See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/37791071

European Landscape Characterisation

Article · January 2008

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

25 1,806

2 authors:

Sander Mucher Dirk Wascher

Wageningen University & Research Wageningen University & Research
184 PUBLICATIONS 6,644 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 3,727 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sander Mucher on 31 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 | 37

Sander Mücher • Dirk Wascher

European landscape
characterisation
It is surprising that the word landscape, which encompasses one of the most popu-
lar and widely used concepts relating human beings to their environment, lacked a
universal and widely accepted classification system until recently. Most of the past
and current scientific work in the field of landscape characterisation and mapping
is extremely diverse and regionalised. Although the regionalised approaches are of-
ten well adapted to specific local or national policy or planning needs, and are rich
in contextual qualitative information, they are often poor in terms of well defined
diagnostic criteria, and are therefore less suitable for wider cross-border operation-
al applications or broader ‘stakeholder’ support. The lack of common criteria and
methodologies for identifying landscapes and describing their characteristics ham-
pers the comparison of regional or national landscape assessments and was an ob-
stacle for some of the major European policy initiatives; namely the development of
implementation targets for Europe’s sustainable future in the wider countryside.
Fortunately, over recent years, several initiatives and European projects
have invested in the development of new European landscape references. Since
the launching of the first policy-oriented European landscape map and the pan-
European environmental report, the development of more sophisticated and more
data-driven approaches has continued and still progresses.
This chapter presents the newly established European Landscape Classification,
called LANMAP2 in relation to the case studies in this book. The main emphasis in
this chapter is on the newly established methodology, its underlying data sets and
its results.

Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & Bunce F (Eds. 2007).
Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
38 | Chapter 3: Mücher & Wascher

From landscape Esperanto to a

Figure 1. Part of the newly established European
Landscape Classification (LANMAP2) with the

better understanding
location of the case studies

The current European landscape was formed by its rich human history; by the people who cultivated the land
throughout the centuries. Only two centuries ago about 80% of the population still lived in the countryside.
New technologies, new crops, new fertilisers and pesticides and new management techniques; all implement-
ed on a varying time-scale and with different environmental conditions; led to complex interactions between
humans and nature, which are millennia old in many places, and which resulted in a rich amalgam of cultural
landscapes in Europe, (Stanners & Bordeaux 1995, Klijn & Vos 2000, Green & Vos 2001, Delbaere 1998, Aalen
2001, Klijn, 2003, Wascher 2000a, Council of Europe et al. 1996).
The outstanding richness and diversity of Europe’s landscapes are widely recognised attributes of the
continent’s unique natural and cultural heritage. In Europe we encounter a wide range of bio-geographic re-
gions spanning from the Macaronesian Azores and Canary Isles towards the Arctic region’s Barents Sea. The
complexity of the natural and man-made phenomena that have contributed to the shaping of Europe’s land-
scapes is also reflected in the many different values that are attached to them: ecological, aesthetic, archaeo-
logical, earth-scientific, historical and current cultural values, as well as economical ones such as recreation
and tourism, craft and art works. All together they contribute to the identity or character of landscapes, which
have never been static and never will be. The question is how to safeguard or even restore values in the midst
of pressures for change.

Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & Bunce F (Eds. 2007).
Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
 | 39

Many landscapes are exposed to dynamic driving forces related to policy implementation, land use or
demographic trends and changes (Meeus et al. 1998). Such forces affect production and planning processes
in agriculture, forestry, urbanisation and traffic, which in turn have an impact on environmental conditions,
ranging from local pollution, regionally extensive forest fires or flood events, to global impacts such as climate
change (Delbaere 1998). The concern that, due to conflicting driving forces and pressures, essential landscape
functions and values are being permanently lost has been addressed in recent policy documents; such as the
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (Council of Europe et al. 1996) and the more re-
cent European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe 2000).

New mapping philosophy

From discussions at the Sofia conference (Council of Europe 1996), 11 action-themes were defined. One of
them included the establishment of a Pan-European Landscape Map. The essential objective was to distinguish
different landscape types and to represent their geographic locations and distribution, their key characteristics
and often the forces that shaped them. Maps are an efficient way of communicating otherwise abstract mat-
ters. Among physical planners the saying goes: “When maps are shown, emotion runs high “. Maps were once
unique products of cumbersome and static (once printed) cartographical art aimed at serving as many goals
as possible and based upon one approach that lasted for years. Now modern GIS techniques in data gathering,
processing, analysis, storage, and modern classification methods, provide opportunities to combine various
data layers and produce tailor made classifications or presentations within days (Mücher et al. 2003). Follow-
ing the early contemporary attempt by Meeus et al. (1998), landscape mapping should envisage and incorpo-
rate these new techniques and approaches, where appropriate. Therefore an initiative to produce a pan-Euro-
pean landscape classification using state of the art technology, started at Alterra in 2002 (Mücher et al. 2006).
The European landscape map should provide a practical and easy tool for communication between scientists
and others interested in European landscapes, and for European policy implementation; which presents a
major challenge. As stated in the Dobříš report of the EEA on the state of Europe’s Environment (Stanners &
Bordeaux 1995) there is still a substantial discrepancy between the large variety of European landscapes and
the lack of internationally harmonised and accepted approaches to characterise and identify them.
However, it is profitable for modern approaches to learn from and build upon older attempts. For ex-
ample, the above mentioned landscape map of Meeus et al. (1998) was a first approach at demonstrating the
diversity of Europe’s landscapes: an endeavour that was brave and inspiring, but unavoidably provisional and
rather subjective, partly because of the lack of detailed geographic records and descriptions necessary to do
justice to Europe’s many regional landscapes. Even now, a complete Europe-wide, spatially explicit inventory
of landscapes does not exist. The Meeus map was thus a valuable exercise in demonstrating the power of land-
scape mapping at the European level, and it provided an incentive for improving information on the character,
whereabouts and properties of landscapes. The methodological, and ultimately policy-oriented, shortcomings
of landscape information at the EU level have been acknowledged on various occasions (e.g., Wascher 2000;
Vervloet & Spek 2003), but this has not yet led to a new European landscape classification. Therefore the major
objective of the Alterra approach was a new and user-oriented, pan-European landscape classification, map
and database, all based on available European digital data sets, with high spatial accuracy and the flexibility to
enable adaptations, extensions and other applications.
The European Landscape Map (LANMAP2) was produced on the basis of state of the art technology
and four core data layers with a high spatial resolution: i) climate ii) altitude iii) parent material and iv) land
use. This resulted in a classification at a scale of approximately 1:2m, with a minimum mapping unit of 11
km2 and more than 14,000 mapping units. The European landscape classification covers the whole of Europe,
from Iceland in the north-west to Azerbaijan in the south-east, and from Gibraltar in the south-west to Nova
Zembla in the north-east. It covers an area of approximately 11 million km2 (Mücher et al. 2006). The Euro-
pean Landscape Classification is a hierarchical classification. Level one is based on climate only and has eight
classes. Level two is based on climate and altitude and has 31 classes. Level three is based on climate, altitude
and parent material and has 76 classes. Level four is based on all four data layers and is the most detailed level
and has 350 landscape types (Mücher et al. 2006).

Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & Bunce F (Eds. 2007).
Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
40 | Chapter 3: Mücher & Wascher

1 : Example of Redu in Belgium

In Belgium over the last few years a new landscape typology was developed with the objective of defining landscape character areas for the whole country,
based on a unique methodology (Van Eetvelde & Antrop 2005). This new typology completed two separate, regional initiatives: the traditional landscapes
in the Flanders region (Antrop 1997) and the Territoires paysager in the Walloon region (Droeven et al. 2004). The country’s area was divided into grid cells
of 1 km x 1 km. Each grid cell was characterised by 18 thematic variables, then 48 landscape types were determined to describe the landscapes represented
in 7,320 polygons. CORINE land cover data from 1995, soil associations, the digital elevation model, and satellite images of Landsat TM, available for the
whole country, were used as sources for the classification of landscape character areas. Comparing the Belgian assessment with LANMAP2 (see Figure 2)
shows that the national approach provided important details on the open or closed nature of the landscape, as well as those concerning land use. While it
is true that the region is mainly forested, Redu is an example of a traditional agrarian village in the remote Ardennes. The national map shows these land
use differences within the case study and thereby provides important regional detail.

Figure 2. Close-up for the Belgian case study in Redu (Wallonia) in the context of LANMAP2 and the national landscape map of Belgium (Van Eetvelde et al.. 2005)

Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & Bunce F (Eds. 2007).
Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
 | 41

2 : Example of Hortobágy in Hungary

Like LANMAP2, the Hungarian landscape classification (Marosi & Samogyi, 1990) is based on geomorphology and climate conditions, as well as on land
cover data. Likewise, cultural elements are not much represented and visual aspects are lacking. The following example is a short summary of a characteri-
sation made in a Hungarian research project aimed at drawing up a new landscape planning system. However, one important aspect which is presented in
this national approach is the presence of ‘peculiar landscape types’, which in the case of Hortobágy National Park are larger wetland zones which are part
of the puszta ecosystem. According to LANMAP2, the northern part of the national park is dominated by the landscape type of continental-lowland-sedi-
ments with arable land use, and in the south by shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Study of the land use pattern of this region reveals highly structured
agricultural lands towards Debrecen, and a series of pond systems (fish farming and irrigation reservoirs) in other parts of the Park.

Figure 3. Close-up for the Hungarian case study Hortobágy NP in the Carpathian Basin in the context of LANMAP2 and the national landscape map of Hungary (Marosi & Samogyi 1990)

Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & Bunce F (Eds. 2007).
Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
42 | Chapter 3: Mücher & Wascher

The scale of landscape character

The recently finalised EU project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI), compiled
and cross-analysed more than 50 examples from 15 countries in which a variety of methodologies had been
applied (Wascher 2005). While each mapping initiative had its specific and legitimate purpose, the ELCAI
project put forward the widely shared conclusion that LANMAP2 constitutes a scientifically stable and meth-
odologically neutral basis for developing a European approach.
The conclusions of the scientific review were as follows (Groom 2005):
• both LC (Landscape Character) - types (emphasising landscape homogeneity) and LC-areas (allowing het-
erogeneity) have their specific scientific and political justification
• producing landscape character maps exclusively on the basis of map lines by expert interpretation by in-
dividuals or small committees of experts does not represent an effective and sufficiently objective way of
working
• mapping of both LC-types and LC-areas using automated GIS-based techniques can provide vital assist-
ance, but should be followed-up by interactive (field-based, workshop-based) and objective examination
and refinement of the outputs
• recognition that LCA work cannot be achieved merely through the traditional working methodologies of
natural sciences, but must also draw upon consultative and textual methods that are more familiar within
the social sciences and humanities.
The use of the European Landscape Classification (LANMAP2) when interpreting case study landscapes
allows the comparison of similar landscape types across wider geographic ranges. As in the example of the
landscape of Saint-Nectaire in France, the European data provides an immediate view of the larger bio-geo-
graphic context in terms of the three main environmental zones. The map also shows where certain landscape
elements are actually part of entirely different LANMAP2-types, e.g., in the case of Lombardy. Especially
when dealing with small, designed or historic landscapes with special land use patterns, LANMAP2 does not
provide the necessary orientation. Here, the need for the introduction of further layers becomes evident.
At the same time, the ELCAI report concluded the following for the future of LANMAP2 :
• rather than being a static and finalised map product, LANMAP2 can be considered as a “living reference
base”
• dynamic changes in the availability and accuracy of national and international data sets as well as the
emerging policy needs
• the short-term priority tasks are :
- to integrate region-specific data on cultural heritage,
- to populate the LANMAP database with existing European environmental information,
- to introduce policy data (e.g., protected areas),
- to correct unit boundaries and input data.
Recent European research and policy development, addressing issues such as integrated assessments,
stakeholder involvement and sustainability, have indicated a wide range of applications for the stratification
of Europe into more or less homogenous zones. Despite needing further cartographic improvements and an
extension of the associated data base, the existing work has demonstrated the potential benefits of using land-
scape tools as a holistic concept for various disciplines, and for identifying spatial-functional relationships.
For this publication, the European typology LANMAP2 has been used throughout all chapters on na-
tional examples to provide general, but accurate and comparable cartographic and contextual references. By
means of its legend and a presentation of the case study areas within the different landscape units, the reader
is able rapidly to grasp some of the general characteristics that are similar or different between the areas. The
close-up map depictions of the case study surroundings also permit the assessment of adjacent landscape
types and the specific role of the selected areas within the wider region.

Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & Bunce F (Eds. 2007).
Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
 | 43

References
Aalen FH (2001). Landscape development and change. In: BH Green & W Vos, 2001, Threatened landscapes: con-
serving cultural environments. Span Press, London, p.3-20.
Antrop M (1997). The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The exam-
ple of Flanders Region. Landscape and Urban Planning, 38:105-117.
Council of Europe, UNEP & ECNC (1996). The Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy: A vi-
sion for Europe’s natural heritage. Tilburg, European Centre for Nature Conservation.
Delbaere BCW (1998). Factors and figures on Europe’s biodiversity; state and trends. ECNC, Tilburg. 115pp.
Droeven E, Feltz C, Kummert M (2004). Les territoires paysagers de Wallonie. Namur, Etudes et Documents,
CPDT, 4, 68 pp.
Van Eetvelde V, Antrop MS (2005). Landscape Character Assessment in Belgium: Balancing Natural and Cultural
Properties. Gent, De Belgische Geografendagen, Deel II, BEVAS-SOBEG, 347-353.
Green BH & Vos W (2001). Threatened landscapes: conserving cultural environments. Span Press, London.
161pp.
Groom (2005). ELCAI Scientific Review; in: Wascher D M (2005). The Role of Natural Vegetation Data for Eu-
ropean Landscape Mapping and Assessment. In: Bohn, U., Hettwer, C. and Gollub, G. (2005). Application and
Analysis of the Map of the Natural Vegetation of Europe. Bundesamt f. Naturschutz, Bonn Germany p. 81-112.
Klijn JA & Vos W (2000) From landscape ecology to landscape science: proceedings of the European congress
‘Landscape ecology: things do do – proactive thoughts for the 21st century’, organised in 1997 by the Dutch
Association for Landscape Ecology (WLO) on the occasion of its 25th anniversary. Kluwer Dordrecht, ISBN
0792369211, 163pp.
Klijn JA (2003). Driving forces behind landscape transformation in Europe, from a conceptual approach to policy
options: agriculture and climate change as examples. In: R.Jongman(Ed), Proceedings of the Frontis workshop/
Kluwer.
Marosi S and Somogyi S (1990). Magyarország kistájainak katasztere II. Budapest: MTA Földrajztudományi Kutató
Intézet.
Meeus JHA (1995). Pan-European landscapes. In: Landscape and Urban Planning 31: 57-79.
Meeus JHA, Van der Ploeg JD & Wijermans MP (1998). Changing agricultural landscapes in Europe: continuity,
deterioration or rupture? IFLA Conference, Rotterdam.
Mücher CA, RGH Bunce, RHG Jongman, JA Klijn, A Koomen, MJ Metzger and DM Wascher (2003). Identification
and Characterisation of Environments and Landscapes in Europe. Alterra rapport 832, Alterra, Wageningen.
Mücher CA, Wascher DM, Klijn JA, Koomen AJM and Jongman RHG (2006). A new European Landscape Map
as an integrative framework for landscape character assessment. In: Landscape Ecology in the Mediterranean:
inside and outside approaches, R.G.H. Bunce and R.H.G. Jongman (Eds) 2006. Proceedings of the European
IALE Conference 29 March – 2 April 2005 Faro, Portugal. IALE Publication Series 3, pp. 233-243.
Stanners D & Bordeaux P (eds.) (1995). Europe’s Environment; The Dobris Assessment. European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen. 676 pp. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Vervloet JAJ & Spek T(2003). Towards a Pan-European Landscape Map - a Mid-Term Review. In: T. Unwin &
T.Spek (eds) European Landscapes: from mountain to sea. Proceedings of the 19th Session of the Permanent
Conference for the Study of the Rural Landscape (PECSRL) at London and Aberystwyth (UK) 10-17 September
2000. Huma Publishers, Tallinn. p 8 - 19.
Wascher DM (ed.) (2000a). ‘The Face of Europe – Policy Perspectives for European Landscapes’. Report of the
implementation of the PEBLDS Action Theme 4 on European Landscapes, published under the auspices of the
Council of Europe, ECNC, Tilburg, 60 pages.
Wascher DM (ed.) (2000b). Landscapes and Sustainability. Proceedings of the European Workshop on landscape
assessment as as policy tool; 25th-26th March 1999 Strasbourg, organised by the European Centre for Nature
Conservation and the Countryside Agency of England, United Kingdom, Tilburg, 94 pages.
Wascher DM (ed.) (2005). European Landscape Character Areas – Typologies, Cartography and Indicators for the
Assessment of Sustainable Landscapes. Final Project Report as deliverable from the EU’s Accompanying Meas-
ure project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative (ELCAI), funded under the 5th Framework
Programme on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (4.2.2), Alterra Report No. 1254, 150 pp.

Pedroli B, Van Doorn A, De Blust G, Paracchini ML, Wascher D & Bunce F (Eds. 2007).
Europe’s living landscapes. Essays on exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
View publication stats