## 4 Results and Discussion  
All maps presented in the following are available through an interactive web viewer: [[https://ows.geo.hu-berlin.de/webviewer/crete/](https://ows.geo.hu-berlin.de/webviewer/crete/)]([https://ows.geo.hu-berlin.de/webviewer/crete/](https://ows.geo.hu-berlin.de/webviewer/crete/)) accessed on 18 September 2021; note that the vegetation components map for 1984, i.e., the first year of available data, is incomplete as a full phenological cycle need to exist to extract LSP metrics (see Section 3.2.2). The dataset produced in this study can be accessed at [[https://zenodo.org/record/5902672#.YfENz-rMKCo](https://zenodo.org/record/5902672#.YfENz-rMKCo)]([https://zenodo.org/record/5902672#.YfENz-rMKCo](https://zenodo.org/record/5902672#.YfENz-rMKCo)), accessed on 18 September 2021. Comparison of Long-Term Vegetation Change between Vegetation Dynamics 1.0 and Vegetation Dynamics 2.0  
The long-term vegetation cover change maps of the reproduced VD 1.0 indicate large areas with severe cover loss, Figure 5a. Overall, net change over Crete is negative (Table 4) with 50% and 26% of semi-natural areas showing signs of vegetation decline and increase, respectively. Although not numerically comparable (due to several reasons discussed in Section 1.1), these numbers resemble the findings in [PERSON] et al. (2019), who found that over 40% of the mountain area of central Crete (Psiloritis) showed a decreasing trend of vegetation cover. Spatial patterns are also very similar to the maps published by [PERSON] et al. (2019), both indicating that general reproducibility with the past papers is given from a thematic perspective with a focus on overgrazing and that similar conclusions would have been drawn as before. However, the results from VD 2.0 are fundamentally different to those from VD 1.0 (Figure 5b). Severe cover loss is limited to small areas and the magnitude of cover change is smaller compared to VD 1.0. Overall, net cover change is positive with 18% of areas showing a decreasing trend of vegetation cover, while half (50%) of all semi-natural areas exhibit an increase (Table 4). As the Psiloritis mountains were the primary study area in our reference studies, Figure 6 closes in on this area, and further depicts the difference in cover change \(\Delta CC\) between both methods:  
\[\Delta CC=CC_{2,0}-CC_{1,0}. \tag{17}\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Category**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cover Change**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proportion Vegetation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proportion Vegetation**} \\  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dynamics 1.0**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dynamics 2.0**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **Class (\%)** & **(\%)** & **(km2)** & **(\%)** & **(km2)** \\ \hline Severe decrease & \(<\)\(-15\) & 27.92 & 1212 & 5.63 & 245 \\ Decrease & \(-15\) to \(-5\) & 21.88 & 950 & 12.43 & 541 \\ Unchanged & \(-5\) to \(+5\) & 23.82 & 1034 & 31.55 & 1373 \\ Increase & +5 to \(+15\) & 15.18 & 659 & 29.34 & 1277 \\ Strong increase & \(>\)\(+15\) & 11.21 & 487 & 21.05 & 916 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Area statistics of cover change for the Vegetation Dynamics 1.0 and Vegetation Dynamics 2.0 analyses. Figure 5: Cover change for the Vegetation Dynamics 1.0 (**a**) and Vegetation Dynamics 2.0 (**b**) analyses over the study period 1984–2006. White areas are non-natural areas or above 1500 m a.s.l., which were out of scope of this study. \(\Delta CC\) can assume the same value for different combinations of trend directions; as such, Figure 6c\(\Delta CC\) is styled with four separate color bars. The first two color bars represent areas where the trend direction is consistent, the last two color bars represent areas with opposite trend directions. Figure 7 shows representative pixel time series, along with trends, for the six different colors in Figure 6c.