## 2 Methodology and Database
### Database
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline Pseudogenization & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(<\)0.50} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(>\)3.01} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.51–3.00; coastal springs} \\ \hline  & & & & & & & sandy loam, \\  & & & & & & & medium & loam, \\  & & & & & & textures, & medium & loam, \\  & & & & & & sandy loam, & fine & textures, \\  & & & & & & sandy loam, & & loam, \\  & & & & & & sandy loam, & & loam, \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline Soil edaphic value & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(<\)0.10} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.11–0.20} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.21–0.50} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(>\)0.51} \\ \hline Soil reaction & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(<\)3.5} & 3.6–4.3 & 4.4–5.8 & 5.5–5.8 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(>\)5.9} \\ \hline Landslides & & & & & & & \\ \hline Soil pollution & excessively polluted & very heavily polluted & & heavily polluted & moderately polluted & unpolluted, \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline Temperature & \(<\)–2.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C & \(-\)1.9–0.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C 0.1–2.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 2.1–4.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 4.1–5.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 5.1–6.0, \({}^{\circ}\)C & 5.1–12.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline Precipitation (mm/year) & & & & \(<\)300; \(>\)1401 & 301–450; 1201–1400 & 501–550; 1001–1200 & 551–600; 600–10000 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{11}{c}{Favorability to pasture} \\ \hline  & Very Low & Low & Medium & High & & & Very High \\ \hline Score/Factors & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.6 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 1 \\ \hline Slope & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(>\)100.0} & 50.1–100.0 & 35.1–50.0 & 25.1–35.0 & 20.1–25.0 & 15.0–20.0 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(<\)15.0} \\ \hline Gleization & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline Pseudogenization & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & &Land evaluation was conducted using scoring under environmental conditions, which takes into account 8 factors: slope, mean annual temperatures, mean annual precipitation, gleiss, pseudogleiss, soil texture, soil graphic volume, and soil reaction with a value from 0 to 1 according to the national methodology used in Romania [79; 80]. The land rating by crop and land use is determined by multiplying the sum of the coefficients of the 8 indicators, as indicated by the following formula:  
\[\text{FI}=(\text{S}_{\text{slope}}+\text{S}_{\text{temp}}+\text{S}_{\text{PP}} +\text{S}_{\text{G}}+\text{S}_{\text{PS}}+\text{S}_{\text{text{text}}}+\text{ S}_{\text{Vol}}+\text{S}_{\text{R}})\times 100,\]  
where  
FI--Favorability index;  
Sslope--scoring value for slope;  
Stemp--scoring value for average annual temperature;  
SPP--scoring value for average annual precipitation;  
SGA--scoring value for soil gleiss;  
SPS--scoring value for pseudogleiss;  
Stext--scoring value for soil texture;  
Svol--scoring value for soil graphic value;  
SRA--scoring value for soil reaction. Figure 2: Methodological framework. Stage III consists of using Raster Calculator and ArcMap software (version 10.8) to calculate the favorability index, with values from 0-100 according to the methodological norms used in Romania [43]. The favorability results for the utilization of orchards (as a mean favorability for apple, pear, plum, cherry, cherry, apricot, and peach), pasture, and grassland are categorized into five favorability classes: class I (very high, 81-100 favorability points), class II (high, 61-80 favorability points), class III (medium, 41-60 favorability points), class IV (low, 21-40 favorability points), and class V (very low, 1-20 favorability points). Within the category of limitations on production, even in regions with moderate to high favorability, there are locations affected by landslides or contamination of the soil. These have been employed to reduce the frequency of favorable categories. In the study region, there are a total of 113 mapped landslides, which include both shallow and deep-seated landslides. These landslides can be either active or stable, but they have resulted in limitations on land use.