the ArcGIS algorithm described by [75]; (c) generate the DEV models for each threshold rasters based on standardized TPI after [29]; (d) classification of landscape features into six slope position classes using the DEV and slope for each threshold rasters (Method 1) after [3]; The accuracy of the results has been verified using the visual interpretation of aerial imagery and by comparing the landform classification generated by TPI with the specific morphological features of over 100 settlement locations provided by previous geomorphological and archaeological surveys in the study area [39,[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. Also, according to [28,29], which applied the same methodology of landscape classification within a heterogenous landscape in Belgium, in this case, the same DEV thresholds and various neighbourhood sizes were used; the results obtained by [28,29] are applicable for our study area, being a plateau-plain transition zone.…”

“…3850-3500 BCE) [35,[39][40][41]. Besides the literature on the morphological features in the study area [42][43][44][45][46], only a few works deal with the local or the relative topographic position of archaeological settlements in the landscape [47,48]; most of them refer to the evaluation of cultural heritage sites to natural hazards (landslides, gully erosion) and anthropogenic impact [49][50][51][52][53][54].Understanding the connections between the small-scale features, large-scale landforms, flood hazard perception, and the types of archaeological settlement is an important method applied in the study of the prehistoric peoples because the landscape can reveal insights into settlement distribution and dynamics over time [4,27]. This paper provides the first landform classification of 730 Eneolithic sites, using the TPI (Topographic Position Index) [3,5,28,55], and the SD (standard deviation) of the mean elevation, abbreviated as DEV by [29], around archaeological sites [3,4,29], which can classify the landscape in terms of slope position and landform categories and morphological classes based on the geomorphology [1,4,56,57].…”

“…3850-3500 BCE) [35,[39][40][41]. Besides the literature on the morphological features in the study area [42][43][44][45][46], only a few works deal with the local or the relative topographic position of archaeological settlements in the landscape [47,48]; most of them refer to the evaluation of cultural heritage sites to natural hazards (landslides, gully erosion) and anthropogenic impact [49][50][51][52][53][54].…”

Conservation Value of World Natural Heritage Sites’ Outstanding Universal Value via Multiple Techniques—Bogda, Xinjiang Tianshan

“…As per the situation of natural disasters in 'Tianshan Tianchi Scenic Area master plan (2004-2020),' a buffer analysis was conducted on the area in the study area where natural disasters are prone to occur, with a radius of 1 km. [21,30] EI Altitude 0.0471 According to Digital Evaluation Model (DEM) data, the data was obtained by GIS10.5. [37,70] Slope 0.0469 According to DEM data, the data was obtained by GIS10.5.…”

“…Integrity requires that OUV elements and areas with heritage values have uncompromising and regional holistic characteristics [13,26]. Threats to the OUV reflects the situation in which the OUV is subject to human and natural impact or influence, such as building construction and development, transportation infrastructure, utilities or service infrastructure, biological resource use or modification and sudden ecological or geological events [27][28][29][30]. Ecosystem processes and the characteristics of animals and plants play significant roles in the aesthetic and bioecological components of OUV [24,31].…”