environmental policy, agri-environmental indicators and landscape indicators

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 17–33

Environmental policy, agri-environmental indicatorsand landscape indicators

Hans-Peter Piorr∗Faculty of Landscape Use and Nature Protection, Department of Agricultural Land Use, University of Applied Science,

Friedrich-Ebert Str. 28, D-16225 Eberswalde, Germany

Abstract

Research for a concept of sustainable agriculture and for the sustainable use of agricultural landscapes are closely relatedto the development of an international acknowledged indicator framework for the analysis and valuation of the environmentalsituation by the OECD. Worldwide efforts are focussing on this new topic in the environmental discussion: quantifying andvaluation of impacts of agricultural practice on the animated and unanimated environment to draw conclusions for agriculturalpolicy. A key function holds the term sustainability, which is assumed to dominate future policy approaches. The growinginsecurity about the environmental impacts of agricultural land use systems led to the overall goal to avoid irreversible damagesby agriculture.

The development of tools for decision-makers on all decision levels are to:

1. recognise and value impacts degrading the environment;2. assess future sources of danger;3. develop sustainable land use systems.

Decision supporting tools are worked out since few years for diverse purposes. As a term reflecting the most relevantenvironmental aspects on the global level agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) are in the focus of interest. Latest sincethe [Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, vol. 1: Concepts and Framework. Publications Service, OECD, Paris, 1997]launched the driving force-state-response (DSR) model and a catalogue with 14 AUI areas, which resulted from internationaldiscussions started on the Rio Conference in 1992, the political significance of an environmental measuring system wasrecognised.

One of the focal points was the indicator issue concerning landscapes and to define indicators which are capable to describelandscapes. Actual indicator concepts for landscape of the OECD, the EU and the PAIS research project illustrate the effortsto integrate landscapes in agricultural policies.© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Agri-environmental indicators; Agricultural landscapes; Definition of landscape; Landscape indicators; Agri-environmentalprogrammes; Good agricultural practice; OECD indicator framework; EU indicator framework; Sustainable agriculture

∗ Tel.: +49-3334-657307; fax:+49-3334-236316.E-mail address:[email protected] (H.-P. Piorr).

1. Development of environmental policy in theEuropean Community

Agricultural policy is one of the most important andhuge policy fields at European Community. In the be-ginning of the early stage of European Community

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00069-0

18 H.-P. Piorr / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 17–33

agricultural policy was characterised by the so called“green revolution”, including all activities to increaseagricultural production. Intensification of productionprocesses did lead to an exert pressure on naturalresources and environment. Policy measures of highprice level also favoured intensive agriculture and anever increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides. Pollu-tion of natural resources like water, soils and certainecosystems can be considered as undesirable side ef-fect of these policies. Further consequences are hightreatment cost for environmental damage which hasto be paid by public. The need to consider environ-mental requirements in agricultural policy firstly cameinto account with the “Single European Act” of 1986as first step:

“Increasing public awareness of the need to in-tegrate environmental concerns into the EuropeanCommunity policies was given effect in the SingleEuropean Act of 1986. This required environmentalprotection requirements to be integrated into otherpolicies. In 1987 the Commission produced a paperon ‘Agriculture and the environment’ taking up thistheme”. (European Commission, 1999)

Since the early 90th the new “Common Agri-cultural Policy” (CAP) was underlying a change ofparadigm. Environmental considerations have be-come a major concern of the CAP. Last importanteditions of the European Community and thereforeobject to consider, related to environmental concernsin agricultural policy are:

• European Commission (1999): direction towardssustainable agriculture.

• European Commission (2000): indicators for the in-tegration of environmental concerns into CommonAgricultural Policy.

• European Commission (2001): statistical informa-tion needed for indicators to monitor the integrationof environmental concerns into the Common Agri-cultural Policy.

2. The influence of agri-environmentalprogrammes (AEP)

Heading for environmental friendly farming the EUhas to care for policy measures which influence the

decisions of farmers and production methods. In thatcontext AEPs came into power. AEPs are a main pos-sibility to encourage less intensive production, bothto reduce market surpluses and to alleviate environ-mental pressure. In 1992 with the reform of CAP thiskind of instruments was generated which had a spe-cific focus on environment. Environmentally friendlyproduction methods, as well as survive and enhance-ment of endangered traditional livestock breeds andcultivars are main action fields of the AEPs.

Environmentally friendly production methods covermeasures like:

• Reduction or renunciation of the use of mineral fer-tilisers.

• Management of organic manure.• Reduction or renunciation of the use of pesticides.• Extension and share of grassland.• Management of crop rotation to prevent groundwa-

ter pollution.• Cultivation of green cover crops.• Organic farming.• Extensive cultivation of field margins.

Survive and enhancement of old agricultural breedsand cultivars are covered by measures like:

• Maintenance and further development of varietiesof endangered animal species and rare crops.

• Preservation or improvement of the extent of eco-logical valuable areas.

• Preservation or improvement of high stem fruit or-chards.

With Agenda 2000 it is intended, that farmersshould observe a minimum level of environmentalpractice as part-and-parcel of the support regimes,but that any additional environmental service, beyondthe basic level, should be paid for by society throughthe agri-environment programmes. In all EU memberstates AEP are in use, but extent and content of theprogrammes are rather different.

3. STAR-evaluation of 2078/92

First AEPs where implemented under EU-Regula-tion No. (EEC) 2078/92. These programmes encour-aged farmers to carry out environmentally beneficialactivities on their land. With the programmes is also

H.-P. Piorr / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 17–33 19

intended to contribute to the income of farmers whoprovide environmental services. Examples of the typeof land management activities carried out include:

• Reversion of intensively used land, such as arableor grass for silage to biologically diverse, but un-profitable extensive grassland.

• Reduction in use of nutrients (resulting in loss ofyield).

• Reduction or cessation of use of pesticides (e.g.organic farming).

• Creation of nature zones taken out of production.• Continuation of traditional environmental land man-

agement in zones liable to neglect.• Maintenance of landscape features which are no

longer viable in agricultural landscapes.

Programs under Regulation No. 2078/92 are workedout and managed by national and regional authori-ties. Each programme is subject to approval by theCommission. Because of the diverse site conditionsthroughout the EU member states, nearly each countryhas several AEPs running, or at least certain regionalmodifications of the national programme.

Germany for example has for each of the 16 fed-eral states (Nuts 1) a certain programme, the verysame situation we do have in Italy for each region(Nuts 2). To receive a statement about the influenceof AEPs, the DGVI Commission Working Document(VI/765598): STATE OF APPLICATION OF REG-ULATION (EEC) NO. 2078/92: EVALUATION OFAGRI-ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMMES was elab-orated.Tables 1 and 2describe the implementationrate of Reg. 2078/92 in EU member states.Table 1illustrates the proportion between the number of ben-eficiaries with the number of holdings which is quietcontrasting. On an average in EU-14 (excluding datafrom Germany), the number of farms included withinprogrammes is 1 of 7. The new member states Aus-tria (78.2%), Finland (77.2%) and Sweden (63.7%)have an above-average influence by their share. Lux-embourg and Portugal are beyond the EU-14 level.Member states like Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy andNetherlands, with rates of about or less than 7% aresignificantly below the EU average. German figurescannot be used for the comparison since the data sup-plied refer to contracts, and not to individual farmers.

The analysis of farmland area under AEPs gen-erally confirms the above analysis of beneficiaries.

Table 1Number of farms benefiting from Reg. 2078/92a

Number offarms (103)

Number ofbeneficiaries (103)

Beneficiaries(%)

Belgium 71 2.0 2.8Denmark 69 8.0 11.6Germany b b b

Greece 774 2.4 0.3Spain 1278 33.9 2.7France 735 171.0 23.3Ireland 153 32.2 21.0Italy 2482 176.3 7.1Luxembourg 3 1.9 60.3Netherlands 113 6.7 5.9Portugal 451 137.9 30.6UK 235 25.4 10.8

E-11 6363 597.6 9.4Austria 222 173.4 78.2Finland 101 77.8 77.2Sweden 89 56.6 63.7

E-14 6774 905.4 13.4

a EEC (1998, modified).b No data available.

The proportion of Austria (67.8%), Finland (86.9%)and Sweden (51.6%) lies with more than 50% abovethe average of EU-15 of about 20%. As well Luxem-bourg (75.9%), Germany (38.9%), Ireland (24.1%)

Table 2Area covered by agri-environment agreements under Reg. 2078/92a

Agriculturalarea (103 ha)

Agriculturalarea covered by2078 (103 ha)

Agriculturalarea coveredby 2078 (%)

Belgium 1375 22.7 1.7Denmark 2722 107.3 3.9Germany 17335 6741.0 38.9Greece 5741 34.8 0.6Spain 29650 871.1 2.9France 30170 6901.4 22.9Ireland 4530 1089.6 24.1Italy 16792 2291.3 13.6Luxembourg 127 96.6 75.9Netherlands 1848 34.5 1.9Portugal 3960 664.2 16.8UK 15870 2322.9 14.6

E-11 130121 21177.3 16.3Austria 3585 2429.0 67.8Finland 2160 1877.5 86.9Sweden 3180 1642.2 51.6

E-14 139046 27126.0 19.5

a EEC (1998, modified).


and France (22.9%) exceed significantly the average.With less than 2% only, Belgium (1.7%), Greece(0.6%) and Netherlands(1.9%) are clearly below theEU average. Generally, the analysis shows a signifi-cant relation between the proportion of used agricul-tural area (UAA) covered by AEPs and the numberof beneficiaries (as a proportion of total number offarms).

4. Good agricultural practice (GAP)

GAP is defined as reference level at least for partsof agricultural practice like pesticide use, fertiliserapplication and water use, in some cases also foranimal husbandry. As such GAP does not cause a de-terioration of natural resources under agricultural landuse in general. For the purpose of agri-environmentalmeasures, environmental benefits have to be de-fined as those which exceed the reference level ofGAP.

If the society asks farmers to pursue environ-mental objectives beyond the level of GAP, whichwould cause income losses, the society must ex-pect to pay for that environmental service. ThePolluter-Pays-Principle is the basis of the approach.Accordingly, farmers are responsible for the compli-ance costs up to the reverence level of GAP, reflectedin property rights. AEPs are closely connected toGAP, as already mentioned above, farmers only willbe paid for environmental performance, if measuresclearly surpass the level of GAP.

On the one hand the very complex relationship be-tween agriculture and environment, marked by harm-ful and beneficiaries processes as well as great diver-sity of site conditions and production systems, hadconditioned the environmental integration in the con-text of CAP.

On the other hand the crucial point to understandthis relationship, there is the principle of “good farm-ing practice”, corresponding to the site conditions andtype of farm. That means that farmers have to followa minimum required standard (national, regional, lo-cal) without specific payments. In fact farmers shouldfollow compulsory laws in relation to pesticide use,fertiliser application, water use and where appropri-ate, national or regional guidelines on good farmingpractice.

4.1. Code of GAP in the UK

“GAP means a practice that minimises the risk ofcausing pollution while protecting natural resourcesand allowing economic agriculture to continue”(MAFF, 1998a–c).

5. Policy need for agri-environmentalindicators (AEIs)

As illustrated above a huge change and even sub-stitution of paradigm concerning agricultural policiesare perceptible. The integration of environmentalconcerns as well as the rural development dimensioninto coherent agricultural policy measures needs tobe carefully designed and implemented to ensure theachievement of the goals. Policy measures, particularin this complex field should be well targeted, basedon firm foundation of good data and subject to regularmonitoring and evaluation.

In this context there is an increasing demand of em-pirical information to support this policy formulationand analysis. At national and international level thedevelopment of AEIs gains growing importance. Theycontribute to this process by:

• Supplying decision-makers and the general publicwith relevant information on the current state andtrend in the environment as they affect the agricul-tural sector and rural development.

• Supporting decision-makers get a better grasp ofthe cause and effect relationships between thechoices and practices of farmers and agriculturalpolicy-makers on the one hand and the environ-ment on the other, steering in the right directionany initiatives prompted by changes in the state ofthe environment.

• Assisting to monitor and assess the effectiveness ofmeasures taken to promote sustainable agriculture.

6. Significance of indicators

Undoubtedly indicators are of growing relevancefor the international co-operation. Latest since the RioConference in 1992 methods are in great request whichenable a quantitative and qualitative environmental


observation. The assumption is that an internationalacknowledged catalogue of indicators would receivean extreme political significance. National politicalstrategies will have to orientate according to such mea-suring systems. On the international scale the compa-rability of environmental stress or environmental reliefis heading for a real novelty in policy. As well sciencewill have to consider e.g. the methodological develop-ment, according to these needs. Politicians will haveto argue with a better informed public. The politicalresponsibility of scientists will increase because dataand models will be valuated more and more on thebasis of indicator systems.

Applications of indicators are to be expected for di-verse purposes (Table 3). But indicators would achievepolitical effectiveness only if they really contributeto policy development what implicates that indicatorsare powerful enough to shape political goals. Sucha strong impact of indicators requires that they giveinformation about success or failure of sustainability(Table 4). But there is a long distance to overcomebefore all problems occurring with indicators and in-dicator concepts will get past (Table 5).

Table 4Demands on indicators

Agri-environmental indicators should have the following attributesScope of indicators

Inform about status and development of complex systemsProvide sufficient information about sustainability of land use systemsBe responsive to changes related to human activities to indicate rapidly success and failure of activitiesAble to show trends over timeWork as umbrella indicators summarising different processes and/or environmental impacts

Policy relevanceProvide a representative picture of environmental, agricultural and rural conditions, pressures or society’s responsesBe simple and easy to interpret for different usersProvide a basis for regional, national and international comparisonsBe either national in scope or applicable to regional issues of national significanceAssist individual decision-makers of the private sector as well as trade and industry

Analytically soundBe theoretically well founded in technical and scientific termsBe based on international standards and international consensus about its validityLend itself to being linked to economic models, forecasting and information systems

Measurability and data requiredHave to be controllableReadily available or made available at a reasonable cost/benefit ratioAdequately documented and of known qualityUpdated at regular intervals in accordance with reliable proceduresHave a threshold or reference value against which to compare it, so that users are able to assess the significance of the values

associated with it

Table 3Application of indicators in the field of policies

Agri-environmental reportsInternational comparability of environmental concernsNational and global development plans and development

strategiesNational feed back on international regulations,

conventions and environmental initiativesEvaluation of progress in the achievement of

environmental goals

In addition to this general attributes of indicators,the development AEIs require a “systems approach”.Such an approach should cover more than one sin-gle environmental sphere or theme and should try tointegrate the full range of the complex interactions be-tween agriculture, environment and social-economicconditions. In addition a differentiated spatial ap-proach is necessary, able to reflect regional differ-ences. Considering this exhaustive list of requirementsfor an ideal indicator, it has to be admitted that thisdoes not make their development that easy. A succes-sive and iterative development should be envisaged.


Table 5Restrictions in application of indicators

Restrictions in application of indicatorsDifferent availability of data and information on the national and international levelLack of methodological standards in the international contextDifferent ranking of indicators on the international level and therefore different legal treatment, which leads to imbalance in the

international valuationLack of thresholds, basis figures or reference levels, so that often no orientation is given whether trends in the environmental

development are strong or weak, e.g. as for biodiversitySpatial relation is not sufficiently considered. On the international scale the use of average values on the country level is

widespreaded, so that regional environmental loads are neglectedSeveral indicator issues overlap so that an overestimation of single parameters is likely to be expectedLong-term monitoring programmes are necessary to realise long-term environmental changesIndicator development is dominated by measurable parameters which distracts from those impacts dealing with non-quantifiable

values like aesthetical, ethical or cultural valuesLack of models which could bridge information deficitsApplication of models without realising the limits and deficits of models under others because of a lack of informationLack of priority setting of indicators so that a ranking of strategies for the enhancement of sustainable land use of agricultural

landscapes is not yet possible on the basis of agri-environmental indicators

7. The field of landscape indicators

Next to the parameters serving as indicators foragri-environmental impacts the spatial dimension re-vealed to be indispensable to identify the specificregion where to place the measuring system andwhere political responses are necessary. In this con-text landscapes were cited as the focus of site specificenvironmental hot spots. Landscapes with their ratheruniform biophysical properties and defined as naturalspatial units should be the area which is normallycompletely characterised by specific environmentalproblems. Above that cultural features of landscapesresulting from a long history of land use were partof the landscape discussion so that even this complexterm was introduced as an AEI into the internationaldebate (OECD, 2001).

The following questions therefore have to be clari-fied:

• What makes the significance of agricultural land-scapes?

• How to understand landscapes?• How to select landscape indicators?

7.1. Significance of agricultural landscapes

An overview about landscape development exem-plary for the territory of Germany reveals an impres-

sion of the interrelationship between agriculture andlandscape evolution. Six hundred years after Christ(A.D.) more than 80% of the area of Germany wascovered by forests. The increasing population led tocultivation of more than 75% of the land until the 14thcentury. Plough-land dominated on 70% of the area.

Pestilence killed more than a third of the populationuntil the middle of 15th century. The decline of de-mand in foodstuff supply was followed by an increaseof forests of 30%. Today at about 25% of the Ger-man territory are covered by forests. These dynamiclandscape changes always based on a change of theagricultural development and were always accompa-nied by environmental impacts. The type of land usewas mainly responsible for several of the heaviest en-vironmental disasters. One of those in the 14th cen-tury was characterised by the worst erosion incidentshumans have ever passed through in Central Europe.Between 1313 and 1350 all over Germany at about67 billion tons of soil were eroded. An average ofat about 5 cm of the top soil layer disappeared. Thecause was the one-sided cultivation of cereals whicheven in the three-field system was not really supportedby the 1 year fallow. The fallow was stressed by toohigh numbers of livestock and showed hardly a greencover. Poor stands of cereal as well were not ableto protect sufficiently the soil. Mineralisation was in-creased by intensive soil cultivation leading to lossesof soil carbon contents. Often landscape illustrations


from that period illustrate treeless landscapes whereeach square meter was intensively used for agriculturalproduction.

An extension of cropping systems by introductionof legumes and potatoes was not worth mentioningbefore the 18th century. The period with highest di-versity of agricultural land use types obviously wasestablished at about 1925 (Bork et al., 1998; Piorr,2002). Concluding crucial aspects are:

• Landscape development in Germany and MiddleEurope was always driven by agricultural land useand the cultivation of land.

• There is a huge heritage coming from the inter-action between biophysical features of landscapesand agriculture which together formed cultural land-scapes.

• Landscapes were always governed by dynamic pro-cesses.

Fig. 1. Shares of natural landscapes, agricultural landscapes (agriculture and forestry) and urban/industrial landscapes in EU member states.

• Landscape change was the reason for heavily envi-ronmental impacts.

7.2. Agricultural landscapes in Europe today

Significance of agricultural landscapes for a sus-tainable development of European landscapes followsfrom their high acreage (Fig. 1). Less than 5% of thearea of the European Union member countries couldbe labelled as natural landscapes. 77% of the area aredominated by agriculture and forestry. Less than 20%of the area of European countries are exploited by in-dustrial and urban use.

The entire territory of EU member countries cov-ering natural, rural, urban, peri-urban areas and land,inland water, marine areas as well as landscapeswith outstanding qualities or everyday characteristicsor degraded landscapes is matter of the EuropeanLandscape Convention which was signed at Florence,


October 2000 (Council of Europe, 2000). The aims ofthis convention are to promote landscape protection,management and planning, and to organise Europeanco-operation on landscape issues. The preamble ofthe convention focuses in relation to environmentalconcerns:

• a balanced and harmonious relationship between so-cial needs, economic activity and the environment;

• . . . the public interest role in the cultural, ecologi-cal, environmental and social fields. . . ;

• that landscape “. . . is a basic component of the Eu-ropean natural and cultural heritage, contributing tohuman well-being and consolidation of the Euro-pean identity”.

7.3. Dominant landscape changes today

In general the change of the CAP is leading to pricecuts, a development which is continued by the Agenda2000 resolutions. Agriculture therefore is threatenedon marginal sites with low soil productivity (Table 6).Experts are talking about 20–30% of the today farmedland to be abandoned in the next decade. In someof the federal states of Germany like Brandenburgand Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or in regions with highamounts of grassland like in hilly and mountainouslandscapes more than 65% of the agricultural landwould become fallow land (Bork et al., 1995). On theother hand concentration of agriculture and intensifi-cation would increase in regions with high productivesoils and in proximity to the market.

Table 6Impacts of trends of the agricultural development in different agricultural landscapes

Impacts Production potential of landscape

Landscape with high agricultural productivity Landscape with low agricultural productivity

Production process High intensity of production Withdrawal of agricultural productionSpecialisationReduction of crop diversityExpansion of field sizes

Landscape development Loss of cultural features (a) AfforestationDecrease of aesthetical amenities (b) Natural succession

Environmental impact Loss of biodiversity (a) Loss of biodiversity, decrease ofenvironmental damages

Increase of abiotic environmental damages (b) Same like (a) but first increase of biodiversityduring transition into forest

Landscapes are obviously affected in severalrespects. Independent of the direction of landscapedevelopment whether an intensification or an exten-sification are an outcome of future trends, environ-mental impacts have to be taken into consideration(Table 6). Both situations demand a specific reactionwhich means agricultural policy has to find tools to in-fluence the changes on the landscape level. Thereforedifferent works have been done contributing informa-tion about landscapes and landscape relevant topicslike the linkages to biodiversity and habitat questions.

7.4. Landscape—mystic view or scientific approach

7.4.1. Background of the discussionLandscapes integrate a multitude of properties, they

are object of a huge number of organisms includ-ing those changes evolved by human activities. Hencethey could be seen as individuals formed accordinga long history of evolution. It does not wonder thatsuch a complex body was admired primarily by po-ets and painters (Eberle, 1979; Fischer, 1985; Hard,1970, 1985; Vos, 2000). Landscapes in the perceptionof artists are often to conceive as individuals. This in-dividuality derives from the unique of the coincidenceof geo-morphological properties, site specific bioticfittings and the creative anthropogenic formation lead-ing to their social and economic configuration. Thuslandscape individuality is organised in a form that nopendant could be found globally.

Landscapes provide the framework for regional fea-tures, which is connected with the emotional relation


of their inhabitants. Often this relationship is accom-panied by regional typical cultivation of traditions,such as dialect, architecture, regional costumes andregional song-cycles.

The term regio derives from the Latin and is equiv-alent in true sense to the word settlement area butwas translated during the Middle Age with landscape(Hard, 1970). A relation is given to modern termslike region and regionalism which were introducedsince stronger efforts are undertaken for integrationof regional interests into policy. The significance ofthese terms is given with the relation to regional spe-cific matter cycles, regional ecosystems and regionalfounded cultural, social and economic characteristics.This correspondence with landscape specific charac-teristics stands to reason to use the terms landscapeand region as synonym in the European context.

Here we find the source for the identification of peo-ple with their landscape and home. This is the reasonwhy landscapes and their destruction are increasinglyrealised. Deficits are the origin of the landscape dis-cussion. In this context investigations have to focus ona “positive” definition of landscapes, to give adviceon those characteristics of landscapes which shouldmaintain for future generations. Especially the fusionof European nations is filled with fears because of therisk of a decrease of regional individualism and iden-tity. This fear calls for a Europe of regions and thus aEurope of landscapes.

7.4.2. Definition of landscapeDiverse approaches were made to define landscapes

which basically seem to consist of a conglomerate ofphysical, biological and cultural elements. Beginningwith the aesthetic approach widely spreaded in theEnglish-speaking world,Haber (1995)could be citedwith the definition: “Landscape is an extensive areaof sceneries viewed from a single place”. A similarapproach was given bySteiner (1991): “Landscapeis all the natural features such as fields, hills, forestsand water that distinguish one part of the earth fromanother part. Usually, a landscape is that portion ofland or territory which the eye can comprehend in asingle view, including all its natural characteristics”.

The European Landscape Convention (Council ofEurope, 2000) says: “Landscape means an area asperceived by people, whose character is the result ofthe action and interaction of natural and/or human

factors”.Wascher et al. (1999)widened this proposalby an extensive definition: “Landscapes are the con-crete and characteristic products of the interaction be-tween human societies and culture with the naturalenvironment. As such, landscapes can be identified asspatial units where region-specific elements and pro-cesses reflect natural and cultural goods or history in avisible, spiritual and partly measurable way. Becausethe underlying human and natural processes are sub-ject to change and evolution, landscapes are dynamicsystems”. Accepting these different views the shortterm definition reads:

Landscapes are individual spatial units where typi-cal soil, relief and climatic conditions provided theenvironment to be formed by natural processes or byboth natural processes and management processesby man. As such, landscapes reflect the interactionof dynamic natural and human impacts.

Heading for a structured overview about landscapesseveral approaches have to be considered. In the con-text of a framework for agricultural landscapes nat-ural landscapes and urban and industrial landscapescan be excluded. In between these both extreme differ-ent landscapes which are characterised by a decreaseof naturalness, agricultural landscapes are positioned(Fig. 2). Agricultural landscapes are the carrier of threeitems including:

• structuresof landscapes such as their natural physi-cal, environmental land use and man-made features;

• functionssuch as their environmental buffer func-tion, function as a place to live or to recreate or theireconomic function;

• valuesconcerning values society places on agricul-tural landscape such as cultural values or the costsfor farmers in their maintenance.

This mixture of properties of agricultural landscapesconstitutes the basis for processes which were groupedby Blom (1999)in to three categories:

• Expansion—withdrawal, e.g. change in area of agri-cultural land.

• Intensification—extensification, e.g. proportion ofarable land with high intensity crops.

• Concentration—marginalisation, e.g. proportion ofholdings with an acreage of arable land which ex-ceeds the national or regional average.


Fig. 2. Natural and cultural landscapes in agricultural context (modified according to OECD and Piorr cited inOECD, 2001).

These processes are linked together so that in-tensification and concentration are interrelated withmarginalisation and withdrawal of agriculture in otherareas. They could be applied on all scale levels andtherefore be used on the field, farm, regional andnational level. The impact of these processes on thechange of landscape is evident and can be assessedby different indicators.

Landscape properties, landscape use and the ac-companying processes lead to more or less inten-sively agricultural land use which are characterisedby semi-natural agricultural ecosystems or intensivelyfarmed agricultural ecosystems. Landscape character-istics and processes create a spatial matrix of dynamic

land use types which is linked to the presence of habi-tats and biotopes. Therefore biodiversity is directlyrelated to landscape characteristics (Piorr et al., 1998).

7.5. Landscape indicators

7.5.1. OECD landscape indicatorsOne of the most acknowledged indicator concepts

was launched in the OECD Reports: Environmental In-dicators for Agriculture, vol. 1: Concepts and Frame-work (OECD, 1997) and vol. 2: Issues and Design(OECD, 1999). The choice of indicators was adjustedto the driving force-state-response (DSR) frameworkwhich identifies (Table 7):


Table 7OECD landscape indicators (OECD, 2001)

Physical appearance and structure of landscapePhysical elements, environmental features and land use

patternsMan-made objects (cultural features)Landscape typologies

Landscape management

Landscape costs and benefits (values)

• Driving force indicators, focusing on the causes ofchange in environmental conditions in agriculture,such as changes in farm financial resources and pes-ticide use.

• State indicators, highlighting the effects of agricul-ture on the environment, for example, impacts onsoil, water, and biodiversity.

• Response indicators covering the actions taken torespond to the changes in the state of the envi-ronment, such as changes in agri-environmental re-search expenditure.

Changes in thestructure of agricultural landscapesare capable to show trends towards an increasing ho-mogenisation of landscape structures, closely relatedto structural changes and intensification of agriculture.The process towards landscape homogeneity could beslowing or in reverse in some cases, as was provedin some countries. Since the late 1980s some coun-tries have adopted measures to monitor and maintainagricultural landscapes, such as tracking trends in cul-tural landscape features, and providing payments forrestoration of typical landscape features. Some coun-

Table 8Landscape monitoring in EU member countries

Country Landscape survey Source

UK Countryside Survey Countryside Survey (2000)Norway Tilstandsovervåkning og resultatkontroll I jordbrukets

kulturlandskapFjellstad et al. (2001), NIJOS (2001)

Sweden Landscape inventory and monitoring (LiM) Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1998),Blom and Ihse (2001)

Germany Ecological area sampling Hoffmann-Kroll et al. (1998), StatistischesBundesamt and Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2000)

Finland Monitoring of the visual agricultural landscape MYTAS (2000)Denmark Danish monitoring system for small biotopes Brandt et al. (2001)France TerUti Slak and Lee (2001), Slak et al. (2001)Austria Kulturlandschaftsforschungprogramm Wrbka (2000), Wrbka et al. (1997)Italy Regional landscape monitoring Fais (1997)

tries are also establishing landscape typologies to pro-vide a framework and reference base to assess land-scapes, by combining information on the structure oflandscapes (OECD, 2001; Blom, 2001; Blom and Ihse,2001; Countryside Survey, 2000; Fjellstad et al., 2001;NIJOS, 2001; Slak and Lee, 2001).

Publicly funded landscape management schemesconcern expenditures for enhancing biodiversity, habi-tat and landscape conservation. A lot of examplescould be given for the support of cultural featuresin the local context. Development of rural areas of-ten includes public access requirements in landscapeschemes.

Thevalue society places on landscapewas region-ally investigated by public opinion surveys. Differentstudies reveal that agricultural landscapes are highlyvalued in many cases. Significant results are that land-scapes with greater heterogeneity and ‘traditional’ el-ements are given a higher value over more uniformand newer landscapes, while landscapes perceived asovercrowded have a lower value (OECD, 2001).

7.5.2. EU landscape indicatorsEarlier before the OECD several European countries

had started activities in setting up landscape conser-vation schemes and landscape indicators to follow thedevelopment of landscapes. Primarily these initiativeswere dedicated for planning purposes and the delimi-tation of nature conservation areas.Table 8shows anoverview about landscape monitoring in EU membercountries.

Based on national and regional experiences theEuropean Commission took up the proposals of the


OECD and suggested more concrete indicators in anOECD Expert Meeting, May 1999, in Paris (Morardet al., 1999). The approach included several goals:

• The existing determining links between biodiver-sity, natural habitats and landscapes should be con-sidered.

• Representative landscape indicators should be se-lected for which data are available.

• Landscape indicators will need a certain flexibilityin order to be able to be adapted to the very differentagri-environmental conditions within and betweenthe EU member countries.

• Landscape indicators will require values of refer-ence or threshold values in order to compare thedevelopment of these indicators at a later stage.

Following these premises a first proposal from theview of the EU member states for the monitoring oflandscapes was launched (Table 9). In this proposalthe biophysical characteristics refer to abiotic (e.g.geology, soil) and biotic (e.g. vegetation type, habi-tat) properties of a landscape. The close interactionbetween these elements determine the specific nat-ural character and the natural potential of land. Thecultural characteristics of landscapes refer to the an-thropogenetic impact on landscapes to consider thecultural heritage which is among others essential forthe cultural identity of local people. The land manage-ment functions in particular designate the public andprivate initiatives aiming at preserving the quality oflandscapes.

High emphasis in the EU concept was given to dataavailability. A huge amount of statistical data related toadministrative units are available at European level onNuts 2 and 3, referring e.g. in Germany to Regierungs-bezirke or rural districts. The use of this informationfor landscape issues is in certain cases restricted be-cause administrative areas do not necessarily coincidewith landscape boundaries. Geographical data refer togeoreferenced information with high spatial precision.A good example for the EU territory is the CorineLand Cover (CLC). Another common tool used forthe generation of such geographical data are remotesensing images and aerial photographs.

There are certain restrictions given concerning thedata availability. Commonly statistical data informingabout biophysical characteristics, land cover and landuse are provided by mapped data about geological for-

mations, ecosystems and habitat types, long time seriesabout land use and land cover, etc. However in spe-cific analysis of landscapes, these data are of limitedsignificance particularly when specific spatial infor-mation is required. Land cover information retrievedfrom satellite images or aerial photographs are not in-terpreted in all necessary details or linkages. As wellnot nearly as much as needed the European territorydata are evaluated. Another problem appears with thelack of standardised treatment and analysis method ofthese images. No complete and exhaustive inventoryon cultural features exists at European level. Even atnational or local level inventories of relevant culturalfeatures as typical landscape elements have to be con-ducted respecting national preferences. Data about ar-eas under public or private commitment to maintain orenhance landscape seem to be available because of itshigh policy relevance, the increasing significance ofalready or potential areas under certain environmentalcommitments or protection status.

7.5.3. PAIS landscape indicatorsA recent initiative of the European Community is

the project proposal on agri-environmental indicators(PAISs). The objective of the PAIS project is to con-tribute to the efforts of the European Commission andto propose a core set of indicators within the domain oflandscapes, rural development and agricultural prac-tice, which are applicable in a meaningful way at EUlevel. These three themes require special attention, dueto the fact that, compared to other indicator issues,these are still at a basic conceptual development stageand lack appropriate statistical data.

Five working steps led to a list of feasible landscapeindicators applicable at European level, based on acomprehensive inventory of existing landscape indica-tors, used in national and regional surveys throughoutEurope and their successive analysis (Eiden, 2001):

• Information acquisition.• Development of a landscape indicator classification

scheme.• Creation of a landscape indicator assessment/evalu-

ation scheme.• Establishment of a landscape indicator data base.• Final compilation of landscape indicator set.

A classification of the landscape indicators in thisconcept was gained by grouping the indicators on three

H.-P.

Pio

rr/Ag

ricultu

re,E

cosyste

ms

an

dE

nviron

me

nt

98

(20

03

)1

7–

33

29

Table 9Indicator issues and measurable parameters for landscape indicators on EU level (Morard et al., 1999)

Issue Meaning/significance Attributes/variables Examples for indicators

Land characteristics Natural biophysical features Enables elaboration of alandscape classification system

Soil type, landform (slope, elevation)climate (temperature, rainfall), waterbodies

Environmental appearance Landscape pattern and structure Georeferenced land cover Landscape metrics (patch density,edge density, Shannon index, etc.)

Visual and aesthetic value To be developed on long-term basis:perception, frequency of visitors, etc.

Land type features Land cover/land use change Georeferenced land cover/land useflow matrices

Expansion/withdrawal

Intensification/extensificationConcentration/marginalisation

Cultural features Cultural identity, regionalspecific character, culturalassets, etc.

Inventory of cultural landscapefeatures: architectural, historic,hedgerows, stone walls, etc.

Number and status of point features,length of linear features, surface ofaerial features, share of regionalspecific land use patterns

Management functions Landscape protection areas,nature conservation areas

Area estimates Area under commitment related tototal agricultural area


Table 10Classification scheme for landscape indicators (Eiden, 2001)

Landscape dimension Thematic indicator group Indicator item

Landscape features Landscape composition, i.e. LC/LUcomponents comprising the landscape,contextual information

Stock and change of broad land covercategoriesStock and flow land cover/land usematrices

Landscape configuration, i.e. structuralarrangement of landscape elements

FragmentationDiversityEdgesShape

Natural landscape features (state and change) Stock and change of biotopes andhabitatsHemerobie (naturalness)Habitat/biotope fragmentationHabitat/biotope diversityHabitat/biotope quality

Historical-cultural landscape features(state and change) statistics/inventories

Point featuresLinear featuresArea features

Present—cultural landscape features(state and change)

Point featuresLinear featuresArea features

Human perception Visual and aesthetic value –

Landscape management, conservationand protection schemes

Cultural landscape protection/conservation –Nature conservation/protection –

different levels (Table 10). Level one reflects the “land-scape dimension”:

• Landscape features: as the elements composing alandscape and which can be described (biophysicalobjects).

• Human perception: indicators dealing with the per-ception of landscape by different stakeholders.

• Landscape management and conservation: indica-tors reflecting landscapes as a subject for manage-ment, planning, conservation or protection.

The second level describes thematic groups whereparticularly the landscape features and landscape man-agement schemes are taken into account:

• Formal landscape features.• Natural landscape features.• Cultural-historical landscape features.• Present anthropogenic landscape features.• Cultural landscape protection/conservation.• Nature conservation/protection.

On the third level a further differentiation is donein order to class the indicators thematically in termsof indicator items.

Thirty six landscape indicators were found outto be the most relevant in EU member countries,guaranteeing the best chances to gain in the nearerfuture the necessary data to inform these indicators.Focussing on the relevance of landscape indicatorsconcerning biodiversity no solution can be given atthe moment.Table 11shows the overview of thoselandscape indicators extracted from this list and re-lated more or less to biodiversity. Accordingly 26 of36 landscape indicators provide relevant informationabout habitat and biotope properties of landscapes.For future working steps a ranking about the sig-nificance of landscape indicators directly related tobiodiversity could give an indication where to find themost relevant landscape characteristics for nature pro-tection purposes. Obviously the PAIS project made abig step forward evaluating selection criteria on thelandscape level, the problem about data availability


Table 11Landscape indicators related to biodiversity (Eiden, 2001, modified)

Landscape domain Indicator theme Indicator

Formal landscape features Landscape composition Stock and change of UAAStock and change of arable landStock and change of grasslandStock and change of forest areasStock and change of semi-natural and natural landStock and change of built up areasExtensification rateIntensification rateAfforestation rate

Landscape configuration Diversity indicesPatch shape of agricultural parcelsLength and distribution of different edgesFragmentation indices

Natural landscape features Stock and change of broad, semi-natural and naturalhabitats/biotopesStock and change of valuable biotopes and habitats inagricultural landscapes (area features) managed by farmersStock and change of linear habitats and biotopes inagricultural landscapesStock and change of point habitats and biotopes inagricultural landscapes

Historical-cultural landscapefeatures

Stock and change of historical—cultural landscape areafeaturesStock and change of historical—cultural landscape linearfeaturesStock and change of historical—cultural landscape pointfeatures

Landscape management conservationand protection

Change in the percentage of financial expenditure ofagri-environmental schemes (per hectare or per farmerinvolved)Share of area covered by agri-environmental schemesfrom total UAAArea under specific farming or management practicesaiming at landscape conservation (traditional agriculturalland use practices)Length of “green” linear landscape features maintainedand/or restored by farmersNumber of farmers participating in training programmesconcerned environmental friendly management practices,landscape conservation, etc.UAA within protected sites (according to IUCN categories)

and the interrelationship between different indicatorissues.

7.6. Conclusions

Evidently the change in agricultural policy in theEU as well as globally demand new efforts on the field

of monitoring systems which are capable to contributeto an information framework which is necessary forthe development of policies. On behalf of scientistsand experts indicator systems have to be completed toprovide internationally approved data which informabout trends in the environmental change and indicatefields where decision-makers have to react. Existing


indicator proposals which are all to be seen in the lineof a longer development chain on the internationallevel give rise to inference that policy supportingindicator systems are available in the nearer future.

Even in the field of landscape indicators as one ofthe most complex and complicated topics progressescan no longer be ignored. First of all the significanceof landscapes meanwhile is internationally acknowl-edged as a field of policy. Landscapes are the carrierof a multitude of characteristics because they are themelting pot of natural elements forming since cen-turies together with human activities cultural land-scapes which dominate the face of Europe. Difficultiesto find classification systems and indicators for a stan-dardised European wide description and evaluation ofthe characteristics of landscapes are identified. Newapproaches to overcome these difficulties are seizablelast but not least because of the rapid progress of dif-ferent types of Geographical Information Systems. Onthe other hand an increasing challenge is growing withthe demand of a better understanding of interrelationsbetween diverse indicator areas as here discussed ex-emplary for landscape indicators and biodiversity in-dicators. Sustainable land use is dealing with a highcomplex system which not only affords an innovativepolicy framework but as well still before a higher in-put of scientific knowledge.

References

Blom, G., 1999. Landscape processes. Contribution to the OEDCYork Conference, UK. Cited in OECD (1999): EnvironmentalIndicators for Agriculture, vol. 3: Methods and Results.Publications Service, OECD, Paris, pp. 375–376.

Blom, G., 2001. Evaluation and monitoring environmental goalsof the national CAP. Unofficial Working Document, 26 pp.

Blom, G., Ihse, M., 2001. The Swedish LiM project. In:Nordic Council of Ministers (2001): Strategic LandscapeMonitoring for the Nordic Countries. Temanord Environment523, Copenhagen, pp. 20–30.

Bork, H.-R., Dalchow, C., Kächele, H., Piorr, H.-P., Wenkel, K.-O.,1995. Agrarlandschaftswandel in Nordost-Deutschland. Ernstund Sohn Verlag, Berlin.

Bork, H.-R., Bork, H., Dalchow, C., Faust, B., Piorr, H.-P.,Schatz, T., 1998. Landschaftsentwicklung in Mitteleuropa.Klett-Perthes, Stuttgart.

Brandt, J., Holmes, E., Agger, P., 2001. Integrated monitoringon a landscape scale—lessons from Denmark. In: StrategicLandscape Monitoring for the Nordic Countries. TemanordEnvironment 523, Copenhagen, pp. 31–41.

Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention, ETSNo. 176.http://www.stichtingncm.nl/pdf/Convention.PDF.

Countryside Survey, 2000. Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, London, UK.

Eberle, M., 1979. Individuum und Landschaft. Zur Entstehung undEntwicklung der Landschaftsmalerei. Anabas Verlag, Gießen.

EEC, 1998. State of Application of Regulation (EEC) No.2078/92. Evaluation of Agri-Environment Programmes, DGVICommission Working Document, Brussels.

Eiden, G., 2001. Landscape indicators. In: Eiden, G., Bryden, J.,Piorr, H.-P. (Eds.), Proposal on Agri-Environmental Indicators(PAIS). Final Report of the PAIS Project, EUROSTAT,Luxembourg, pp. 4–92.

European Commission, 1999. Directions towards sustainableagriculture. Communication to the Council, the EuropeanParliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Com-mittee of the Regions, COM (1999) 22 Final, January 1, 1999.http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/9922/9922en.pdf.

European Commission, 2000. Indicators for the integrationof environmental concerns into the Common AgriculturalPolicy. Communication to the Council, the EuropeanParliament, COM 2000 (20) Final, January 26, 2000.http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/com20/20en.pdf.

European Commission, 2001. Statistical information neededfor the indicators to monitor the integration of environ-mental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy.Communication to the Council, the European Parliament, COM2001 (144) Final.http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com20010144en01.pdf.

Fais, A., 1997. Landscape indicators. A short review of the Italianexperience. Document Presented at the EUROSTAT Meetingon Landscape Indicators. Land Use Statistical Working Group,EUROSTAT, Luxembourg.

Fischer, H., 1985. Naturwahrnehmung im Mittelalter und Neuzeit.Landschaft und Stadt 17, 97–110.

Fjellstad, W., Mathiesen, H., Stockland, J., 2001. MonitoringNorwegian agricultural landscapes—the 3Q programme. In:Nordic Council of Ministers (2001): Strategic LandscapeMonitoring for the Nordic Countries. Temanord Environment523, Copenhagen, pp. 19–28.

Haber, W., 1995. Landschaft. In: Akademie für Raumforschungund Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Raumor-dnung, Hannover, pp. 597–602.

Hard, G., 1970. Die “Landschaft” der Sprache und die“Landschaft” der Geographen. Semantische und forschungs-logische Studien zu einigen zentralen Denkfiguren in derdeutschen geographischen Literatur. Colloquium Geographicum11, Geographisches Institut der Universität Bonn, DümmlerVerlag Bonn.

Hard, G., 1985. Die Landschaft des Künstlers und die desGeographen. In: Hoffmann, D. (Hrsg.): Landschaftsbilder,Landschaftswahrnehmung, Landschaft. Die Rolle der Kunstin der Geschichte der Wahrnehmung unserer Landschaft.Evangelische Akademie Loccum, Loccumer Protokolle 3,pp. 122–139.

Hoffmann-Kroll, R., Schäfer, D., Seibel, S., 1998. Biodiversitätund Statistik-Ergebnisse des Pilotprojektes zur Ökologischen

http://www.stichtingncm.nl/pdf/Convention.PDF

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/9922/9922_en.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/com20/20_en.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0144en01.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0144en01.pdf


Flächenstichprobe. Wirtschaft und Statistik, January 1998,pp. 60–75.

MAFF, 1998a. Code of good agricultural practice for the protectionof soil. UK Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

MAFF, 1998b. Code of good agricultural practice for the protectionof water. UK Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

MAFF, 1998c. Code of good agricultural practice for the protectionof air. UK Ministries of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Morard, V., Vidal, C., Eiden, G., Lucas, S., Piorr, H.-P., Stott, A.,Blom, G., Fjellstad, W., Fais, A., 1999. Landscape indicators.OECD-Room Document No. 3, OECD Expert Meeting onBiodiversity. Wildlife Habitat and Landscape, Paris, May 1999.

MYTAS, 2000. Finnish agri-environmental programme. Ministryof Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Helsinki.

NIJOS, 2001. Tilstandsovervåkning og resultatkontroll I jord-brukets kulturlandskap—Rapport for prosjektåtet 1999–2000—Hedland og Oppland. Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory,Ås, Norway.

OECD, 1997. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, vol. 1:Concepts and Framework. Publications Service, OECD, Paris.

OECD, 1999. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, vol. 2:Issues and Design—The York Workshop. Publications Service,OECD, Paris.

OECD, 2001. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, vol. 3:Methods and Results. Publications Service, OECD, Paris.

Piorr, H.-P., 2002. Entwicklung der pflanzenbaulichen Flächen-nutzung in den Agrarlandschaften Deutschlands. Schriftenreihedes Bundesministeriums für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährungund Landwirtschaft Reihe A: Angewandte Wissenschaft Heft494, Biologische Vielfalt mit der Land- und Forstwirtschaft,pp. 127–135.

Piorr, H.-P., Glemnitz, M., Kächele, H., Mirschel, W., Stachow,U., 1998. Impacts of the European union reform policy after1996 in north-east Germany: landscape change and wildlife

conservation. In: Dabbert, S., Dubgaard, A., Slangen, L.,Withby, M. (Eds.), The Economics of Landscape and WildlifeConservation. CAB International, Oxon, pp. 217–231.

Slak, M.F., Lee, A., 2001. L’agriculture s’intensifie, l’urbains’étend. . . et l’occupation du territoire enregistre lestransformations à l’œuvre, vol. 1. Agreste Cahiers, March 2001.

Slak, M.F., Lee, A., Michel, P., 2001. L’évolution des structuresd’occupation du sol vue par TerUti, vol. 1. Agreste Cahiers,March 2001.

Statistisches Bundesamt, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2000.Konzepte und Methoden zur Ökologischen Flächenstichprobe.Angewandte Landschaftsökologie, Heft 33.

Steiner, F., 1991. The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approachto Landscape Planning. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. A SwedishCountryside Survey. Monitoring landscape features, biodiversityand cultural heritage, Stockholm.

Vos, W., 2000. A history of European landscape painting. In:Klijn, J., Vos, W. (Eds.), From Landscape Ecology to LandscapeScience. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 81–96.

Wascher, D.M., Piorr, H.-P., Kreisel-Fonck, A., 1999. Agriculturallandscape. Discussion Paper Presented at the OECD Workshopon Agri-Environmental Indicators, York, UK, September 22–25,1998, OECD Document, COM/AGR/CA/ENV/EPOC (98) 81.

Wrbka, T., 2000. Presentation of landscape level monitoring inAustria. Workshop on Integration of Partial Coverage and FullCoverage Landscape Monitoring Information, October 23–24,2000, Tune, Denmark.

Wrbka, T., Szerencsits, E., Reiter, K., 1997. Classificationof Austrian cultural landscapes—implications for natureconservation and sustainable development. In: Miklos, L. (Ed.),Sustainable Cultural Landscapes in the Danube-CarpathianRegion, Proceedings of the Second International Conference onCulture and Environment, Banska Stiavnica, Sk, pp. 31–41.

environmental policy, agri-environmental indicators and landscape indicators

Documents