Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 217–232 | Cite as

Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures

  • Peter H. VerburgEmail author
  • Derek B. van Berkel
  • Anne M. van Doorn
  • Michiel van Eupen
  • Harm A. R. M. van den Heiligenberg
Research Article

Abstract

Land use change is characterized by a high diversity of change trajectories depending on the local conditions, regional context and external influences. Policy intervention aims to counteract the negative consequences of these changes and provide incentives for positive developments. Region typologies are a common tool to cluster regions with similar characteristics and possibly similar policy needs. This paper provides a typology of land use change in Europe at a high spatial resolution based on a series of different scenarios of land use change for the period 2000–2030. A series of simulation models ranging from the global to the landscape level are used to translate scenario conditions in terms of demographic, economic and policy change into changes in European land use pattern. A typology developed based on these simulation results identifies the main trajectories of change across Europe: agricultural abandonment, agricultural expansion and urbanization. The results are combined with common typologies of landscape and rurality. The findings indicate that the typologies based on current landscape and ruralities are poor indicators of the land use dynamics simulated for the regions. It is advocated that typologies based on (simulated) future dynamics of land change are more appropriate to identify regions with potentially similar policy needs.

Keywords

Typology Europe Land use and land cover change Abandonment Urbanization Rural typology Landscape Model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been done in the context of the FARO FP6 project funded by the European Commission, the RUFUS FP7 project of the European Commission and the EURURALIS3.0 project funded by the Dutch ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. All contributors to these projects are thanked. The participants of the Workshop ‘Typologies for dynamics in rural regions’ in Amsterdam September 10th 2008 are thanked for their inspiring contributions.

References

  1. Adger NW (2003a) Social aspects of adaptive capacity. In: Smith JB, Klein RJT, Huq S (eds) Climate change, adaptive capacity and development. Imperial College Press, London, pp 29–50Google Scholar
  2. Adger WN (2003b) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ Geogr 79:387–404Google Scholar
  3. Alcamo J, Leemans R, Kreileman E (1998) Global Change Scenarios of the 21st Century. Results from the IMAGE 2.1 Model. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Antrop M (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 67:9–26. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70:21–34. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballas D, Kalogeresis T, Labrianidis L (2003) A comparative study of typologies for rural areas in Europe. Paper submitted to the 43rd European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Jyväskylä, Finland, 27–30 August 2003Google Scholar
  7. Banse M, Hv Meijl, Tabeau A, Woltjer G (2008) Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricultural markets? Eur Rev Agric Econ 35:117–141. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbn023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banse M, Van Meijl H, Tabeau A, Woltjer G, Hellmann F, Verburg PH (2009) Impact of EU biofuel policies on world agricultural production and Land Use. Biomass Bioenergy (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Bengs C, Schmidt-Thomé K (2006) Urban–Rural Relationships in Europe. Espon Project 1.1.2. ESPON, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  10. Blunden JR, Pryce WTR, Dreyer P (1998) The classification of rural areas in the european context: an exploration of a typology using neural network applications. Reg Stud 32:149–160. doi: 10.1080/00343409850123035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brand FS, Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society 12:23. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss21/art23/
  12. Castella J-C, Verburg PH (2007) Combination of process-oriented and pattern-oriented models of land-use change in a mountain area of Vietnam. Ecol Modell 202:410–420. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EEA (2005) http://dataservice.eea.eu.int; last accessed 20/08/2005. European Environmental Agency
  14. Eickhout B, van Meijl H, Tabeau A, van Rheenen T (2007) Economic and ecological consequences of four European land use scenarios. Land use policy 24:562–575. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ESPON (2004) Urban-rural relations in Europe, ESPON project 1.1.2 Final report. Edited by Christer Bengs & Kaisa Schmidt-Thomé. Centre for Urban and Regional Studies Helsinki University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2007) Growing regions, growing Europe, Fourth report on economic and social cohesion. European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  17. European Environmental Agency (2005) The European Environment—State and Outlook. EEA, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Change 16:253–267. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape Ecol. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Geist HJ, Lambin EF (2002) Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52:143–150. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geist H, McConnell W, Lambin EF, Moran E, Alves D, Rudel T (2006) Causes and trajectories of land-use/cover change. In: Lambin EF, Geist H (eds) Land-use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 41–70Google Scholar
  22. Gibson CC, Ostrom E, Anh TK (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32:217–239. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00092-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haines-Young R, Weber JL (2006) Land accounts for Europe 1990–2000. EEA report 11/2006. European Environmental Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  24. Hellmann F, Verburg PH (2009) Spatially explicit modelling of biofuel crops in Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.09.003
  25. Hertel TW (ed) (1997) Global trade analysis: modelling and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Herzog F, Steiner B, Bailey D, Baudry J, Billeter R, Bukácek R, De Blust G, De Cock R, Dirksen J, Dormann CF, De Filippi R, Frossard E, Liira J, Schmidt T, Stöckli R, Thenail C, van Wingerden W, Bugter R (2006) Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the landscape scale. Eur J Agron 24:165–181. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2005.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herzon I, Aunins A, Elts J, Preiksa Z (2008) Intensity of agricultural land-use and farmland birds in the Baltic States. Agric Ecosyst Environ 125:93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2007.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hunziker M, Kienast F (1999) Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty–a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecol 14:161–176. doi: 10.1023/A:1008079715913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPCC (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios—a special report of working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Jongman R, Bunce R, Metzger M, Mücher C, Howard D, Mateus V (2006) Objectives and applications of a statistical environmental stratification of Europe. Landscape Ecol 21:409–419. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-6428-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koomen E, Dekkers J, van Dijk T (2008) Open-space preservation in the Netherlands: planning, practice and prospects. Land use policy 25:361–377. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee J, Árnason A, Nightingale A, Shucksmith M (2005) Networking: social capital and identities in european rural development. Sociol Ruralis 45:269–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2005.00305.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J, Gibon A (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manage 59:47–69. doi: 10.1006/jema.1999.0335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Makhzoumi JM (1997) The changing role of rural landscapes: olive and carob multi-use tree plantations in the semiarid Mediterranean. Landsc Urban Plan 37:115–122. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00376-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meeus JHA, Wijermans MP, Vroom MJ (1990) Agricultural landscapes in Europe and their transformation. Landsc Urban Plan 18:289–352. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(90)90016-U CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meijl Hv, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:21–38. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Mücher CA, Watkins JW (2005) A climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14:549–563. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2005.00190.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mottet A, Ladet S, Coque N, Gibon A (2006) Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: a case study in the pyrenees. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:296–310. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muilu T, Rusanen J (2004) Rural definitions and short-term dynamics in rural areas of Finland in 1989–97. Environ Plan A 36:1499–1516. doi: 10.1068/a36169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD (2001) Territorial Outlook 2001. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. OECD (2004) Creating Rural Indicators for Shaping Territorial Policies. OECD Publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD (2006) Rural employment indicators. OECD publications, ParisGoogle Scholar
  43. Olson JM, Alagarswamy G, Andresen JA, Campbell DJ, Davis AY, Ge J, Huebner M, Lofgren BM, Lusch DP, Moore NJ, Pijanowski BC, Qi J, Thornton PK, Torbick NM, Wang J (2008) Integrating diverse methods to understand climate-land interactions in East Africa. Geoforum 39:898–911. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oñate JJ, Atance I, Bardají I, Llusia D (2007) Modelling the effects of alternative CAP policies for the Spanish high-nature value cereal-steppe farming systems. Agric Syst 94:247–260. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Overmars KP, Verburg PH, Veldkamp T (2007) Comparison of a deductive and an inductive approach to specify land suitability in a spatially explicit land use model. Land use policy 24:584–599. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pelling M, High C (2005) Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity? Glob Environ Change Part A 15:308–319. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peterseil J, Wrbka T, Plutzar C, Schmitzberger I, Kiss A, Szerencsits E, Reiter K, Schneider W, Suppan F, Beissmann H (2004) Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes–the SINUS approach. Land use policy 21:307–320. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pueyo Y, Beguería S (2007) Modelling the rate of secondary succession after farmland abandonment in a Mediterranean mountain area. Landsc Urban Plan 83:245–254. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmitz MF, De Aranzabal I, Aguilera P, Rescia A, Pineda FD (2003) Relationship between landscape typology and socioeconomic structure: scenarios of change in Spanish cultural landscapes. Ecol Modell 168:343–356. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00145-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schulp CJE, Nabuurs G-J, Verburg PH (2008) Future carbon sequestration in Europe–Effects of land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:251–264. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soliva R, Rønningen K, Bella I, Bezak P, Cooper T, Flø BE, Marty P, Potter C (2008) Envisioning upland futures: stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe’s mountain landscapes. J Rural Stud 24:56–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sonneveld MPW, Bouma J (2003) Methodological considerations for nitrogen policies in the Netherlands including a new role for research. Environ Sci Policy 6:501–511. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2003.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strengers B, Leemans R, Eickhout B, De Vries B, Bouwman AF (2004) The land-use projections and resulting emissions in the IPCC SRES scenarios as simulated by the IMAGE 2.2 model. GeoJournal 61:381–393. doi: 10.1007/s10708-004-5054-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner MG (1989) Landscape Ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:171–197. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Eupen M, Metzger M, Bunce RGH, Doorn Av, Pérez-Soba M, Verburg PH (2009) A regional typology of European rurality (in preparation)Google Scholar
  57. Verburg PH, Overmars KP (2009) Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landscape Ecol (in press)Google Scholar
  58. Verburg PH, de Nijs TCM, Ritsema van Eck J, Visser H, de Jong K (2004) A method to analyse neighbourhood characteristics of land use patterns. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28:667–690. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2003.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Verburg PH, Overmars KP, Huigen MGA, de Groot WT, Veldkamp A (2006) Analysis of the effects of land use change on protected areas in the Philippines. Appl Geogr 26:153–173. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2005.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Verburg P, Eickhout B, van Meijl H (2008) A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Ann Reg Sci 42:57–77. doi: 10.1007/s00168-007-0136-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verburg PH, van de Steeg J, Veldkamp A, Willemen L (2009) From land cover change to land function dynamics: A major challenge to improve land characterization. J Environ Manage 90:1327–1335. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Wassenaar T, Gerber P, Verburg PH, Rosales M, Ibrahim M, Steinfeld H (2007) Projecting land use changes in the Neotropics: the geography of pasture expansion into forest. Glob Environ Change 17:86–104. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Westhoek HJ, van den Berg M, Bakkes JA (2006) Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:7–20. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc Urban Plan 88:34–43. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. WUR/MNP (2008) EURURALIS2.0 CDrom. Published by Wageningen University and Research Centre and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, WageningenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter H. Verburg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Derek B. van Berkel
    • 1
  • Anne M. van Doorn
    • 2
  • Michiel van Eupen
    • 2
  • Harm A. R. M. van den Heiligenberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Land Dynamics GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Alterra Green World ResearchWageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations