landscape change and the urbanization process in europe

Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26

Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe

Marc Antrop∗University of Ghent, Geography Department, Krijgslaan 281 S8, B9000 Gent, Belgium

Abstract

Urbanization is one of the fundamental characteristics of the European civilization. It gradually spread from SoutheastEurope around 700b.c., across the whole continent. Cities and the urban networks they formed were always an importantfactor in the development and shaping of their surrounding regions. Polarization of territory between urban and rural andaccessibility are still important aspects in landscape dynamics. Urbanization and its associated transportation infrastructuredefine the relationship between city and countryside. Urbanization, expressed as the proportion of people living in urbanplaces shows a recent but explosive growth reaching values around 80% in most European countries. Simultaneously thecountryside becomes abandoned. Thinking, valuing and planning the countryside is done mainly by urbanites and futurerural development is mainly focused upon the urban needs. Thinking of urban places with their associated rural hinterlandand spheres of influence has become complex. Clusters of urban places, their situation in a globalizing world and changingaccessibility for fast transportation modes are some new factors that affect the change of traditional European culturallandscapes. Urbanization processes show cycles of evolution that spread in different ways through space. Urbanization phasesdeveloped at different speeds and time between Northern and Southern Europe. Main cities are affected first, but graduallyurbanization processes affect smaller settlements and even remote rural villages. Functional urban regions (FURs) are a newconcept, which is also significant for landscape ecologists. Local landscape change can only be comprehended when situatedin its general geographical context and with all its related dynamics. Patterns of change are different for the countrysidenear major cities, for metropolitan villages and for remote rural villages. Planning and designing landscapes for the futurerequires that this is understood. Urbanized landscapes are highly dynamic, complex and multifunctional. Therefore, detailedinventories of landscape conditions and monitoring of change are urgently needed in order to obtain reliable data for gooddecision-making.© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Urbanization; Landscape change; Rural; Countryside; Europe

1. Introduction

Landscapes are on the political agenda today.Natural and cultural aspects of landscapes receiveincreasing attention from researchers, planners andpolicy makers (Anonymous, 2000; Council of Europe,2000; Brandt, 2000; Klijn and Vos, 2000). The mainreason is the general observation that the changes in

∗ Tel.: +32-9-264-4705; fax:+32-9-264-4985.E-mail address:[email protected] (M. Antrop).

landscapes become extremely devastating and manyheritage values and resources become irreversiblylost. The speed of the changes, their frequency andmagnitude increased unprecedented in the secondhalf of the 20th century (Antrop, 2000a). Many newelements and structures are superimposed upon thetraditional landscapes that become highly fragmentedand lose their identity. New landscapes are created,which are characterized by a functional homogeneity.They form new challenges for landscape research asthey are highly dynamic and little is known about the

0169-2046/$20.00 © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4

10 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26

ongoing processes (Brandt et al., 2001). Planners andpolicy makers are in growing need of new significantdata and scientific knowledge. Urbanization, effectsof transportation networks and globalization are theimportant driving forces of these changes and theemergence of new landscapes.

Urbanization is a complex process of change ofrural lifestyles into urban ones. It showed an almostexponential growth since the end of the 19th century(Champion, 2001; Pacione, 2001a; Antrop, 2000a;Bryant et al., 1982). This process is intimately relatedto the introduction of new modes of transportation, inparticular those that allowed mobility of the massessuch as the railroad. After the Second World War, theuse of the automobile started a new era of mobilityand landscape change. Accessibility became the mostimportant factor in landscape change and even in theremote countryside urbanization processes can be no-ticed when the region is disclosed by transportation.Finally, the growing globalization of all activities anddecision-making causes changes at the local level thatare difficult to handle by the people living there. Whatnew tools and methods do researchers, planners andpolicy makers need or have already at their disposalto cope with these processes? The task will be dif-ficult as transdisciplinary approach is recommendedand good communication is required.

Earlier views considered urbanization as a diffu-sion process starting from the growing urban centersthat affected the countryside in concentric spheres ofdifferentiated influence (Burgess, 1925; Mann, 1965;Bryant et al., 1982). The reality proved to be muchmore complex and many city models and modelsfor urban land use structure have been made since(Pacione, 2001b). Lewis and Maund (1976)stressedthe importance of accessibility of places and thetransportation infrastructure.Antrop (2000b)definedurbanization as a complex process that transforms therural or natural landscapes into urban and industrialones forming star-shaped spatial patterns controlled bythe physical conditions of the site and its accessibilityby transportation routes. The relation between urbanand rural becomes extremely complex and receives agrowing attention in spatial and environmental plan-ning (SPESP, 2000; Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995).Typical is the transition between an urban center or ag-glomeration and the countryside becoming unclear anddiffuse. The urban fringe or suburban landscapes are

characterized by a wide variety of land uses, which isexpressed in a complex, diverse and highly fragmentedmorphology. Suburbs and urbanized rural landscapesconsist of a mosaic of varied land cover, constructionsand transportation infrastructures. The delimitationbetween urban and rural becomes a difficult task in-volving a lot of uncertainty and it is very unlikelythat land zoning borders remain a stable delineation.

Nowadays, urbanization is no longer typical forthe growth of cities or towns only but it influencesthe processes in the rural countryside as well. Theactual changes of landscapes are induced by urban-ization processes such as residential or industrial landdevelopment and new communication infrastructures.These processes are mainly controlled by social andeconomic factors that exceed the local conditions.These changes are characterized by a generalizedhomogenization of the existing traditional landscapediversity and the creation of largely chaotic patterns.Such a chaotic development is typical for complexsystems and is also referred to as autonomous devel-opment (Antrop, 1998). New forms of land use arenot ecologically related any more with the land andthe place. Spatial and environmental planning aimsto steer and control these changes, but the lack ofconcerted actions at the appropriate scale level mightenhance this chaotic character.

This article discusses the main phases and trends ofthe urbanization processes in Europe and how it actsupon the actual rural landscapes, illustrated by somecase studies near large cities and in remote rural areas.

2. Urbanization Europe: a diffusion processof shifting core areas

2.1. The advantages of agglomerated economiesand the power of geographical localization

Permanent human settlement is a direct result ofthe success of agriculture, which created a food sur-plus and allowed labor, so new activities could de-velop. The success of the sedentary life resides mainlyin a concentration of different complementary activ-ities in one place. These agglomeration economiesallowed specialization and stimulated trade, offeringwin–win situations for all (Pacione, 2001a). Citieswere efficient structures to harbor such activities and

M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26 11

to form the necessary route network for trading. Ur-ban places relied their subsistence on a much largerhinterland than rural villages. The difference betweenvillages and urban places do not differ in populationsize and morphology only, but also in a different con-centration of multiple activities, people and culturesin one place (Pacione, 2001a). Cities had advantagesthat were legally protected by privileges. During mostof the history cities were manifestly walled and physi-cally separated from the surrounding rural land. Citiesrapidly became almost autonomous centers of inno-vation from which new ideas, technology and goodsspread out over the trading world. The combination be-tween the natural conditions of the settlement site andits possibility to grow lead to a unique developmentthat gave almost each place its proper identity. Acces-sibility and adequate specialization were importantfactors of urban growth and decline (Antrop, 2000b).

Fig. 1. Diffusion of urbanization through Europe. The early urbanization in Greek and Roman times expands form the Southeast from700 b.c. to the border of Scotland in 400a.d. Universities are created in the cities and indicate an expanding urbanization from the southbefore 1300a.d. to the Northeast after 1500a.d. The urban clusters from Northern Italy and Flanders in the 16th century shifts andexpands around the North Sea in the 19th century (afterJordan-Bychkov and Bychkova Jordan, 2002; Pregrill and Volkman, 1993; Clark,1992; Antrop, 1992; Jordan, 1973; base map and cities according to ArcView GIS Esridata).

Cities became centers of control over vast territo-ries which sometimes became consolidated into states.They also formed the nodes in an international tradenetwork. History shows that these were not stableconstructions and core areas of power, economy andculture shifted from region to region (Jordan-Bychkovand Bychkova Jordan, 2002; Pregrill and Volkman,1993). The shift of the urbanization, economical andcultural core area in Europe can easily be followedfrom the Eastern Mediterranean towards the NorthSea (Fig. 1).

2.2. The pre-industrial phase: one city, manytowns and a countryside

Initially, only a limited number of urban placesbecame real cities. The majority of settlements weresmall towns, villages and hamlets and the countryside


was everywhere. The city was the exception; the coun-tryside the common. Mobility remained restrictedand so were the daily travel distances. Long distancetraveling happened in stages of several days or weeksand helped to shape the urban networks. It also stim-ulated specialization of disclosed places according totime distance to the major cities along the major tradeor pilgrim routes. Two types of urban patterns devel-oped: one primary city dominating a vast hinterland,

Table 1Phases of innovation in transportation modes in Europe

Innovation phased and periods Transportation modes and infrastructure Comments and effects upon the landscape

16th to early-17th century Barge boats; canals, canalized rivers, harbors Fast expansion in early industrialization period;waterways initiate important landscape changes:fragmentation and new corridors; industrialdevelopment along. Dense network of waterways inEngland and the low countries. In the beginning ofthe 19th most of Western Europe is connected byinland waterways

18th century New ‘royal’ or ‘imperial’ roads At the end of the 18th century, the travel time fromthe capital to the border is reduced by half inEngland and France. The new road network reflectsthe central or decentralized organized countries

1825 to ca. 1875 Railway railroad network The railroad network spread from Northern England,covered Northwest Europe around 1850 and almostthe whole of Europe by 1875. When doublingwaterways, the railways take over the functionality

1919–1924 Airplane Most capitals of Europe (except Balkan andIreland) are connected by airways

1930s Car The first controlled access motorways are built inGermany

1960 onwards Car Improvement of existing roads, new roadssuperimposing the existing network; extension ofthe motorway network follows internationalEuropean cooperation. Fragmentation effects byroads increases rapidly

1960 onwards Sea ports Increasing sea traffic demands vast areas for storingtransit goods and larger harbor infrastructures;mainly wetlands along river estuaries and coastalareas are reclaimed

1960 onwards Energy lines: pipelines and power lines The diffusion follows international Europeancooperation. The transport volume of pipelinesdoubled between 1970 and 1990

1960 onwards Airplane Increasing mass transportation with an annualgrowth rate of approximately 10% between 1970and 1990; indirect effect upon the fast developmentof new tourists resorts areas, mostly undevelopedcoastal areas are affected

1980 onwards High speed train new railroad network First high speed railway (TGV) in France. The newrailroads are characterized by a strong barrier effectin the landscape

Sources: Jordan-Bychkov and Bychkova Jordan (2002), Antrop (1999a), Stanners and Bourdeau (1995), Blockmans (1992).

and clusters of cities at relatively close distance. Goodexamples of the first type can be found in the 16thcentury with Paris, London, Lisbon, Naples, Con-stantinople and the Hanseatic towns such as Danzigand Novgorod. Examples of city clusters were foundin medieval Flanders and Northern Italy (Clark, 1992).Although mutually competitive, these cities stimu-lated prosperity in the whole region and had importantinfluence on the development of the countryside.


2.3. The first disclosure of the countryside: canalsand the railway

Gradually and certainly from the 18th century on,city walls were broken down and the urban agglom-erations started to grow and to spread out. The fastpopulation growth was linked to the development ofindustry and commerce in and around cities whichcaused an advantageous geographical situation fa-vorable for the development of the new industriesand international commercial networks. The histori-cal identity and structure of the major growing citieschanged abruptly, while others stagnated within theirmedieval walls. The fast growth lead to congestionwithin the old urban limits and a ‘spill-over’ occurredinto the surroundings, mainly following the accessroutes (Stern and Marsh, 1997; Lewis and Maund,1976). First, the railroad and new waterways were cru-cial arteries for new development (Lucassen, 1992).Later, in particular after the Second World War, thegeneralized car use increased mobility dramatically,allowing rapid urban sprawl and the formation of sub-urbs and metropolitan villages (Antrop, 2000b) andedge cities (Holden and Turner, 1997). Consequently,the relations between the urban and the rural changeddeeply.

The mode of transportation determines largely thepossibilities of movement and accessibility. Technol-ogy allowed an exponential increase of travel speedas well as the number of travelers. Important steps inthe technological innovation of transportation modesare given inTable 1, as well as some specific impactsupon the landscape.

Mobility of the masses starts with the railway andthe steamship. They induce the rural to urban migra-tions as well as the massive emigration from Europeto the New World. The railway induced a selectivedisclosure of the countryside. Villages that received astation developed rapidly into urban-like centers andtheir surroundings changed accordingly. The early in-troduction of the automobile in Europe in the begin-ning of the 20th century was not only status symbolthat was localized in the cities, but (as in the USA)an important means of the disclosure of the country-side (Dupuy, 1995). The massive individual movementstarted mainly after the Second World War when theautomobile became the main transportation mode. Fastlong distance transportation came along with airplanes

and later with the high-speed railway. It also stimu-lated new urban development in tourist resort areas thatonce were remote rural regions with limited access.

All modes of transportation affected the landscapesin a particular way. Although the visual impact of theinfrastructure upon the landscape is important, manyother indirect effects are important as well (Antrop,1999a). Improved accessibility stimulated develop-ment and increased the contrast with the isolated, notdisclosed regions. Planning roads is not merely aneconomic task, but increasingly involves consider-ing environmental aspects, such as ecological effects(Forman, 1998a,b) and scenic aspects (Viles andRosier, 2001; Kent and Elliot, 1995; Preece, 1991).The mobility of people did not only change withincreasingly faster modes of transportation; it wasalso conditioned by the spatial reorganization of thelandscape, in particular as a consequence of previousurban sprawl and new accessibility opportunities.

3. Stages in urbanization

3.1. Cycles of urbanization andcounterurbanization

Several phases in the urbanization have been rec-ognized (Champion, 2001; Geyer and Kontuly, 1993;Van der Berg et al., 1982; Klaassen et al., 1981).The urbanization phases are defined according to thecombined growth and decline of the urban center andthe urban fringe area (Fig. 2). The first phase (called‘urbanization’) consists of a concentration of the pop-ulation in the city center by migration of the people

Fig. 2. Cyclic model of the stages of urbanization based upon thepopulation change in core and fringe zone of urban agglomera-tions: U, urbanization; S, suburbanization; D, disurbanization orcounterurbanization; R, reurbanization phase (afterKlaassen et al.,1981; Van der Berg et al., 1982; Champion, 2001).


from the fringe. The second phase (‘suburbanization’)still shows a growing population of the whole urbanagglomeration, but the inner city loses populationwhile the urban fringe zone is growing rapidly. Thethird phase (referred to as ‘counterurbanization’ or‘disurbanization’) consists of the beginning decline ofthe urban population by loss of people in both centerand fringe. The fourth phase (called ‘reurbanization’)shows recovering of the population starting in thecity center and later in the fringe zone. The 1970sare a turning point. It is the period where in manymore developed regions with high levels of urbaniza-tion, a population turnaround is noticed resulting ina decline of population in the urban agglomerationand a stage of counterurbanization starts. Some mod-els suggest a cyclic development of urbanization—counterurbanization—reurbanization, which howeverhas not been proven yet (Champion, 2001). An im-portant problem here is the comparison between theevolution of different urban places, because of verydifferent definitions of ‘urban place’ and becausemostly population data is used to compare the differ-ential evolution. These data are aggregated by spatialunits such as districts, which not always reflect thefast changing spatial structure city limits. In addi-tion, cities evolve at different paces according to theirown history and the geographical situation they arelocated in.

3.2. Urbanization as a diffusion process

Urbanization is closely related to industrializationand economic growth and spread with the innova-tions caused by the Industrial revolution. Also, theconsecutive phases of urbanization can be seen as adiffusions wave (Pacione, 2001a). Geyer and Kontuly(1993)introduced the concept of differential urbaniza-tion, which is very significant for understanding thechange of the landscape in the countryside due to ur-banization processes (Fig. 3). The phases of concen-tration and de-concentration of population in urbanplaces should be considered as a diffusion wave thatfirst affects the major cities and consecutively spreadstowards smaller towns and settlements. The conceptof differential urbanization suggests that urbanizationgradually affects the whole countryside, which formsan interesting hypothesis for defining indicators andtesting the results in landscape monitoring.

Fig. 3. Model of differential urbanization: U, urbanizationphase of population concentration; C, counterurbanization withde-concentration of population; PR, population reversal. (1) Cycleof a primate city, (2 and 3) cycle of intermediate and small cities(after Geyer and Kontuly, 1993).

The change from one urbanization phase to anotherdepends mainly upon changing land qualities, someof which are expressed in ‘hard’ currency such asland price and availability of sufficient land for devel-opment. Others are more ‘soft’ and relate to generalperception and evaluation of the environment andlandscape. Many factors determine the final assess-ment, such as accessibility, mobility, safety, crime,proximity of open green space, availability of ser-vices and nuisance. Many suburban allotments arerecent and were developed in a short time. Traditionalhistory of the place is lost in many cases and no newhistory or tradition could develop yet. Age structureof the population and architectural style are reflectingmainly one generation as well as their specific val-ues. These values are seldom persistent and durable.When suburban land becomes fully built-up and trafficcongestion increases, many of the initial values thatattracted new people to settle here are lost (Antrop,2000b). New residential settlement sites are searchedin more remote, yet fast and easily accessible coun-tryside. Smaller towns and villages are preferred andnew exurbs emerge (Lucy and Philips, 1997). Urban-ization is affecting increasingly the whole countrysideand is no longer restricted to the urban fringe zones.

3.3. Thinking with functional urban regions

Urban and rural settlements are fundamentallydifferent, not only because of their difference in pop-ulation size and thus density, but even more becauseof their differences in the way of living, in their cul-tural diversity and heterogeneous mix of activities


(Paddison, 2001). The urban life style is graduallyspreading even in small and remote rural settlements.When urbanites are spreading more loosely into thecountryside, they change the traditional life style there

Fig. 4. Percentage of 241 functional urbanization regions of more than 330,000 inhabitants in Europe according to their urbanization phaseby decades: (a) Northern Europe (UK Ireland, Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands), (b) France and Northern Italy, (c)Southern Europe. Circle indicates crossover period of between the urbanization and suburbanization phase (afterCheshire, 1995; Paddison,2001).

and make the distinction between urban and rural tobecome very diffuse.

Nowadays, urban settlements consist of com-plex agglomerations of greatly varying buildings,


Fig. 4. (Continued).

constructions and infrastructures forming mosaics ofmultifunctional use and with increasingly diffuse bor-ders. Also, the surrounding countryside is affected byurbanization processes changing lifestyle, functionsand morphology. This has lead to the introduction ofsome new concepts. Instead of using morphologicalagglomerations to define an urban place, the conceptof functional urban regions (FURs) or the similarfunctional community areas were introduced to de-scribe ‘units’ of urban place (Frey and Zimmer, 2001).All are related to the interaction between cities andtheir interrelated rural space. FURs include built-upareas as well as the open space in between that isfunctionally related. The concept is an extension ofthe concept of metropolitan areas made applicableupon smaller urban places.

Cheshire (1995)applied the concepts upon Europeand defined 241 FURs of more than 330,000 inhabi-tants for which the urbanization phase was evaluatedin five time periods (Fig. 4). Northern Europe, Franceand Northern Italy and Southern Europe showed dif-ferent trajectories and a clear shift in time accordingto the cycle of urbanization phases. Very indicative isthe crossover point between the declining urbaniza-tion phase and increasing proportion of FURs comingin the phase of disurbanization. For Northern Europe,

this crossover is situated early in the 1950s–1960s(Fig. 4a), in France and Northern Italy this happensaround the 1970s (Fig. 4b) and in Southern Europebetween 1975 and 1980 (Fig. 4c). This demonstratesthat the urbanization affects the countryside very dif-ferently according to geographical region and time.Indicators of urbanization such as the proportion ofthe population living in urban places, and the applica-tion of general evolution models should be used withextreme caution.

4. Patterns of landscape change

4.1. The countryside in the urban shadowof large cities

Large cities show most characteristic patterns ofstar-shaped urban sprawl (Antrop, 2000b). Most urbandevelopment starts along the main access roads. Whencongestion occurs new peripheral motorways are built,which stimulates the development of edge cities char-acterized by new commercial and industrial activities.Between these lobes of urban development, wedgesof remarkably untouched countryside can remain.This phenomenon has been explained by the ‘urban


implosion’ in time–space as larger urban places tend todevelop better connections amongst each other whilethe accessibility of smaller places nearby diminishes(Haggett, 1975). Rural areas close to cities falling insuch an ‘urban shadow’ (Bryant et al., 1982) do notchange fast and the countryside gains in open-spacevalue because of its lack of urban environment nearby.The case of Brussels is very illustrative (Fig. 5) andshows that even at close distance to the larger city cen-ter, a visually intact traditional countryside can exist.

Fig. 5. Urban sprawl from a major city illustrating the urban shadow and urban implosion. Example of Brussels (Belgium): (a) landuse map from satellite image classification—black and dark gray, built-up areas; light gray, forest, white rural land; (b) phases of urbandevelopment—(0) valley of the Zenne river as main physical structure for Brussels site and development, (1) 15th to 16th century walledcity, (2) 19th to early-20th century expansion, (3) post-1950 expansion, (4) main access motorways and peripheral motorway, (5) technopole development towards the airport, (6) emerging edge cities; (c) distance zones from historical city center; (d) traditional landscape nearGaasbeek in the urban shadow of Brussels ((a) Land Use Map of Flanders, Support Center of GIS-Flanders, 1990).

Although the landscape still has a rural appearance,however, it has been urbanized functionally. Urban-ites come to settle in former farms and restaurants,and cafe’s in the village centers emerge, attractingweekend recreants massively. The visual qualities ofthe rural landscape are important in the assessmentand urbanites search sceneries reflecting their mentalconception of an unspoilt Arcadian countryside asopposed to urban image (Kolen and Lemaire, 1999;Van Zeylen, 1994; Mosser and Teyssot, 1991).


4.2. Urbanized villages

The urbanization pattern of rural village becoming ametropolitan village is completely different (Pacione,2001b). The disclosure of the place for transporta-tion is of utmost importance here. The example of thevillage of Drongen (Flanders, Belgium) is illustrative(Fig. 6). It is localized approximately 5 km west ofthe city of Ghent, a comparable distance as the villageof Gaasbeek in the previous case study of Brussels.However, it was disclosed early by the railway and is

Fig. 6. Urbanization processes in an metropolitan village (Drongen, near Ghent, Belgium). The old village center is composed of an abbey(a) situated at the edge of the alluvial plain of the Lys river, associated with a rural village along an ancient road (R1) from Ghent to theWest; early-20th century development of the village (b) and disclosure by the railway station (s). The road through the village center becamea major access road from the city of Ghent to the E40 motorway, at the connection (f) developed an industrial zone, traffic congestion in thevillage center lead to the building of a peripheral road (R2), which increased accessibility causing new urban sprawl into the countrysidefollowing older secondary roads going north filling the arable land (1, 2 and 3) while the wet valley land remained untouched; improvedaccess initiated new commerce and activity zones (4), even enhanced by new access possibilities of the peripheral motorway R4 along thenew ring-canal around the city of Ghent (g) (Orthophotomap of Flanders, 1990, Eurosense N.V./Support Center GIS-Flanders).

situated on a main access road to the city, which be-came very important when connected to the main mo-torway E40. It expanded first as a dormitory town inthe suburban fringe of Ghent. Traffic congestion of theprincipal transit road decreased the environmental andliving qualities and a new larger peripheral road wasbuilt to solve that problem. However, this improved theaccessibility and attracted even more new residential,commercial and industrial development around the ac-cess nodes of the motorway and along the older sec-ondary roads. A typical complex and multifunctional


Fig. 7. Cross-roads in the remote countryside attract commercial activities and initiate urbanization.

suburban landscape emerged. It is interesting to notethe asymmetry of the development: the site of the vil-lage of Drongen was on an ancient road followingthe high grounds longing the alluvial valley of the

Fig. 8. Remote rural villages that become ‘opened’ by improved accessibility will explode. Video and computer shops rise next to traditionalfarms (Kastelli, central Crete).

Lys river. The initial rural village had its open-fieldcropland stretching upon the well-drained soils to thenorth, while the wetland along the river was used ashay land and a hedgerow landscape developed. This


rich landscape diversity still is one of the importantqualities of the actual urbanized village. Rural openspace and natural green areas are always close for itsinhabitants and easily accessible for the inhabitants ofthe nearby city of Ghent.

4.3. Remote rural villages

Improved accessibility also initiated urbanizationprocesses in the remote countryside. Most striking isthe new urban development in ‘the middle of nowhere’at the crossing of new or improved roads (Fig. 7).The easy and fast access and the availability of cheapopen space rapidly attract new small industries, com-merce and exhibition halls, hotels and restaurants. Re-mote rural villages ‘where time stood still’, suddenly‘explode’ when disclosed by a new or improved roadas the case of Kastelli in the mountainous inland ofCrete illustrates (Fig. 8). Morphological and functionalurbanization suddenly and simultaneously invade thetraditional rural village, causing profound social, eco-nomic and cultural changes. A wide spread form ofthis type of development occurs when rural places are‘discovered’ by tourism.

According to the initial structure of the village, itsgeographical context and properties of the improvedaccessibility, different patterns of urbanization of ru-ral villages can be recognized (Fig. 9) (Van Eetveldeand Antrop, 2001). Besides expanding the built-uparea, new, more scattered patterns can emerge, such asthe ‘beady ring’ pattern (Saunders, 2001; Hillier andHanson, 1984), or extended development in the vicin-ity of the rural village that remains rather untouched.Axial extension occurs when the new developmentfollows the corridor with improved accessibility.Also, the functional differentiation within the newdevelopment can differ a lot. Expanding the villagecan be mainly residential (Fig. 9a) or really ‘explode’by multiple new functions coming in and disturb-ing the original structure (Fig. 9c) as in the Kastellicase.

Villages in the remote countryside that are not dis-closed by new and fast roads suffer of severe isolationin modern society and might become gradually aban-doned. In agricultural fertile regions, scale enlarge-ment in agriculture and concentration of population inlarger settlements is one trend (Vos and Klijn, 2000).In regions where land suitability for agriculture is less

Fig. 9. Some models of changing patterns of rural villages inEurope due to urbanization processes in the countryside: (a) ex-panded, (b) axial extended, (c) exploded, (d) beady ring develop-ment, (e) satellite extension. Circle indicates old village center;different hatches indicate different building styles and land uses.

favorable, forest and wasteland take over (Vos andStortelder, 1992).

5. The importance of urbanization

5.1. Urban population and urban land

Although most of the population is living in cities,only one percent of the land area of Europe is esti-mated to be urban (Table 2). However, comparabledata about the built-up land are rare and hard to find.It is significant that the HABITAT reports (UnitedNations Center for Human Settlement, 1996, 2001) donot give any data about the areas occupied by urbansettlements.

The high level of urbanization in the world is a re-cent phenomenon that was initiated by the industrial


Table 2Main land use/land cover categories in Europe (after Van de Veldeet al., 1994 inStanners and Bourdeau, 1995)

Land use/land cover Area (%)

Forest 33Extensive agriculture, natural areas and mixed

land use24

Arable land 24Permanent crops 16Grassland 2Urban 1

revolution and many accompanying social, cultural,economical, political and military changes, whichcaused profound changes in our society. Estimatesindicate a level of urbanization in the world of only1.6% arounda.d. 1600 and 2.2% at the beginningof the 19th century and this is estimated to fluctuatebetween 4 and 7% in the mid-19th century (UnitedNations Center for Human Settlement, 1996, 2001).The first accelerated increase of urbanization wasnoted in the early industrializing regions of NorthernAmerica and Western Europe. Today, in most of theseregions the degree of urbanization, expressed as thepercentage of the population living in urban places,exceeds 80% where it seems to stabilize between 80and 90% (Fig. 10). Although, the population growthin these developed countries is generally decreas-ing, cities and towns are still slightly growing, whilethe rural population is dropping down rapidly. Anannual loss of 1.5% in rural population is expectedin these more developed regions (Frey and Zimmer,2001).

Fig. 10. Evolution of the level of urbanization in the main Europeanregions between 1950 and 2030 (afterUnited Nations Center forHuman Settlement (HABITAT), 1996, 2001).

Table 3Types of functional urban areas in Europe (after the Study Pro-gramme on European Spatial Planning(SPESP), 2000)

Regions dominated by a large metropolisPolycentric regions with high urban and rural densitiesPolycentric regions with high urban densitiesRural areas under metropolitan influenceRural areas with networks of medium-sized and small townsRemote rural areas

Consequently, most of the thinking and planning ofthe land use and organizing the landscape is nowadaysdone by urbanites. The concept, vision, values and util-ity of the rural land and the countryside is nowadayslargely defined by people living and working in thecity. The significance and function of the countrysidehas changed profoundly since urbanization started inthe 19th century. The future rural countryside will beplanned in function of the needs of the urbanites. Thisnew approach becomes already clear when looking atthe types of FUAs in Europe and the relationship be-tween the urban and the rural proposed in the final re-port of Study Program on European Spatial Planning(SPESP, 2000) (Tables 3 and 4).

5.2. Lack of reliable data

The level of urbanization of a country is expressedas the percentage of the population living in urbanplaces and is the complement of the ‘rural’ populationliving in smaller settlements. Usually, two criteria areused for the definition of an urban place: populationsize and spatial clustering of their housing. However,the definition and delineation of an urban place variesa lot between countries. For example, in the USA a

Table 4Types of relations or partnership between urban and rural formu-lated in theSPESP (2000)

Home–work relationshipsCentral place relationshipsRelationships between metropolitan areas and urban centers in

rural and intermediate areas (in fact, urban hierarchy)Relationship between rural and urban enterprisesRural areas as consumption areas for urban dwellersRural areas as open spaces for urban areasRural areas as carriers of urban infrastructureRural areas as suppliers of natural resources for urban areas

(example: water)


Fig. 11. Belgium has an urbanization level of 97.3% and an average population density of 330 inhabitants/km2. However, the spatialdistribution is very uneven as shown on the map where areas of over 500 inhabitants/km2 reveal a dense pattern of many small andmedium urban places. The average population density in the northern part (Flanders) is over 400 inhabitants/km2, while in the southernpart (Wallonia) densities of less than 50 inhabitants/km2 indicate an almost empty countryside (after Van Hecke, 1991 inAntrop, 1999b).

settlement of more than 2500 inhabitants is consideredas urban, in France an agglomeration of contiguoushousing with more than 2000 inhabitants is an urbanplace, while more than 10,000 inhabitants are neededin Portugal to consider a settlement agglomeration asurban. There is no point in the continuum from largeagglomerations to small clusters or scattered dwellingswhere urbanity disappears and rurality begins (UnitedNations Center for Human Settlement, 1996). Thus,the division between urban and rural is necessarilyarbitrary. Moreover, urban agglomerations seldom co-incide with administrative boundaries and their areaschange rapidly. This makes it even more difficult to usecriteria as population size and density to define urbanplaces, as most census data rely on administrative spa-

tial units. These problems are well illustrated with theBelgian situation (Antrop, 1999b). Belgium had thehighest urbanization level in 2000 with 97.3%. How-ever, the population density map based upon censusdistricts (Fig. 11) shows densely scattered urban placesand a clear difference between the northern part (Flan-ders) and the southern part (Wallonia). The averagepopulation density of more than 400 inhabitants/km2

and the spatial pattern of numerous towns andurbanized villages make Flanders a highly urbanizedregion. Wallonia on the contrary shows a concentra-tion of dense urban settlement in the old industrialbelt, but most of the region is almost empty, indicatedby an average population density of less than 50inhabitants/km2. Clearly, general and aggregated data


Fig. 12. Dense road networks fragment the open rural land and enforce the urbanization of the countryside; the example of Flanders(Belgium): the major roads and railways occupy 102,640 ha which is 7.6% of the land area (after Streetnet Light, Support CenterGIS-Flanders and Master Plan Mobility Flanders,Ministry of the Flemish Community, 2001).

about the level of urbanization are not related to land-scape patterns and should be used with extreme care.

Urban and industrial areas are highly dynamic andchanges occur rapidly. Also the pace seems still toaccelerate. Reliable and actual land use data is neededfor policy making and planning for the fast growingmega cities in the world and for the depopulatingrural areas. Census data is mostly based upon ad-ministrative units, which change rapidly and do no

Fig. 13. Severe fragmentation due to urbanization breaks the traditional cultural landscapes into numerous unconnected relics of countryside;the example of Flanders (Belgium): relic zones of traditional landscapes (light gray) occupy 36% of the area and highly valuable core areas(dark gray) occupy 16%. Average size of relic zones is 1029 and 580 ha for the core areas (after theLandscape Atlas of Flanders, 2001).

longer reflect the characteristics of the fast changingland units they represent. Monitoring of environmen-tal quality often uses networks for measuring mainlydata about air and water quality and waste deposits,but no generally accepted and systematic monitoringof the land use and landscape exists (Stanners andBourdeau, 1995). The European Landscape Conven-tion (Council of Europe, 2000) and many other ini-tiatives (Jongman et al., 2000) stress the urgent need


for landscape inventorying and monitoring. Remotesensing and the use of satellite imagery offer interest-ing possibilities for monitoring changes in land coverin a synoptic view. However, in the heterogeneousand fine grained suburban and industrial landscapes,which are characterized by a strong fragmentation bytransportation infrastructure, only sub-5 m-resolutionoffers satisfactory results to map the land cover insuch a way the real land use can be deduced from.Also, many differences exist in the definition of urbanland use and built-up land, giving strongly differingresults (Antrop and Van Eetvelde, 2000).

How much land is urbanized? How much traditionallandscapes are affected? These questions remain dif-ficult to answer as they depend largely upon the scaleof the inventories are carried out. The example ofFlanders (Belgium) illustrates how the well-connectedcountryside becomes fragmented by urbanization re-lated developments in densely populated regions. Nev-ertheless, even when inventories of built-up land andinfrastructures result in maps where almost all the ruralseems to have disappeared (Figs. 11 and 12), specificlandscape inventories indicate that still many valuablefragments of traditional landscapes remain and de-mand special attention (Fig. 13) (Antrop, 2001, Tackand Van den Bremt, 2001).

6. Conclusions

Urbanization is primarily a complex of functionalchanges, followed by morphological and structuralones. It occurs near cities as well as in the rural coun-tryside. It should be regarded as a diffusion wave ofchanging life-style mainly controlled by the chang-ing accessibility of places offering new opportunities.Urbanization causes a polarization of space by chang-ing population densities, economical activities andmobility. Remote rural areas with poor accessibilitybecome abandoned and in many cases forests ex-pand. The countryside that is affected by urbanizationbecomes a complex intensively and multifunctionalused space within a larger urban network frame. Tra-ditional landscapes with their ecological and culturalvalues become highly fragmented and gradually losetheir identity. Regional landscape diversity decreasesand a new diversity emerges with land use designedfor urbanites. Many of these changes are gradually

accepted and integrated as part of the local landscapecharacter.

Important research, planning issues and questionsarise. What to do with the traditional cultural land-scapes? The general principle that landscape struc-tures and functioning continuously interact (Formanand Godron, 1986) applies here as well. It seems thatelements and structures that are no longer functionalfor the new needs of the majority of the populationliving in cities, will disappear. So, what will be thefuture of the past? How to plan and manage theemerging ‘interurban’ multifunctional landscapes?How to assess the character or identity of a changinglandscape and decide what is valuable for the futureand might become traditional or heritage? There is aneed to shift from acreatedlandscape to adesignedenvironment. This can be achieved in a responsibleand sustainable manner only when reliable data andmeaningful indicators become available. Therefore,monitoring landscape changes, including the newcomplex and urbanized ones, is urgently needed.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Margareta Ihse andProf. Dr. Ülo Mander, the organizers of the IALE 2001European Conference on the Development of Euro-pean Landscapes, for inviting me to present this topicat the plenary session. I would also like to thank theMinistry of the Flemish Community and the SupportCenter of GIS Flanders for the maps and orthophotosin Figs. 5 and 6.

References

Anonymous, 2000. Get Connected To Your Place! TheDornach Landscape Document, Discussion Document ofthe International Conference, The Culture of the EuropeanLandscape as a Task, Dornach, Switzerland.

Antrop, M., 1992. Geografische aspekten van de Europese cultuur.De Aardrijkskunde 2, 87–125.

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

Antrop, M., 1999a. Transport routes in the landscape:about connectors, dividers, initiators, attractors and views.In: Kristensen, L., Petersen, E.H. (Eds.), Transport ogLandskab. Landskabsøkologiske skrifter nr. 13. Center forLandskabsforskning, pp. 21–39.


Antrop, M., 1999b. Ruimtelijke ordening en milieu. Ministry ofForeign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Cooperation,Brussels.

Antrop, M., 2000a. Background concepts for integrated landscapeanalysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 17–28.

Antrop, M., 2000b. Changing patterns in the urbanized countrysideof Western Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 15, 257–270.

Antrop, M., 2001. De landschapsatlas, Methode. In: Hofkens, E.,Roossens, I. (Eds.), Nieuwe impulsen voor de landschapszorg.De landschapsatlas, baken voor een verruimd beleid. Ministerievan de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Monumenten enLandschappen, Brussel, pp. 21–43.

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

Brandt, J., 2000. Demands for future landscapes research onmultifunctional landscapes. In: Proceedings of the Conferenceon Multifunctional Landscapes—Interdisciplinary Approachesto Landscape Research and Management. Roskilde, October18–21.

Brandt, J., Holmes, E., Skriver, P., 2001. Urbanization of thecountryside—problems of interdisciplinarity in the study ofrural development. In: Proceedings of the Conference on theOpen SPACE Functions under URBAN Pressure. Ghent, 19–21September 2001.

Bryant, C., Russwurm, L., McLellan, A., 1982. The City’sCountryside: Land and its Management in the Rural UrbanFringe. Longman, London.

Burgess, E., 1925. The growth of the city. In: Park, R., Burgess,E. (Eds.), The City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.47–62.

Champion, T., 2001. Urbanization, suburbanisation, counterurbani-sation and reurbanisation. In: Paddison, R. (Ed.), Handbook ofUrban Studies. Sage, London, pp. 143–161.

Cheshire, P., 1995. A new phase of urban development in WesternEurope? The evidence for the 1980s. Urban Stud. 32, 1045–1063.

Clark, P. (Ed.), 1992. Ontwikkeling van de stad. De wordingvan Europa. HD Communication Consultants, Hilverum, M&PUitgeverij, Weert.

Council of Europe, 2000. The European Landscape Convention.Strasbourg.

Dupuy, G., 1995, Les territoires de l’automobile. Anthropos-Economica, Paris.

Forman, R.T.T., 1998a. Road ecology: a solution for a giantembracing us. Landsc. Ecol. 13, iii–v.

Forman, R.T.T., 1998b. Roads and their major ecological effects.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29, 207–231.

Forman, R., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley, NewYork.

Frey, W.H., Zimmer, Z., 2001. Defining the city. In: Paddison, R.(Ed.), Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage, London, pp. 14–35.

Geyer, H.S., Kontuly, T.M., 1993. A theoretical foundation forthe concept of differential urbanization. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 15,157–177.

Haggett, P., 1975. Geography: A Modern Synthesis. Harper &Row, London.

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

Holden, R., Turner, T., 1997. Western Europe, current cityexpansion and the use of GIS. Landsc. Urban Plann. 36, 315–326.

Jongman, R.H.G., Klijn, J., Pedroli, G.B.M., 2000. LandscapeEurope. International Center of Expertise on Landscapes.Position paper, WUR/ALTERRA, Wageningen.

Jordan, T., 1973. The European Culture Area. Harper & Row,London.

Jordan-Bychkov, T.G., Bychkova Jordan, B., 2002. The EuropeanCulture Area. A Systematic Geography. Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, New York.

Kent, R.L., Elliot, C.L., 1995. Scenic routes linking and protectingnatural and cultural landscape features: a greenway skeleton.Landsc. Urban Plann. 33, 341–355.

Klaassen, L.H., Molle, W.T.M., Paelinck, J.H.P. (Eds.), 1981.Dynamics of Urban Development. Aldershot, Gower.

Klijn, J., Vos, W., 2000. A new identity for landscape ecology inEurope: a research strategy for next decade. In: Klijn, J., Vos,W. (Eds.), From Landscape Ecology to Landscape Science.Kluwer Academic Publishers, WLO, Wageningen, pp. 149–161.

Kolen, J., Lemaire, T. (Eds.), 1999. Landschap in meervoud.Perspectieven op het Nederlandse landschap in de 20ste/21steeeuw. Utrecht, Uitg. J. van Arkel.

Landscape Atlas of Flanders, 2001. Ministry of the FlemishCommunity. Support Center GIS-Flanders, Brussel (CD-ROMin Dutch).

Lewis, G.J., Maund, D.J., 1976. The urbanization of thecountryside: a framework for analysis. Geografiska Annaler58B, 17–27.

Lucassen J., 1992. Europese ontwikkelingen vanaf de Romeinsetijd tot heden. In: Bolckmans, W. (Ed.), De mens in beweging.De wording van Europa. HD Uitgevers, Hilversum, M&PUitgeverij, Weert, pp. 9–32.

Lucy, W., Philips, D., 1997. The post-suburban era comesto Richmond: city decline, suburban transition and exurbangrowth. Landsc. Urban Plann. 36, 259–275.

Mann, P., 1965. An Approach to Urban Sociology. Routledge,London.

Ministry of the Flemish Community, 2001. Master Plan MobilityFlanders. Brussel (in Dutch).

Mosser, M., Teyssot, G. (Eds.), 1991.The History of GardenDesign. The Western Tradition from the Renaissance to thePresent Day. Thames & Hudson, London.

Pacione, M., 2001a. Urban Geography: A Global Perspective.Routledge, London.

Pacione, M., 2001b. Models of urban land use structure in citiesin the developed world. Geography 86, 97–119.

Paddison, R. (Ed.), 2001. Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage,London.

Preece, R.A., 1991. Designs on the Landscape. Belhaven Press,London.

Pregrill, P., Volkman, N., 1993. Landscape in History. Design andPlanning in the Western Tradition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork.

Saunders, P., 2001. Urban ecology. In: Paddison, R. (Ed.),Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage, London.


SPESP, 2000. Study Programme on European Spatial Planning(SPESP). Final Report, 31 March 2000 (www.nordregio.a.se).

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

Stern, M., Marsh, W., 1997. The decentered city: edge cities andthe expanding metropolis. Landsc. Urban Plann. 36, 243–246.

Tack, G., Van den Bremt, P., 2001. De Landschapsatlas, Resultaten.In: Hofkens, E., Roossens, I. (Eds.), Nieuwe impulsen voor delandschapszorg. De landschapsatlas, baken voor cen verruimdbeleid. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, AfdelingMonumenten en Landschappen, Brussel, pp. 44–62.

United Nations Center for Human Settlement (HABITAT), 1996.An Urbanizing World. Global Report on Human Settlements1996. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

United Nations Center for Human Settlement (HABITAT), 2001.Cities in a Globalizing World. Global Report on HumanSettlements 2001. Earthscan Publications, London.

Van der Berg, L., Drewett, R., Klaassens, L.H., Rossi, A.,Vijverberg, C.H.T., 1982. Urban Europe, vol. I. A Study ofGrowth and Decline. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M., 2001. Comparison of the landscapestructure of traditional and new landscapes. Some Europeanexamples. In: Mander, Ü., Printsmann, A., Palang, H. (Eds.),Development of European Landscapes, vol. 2. ConferenceProceedings IALE European Conference 2001. PublicationesInstituti Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis, Tartu, p. 275.

Van Zeylen, G., 1994. Tous les jardibns du monde. Gallimard,Paris.

Viles, R.L., Rosier, D.J., 2001. How to use roads in the creationof greenways: case studies in three New Zealand landscapes.Landsc. Urban Plann. 55, 15–27.

Vos, W., Klijn, J., 2000. Trends in European landscapedevelopment: prospects for a sustainable future. In: Klijn,J., Vos, W. (Eds.), From Landscape Ecology to LandscapeScience. Kluwer Academic Publishers, WLO, Wageningen,pp. 13–30.

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

Marc Antrop (1946) is geographer specialized in landscapes sci-ences, remote sensing, GIS and planning. He is professor lectur-ing at the University of Ghent (Belgium, Flanders) and at themoment head of the Department of Geography. His interest inthe landscape is broad and holistic, covering and integrating as-pects of landscape genesis (in particular, focusing upon the nat-ural and cultural aspects of the European landscapes), landscapeperception, landscape evaluation and land assessment, landscapeecology and landscape architecture. Practical application of thisknowledge is achieved in planning and environmental impact as-sessment and monitoring land degradation. His main work areasare Belgium, France, the Mediterranean, Egypt and Central Eu-rope. His main research field are actually the elaboration of thesurvey of the relicts of traditional landscapes of Flanders, the elab-oration of methods for strategic environmental impact assessment(SEA) and the development of new structural spatial planning. Heis member of the Royal Committee for Protection of Monumentsand Landscapes in Flanders and vice-president for the divisionof landscape protection. He is a consultant for the Flemish andBelgian government on the field of environmental impact assess-ment and the implementation of GIS in administration, environ-mental policy and planning and is member of the Scientific GISCommittee.

http://www.nordregio.a.se

landscape change and the urbanization process in europe

Documents