analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional

Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 79–95

Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditionallandscapes—two examples from Southern France

Veerle Van Eetvelde∗, Marc AntropGeography Department, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 S8, B9000 Ghent, Belgium

Abstract

Traditional landscapes are changing with increasing speed and an important cultural heritage is becoming lost. New land-scapes replace the traditional ones gradually or sometimes abruptly. This article analyzes the characteristics and mechanismsof landscape changes at a settlement level, by using case studies in the countryside of southern France where landscapes arein transition between new residential urbanization and land abandonment. Structural changes in land use, building and fieldpatterns between two time periods are studied using aerial photographs covering a period from 1960 to 1999. The photographswere scanned to allow on screen digitalization and interpretation of selected features and details, which were consecutivelymapped and analyzed in a GIS. Changes observed on the aerial photographs were compared with the population statisticand the accessibility of the place. All cases show very different and unique trajectories of change with complex interactionsbetween different driving forces. Agricultural intensification and land abandonment act simultaneously with different formsof urbanization in the countryside. Although easily recognizable on the aerial photographs, a quantitative assessment of thechanges in the different structural components remains difficult and the results can hardly be related to changes in populationcharacteristics and accessibility. Consequently, structural and morphological changes observed on the aerial photographs leadto other interpretations of the underlying functional processes than the statistical data do.© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Cultural landscape; Landscape change; Aerial photo series; Southern France

1. Introduction

Traditional cultural landscapes in Europe are in pro-found transition (Holdaway and Smart, 2001; Wascher,2000; Green, 2000; Pedroli, 2000; Prihmdahl, 2000;Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995; Meeus et al., 1990).Many new types of landscape emerge (Klijn and Vos,2000; Kolen and Lemaire, 1999). Coherent relationsbetween the physical environment and the local cul-tural adaptation, resulting in typical patterns of settle-ment, roads, land use and field structures, characterize

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+32-9-264-47-07;fax: +32-9-264-85.E-mail address:[email protected] (V. Van Eetvelde).

traditional landscapes, which can be recognized eas-ily on aerial photographs. Many of these relations lastfor generations of people living there and are ecolog-ically consistent. Thus, traditional cultural landscapesare diverse and have a distinct identity linked to thecharacter of the place or region (Antrop, 1997). In gen-eral, new landscapes are considered being less diverseand less coherent than the traditional ones. The paceof the changes is increasing (Klijn and Vos, 2000).These changes are difficult to study as most land usestatistics are not reliable, due to the fact that they sel-dom reflect real landscape patterns and are often out-dated (Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995). Many of thechanges are structural and thus monitoring land covermay not be sufficient. Land use is only one aspect

0169-2046/$20.00 © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00030-6

80 V. Van Eetvelde, M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 79–95

that determines the landscape character. Landscapesshould be considered as holistic entities (Antrop andVan Eetvelde, 2000; Naveh, 2001; Naveh, 2000) andmany other features beside land use define the land-scape character and identity (Fry, 2000). Differentmodels of changing landscape patterns can be defined(Forman, 1995; Vos and Stortelder, 1992; Keisteri,1990). Landscape metrics or indices are frequentlyused to assess structural characteristics of landscapesand to monitor changes (Antrop, 1998; Dramstad et al.,1998; Fry, 1998; Hunsaker et al., 1994).

Generally, traditional landscapes are consideredas more diverse, small scaled, clearly structured andordered, while new landscapes are considered to bemore homogeneous or more chaotic, and more struc-tured in a large-scale way (Vos, 2000; Antrop, 1997).Holism defines the identity of a landscape and thus itsunique character (Naveh, 2000; Pinto-Correia, 2000).The concept of holism also describes how our percep-tion works. It forms a basis in photo interpretation,which is one of the fundamental tools in landscapeecology (Turner et al., 2001; Troll, 1939). The holisticdimension of the landscape as well as the dynamicsof the landscape can be studied easily using time se-ries of aerial photographs, which offer more reliableresults than census statistics (Dramstad et al., 1998;Ihse, 1995; Lipsky, 1995).

Can structural changes between traditional and newlandscapes be recognized and are these significant?How much structural change is needed for a tradi-tional landscape to lose its character and to become anew landscape? Monitoring changes in land cover iswidely practiced (Antrop, 2000; Wrbka, 1998; Ihse,1996) and studying structural changes can offer newapplications in planning (Fry, 1998). However, the re-lation between these changes and the actual processesare not obvious, as is the way they cause a profoundchange of the landscape character and identity. Whatmakes the character of a landscape change? It mightbe a general change of land cover and land use, with-out fundamental changes of field size and patterns, orit might be a fundamental change in the field structure,road pattern and small biotopes without a significantchange in land cover. What are the small mechanismsof change that together change the identity of a land-scape or make it an other landscape type at the end?How many new housing is needed before the ruralcharacter is lost and an urbanized landscape emerges?

How can these mechanisms be studied, measured andmonitored?.

Landscape metrics or indices have been used widelyto describe landscape structures, spatial patterns andlandscape change (Turner et al., 2001; Klopatek andGardner, 1999; Turner and Gardner, 1990). However,the significance of landscape metrics for practicalapplications remains questionable (Dramstad et al.,1998) and their dependence upon data quality is im-portant in particular in highly dynamic landscapes,such as suburban ones (Turner et al., 2001; Antropand Van Eetvelde, 2000). The question remains ifthe transition from traditional patterns to modern ru-ral landscape patterns can be described using spatialstructural indices that rely upon only very partiallandscape components, such as land cover and whichdo not necessarily reflect the historical trajectory ofthe landscape. The use of time series of historicalmaps and aerial photographs is a common practicein historical geography and has proven to be veryuseful (Vuorela, 2000; Skånes and Bunce, 1997; Ihse,1996). Their application was particularly successfulin well-documented regions that were studied in detailwith an interdisciplinary approach. However, mostanalyses are very detailed and specific and thereforedifficult to generalize for monitoring a wide varietyof actual landscape changes. Detailed studies at fieldor farm level indicate numerous different causes thatcan result in similar landscape changes.

Understanding the changing landscape impliesknowledge of the processes and mechanisms thatcause them. Three main driving forces can be recog-nized: (1) accessibility related to transportation modeand infrastructure; (2) urbanization and (3) globalisa-tion. The major trends of change of cultural landscapesin Europe can be summarized as follows according toKlijn and Vos (2001) andWood and Handley (2001).

First, the intensification and increase of scale ofthe agricultural production has a role. Wetlands andnatural areas are likely to be transformed into agri-cultural land in particular in densely inhabited areas.The new reclaimed land is characterized by large-scalefields and mono-functional specialization. Small land-scape elements with particular ecological value, suchas ponds and hedges are lost. Fine-grained rural land-scape structures are replaced by large scale ones whichenhance landscape homogenisation and lead to loss ofregional identities and diversity of cultural landscapes.

V. Van Eetvelde, M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 79–95 81

Over-intensive land use can lead to rapid land degrada-tion with processes of desertification and salinization.

A second major trend is the urban sprawl, thegrowth of infrastructures and functional urbanization.These are other forms of intensive land use that havehigh environmental impacts. These forms of land usespread like a fungus over the existing agricultural ornatural landscapes and create new and complex formsof multifunctional land use, increasing landscapeheterogeneity and fragmentation. Multifunctionalitydemands reflection about the compatibility betweendifferent functions and land use and new planningsolutions much be searched to combine these geo-graphically (Brandt, 2000; Brandt et al., 2001).

A third trend consists of specific tourist and recre-ational forms of land use that are still developing atan accelerating speed in coastal and mountainous re-gions. Natural, cultural and scenic values of the land-scape are important factors in this development. Thecontrast between the urban-recreational developmentand the natural and often traditional rural surround-ings is extreme. Sharp gradients in land use intensitydevelop at close range. Aspects of over-exploitation,spoiling and exceeding carrying capacity are impor-tant issues. As most of these are situated in less devel-oped regions, new tourist infrastructure gives an ex-treme contrast with traditional forms of land use andsettlement stressing social differences. Other variantsin this trend, which are typical for developed regions,are the colonization of declining rural areas by sec-ondary homes, the emergence of summer houses nearnatural areas, in particular coast (Tress, 1999). Typicalfor developed regions with an aging population is alsothe retirement migration mainly towards the coastalzone.

The fourth trend consists of the extensification ofland use and land abandonment that is likely to con-tinue to affect remote rural areas with poor accessibil-ity and less favourable or declining social and econom-ical conditions. In these regions, the population willcontinue to decrease and agriculture will become lessproductive. Alternative forms, such as hobby-farmingand part-time farming with specific land use, mightemerge. In areas with less favourable physical landqualities, marginalization of land use and land aban-donment will increase. Unplanned, patch work style,reforestation is characteristic in such areas and loss ofcultural heritage elements is inherent.

Different processes are involved in these trends andthey act simultaneously. Traditional land use is char-acterized by involution where land use changes areintroduced smoothly taking into consideration land ca-pabilities and existing structures. This occurs in areaswhere limited technical means exist but high labourinput could be applied. Polyculture of crops and mul-tifunctional land use are prevalent and management isoften sustainable. Otherwise, replacement is character-ized by an increase of technical means and low labourinput and causes land use change that wipe away theexisting structures rapidly and transform the physi-cal environment. Land use becomes more specializedand monofunctional zoning is typical. Ecological dis-turbances and stress upon the environment are impor-tant factors. Mismatch of dysfunction occurs when thechosen land use forms are not adapted to the physicalland capabilities or to the geographical location andcontext. Obsolescence or loss of function might oc-cur after a while and the land use gradually becomesdisaffected (Wood and Handley, 2001).

This study analyses the nature and magnitude ofthe changes in landscapes and the underlying mecha-nisms at the settlement level based on two case studiesin southern France where landscapes are in transitionbetween new residential urbanization and land aban-donment. Aerial photographs, topographical maps andcensus statistics are used as data sources to assessthe change of basic landscape components that definethe landscape structure and identity. The focus willbe upon the changes of the agrarian zone around thesettlement and its more extensive fringe. These zonescorrespond to infields (or theager of classic Romanland division), which is intensively cultivated land.The fringe zone corresponds partially to the more ex-tensively usedsaltusgrounds or outfields. Less atten-tion will be given to the vast forests or wastelands, thesilva.

2. Study areas

Two case studies were selected in the rural coun-tryside of France to assess the structural changes ofthe landscape in approximately 20 years. The caseswere selected from a series of study areas that havebeen used for many years in training exercises forstudents in landscape science (Antrop, 1993). Over


a long period, large datasets of topographical maps,aerial photographs, terrain observations and mono-graphic studies were collected, offering a good basisto assess the processes of landscape change.

The case studies were selected to represent differ-ent types of change as described by Klijn and Vos(2001) andWood and Handley (2001). Tavernes and leFleix–Montfaucon are both situated in southern Francewhere land abandonment and urbanization of the coun-tryside act simultaneously. Le Fleix and Monfauconare adjacent municipalities: one in well accessible val-ley of the Dordogne River and one on a less acces-sible plateau. The cases will be discussed separatelybecause of these different site characteristics.Table 1summarizes the main characteristics of the traditionallandscape for each of the case study areas.Fig. 1gives their localization in France on a map of the es-timated population density in 2015 based on demo-graphical dynamics (Lebras, 1994). All are situatedin rural zones with a rather low population density,but with a slight trend of population increase due toimmigration in the region (Lacoste, 1990). The land-scape character is described systematically for differ-ent components, such as landform, settlement, roadand field patterns, land use, type of spatial zoningand the occurrence of landmarks as visual focal pointsin the area. The results are summarized inTable 1.

Table 1Characteristics of traditional landscapes

Structural characteristics Tavernes Le Fleix Monfaucon

Land form Tectonic basin Flood plain of Dordogne Dissected plateau; cliff alongDordogne valley

Landscape spatial zoning Circular concentric Sections parallel to river corridor Mosaic of patches of forest,pastures and arable land

Settlement type Circular, nucleated Planned nucleated Elongated or clustered on ridges;scattered hamlets

Building density Low High LowRoads Three main roads connect

villageOne main road, radiating minorroads, bridge

Only minor roads

Dominant land use Olive groves Polyculture Forest, cropland, grazing landField shape Small blocks Strips grouped in blocks Blocks, sometimes irregular shapedField size: average

coefficient of variation1.25 ha (96.5%) 0.71 ha (74.0%) 0.68 ha (51.8%)

Field structure/slope Flat and terraced Flat Undulating to steepEdges, corridors, barriers Surrounding limestone hills River, cliff Steep slopesForest Hardwood shrub (maquis) Only on steep slopes mixed forest Only mixed forest on steep

slopes and in minor valleysLandmarks Village Bridge None

Fig. 1. Localization of the case studies in the estimated pop-ulation density map for 2015 of France (1) Tavernes, (2) LeFleix–Monfaucon (afterLebras, 1994).

Table 2summarizes the population change and someadministrative and additional location characteristicsrelated to accessibility.

Tavernes is a small village of less than a thousandinhabitants situated in the middle of Var Departmentin the Provence region in the Mediterranean southeast


Table 2Socio-geographic characteristics of the studied municipalities (source statistics: Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economique,France, 2001)

Indicator Tavernes Le Fleix Montfaucon

1982 1990 1999 1982 1990 1999 1982 1990 1999

Population 483 628 739 1241 1278 1345 209 233 232Population change (%) +30.0 +17.7 +3.0 +5.2 +11.0 −0.4Older than 60 years (%) – 38.3 34.4 – 30.1 32.3 – 25.3 28.9Foreigners (%) – – 2.8 – – 1.3 – – 2.6Second residences (%) – – 20.8 – – 9.7 – – 16.8Employed (%) – 85.4 77.9 – 88.3 88.4 – 93.4 82.3Level of government Local authority, canton Local authority, municipality Local authority, municipality

Distance (km) to the nearestCities Barjols: 5; Manosque: 33 St-Foy-la-Grande: 4; Bergerac: 20 St-Foy-la-Grande: 4; Bergerac: 19Highway access 19 19+ 28a 19 + 28a 64 57 14 68 61 10Railway station 21 5 9

a To the E80 and the new A51-E172.

of France. The region is highly forested and belongsto the Pre-Alps. The landscape is characterized by asuccession of mainly forested ridges and plateaus ofMesozoic limestone, where smaller basins and valleysare situated filled with Tertiary sediments providingarable soils (Antrop, 1988). Most of the settlementsin the region are on defensive hilltop sites and are sit-uated in the center of their territories, which includesthe arable basin soils as well as parts of the limestoneplateaus that were formerly used as extensive graz-ing land. The site of Tavernes is situated in the cen-ter of such a basin, which is almost perfectly circularand surrounded by steep slopes of limestone, whichrise 40–280 m above the basin. The basis is drainedthrough a small gorge in the south. The village is spe-cialized in olive oil and some wine production. Mostof the basis and the terraces lower foot slopes are olivegroves and vineyards. The basin is assessable by threemain roads: one to the east towards the gorge du Ver-don, one to the west leading to the access of the E171motorway and one to the south to the closest townBarjols and further to the E80 motorway.

The village of Le Fleix and the hamlet of Monfau-con are situated at the border of the department Dor-dogne about 20 km west of the main town of Bergeracand near the old town Sainte-Foy-la-Grande and itstwin settlement Port-Ste-Foy-et-Ponchapt on the op-posite river bank. Both places are ancient strategic,commercial and harbor sites on the Dordogne River.Le Fleix is located near one of the major meanders

of the Dordogne River and possesses one of the fewbridges over the river, thus connecting the historicalregion of the Périgord with Guyenne. It was foundedas a small English medieval ‘new town’ orbastide(Ranoux, 1996). The river is only navigable by smallbarges and formed a natural border between the his-torical provinces. An important road passes throughLe Fleix which, however, did not develop its strategicadvantage as the nearby Port-Ste-Foy-et-Ponchapt andSainte-Foy-la-Grande on the other side of the River.The River valley is approximately 5 km wide and thesoils are formed of alluvial gravel and clayish de-posits. The area is traditionally cultivated with a mix-ture of vineyards, orchards, cereals and tobacco ascrops (Ranoux, 1996). This typical Aquitanian poly-cultural landscape (Lebeau, 1972; Pinchemel, 1969)disappeared largely during the second-half of the 20thcentury. The landscape became more homogeneouswith a specialization in corn and fruit orchards andby grouping the fields into larger blocks. As the Dor-dogne forms the border between the planning regionsDordogne and Aquitaine, which since the 1970s fol-low each their own planning policy, interesting land-scape changes on both sides of the river emerge. Themunicipality of Le Fleix has a little more than thou-sand inhabitants today (Table 3) and population den-sity between 50 and 99 inhabitants/km2 (1990).

Contrary to the easily accessible Le Fleix, the mu-nicipality of Monfaucon is situated 88 m above thevalley on the dissected plateau with rugged relief,


Table 3Aerial photographs and topographical maps used

Datasets Case study Date Original scale

Topographical mapsTavernes, IGN France, number 3343 Tavernes 1984 1/50000Ste-Foy-la-Grande, IGN France, number 1736 Le Fleix–Monfaucon 1988 1/50000

Aerial photographs—Scanning 1000 dpiIGN France 9064-145 numbers 2937–2939 Tavernes 1979 1/14500IGN France 83-200 numbers 2038–2040 Tavernes 1993 1/20000IGN France 1636–1936 numbers 102–104 Le Fleix–Monfaucon 1960 1/25000IGN France 1736/300 numbers 24–26 Le Fleix–Monfaucon 1999 1/30000

approximately 5 km from the river. It is connectedwith the main transportation infrastructure by smallwinding roads. This relative isolation is well ex-pressed by its population of about 200 inhabitants(Table 3) and very low population density consistingof <10 inhabitants/km2 (Ranoux, 1996). The steepslopes are formed in Tertiary of molasses, sands,clays and gravels and are forested. Woodlands occupyalso large parts of the plateau. Cropland and mead-ows are prevalent. The increase of the forested area ischaracteristic for the landscape change here.

3. Methods and materials

Analogue stereoscopic black and white aerial pho-tographs were available for two time periods (Table 3).Their original scale varied from 1/14500 to 1/30000.The photographs were scanned at a resolution of1000 dpi to allow comparison and overlaying. Theresolution 1000 dpi was chosen to allow the detec-tion of the smallest landscape elements also duringthe onscreen interpretation, since changes of thesewere considered highly significant in the assessmentof changes of small details in the landscape. Geo-referencing of the raster images was done in PCIGeomatica. Comparative photo-interpretation and onscreen digitizing was performed in AutoCAD Map2000, while for map overlaying and spatial analysisArcview GIS 3.1 was used.

First, the geographical context and site charac-teristics for the different cases were studied usingtopographical maps and literature. This allowed to de-fine the main structural components of the traditionallandscapes and to collect information of processes

that were significant for the landscape changes, suchas population dynamics and construction projects.These characteristics were summarized inTable 1.

Second, a global visual stereoscopic interpretationof photographs was conducted to define differentlandscape units (blocks) in each case. These blockswere used as strata for sampling and aggregating ele-ments of change within these areas. The blocks weredefined as polygons bordered by roads and enclosingsimilar patterns of fields, buildings or linear features,such as terraces, natural edges and rivers. These ir-regular polygons were preferred to a raster grid foraggregating the observed changes because the areascorrespond to old field systems and to the traditionalagrarian land organization systems (Lebeau, 1972;Uhlig and Lienau, 1972). Town centers were left out ofthe analysis because of the different scale and natureof structural changes within the built up environment.Different landscape elements were selected as signif-icant indicators of structural change. These were landcover, defined field-by-field or patch-by-patch whenno clear field borders could be separated, buildingsand infrastructural constructions with their associatedproperties and fields patterns with different size andshape.

Third, aerial photographs and topographical mapswere scanned and georeferenced using PCI Geomaticato allow map overlay and easy comparison. Elementsof change were digitized on screen as a vector map inAutoCAD Map 2000. An example to illustrate this isgiven in Fig. 2. Different types of changes were de-scribed, counted and measured for each time periodand consecutively aggregated by landscape block. Theresults are summarized inTable 4and represented car-tographically in diagrams (Figs. 4 and 8).


Fig. 2. Example of a block stratified sampling and indication of objects selected for comparison (case study Le Fleix).

Finally, these results were compared to changes inpopulation spreading. Therefore population potentialsurfaces were constructed for the different periods.Population potential maps indicate the relative isola-tion of places relative to the population size of the set-tlements in the region and are based upon the gravity

Table 4Indicators of change the case study areas Tavernes, Le Fleix and Monfaucon

Indicator Tavernes Le Fleix Monfaucon

Time period 1979–1993 1960–1999 1960–1999

For surveyed areaSurveyed area (km2) 4.825 8.395 8.857Change of forested area (ha) – – +60.38 (+6.8%)Overall building density (km2) past/present (% change) 26.9/42.9 (+59.2%) 34.3/58.7 (+71.2%) 6.7/15.6 (+133.9%)Annual rate of change of building density (%) +4.2 +1.8 +3.4Number of fields past/present (% change) 608/509 (−16.3%) 1548/700 (−54.8%) 537/231 (−57.0%)Annual rate of change of number of fields (%) −1.2 −1.4 −1.5

At block levelNumber of blocks 11 23 10Difference in average building density by block (km2) +31.37 +34.37∗∗ +13.01∗Difference in average number of fields by block −40.71 −36.87∗∗ −30.60∗∗Difference in average field size by block (ha) +0.9856 +0.8983∗∗ +0.4884∗Annual change of number of building density (km2) +1.14 +20 +3Annual change of number of fields (km2) −1.47 −72.66 −8.86Average field size (ha): past/present 1.25/2.24 0.71/1.61 0.68/1.08Coefficient of variation of field size (%): past/present 97/94 74/52 52/48Annual change of average field size (m2) +110.23 +230.34 +102.70

∗ P < 0.05.∗∗ P < 0.01.

model of interaction (Smith, 1975; Haggett, 1975). Inthis case the population census data for the munici-palities was used. The density mapping procedure ofthe Spatial Analyst in Arcview GIS was applied, us-ing a search distance of 5 km, which corresponds tothe average action radius of movement by pedestrians


during the shaping of the traditional landscape(Antrop, 1999). The population potential map ofthe oldest situation is represented by gray shadedcontours. The difference map between the potentialsurfaces for the two periods gives an indication ofthe spatial change of potential population density andis represented as a contour map. The theoretical ter-ritories were mapped using Thiessen polygons andpopulation size of the settlements according toAntrop(1988). These were overlaid with the actual municipalborders.

4. Results

For approximately the same time period, all studyareas show important, but completely different pat-terns of change in the land use and landscape struc-ture, which are summarized inTable 4and illustratedby Figs. 3 and 7.

Tavernes is situated in a transition zone of high pop-ulation potential associated with the town of Barjols

Fig. 3. Aerial photographs of the Tavernes village and the eastern foot slope in 1979 (top) and 1993 (bottom) (extract from IGN France9064–145 numbers 2937–2939, 83–200 numbers 2038–2040).

in the south and an almost abandoned densely forestedlimestone plateaus in the north and east (Fig. 5). Arapid connection to the main motorway E80 of theCote d’Azur in the south exists. Since 1990, the minorroad to the west offers also access to the E172 motor-way. The population increase of Tavernes is spectac-ular between 1982 and 1999 (>53%) with an annualgrowth rate of 3.1%, which seems to be slowing downnow. An increase of 30.0% was noted between 1982and 1990, which almost halved (>17.7%) between1990 and 1999. Although the percentage foreigner islow (2.8%), the proportion of secondary housing oc-cupies now one-fifth (20.8%). The proportion of theelderly people is slightly decreasing; unemploymentremains high and has increased in the last decade. Theshift of the population density surface indicates a rel-atively faster growth to the north and northwest ofBarjols. The Thiessen polygons still correspond fairlywell with the old municipal border.

At a first look, the Tavernes Basin shows littlechange between 1979 and 1993 (Fig. 3). In par-ticular the circular and nucleated old village looks


Fig. 4. Change maps for dominant land use, buildings (a) and number of fields (b) by landscape block for the Tavernes case study. Typeof change for dominant land use: (1) maquis to maquis (2) maquis and olive yards to maquis and olive yards (3) vineyards to vineyards(4) vineyards to vineyards and arable land (5) vineyards and olive yards to arable land.

unchanged and small changes in land use can benoticed in the cultivated basin, in particular the tran-sition from vineyards to olive groves. Most importantchanges are located at the terraced foot slopes ofthe Basin, in particular in the northern and easternedge of the Basin. The number of buildings increasedfrom 130 in 1979 to 207 in 1993, which means anoverall increase of the building density from 26.9to 42.9 buildings/km2 (>59.2%). A pronounced con-

centration in the north and east of the Basin can betraced. Clearly, the well-protected, long steep slopesfacing south and west are preferred. However, theslopes are well absorbed in the already existing land-scape. Smaller buildings, such as thecabanons, fieldcabins with stonewalls and brick roofing tiles andtypical for the region, have been transformed andenlarged into second homes (Fig. 6). The surround-ing narrow cultivation terraces have been abandoned


Fig. 5. Population potential and village territories in (a) the Tavernes study area and (b) the Le Fleix–Monfaucon study area. Grey shadeszones represent the population potential surface of 1982; contour lines indicate differences between the 1999 and 1982 surface with themean value of change for the Tavernes study area= 6 inhabitants/km2 and for the Le Fleix–Monfaucon study area= 3 inhabitants/km2;dotted lines represent the municipal borders and dashed lines the theoretical territories defined by Thiessen polygons.


Fig. 6. Detailed extracts from aerial photographs illustrating the interpretation of the change of individual elements: transformation of fieldcabins and terraces (left) into residential villas with swimming pool and gardens (right) (Tavernes).

and transformed into gardens. New houses have alsobeen built in a scattered pattern on the abandonedterrace slopes. Existing dirt roads formed the skeletonto access new housing sites. The number of fieldsdecreased by 16.3%, but the change in average fieldsize by block did not change significantly. Variationin field size remains very high as indicated by thecoefficient of variation. Spatial variation is clearlyshown by the diagrams inFig. 4. The average fieldsize by block increases almost by one hectare, whichis not significant (P = 0.1430).

The Dordogne Valley appears clearly in the pop-ulation potential map (Fig. 5). Le Fleix is situatedat the transition of the core area of the main townsSainte-Foy-la-Grande and Port-Ste-Foy-et-Ponchaptand the plateau area with very low population densitywhere Monfaucon is situated. The population of theLe Fleix municipality has been stagnating between1982 and 1990, with an average annual growth of only0.5%. This stagnation is also reflected by its age struc-ture: 30–32% of the inhabitants is older than 60 years(Ranoux, 1996). The overall population increase was8.4% and seems to be slightly accelerating (>3.0%between 1982 and 1990, >5.2% between 1990 and1999) (Table 3). Unemployment is low and has beenstable in the last decade. The percentage of foreign-ers is extremely low as is the proportion of secondhomes.

The core of population potential shows a clear shifttowards the northeast with the highest change ratebetween Le Fleix and St-Avit-St-Nazaire and in theviewing of Gardonne. Although the population statis-tics suggest low dynamics in the area, this shift ofpopulation potential corresponds to changes in build-ing density. The number of buildings doubled from288 in 1960 to 493 in 1997, which gives an overallincrease of the building density in the studied areafrom 34.3 to 58.7 buildings/km2 (>71.2%). The aver-age building density by block increases significantlyby 34.37 buildings/km2. The scattered extension ofnew residential housing is situated in particular alongthe secondary roads to northeast of the old village cen-ter. Another striking structural change visible on theaerial photographs is an important reorganization ofthe field pattern. The regular strips organized in blockshave been up scaled and replaced by large fields. Lessthan half of the number of fields in the area stud-ied remained: 1548 fields in 1960, only 700 in 1999(−54.8%). The average number of fields by block haddecreased significantly. Most of the small strip fieldswere merged into larger blocks. The average field sizeby landscape block increased significantly by 0.8983ha from 0.7066 ha in 1960 to 1.6049 ha in 1999. Si-multaneously, the variation coefficient dropped from74 to 52%, indicating homogenization of the field size.The spatial variation of these changes by block is given


Fig. 7. Aerial photographs of the Le Fleix–Monfaucon study area in 1960 (top) and 1999 (bottom) (extract from IGN France1636–1936 numbers 102–104, 1736/300 numbers 24–26).

in Fig. 8. Land use becomes more homogeneous, asfruit orchards have replaced the vineyards on the flatvalley area.

Although poorly accessible, the population of themunicipality of Monfaucon showed a spectacular in-crease of 11.0% between 1982 and 1990, which is farabove the average growth of the Department (>2.4%)(Ranoux, 1996). This makes its population structure

more favourable than Le Fleix, although 20–29% ofpeople are older than 60 years (Ranoux, 1996). How-ever, this population increase happened between 1982and 1990 and has stagnated. This sudden increase inpopulation is expressed by a relative increase in build-ing density in the area from 6.7 to 15.6 buildings/km2

(>133.9%). Land use changes show an extension offorest, mainly due to abandonment or replanting of


Fig. 8. Change maps for dominant land use, buildings (a) and number of fields (b) by landscape block for the Le Fleix–Monfaucon casestudy. Circle indicates unbuilt blocks in 1960 with number of buildings in 1999. Type of change for dominant land use: (1) forest toforest; (2) forest and grassland to forest; (3) grassland to grassland; (4) arable land and grassland to fruit orchards; (5) arable land tofruit orchards; (6) grassland and arable land to arable land; (7) grassland and arable land to grassland; (8) grassland and arable land tograssland and arable land; (9) grassland and arable land to grassland and arable land and water surfaces; (10) arable land to arable land;(11) arable land and vineyards to orchards.


Fig. 9. Detailed extracts from aerial photographs illustrating the interpretation of the change of individual elements: transformation of amanor into an institution for special education (Cadillac, Le Fleix).

individual fields. Forest increased by 60 ha (>6.8%) inthe area. The average number of fields by block wasreduced and average field size increased significantlyby almost half a hectare (>0.4884 ha). The variationof field sizes by blocks has persisted (52% in 1960 to48% in 1999) and is rather low compared to the othercase studies. Existing farms expanded with new build-ings. The aerial photographs easily reveal functionalchanges where farms extended activities and manorshave been turned in special education (Fig. 9), recre-ation or rural tourism (gıte rural, table d’hotes) estab-lishments.

5. Discussion

The holistic view given by the aerial photographsoffers the most comprehensive assessment of the struc-tural changes of the landscapes. Important changesin spatial patterns can be detected easily and visuallyinterpretated. Measuring and quantification reducesthe observed and obvious changes to non-significantdifferences in indicator values. The stratification oflandscape using blocks allowed some spatial differen-tiation, but the indicators of change derived from thestrata are not easy interpretable. A difficulty here isthat the delineation of blocks combines both physicalfeatures, such as abrupt changes in the slope and rivervalleys, as well as cultural features, such as field sys-tems and roads.

Terms, such as ‘construction’, ‘field’ and ‘fieldsystem’, as applied in classical historical geographyin Europe (Lebeau, 1972; Uhlig and Lienau, 1972),were preferred instead of the more general concepts,such as ‘element’ and ‘patch’. They allow a moredirect and thus a less abstract interpretation. Proper-ties, such as ‘field size’ and ‘shape’ are used for thesame reason instead of the more abstract quantita-tive landscape metrics that are frequently applied inlandscape ecology, and that are more controversialin use (Dramstad et al., 1998). Although many land-scape metrics are related (Turner et al., 2001), theircombined use gives better interpretation (Dramstadet al., 1998). The use of synthetic indices of land-scape change is only meaningful when looking at onefeature of change, such as land use or forestation.Combining land use changes with structural changesof settlement and field patterns seldom results in anindex that allows unambiguous interpretation.

The borders of the municipality of Tavernes andits size and shape still reflect the traditional territorialzoning. Theoretical territories correspond well withthe original, old municipal borders, confirming earliersimilar findings (Antrop, 1988). The compact shapeand central position of the controlling settlement indi-cate an organic growth of the land occupancy (Unwinand Nash, 1992; Baker, 1971). In case of Le Fleixand Monfaucon, the theoretical mapped territories us-ing Thiessen polygons correspond well with the mu-nicipal borders and indicate an organic growth of the


land occupancy. The land use change and small reduc-tion of arable land in the basin of Tavernes between1979 and 1999, could be seen as a continuing phase inthe decline of small-scale traditional polyculture thatstarted in the second-half of the 20th century as de-scribed already in detail for the adjacent municipalityMontmeyan byLarnoe (1988). The structural changesin the landscape are mainly new residential (second)housing that is well absorbed in the traditional terracedfoot slopes. Most changes are functional and do notaffect the basic structure of the landscape. The gen-eral morphology and physiognomy of the landscapeis hardly affected and changes become only distinctwhen looking closer at details.

For all case studies the interpretation and linkingof population statistics and dynamics to the observedphysical changes in buildings and field patterns is notdistinct. This confirms the advantage of using aerialphotographs over census statistics in landscape changestudies (Dramstad et al., 1998; Lipsky, 1995). For theLe Fleix and Monfaucon case, census statistics andpopulation maps (Ranoux, 1996) suggest different,even opposite dynamics than what can be observed inanalyzing the time series of aerial photographs. Im-portant physical changes can be observed in the land-scape, while census data suggest a stagnating areawith low dynamics. The changing field patterns in LeFleix is a typical result of the up-scaling and transi-tion towards industrial specialization in crops. Le Fleixhas remained a rural village with the main activity inagriculture. The population statistics do not explainthe more than doubling of the number of buildingsin the area (from 34.3 buildings/km2 in 1960 up to58.7 buildings/km2 in 1999). Many new buildings areextensions of existing complexes of farms or compa-nies. The residential expansion shows a typical ‘beadyring’ development emerging along the access roadsof the original village (Saunders, 2001; Hillier andHanson, 1984). The population of Monfaucon stag-nated after a short period of fast growth by immi-gration and is getting older while unemployment in-creases. It is not possible to relate this populationgrowth to the observed obvious increase in buildingdensity. Most of the new buildings are extensions ofexisting sites, in particular of expanding farms or trans-formation of existing building complexes into insti-tutions or enterprises. Consequently, in this case thebuilding density as one of the indicators of landscape

change does not refer to important visual and struc-tural change of the landscape, but rather to functionalchange. Detailed visual interpretation of single ele-ments, such as individual fields and buildings is pos-sibly based on the aerial photographs, offering thepossibility of detecting functional changes that areimportant for better understanding the processes ofchange in the area. The expansion of the forest in Mon-faucon seems to illustrate the principles of “la foretchasse l’homme” (‘the forest chases humans’) and “laforet en timbre poste” (‘afforestation by small poststamps’), which have been used to describe the symp-toms of land abandonment in central France (Bouetand Fel, 1983).

6. Conclusions

Structural changes in the selected villages in theFrench countryside showed fundamental but also veryspecific changes over the recent two to four decades.Most of the changes were induced by processes of ur-banization and a combination of agricultural intensifi-cation and land use extensification. Few changes canbe directly related to changes in the accessibility of theplace. Changes in statistical data that indicate humanactivity and accessibility do not always coincide withchanges observed in land use and landscape patterns.Places that look stable in the census data can show sig-nificant structural landscape change, as in the le Fleixand Monfaucon case. Structural changes, as shown byindices, such as number of buildings and field size, arenot always the result of the same proces. Functionalchanges of existing elements can be detected using de-tailed visual photo interpretation. Although many dif-ferent types of functional and structural change can bedetected and even measured to some extend, the cen-tral question remains unanswered. The transition froma traditional landscape in a new one happens graduallywith changes in some landscape components whileothers remain unchanged. The overall landscape char-acter, its identity is more stable than specific structuralcomponents, such as field systems or land use. It illus-trates the binding power of holism in the characteriza-tion of landscape. Large values of changes as indicatedby numerical indices do not always find their expres-sion in the landscape itself. Much depends on howthe changes are absorbed by the existing landscape


structure as illustrated in the Tavernes and Monfauconcases. The processes and mechanisms of change cannot be understood completely using only census dataor pattern analysis on aerial photographs. Macroscopicobservation and interpretation of the change of indi-vidual elements, such as a single field or building com-plex, reveal both structural and functional changes,which are often very specific. Advanced and detailedphoto-interpretation is indicated and should be com-bined with additional field surveying using interviewsand collecting the oral history of the area.

References

Antrop, M., 1988. Invisible connectivity in rural landscapes. In:Schreiber K.-F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second InternationalSeminar of IALE, Connectivity in Landscape Ecology.Münsterische Geographische Arbeiten 29, Münster, pp. 57–62.

Antrop, M., 1993. The transformation of the Mediterraneanlandscapes an experience of 25 years of observations. In:Proceedings of the International Symposium on The Futureof Mediterranean Landscapes. Landscape and Urban, Planning,vol. 24. Landscape Ecology, Montecatini, pp. 3–13.

Antrop, M., 1997. The concept of traditional landscapes as a basefor landscape evaluation and planning. The example of FlandersRegion. Landscape Urban Plann. 38, 105–117.

Antrop, M., 1998. Landscape change: plan or chaos? LandscapeUrban Plann. 41, 155–161.

Antrop, M., 1999. Transport routes in the landscape: aboutconnectors, dividers, initiators, attractors and views. In:Kristensen, L., Petersen, E.H. (Eds.), Transport og Landskab.Landskabsøkologiske skrifter nr. 13, Center for Landskab-sforskning, pp. 21–39.

Antrop, M., 2000. Changing patterns in the urbanized countrysideof Western Europe. Landscape Ecol. 15 (3), 257–270.

Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V., 2000. Holistic aspects of suburbanlandscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics.Landscape Urban Plann. 50, 43–58.

Baker, A., 1971. Some shape and contact characteristics of Frenchrural communes. In: Dussart, F. (Ed.), L’habitat et ses paysagesruraux d’Europe, vol. 58. Compte rendu du Symposium,Université, Liège, pp. 13–24.

Bouet, G., Fel, A., 1983. Atlas et Geographie du Massif Central.Flammarion, 348 pp.

Brandt, J., 2000. Demands for future landscapes research onmultifunctional landscapes. Summing up of the ConferenceMultifunctional Landscapes—interdisciplinary approaches tolandscape research and management, 18–21 October. Roskilde,6 pp.

Brandt, J., Holmes, E., Skriver, P., 2001. Urbanisation of thecountryside—problems of interdisciplinarity in the study ofrural development. In: Proceedings of the Conference onthe Open SPACE functions under URBAN Pressure, 19–21September 2001. Ghent, 8 pp.

Dramstad, W.E., Fjellstad, W.J., Fry, G.L.A., 1998. LandscapeIndices—useful tools or Misleading Numbers? In: Dover, J.W.,Bunce, R.G.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 EuropeanCongress of IALE, Key Concepts in Landscape Ecology, 3September 1998. IALE, UK, pp. 63–68.

Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Land Mosaics. The Ecology of Landscapesand Regions. Cambridge University Press, 632 pp.

Fry, G.L.A., 1998. Changes in landscape structure and its impacton biodiversity and landscape values: a Norwegian perspective.In: Dover, J.W., Bunce, R.G.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the1998 European Congress of IALE, Key Concepts in LandscapeEcology, 3 September 1998. UK-IALE, pp. 81–92.

Fry, G., 2000. The landscape character of Norway—landscapevalues today and tomorrow. In: Pedroli, B. (Ed.), 2000.Landscape—our Home. Lebensraum Landschaft. Essays on theCulture of the European Landscape as a Task. Indigo, Zeist—Freies Geistesleben, Stuttgart, pp. 93–100.

Green, B.H., 2000. Policy, planning and management initiatives inEuropean cultural landscape conservation. In: Klijn, J., Vos, W.(Eds.), 2000. From Landscape Ecology to Landscape Science.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Wageningen, WLO, pp. 57–72.

Haggett, P., 1975. Geography a Modern Synthesis. Harper & Row,London, 620 pp.

Hillier, B., Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space. CambridgeUniversity Press, London.

Holdaway, E., Smart, G., 2001. Landscapes at risk? The futurefor Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. SPON Press, Taylor& Francis Group, London, 242 pp.

Hunsaker, C.T., O’Neill, R.V., Jackson, B.L., Timmins, S.P.,Levine, D.A., Norton, D.J., 1994. Sampling to characterizelandscape pattern. Landscape Ecol. 9 (3), 207–226.

Ihse, M., 1995. Swedish agricultural landscapes—patterns andchanges during the last 50 years, studied by aerial photos.Landscape Urban Plann. 31, 21–37.

Ihse, M., 1996. Monitoring cultural landscapes in Sweden—methods and data of landscape change. In: Jongman, R.H.G.(Ed.), Proceedings of the First ECNC Seminar on LandUse Change and its Ecological Consequences, Ecological andLandscape Consequences of Land use Change in Europe, vol.2, 16–18 February 1995. ECNC Publication Series on Man andNature, Tilburg, pp. 103–129.

Keisteri, T., 1990. The study of changes in cultural landscapes.Fennia 168 (1), 31–115.

Klijn, J., Vos, W., (Eds.), 2000. From Landscape Ecology toLandscape Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Wageningen,WLO, 162 pp.

Klopatek, J.M., Gardner, R.H., (Eds.), 1999. Landscape EcologicalAnalysis. Issues and Applications. Springer, New York, 400 pp.

Kolen, J., Lemaire T., (red.), 1999. Landschap in meervoud.Perspectieven op het Nederlandse landschap in de 20ste/21ste

eeuw. Uitg. J. van Arkel, Utrecht.Lacoste, Y., (Ed.), 1990. Atlas 2000 la France et le Monde. Editions

Nathan, Paris, 160 pp.Larnoe, G., 1988. Study of some connecting landscape structures

and their recent evolution in the basin of Montmeyan (Provence,France). In: Schreiber, K.-F. (Ed.), 1988. Connectivity inLandscape Ecology, Proceedings of the Second International


Seminar of IALE, Münster 1987. Münsterische geographischeArbeiten, Schöningh, Münster, pp. 223–226.

Lebeau, R., 1972. Les grands types de structures agraires dans lemonde. Masson, Paris, 120 pp.

Lebras, Y., 1994. Débat National Pour l’aménagement duTerritoire. Datar.

Lipsky, Z., 1995. The changing face of the Czech rural landscape.Landscape Urban Plann. 31, 39–45.

Meeus, J.H.A., Wijermans, M.P., Vroom, M.J., 1990. Agriculturallandscapes in Europe and their transformation. LandscapeUrban Plann. 18, 289–352.

Naveh, Z., 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptualintroduction. Landscape Urban Plann. 50, 7–26.

Naveh, Z., 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic conception ofmultifunctional landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 57, 269–284.

Pedroli, B., (ed.), 2000. Landscape—our Home. LebensraumLandschaft. Essays on the Culture of the European Landcsapeas a Task. Indigo, Zeits—Freies Geistesleben, Stuttgart, 221 pp.

Pinchemel Ph., 1969. France: A Geographical Survey. Bell andSons Ltd., London, 454 pp.

Pinto-Correia, T., 2000. Landscape identity, a key for integration.In: Pedroli, B. (Ed.), 2000. Landscape—our Home. LebensraumLandschaft. Essays on the Culture of the European Landcsapeas a Task. Indigo, Zeist—Freies Geistesleben, Stuttgart,pp. 145–150.

Prihmdahl, J., 2000. Agricultural landscapes—changing patternsand new visions. In: Pedroli, B. (Ed.), 2000. Landscape—our Home. Lebensraum Landschaft. Essays on the Cultureof the European Landscape as a Task. Indigo, Zeist—FreiesGeistesleben, Stuttgart, pp. 151–156.

Ranoux, P., 1996. Atlas de la Dordogne-Périgord. Ranoux,Saunard, Montrem, 119 pp.

Saunders, P., 2001. Urban Ecology. In: Paddison, R. (Ed.), 2001.Handbook of Urban Studies. SAGE Publications, London,pp. 36–51.

Skånes, H.M., Bunce, R.G.H., 1997. Directions of landscapechange (1741–1993) in Virestad, Sweden—characterised bymultivariate analyses. Landscape Urban Plann. 38, 61–75.

Smith, D.M., 1975. Patterns in Human Geography. Penguin Books,New York, 373 pp.

Stanners, D., Bourdeau, Ph. (Eds.), 1995. Europe’s Environment.The Dobris Assessment, European Environment Agency, ECDG XI and Phare, Copenhagen, 676 pp.

Tress G., 1999, Die Ferienhuas-Landschaft. Motivationen,Umweltauswirkungen und Leitbilder im Ferienhaustourismusin Dänemark. Universtiät Roskilde, Institut für Geographie undInternationale Entwicklungsstudien.

Troll, C., 1939. Luftbildforschung und Landeskundige Forschung.Erdkundliches Wissen, Schriftenreihe für Forschung und Praxis,Heft 12, F. Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Turner M.G., Gardner R.H., (Eds.) 1990. Quantitative Methods inLandscape Ecology. Springer, New York.

Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H., O’Neill, R.V., 2001. LandscapeEcology in Theory and Practice: Pattern and Process. Springer,New York, 401 pp.

Uhlig, H., Lienau, C., 1972. INTERNATIONALE Arbeitsgruppefür die geographische Terminologie in der Agrarlandschaft.

Unwin, T., Nash, B., 1992. Township boundaries: theoreticalconsiderations and analytical implications. Tijdschrift van deBelgische Vereniging voor Aardrijkskundige Studies 1, 116–127.

Vos, W., 2000. Future landscapes: between the devil and thedeep blue sea. In: Pedroli, B. (Ed.), 2000. Landscape—our Home. Lebensraum Landschaft. Essays on the Cultureof the European Landcsape as a Task. Indigo, Zeist—FreiesGeistesleben, Stuttgart, pp. 187–192.

Vos, W., Stortelder, A.H.F., 1992. Vanishing Tuscan landscapes,landscape ecology of a sub-mediterranean-montane area (Solanobasin, Tuscany, Italy), Pudoc, Wageningen.

Vuorela, N., 2000. Can data combination help to explain theexistence of diverse landscapes? Fennia 178 (1), 55–80.

Wascher, D.M. (Ed), 2000. The Face of Europe. European Centrefor nature Conservation, Technical Report Series, Tilburg, 59pp.

Wood, R., Handley, J., 2001. Landscape Dynamics and theManagement of Change. Landscape Res. 26 (1), 45–54.

Wrbka, T., 1998. Landscape structure as indicators for sustainableland use? A case study in alpine and lowland landscapes ofAustria. In: Dover, J.W., Bunce, R.G.H. (Eds.), Proceedingsof the 1998 European Congress of IALE, Key Concepts inLandscape Ecology. UK-IALE 3, September 1998, pp. 177–180.

Veerle Van Eetvelde is geographer and planner. She specialises inlandscape science, GIS and spatial data structures. At present, sheis an assistant at the Department of Geography of the Universityof Ghent and supervises students’ exercises in landscape science.She works on a PhD, analysing structures and dynamical processesin landscapes. She is co-author of the landscape atlases, active instudies for environmental impact assessment related to landscapeand did research to set up an integrated monitoring system for theFlanders region.

Marc Antrop (1946) is geographer specialised in landscapes sci-ences, remote sensing, GIS and planning. He is professor lecturingat the University of Ghent (Belgium, Flanders) and at the momenthead of the Department of Geography. His interest in the land-scape is broad and holistic, covering and integrating aspects oflandscape genesis (in particular focusing upon the natural and cul-tural aspects of the European landscapes), landscape perception,landscape evaluation and land assessment, landscape ecology andlandscape architecture. Practical application of this knowledge isachieved in planning and environmental impact assessment andmonitoring land degradation. His main work areas are Belgium,France, the Mediterranean, Egypt and Central Europe. His mainresearch field are actually the elaboration of the survey of therelicts of traditional landscapes of Flanders, the elaboration ofmethods for strategic environmental impact assessment (SEA) andthe development of new structural spatial planning. He is mem-ber of the Royal Committee for Protection of Monuments andLandscapes in Flanders and vice-president for the division of land-scape protection. He is a consultant for the Flemish and Belgiangovernment on the field of environmental impact assessment andthe implementation of GIS in administration, environmental pol-icy and planning and is member of the Scientific GIS Committee.

analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional

Documents