Biodiversity and land use change on the Causse Méjan, France

  • Eileen O’Rourke
Part of the Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation book series (TOBC, volume 3)


This paper argues that due to the co-evolution of biological and cultural diversity, a meaningful study of biodiversity must be positioned within complex social-ecological systems. A complex systems framework is proposed for conceptualising the study of social-ecological systems. A case study approach is adopted whereby changes in biodiversity on the Causse Méjan, France, are linked with changes in society, land use, agricultural practices and policies. We argue that ecological and social resilience is linked through the dependence on ecosystems of communities, and in turn by the influence of institutional structures, including market forces, on the use of natural resources. Within a non-equilibrium evolutionary perspective, we highlight the difficulty of choosing a landscape and biodiversity of reference and postulating that it is in equilibrium with a type of social organisation. We conclude by exploring an ‘adaptive management’ approach to the management of the biodiverse landscape studied.

Key words

Adaptive management Biodiversity Causse Méjan Complexity Land use change Resilience Social-ecological system 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adger W.N. 2000. Social and Ecological Resilience; are they linked?. Progress in Human Geography 24(3): 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldock D., Beaufoy G., Brouwer F. and Godeschalk F. 1996. Farming at the Margins: Abandonment or Redevelopment of Agricultural Lands in Europe. Institut for European Environmental Policy Agricultural Economics Research Institute, London/The Hague.Google Scholar
  3. Baudry J. and Bunce R.G.H. (eds) 1991. Land Abandonment and its Role in Conservation. Options Méditerranéennes — Seminar Series A-No. 15: CIHEAM Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes, Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
  4. Beaufory G., Baldock D. and Clark J. 1994. The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London.Google Scholar
  5. Belshaw C. 2001. Environmental Philosophy: Reason, Nature and Human Concern. Acumen, Chesham, Bucks.Google Scholar
  6. Bengtsson J. 1998. Which Species? What kind of diversity? Which ecosystem function? Some problems in studies of relations between biodiversity and ecosystem function Applied Soil Ecology 10: 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benoit G. and Valéro G. 1997. Agriculture et environnement dans le Parc National des Cévennes: le lancement de l’operation ‘Agneon de Parcours’. Bulletin de la Societé Languedocienne de Géographie 3–4: 101–121.Google Scholar
  8. Benton T.G., Vickery J.A and Wilson J.D. 2003. Farmland Biodiversity: Is Habitat Heterogeneity the Key. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(4): 182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berkes F. 2002. Cross-scale Institutional Linkages: Perspectives from the bottom up. In: Ostrom E., Dietz T., Dolsak N., Stern P., Stonich S. and Weber E. (eds), The Drama of the Commons. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Berkes F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology 18(3): 621–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berkes F. and Folke C. (eds) 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Bignall E.M. and McCracken D.I. 1996. Low intensity Farming Systems in the Conservation of the Countryside. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 416–424.Google Scholar
  13. Bieau C. 1963. Le Parc et la Forêt. Cévennes et Mont Lozère, Vol. 33, pp. 4–8.Google Scholar
  14. Braun-Blanquet J. and Braun-Blanquet G. 1971. Les pelouses steppiques des Causses méridionaux. Vegetatio 22(4–5): 201–247.Google Scholar
  15. Bridgewater P.B. 2002. Biosphere Reserves: Special Places for People and Nature. Environmental Science and Policy 5: 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collin G. 1990. Rural Society and Protected Areas: Which Dialogue? The Case Study of Cevennes National Park and Biosphere Reserve (France). Landscape and Urban Planning 19: 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen M. and Lardon S. (eds) 1996. Usage des Sols, Pratiques d’Eleveurs, Représentations de la Nature et Dynamique des Milieux et des Ressources. Rapport final de recherche du PIR EnvironnementVie et Sociétés du CNRS, Laboratoire de Géographie Physique, Paris.Google Scholar
  18. Crosnier C. 1996. Administrer la Nature: enjeux biologiques et sociaux dans le Parc National des Cévennes. In: Baudot P. et al. (eds), Impact de l’Homme sur les Milieux Naturels: Perceptions et Mesures. Editions de Bergier, Grasse.Google Scholar
  19. Dietz T. and Stern P. 1998. Science, Values and Biodiversity. BioScience 48: 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dutoit T. and Allard D. 1995. Biodiversitéet valeur agronomique des pelouse calcaires: effet du paturage ovin. Fourrage 142: 145–158.Google Scholar
  21. Fioretti G. 1996. A Concept of Complexity for the Social Sciences. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Laxenburg, Austria.Google Scholar
  22. Flahault C. 1933. La vocation forestiére des grands Causses du Massif Central de France. Bulletin de la Société Botanique Suisse 42: 681–698.Google Scholar
  23. Folke C. 2002. Resilience for Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Rainbow Series 3. International Council for Scientific Unions (ICSU), Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Folke C., Holling C.S. and Perrings C. 1996. Biological Diversity, Ecosystems and the Human Scale. Ecological Applications 6: 1018–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Friedberg C., Cohen M. and Mathieu N. 2000. Faut-il du’un paysage soit ouvert ou fermé? L’exemple de la pelouse séche du causse Méjan Natures, Sciences, Sociétés 8(4): 26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson C., Watt T. and Brown V. 1987. The use of sheep grazing to recreate species-rich grasslands from abandoned arable land. Biodiversity Conservation 42: 165–183.Google Scholar
  27. Gômez-Pompa A. and Kaus A. 1992. Taming the Wilderness Myth. BioScience 42: 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunderson L.H. 2003. Adaptive Dancing: interactions between social resilience and ecological crisis. In: Berkes F., Coding J. and Folke C. (eds), Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
  29. Holling C.S., Berkes F. and Folke C. 1998. Science, Sustainability and Resource Management. In: Berkes F. and Folke C. (eds), Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, Camnbridge, pp. 342–362.Google Scholar
  30. Holling C.S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holling C.S. 1986. The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark W.C. and Munn R.E. (eds), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 292–317.Google Scholar
  32. Holling C.S. 1993. Investing in Research for Sustainability. Ecological Applications 3: 552–555.Google Scholar
  33. Holling C.S. and Gunderson L.H. 2002. Resilience and Adaptive Cycles. In: Holling C.S. (ed.), Panarchy. Island press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  34. Holling C.S. and Meffe G.K. 1996. Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conservation Bioloy 10(2): 328–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hubert D. 1978. Evaluation du role de la végétation dans le bilan écologique et agro-économique des Causses. These de l’Universitédes Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, 240 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Kauffman S. 1993. At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Complexity. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Larrère C. and Larrère R. 1997. La Crise Environnementale et ses Enjeux: Ethique, Science et Politique. In: Larrére C. and Larrére R. (eds), La Crise Environnementale, Les Colloques, No. 80, INRA Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  38. Lawton J.H. 1994. What do species do in ecosystems? Oikos 71: 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lepart J., Marty P. and Rousset O. 2000. Les conceptions normatives du paysage. Le cas des Grands Causses. Natures, Sciences, Sociétiés 8(4): 16–25.Google Scholar
  40. Lévêque C. and Mounolou J-C. 2003. Biodiversity. Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  41. MacDonald D., Crabtree J.R., Wiesinger G., Dax T., Stamou N., Fleury P., Gutierrez Lazpita J. and Gibon A. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management 59: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marres P. 1935. Les Grands Causses. Étude de Géographie Physique et Humaine, Tome I et II. Arrault et Cie, Tours.Google Scholar
  43. May R.M. 1972. Will a large complex ecosystem be stable? Nature 128: 413–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. May R.M. 1973. Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  45. Naemm S., Thompson I.J., Lawler S.P., Lawton J.H. and Woodfin R.M. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368: 734–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nicolis G. and Prigogine I. 1977. Self-Organisation in Non-Equilibrium Systems: From Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations. Wiley International, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Nicolis G. and Prigogine I. 1989. Exploring Complexity. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Norgaard R.B. 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  49. Noy-Meir I., Gutman M. and Kaplan Y. 1989. Responses of Mediterranean grassland plants to grazing and protection. Journal of Ecology 77: 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Olsson P. 2003. Building Capacity for Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  51. Olsson P. and Folke C. 2001. Local Ecological Knowledge and Institutional Dynamics for Ecosystem Management: A study of lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Rourke E. 1999. The Causse Méjan: changing relationships between agriculture, environment and society within a French National Park. Landscape Research 24(2): 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Rourke E. 2000. The Reintroduction and Reinterpretation of the Wild. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13: 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Rourke E. 2005. Socio-natural Interaction and Landscape Dynamics in the Burren, Ireland. Landscape and Urban Planning 70: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Osty P.-L. 1978. Le Causse Méjan. 4. Elevages et Eleveurs en 1978. INRA, Paris.Google Scholar
  56. Osty P.-L. and Lardon S. 1994. Systemes Techniques et gestion de l’espace: quelle qualitéte l’organisation spatiale. Les éleveurs ovins du Causse Méjan. Etude et Recherches sur les Systémes Agraires et le Développement 28: 211–218.Google Scholar
  57. Petit F. 1978. Le Causse Méjan, 2: Exode Rural et Utilisation du Territoire (de 1850 á nos Jours). Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Paris.Google Scholar
  58. Pimm S.L. 1984. The Complexity and Stability of Ecosystems. Nature 307: 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. PNC — Parc National des Cévennes 1998. Plan de Gestion, Antenne Causses et Gorges. Parc National des Cévennes, Florac.Google Scholar
  60. Rousset O. 1998. Impact des pratiques pastorales “Article 19” sur la dynamique d’enfrichement des milieux caussenard. Rapport de fin de contrat (programme européen pastel), CNRS, INRA.Google Scholar
  61. Rousset O. and Lepart J. 1999. Évaluer l’impact du paturage sur le maintien des milieux ouvert. Le cas des pelouse séches. Fourrages 159: 223–235.Google Scholar
  62. Sala O.E., Chapin F.S., Armesto J.J., Berlow E., Bloomfield J. and Dirzo R. 2000. Biodiversity-Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stanley T.R. 1995. Ecosystem Management and the Arrogance of Humans. Conservation Biology 9: 363–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Takacs D. 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  65. Tilman D. 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: Daly G.C. (ed.), Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 93–112.Google Scholar
  66. Van der Leeuw S. 2000. Lland Degradation as a Socionatural Process. In: McIntosh R.J., Tainter J.A. and McIntosh S.K. (eds), The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History and Human Action. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  67. Vernet J.-L. 1995. Végétation et Paléoécologie des Grands Causses. In: Bonniol J. and Saussol A. (eds), Grands Causses: nouveaux enjeu, nouveaux regard. Féderation pour la Vie et la Sauvegarde du Pays des Grands Causses, Mileau, pp. 91–105.Google Scholar
  68. Waldhardt R. 2003. Biodiversity and Landscape — summary, conclusions and perspectives. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98: 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walker B. 1992. Biodiversity and Ecological Redundancy. Conservation Biology 6(1): 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson E.O. 2001. The Diversity of Life. Penguin Books, New York and London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eileen O’Rourke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity College CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations