IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v80y2019icp332-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping and modelling past and future land use change in Europe’s cultural landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Schulp, Catharina J.E.
  • Levers, Christian
  • Kuemmerle, Tobias
  • Tieskens, Koen F.
  • Verburg, Peter H.

Abstract

Cultural landscapes are valued for their landscape character and cultural heritage. Yet, these often low-intensity, multifunctional landscapes are at risk of disappearance. Understanding how cultural landscapes might change under alternative futures is important for identifying where to target actions towards persistence of cultural landscapes. This study therefore aims to identify past and future land use changes in the European Union’s (EU’s) cultural landscapes. To do so, we overlay past and projected plausible future land change trajectories with the spatial distribution of cultural landscapes in the EU. Our results highlight a clear co-occurrence of specific land change trajectories and cultural landscape types. Past and future urbanization and agricultural abandonment are the land use change processes most strongly affecting small-scale, low-intensity agricultural landscapes that are valued by society. De-intensification is overrepresented in landscapes with a low management intensity. Past intensification was overrepresented in small-scale landscapes with a high value to society, while future intensification might concentrate on landscapes with a low intensity. Typical cultural landscapes show a strong variation of changes under different scenario conditions in terms of future landscape change. Scenario analysis revealed that some of the threats to cultural landscapes are related to agricultural policies, nature policies and other spatial restrictions. At the same time, these policies may also alleviate these threats when properly designed and targeted by accounting for the impacts they may have on cultural landscapes. Considering cultural landscapes more directly in decisions to be made for the post-2020 Common Agricultural Policy period is needed, and could be achieved by a focus on landscape quality beyond the current focus on specific greening measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Schulp, Catharina J.E. & Levers, Christian & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Tieskens, Koen F. & Verburg, Peter H., 2019. "Mapping and modelling past and future land use change in Europe’s cultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 332-344.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:332-344
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771730755X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luis Gomes & Tânia Nobre & Adélia Sousa & Fernando Rei & Nuno Guiomar, 2020. "Hyperspectral Reflectance as a Basis to Discriminate Olive Varieties—A Tool for Sustainable Crop Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Karl-Ivar Kumm & Anna Hessle, 2020. "Economic Comparison between Pasture-Based Beef Production and Afforestation of Abandoned Land in Swedish Forest Districts," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Wang, Bo & Liang, Youjia & Peng, Shouzhang, 2022. "Harnessing the indirect effect of urban expansion for mitigating agriculture-environment trade-offs in the Loess Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    4. Chuai, Xiaowei & Yuan, Ye & Zhang, Xiuying & Guo, Xiaomin & Zhang, Xiaolei & Xie, Fangjian & Zhao, Rongqin & Li, Jianbao, 2019. "Multiangle land use-linked carbon balance examination in Nanjing City, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 305-315.
    5. Xiaowei Chuai & Jiqun Wen & Dachang Zhuang & Xiaomin Guo & Ye Yuan & Yue Lu & Mei Zhang & Jiasheng Li, 2019. "Intersection of Physical and Anthropogenic Effects on Land-Use/Land-Cover Changes in Coastal China of Jiangsu Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Walter Musakwa & Shuai Wang & Fangli Wei & Olgah Lerato Malapane & Masala Makumule Thomas & Sydney Mavengahama & Hongwei Zeng & Bingfang Wu & Wenwu Zhao & Nesisa Analisa Nyathi & Zama Eric Mashimbye &, 2020. "Survey of Community Livelihoods and Landscape Change along the Nzhelele and Levuvhu River Catchments in Limpopo Province, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Anna Żemła-Siesicka & Urszula Myga-Piątek, 2021. "A Landscape Persistence Assessment of Częstochowa Upland: A Case Study of Ogrodzieniec, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Darvishi, Asef & Yousefi, Maryam & Marull, Joan, 2020. "Modelling landscape ecological assessments of land use and cover change scenarios. Application to the Bojnourd Metropolitan Area (NE Iran)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Meng Wang & Xiaofang Sun & Zemeng Fan & Tianxiang Yue, 2019. "Investigation of Future Land Use Change and Implications for Cropland Quality: The Case of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    10. Jinming Yang & Shimei Li & Huicui Lu, 2019. "Quantitative Influence of Land-Use Changes and Urban Expansion Intensity on Landscape Pattern in Qingdao, China: Implications for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-18, November.
    11. Bezáková, Magdaléna & Bezák, Peter, 2022. "Which sustainability objectives are difficult to achieve? The mid-term evaluation of predicted scenarios in remote mountain agricultural landscapes in Slovakia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    12. Lingyue Li & Zhixin Qi & Shi Xian & Dong Yao, 2021. "Agricultural Land Use Change in Chongqing and the Policy Rationale behind It: A Multiscale Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    13. Karol Król, 2020. "The Scarecrow as Part of Polish Rural Cultural Landscapes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Yan, Jinming & Zhang, Dongsheng & Xia, Fangzhou, 2021. "Evaluation of village land use planning risks in green concepts: The case of Qiwangfen Village in Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Orsi, Francesco & Ciolli, Marco & Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Geneletti, Davide, 2020. "Mapping hotspots and bundles of forest ecosystem services across the European Union," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Pahlavani, Parham & Sheikhian, Hossein & Bigdeli, Behnaz, 2020. "Evaluation of residential land use compatibilities using a density-based IOWA operator and an ANFIS-based model: A case study of Tehran, Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. May Daniel E., 2020. "The Risk of Losing Deserted Medieval Rural Settlements: Opportunities for Agroturism and Rural Development," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(4), pages 636-648, December.
    18. Tomasz Rokicki & Aleksandra Perkowska & Bogdan Klepacki & Piotr Bórawski & Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska & Konrad Michalski, 2021. "Changes in Energy Consumption in Agriculture in the EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-21, March.
    19. René Ulloa-Espíndola & Susana Martín-Fernández, 2021. "Simulation and Analysis of Land Use Changes Applying Cellular Automata in the South of Quito and the Machachi Valley, Province of Pichincha, Ecuador," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-25, August.
    20. Wang, Ming & Liu, Zhengjia & Ali Baig, Muhammad Hasan & Wang, Yongsheng & Li, Yurui & Chen, Yuanyan, 2019. "Mapping sugarcane in complex landscapes by integrating multi-temporal Sentinel-2 images and machine learning algorithms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    21. Meyer, Markus A. & Früh-Müller, Andrea, 2020. "Patterns and drivers of recent agricultural land-use change in Southern Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    22. Susana Silva & Paulo Carvalho, 2022. "Historic Gardens Heritage in Portugal: From the Originality of an Art to the Inventory Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-19, May.
    23. Yujie Liu & Jie Xu & Yong Zhou & Amat Muhtar & Li Wang, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Differentiation of the Coupling and Coordination of Production-Living-Ecology Functions in Hubei Province Based on the Global Entropy Value Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-27, November.
    24. Daša Oremusová & Magdaléna Nemčíková & Alfred Krogmann, 2021. "Transformation of the Landscape in the Conditions of the Slovak Republic for Tourism," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, April.
    25. Jana Moravcova & Vendula Moravcova & Tomas Pavlicek & Nikola Novakova, 2022. "Land Use Has Changed through the Last 200 Years in Various Production Areas of South Bohemia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dora Isabel Rodrigues Ferreira & José-Manuel Sánchez-Martín, 2022. "Agricultural Landscapes as a Basis for Promoting Agritourism in Cross-Border Iberian Regions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-35, May.
    2. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    4. Isabelle King & John Martin, 2021. "Exploring Public Recognition and Perceived Cultural Value of the Special Qualities within English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Hoelting, Kristin R. & Morse, Joshua W. & Gould, Rachelle K. & Martinez, Doreen E. & Hauptfeld, Rina S. & Cravens, Amanda E. & Breslow, Sara J. & Bair, Lucas S. & Schuster, Rudy M. & Gavin, Michael C., 2024. "Opportunities for improved consideration of cultural benefits in environmental decision-Making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    6. Karol Król & Robert Kao & Józef Hernik, 2019. "The Scarecrow as an Indicator of Changes in the Cultural Heritage of Rural Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Wilhelm, Jennifer A. & Smith, Richard G. & Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina & Hurley, Stephanie, 2020. "Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    8. Castillo-Eguskitza, Nekane & Hoyos, David & Onaindia, Miren & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2019. "Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Hermes, Johannes & Albert, Christian & von Haaren, Christina, 2018. "Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 296-307.
    10. Adison Altamirano & Carolina Gonzalez-Suhr & Caroline Marien & Germán Catalán & Alejandro Miranda & Marco Prado & Laurent Tits & Lorena Vieli & Paula Meli, 2020. "Landscape Disturbance Gradients: The Importance of the Type of Scene When Evaluating Landscape Preferences and Perceptions," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Raviv, Orna & Tchetchik, Anat & Lotan, Alon & Izhaki, Ido & Zemah Shamir, Shiri, 2021. "Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    12. Langemeyer, Johannes & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc, 2018. "Mapping the intangible: Using geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 542-552.
    13. Lin, Yongyuan & Shui, Wei & Li, Zhipan & Huang, Shan & Wu, Kexin & Sun, Xiaorui & Liang, Jingchen, 2021. "Green space optimization for rural vitality: Insights for planning and policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    14. Schirpke, Uta & Ghermandi, Andrea & Sinclair, Michael & Van Berkel, Derek & Fox, Nathan & Vargas, Leonardo & Willemen, Louise, 2023. "Emerging technologies for assessing ecosystem services: A synthesis of opportunities and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Schmidt, Katja & Martín-López, Berta & Phillips, Peter M. & Julius, Eike & Makan, Neville & Walz, Ariane, 2019. "Key landscape features in the provision of ecosystem services: Insights for management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 353-366.
    16. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    17. Rust, Niki A. & Rehackova, Lucia & Naab, Francis & Abrams, Amber & Hughes, Courtney & Merkle, Bethann Garramon & Clark, Beth & Tindale, Sophie, 2021. "What does the UK public want farmland to look like?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    18. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    19. Sarah Marie Müller & Jasmin Peisker & Claudia Bieling & Kathrin Linnemann & Konrad Reidl & Klaus Schmieder, 2019. "The Importance of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Landscape Visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    20. Balázsi, Ágnes & Riechers, Maraja & Hartel, Tibor & Leventon, Julia & Fischer, Joern, 2019. "The impacts of social-ecological system change on human-nature connectedness: A case study from Transylvania, Romania," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:332-344. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.