Sustainable Land Management In A European Context A Codesign Approach Thomas Weith

Sustainable Land Management In A European
Context A Codesign Approach Thomas Weith
download
https://ebookbell.com/product/sustainable-land-management-in-a-
european-context-a-codesign-approach-thomas-weith-11736944
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
A Nexus Approach For Sustainable Development Integrated Resources
Management In Resilient Cities And Multifunctional Landuse Systems
Stephan Hlsmann
https://ebookbell.com/product/a-nexus-approach-for-sustainable-
development-integrated-resources-management-in-resilient-cities-and-
multifunctional-landuse-systems-stephan-hlsmann-12309914
The Longterm Fertilization Trials In Halle Saale Germany A Tool For
Sustainable And Environmentally Compatible Land Management
Contributions Of Plant Nutrition Science In Halle 13 2nd Edition
Wolfgang Merbach
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-longterm-fertilization-trials-in-
halle-saale-germany-a-tool-for-sustainable-and-environmentally-
compatible-land-management-contributions-of-plant-nutrition-science-
in-halle-13-2nd-edition-wolfgang-merbach-4268326
Sustainable Land Management In The Tropics Kees Burger Fred Zaal
https://ebookbell.com/product/sustainable-land-management-in-the-
tropics-kees-burger-fred-zaal-1651682
Sustainable Land Management In Greater Central Asia An Integrated And
Regional Perspective Victor Squires Lu Qi
https://ebookbell.com/product/sustainable-land-management-in-greater-
central-asia-an-integrated-and-regional-perspective-victor-squires-lu-
qi-46209372

Sustainable Land Management In Asia 1st Edition Asian Development Bank
https://ebookbell.com/product/sustainable-land-management-in-asia-1st-
edition-asian-development-bank-48736156
The Role Of The State And Individual In Sustainable Land Management
International Land Management Series R W Dixongough
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-role-of-the-state-and-individual-in-
sustainable-land-management-international-land-management-series-r-w-
dixongough-2436176
Climate Change And Land An Ipcc Special Report On Climate Change
Desertification Land Degradation Sustainable Land Management Food
Security And Greenhouse Gas Fluxes In Terrestrial Ecosystems 1st
Edition Ipcc Collective Of Editors Authors
https://ebookbell.com/product/climate-change-and-land-an-ipcc-special-
report-on-climate-change-desertification-land-degradation-sustainable-
land-management-food-security-and-greenhouse-gas-fluxes-in-
terrestrial-ecosystems-1st-edition-ipcc-collective-of-editors-
authors-51718436
Applied Geoinformatics For Sustainable Integrated Land And Water
Resources Management Ilwrm In The Brahmaputra River Basin Results From
The Ecproject Brahmatwinn 1st Edition Nayan Sharma
https://ebookbell.com/product/applied-geoinformatics-for-sustainable-
integrated-land-and-water-resources-management-ilwrm-in-the-
brahmaputra-river-basin-results-from-the-ecproject-brahmatwinn-1st-
edition-nayan-sharma-4976272
Sustainable Land Management Sourcebook Agriculture And Rural
Development World Bank
https://ebookbell.com/product/sustainable-land-management-sourcebook-
agriculture-and-rural-development-world-bank-2133944

Human-Environment Interactions 8
Sustainable
Land Management
in a European
Context
Thomas Weith · Tim Barkmann ·
Nadin Gaasch · Sebastian Rogga ·
Christian Strauß · Jana Zscheischler
Editors
A Co-Design Approach

Human-Environment Interactions
Volume 8
Series Editor
Emilio F. Moran, Michigan State University, Bloomington, IN, USA

The Human-Environment Interactions series invites contributions addressing the
role of human interactions in the earth system. It welcomes titles on sustainability,
climate change and societal impacts, global environmental change, tropical
deforestation, reciprocal interactions of population-environment-consumption,
large-scale monitoring of changes in vegetation, reconstructions of human
interactions at local and regional scales, ecosystem processes, ecosystem services,
land use and land cover change, sustainability science, environmental policy,
among others. The series publishes authored and edited volumes, as well as
textbooks. It is intended for environmentalists, anthropologists, historical, cultural
and political ecologists, political geographers, and land change scientists.
Human-environment interaction provides a framework that brings together
scholarship sharing both disciplinary depth and interdisciplinary scope to examine
past, present, and future social and environmental change in different parts of the
world. The topic is very relevant since human activities (e.g. the burn of fossil fuels,
ﬁshing, agricultural activities, among others) are so pervasive that they are capable
of altering the earth system in ways that could change the viability of the very
processes upon which human and non-human species depend.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8599

Thomas Weith • Tim Barkmann •
Nadin Gaasch • Sebastian Rogga •
Christian Strauß • Jana Zscheischler
Editors
Sustainable Land
Management in a European
Context
A Co-Design Approach
123

Editors
Thomas Weith
Institute of Environmental Science
and Geography
University of Potsdam, Campus Golm
Potsdam, Germany
Working Group “Co-Design
of Change and Innovation”
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural
Landscape Research (ZALF)
Müncheberg, Germany
Nadin Gaasch
Science Management and Transfer
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research (PIK)
Potsdam, Germany
Christian Strauß
Research Area ‘Land Use and Governance’
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape
Research (ZALF)
Tim Barkmann
Research Area ‘Land Use and Governance’
Research (ZALF)
Sebastian Rogga
Research (ZALF)
Jana Zscheischler
Working Group “Co-Design of Change and
Innovation”
Research (ZALF)
ISSN 2214-2339 ISSN 2452-1744 (electronic)
Human-Environment Interactions
ISBN 978-3-030-50840-1 ISBN 978-3-030-50841-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50841-8
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to
the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if
changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s
Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publi-
cation does not imply, even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afﬁliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword
Sustainable land management is a key issue among the various applications of
sustainable development. Humans are mobile terrestrial beings who need land as
terra firma to support their activities and obtain vital resources. And yet land makes
up only a third of the earth’s surface and is finite, much of it already having been
populated by humans. Other basic preconditions for ensuring the survival of
humans were the availability of freshwater and a plant cover that provided food and
shelter, which was used for gathering and hunting. This activity was steadily
improved owing to skill and intellect, particularly after learning how to use fire as
an effective energy source.
The real importance of land, however, was discovered when humans started to
practice agriculture, especially crop farming. This was the very origin of land use
and the first decisive step in transforming nature into a typical human environment,
called culture. Humans took ownership of land and selected certain plant and
animal species for crop cultivation and livestock husbandry around their settle-
ments. These were built as solid farmsteads, marking a second type of land use and
a completely artificial land cover.
During plant cultivation, farmers became aware of the uppermost layer of the
land, called soil, the quality of which, above all fertility, was indicated by the plant
cover. Humans soon learned to determine which sites were best suited for agri-
culture—deep sandy to loamy soils that were easy to till. Management began by
replacing the natural plant cover with crop plants, usually in pure stands, which
involved working the land using tools such as hoes and ploughs. Grain and root
crops soon became the mainstay of human food supply, promoting population
growth—which again required more farmland: a vicious circle evolved.
Cultural development is marked by continuous technical progress involving
long-term consequences that were often impossible to foresee. Progress in agri-
culture resulted in bigger food quantities than farmers needed. This surplus enabled
food to be supplied to a new, non-farming human population that led to urban life
and civilisation, causing an irreversible division of rural and urban land use, life-
style and mentality. Urban citizens, free from the daily toil of struggling with nature
to produce food, developed new ideas and values such as landscape beauty, a love
v

of nature, and animal welfare. However, these ideas and values are irrevocably tied
to reliable daily nourishment, which depends on rural supply. As the urban pop-
ulation became aware of this, they started to govern farmers’ activities, adjusting
them to urban needs and ideas. This culminated in industrialisation and the rapid
growth of cities, which induced the intensification and technical modernisation of
farming, again conceived by city dwellers, whose standard of living rose to heights
never seen before.
This achievement was also based on rapid advances in science and technology,
which of course also included agriculture and food production. These advances
created new attitudes and values towards fundamental aspects of life. Human rights
and well-being took centre stage, encouraging further population growth and the
greater exploitation of land and its resources. The concept of sustainable devel-
opment, which has gained general consent as shown in several international reso-
lutions, aims to overcome this dilemma.
And yet it takes precise specification to translate this broad, integrative concept
into concrete measures, which also holds for land management: which components,
resources or functions of land are to be managed in which way at a given location?
Since land is finite, its very different qualities renders it necessary to choose sites or
locations that are best suited for the various competing land uses, which are only
compatible in part. These land uses include farming, forestry, settlement,
urban-industrial development, mining, regenerative energy production, nature
conservation, leisure and recreation. Sustainable management should seek to adapt
land use to a site’s qualities, rather than modifying these qualities to suit the land
use. In addition, use intensities must be controlled to mitigate ecological deterio-
ration, which can also be reduced by consciously designing the spatial arrangement
of land uses.
The management of rural land is usually prioritised because it supplies the urban
population with commodities such as food from grain and root crops. Such crops
depend in turn on productive arable soils, and yet these are gradually being dam-
aged by crop farming treatments that need to be applied. Since soils are the most
precious and vulnerable land resource, a resource that cannot be restored, such
negative impacts must be mitigated to the greatest extent possible, particularly since
soils now have a new function—the sequestration of CO2 to combat climate
change.
All these management measures must be organised by adaptive and participatory
governance institutions. It is an enormous challenge that may be helped by the
information and proposals given in this book.
Wolfgang Haber
Technical University of Munich
Freising, Germany
e-mail: haber@wzw.tum.de
vi Foreword

Contents
1 A Knowledge-Based European Perspective on Sustainable
Land Management: Conceptual Approach and Overview
of Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Thomas Weith, Tim Barkmann, Nadin Gaasch, Sebastian Rogga,
Christian Strauß, and Jana Zscheischler
Part I Land-Use: State and Drivers in Europe
2 Landscape Change in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
María García-Martín, Cristina Quintas-Soriano, Mario Torralba,
Franziska Wolpert, and Tobias Plieninger
3 New Trends and Drivers for Agricultural Land
Use in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Dieter Kirschke, Astrid Häger, and Julia Christiane Schmid
4 Demographic Change and Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Jens Hoffmann
5 Urbanisation and Land Use Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Henning Nuissl and Stefan Siedentop
6 Urban-Rural Interrelations—A Challenge for Sustainable
Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Alexandra Doernberg and Thomas Weith
Part II Co-Production of Knowledge
7 Transdisciplinary Research in Land Use Science—Developments,
Criticism and Empirical Findings from Research Practice . . . . . . . 127
Jana Zscheischler
vii

8 Innovations for Sustainable Land Management—A Comparative
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Jana Zscheischler and Sebastian Rogga
9 Knowledge Exchange at Science-Policy Interfaces in the Fields
of Spatial Planning, Land Use and Soil Management: A Swiss
Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Marco Pütz and Regula Brassel
10 Serious Games in Sustainable Land Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Jacqueline Maaß
11 Real-World Laboratories Initiated by Practitioner Stakeholders
for Sustainable Land Management—Characteristics and
Challenges Using the Example of Energieavantgarde Anhalt . . . . . 207
Helga Kanning, Bianca Richter-Harm, Babette Scurrell,
and Özgür Yildiz
12 Knowledge Management for Sustainability: The Spatial
Dimension of Higher Education as an Opportunity
for Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Jens Schulz, Thomas Köhler, and Thomas Weith
13 Transcending the Loading Dock Paradigm—Rethinking
Science-Practice Transfer and Implementation in Sustainable
Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Sebastian Rogga
Part III Co-Evolution: New System Solutions and Governance
14 Small-Scale System Solutions—Material Flow Management
(MFM) in Settlements (Water, Energy, Food, Materials) . . . . . . . . 269
Peter Heck
15 Multifunctional Urban Landscapes: The Potential Role of Urban
Agriculture as an Element of Sustainable Land Management. . . . . 291
Kathrin Specht, Julian Schimichowski, and Runrid Fox-Kämper
16 Integrating Ecosystem Services, Green Infrastructure
and Nature-Based Solutions—New Perspectives in Sustainable
Urban Land Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Dagmar Haase
17 Upcoming Challenges in Land Use Science—An International
Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Christine Fürst
viii Contents

Part IV Outlook
18 Conclusions and Research Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Contents ix

Chapter 1
A Knowledge-Based European
Perspective on Sustainable Land
Management: Conceptual Approach
and Overview of Chapters
Abstract This introductory chapter, written by the editors, provides an overview
of their conceptual approach, the book’s line of argumentation, and an insight into
the different chapters of the book “Sustainable Land Management in a European
Context—a co-design approach”. The synopsis highlights the various approaches
and possible applications of a co-design approach.
Keywords Sustainable land management · Land governance · Co-design ·
Co-production of knowledge · Transdisciplinarity
T. Weith (B)
Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, University of Potsdam, Campus-Golm,
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
e-mail: Thomas.Weith@zalf.de
T. Weith · J. Zscheischler
Working Group “Co-Design of Change and Innovation”, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural
Landscape Research, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
e-mail: Jana.Zscheischler@zalf.de
S. Rogga
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg,
Germany
e-mail: Sebastian.Rogga@zalf.de
N. Gaasch
Science Management and Transfer, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research,
Telegraphenberg A31, 14471 Potsdam, Germany
e-mail: nadin.gaasch@pik-potsdam.de
T. Barkmann · C. Strauß
Research Area “Land Use and Governance”, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research,
Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
e-mail: timbarkmann@gmx.de
C. Strauß
e-mail: Christian_Strauss@gmx.de
© The Author(s) 2021
T. Weith et al. (eds.), Sustainable Land Management in a European Context,
Human-Environment Interactions 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50841-8_1
1

2 T. Weith et al.
1.1 New Conceptual Approaches for New Challenges
Urban and rural landscapes are constantly undergoing processes of change.
Humankind has been influencing the natural environment on earth for centuries,
resulting in different types of land use. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
radical changes in land use (Lambin et al. 2001; Hersperger and Bürgi 2009;
Niewöhner et al. 2016; Jepsen et al. 2015; Plieninger et al. 2016) were brought about
by the “agricultural revolution” and the “industrial revolution”, which presented new
opportunities for mobility and urban development.
Today, international challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, soil
degradation and food security or megatrends such as globalisation processes fuel
discussions about the current land use system and land use policies, as well as future
options. Significant changes have occurred, e.g. natural land has been transformed.
In addition, qualitative aspects such as the loss of ecosystem services in combination
with land degradation is an inconvenient truth.
International bodies such as the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC 2019) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2018) specified changes in land use as one of the key
aspects in debates about sustainability, culminating in the adoption of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) by the United Nations.
Several SDGs include relevant objectives in the policy field of land use. Not only
SDG 15 (Life on Land) covers a wide range of recommendations—SDG 3 (Good
Health and Well-Being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 9 (Industry,
Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and
SDG 13 (Climate Action) also address further important aspects by highlighting a
need for change across sectors. Implementation of these objectives is seen at the
regional and local level, requiring changes of governance processes (Weith et al.
2019).
Looking specifically at cities and urbanised areas, HABITAT III focuses on
resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements. Emphasis is placed on inte-
grated urban and territorial development and new forms of urban governance to
prevent urban sprawl and a further depletion of natural resources. In addition, there
is a need for a balanced approach to the development of urban and rural areas, which
are interdependent. This will indirectly promote the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions and air pollution (Liu et al. 2013). In a nutshell, there is a scientific and
societal need to discuss options and solutions for land use change.
Land use is a complex human-nature interaction, generating diverse cultural land-
scapes influenced to a greater or lesser extent by humankind. In particular, land
used for urban areas and infrastructure puts pressure on ecosystem services due to
continued soil sealing and the fragmentation of landscapes following continuous
land conversion. Consequences occur not only at the local or regional scale—they
are globally interconnected. Consequently, human action accelerates global change,
which in turn has an impact on humankind. Although various partial models have
been developed for different types of land use (e.g. Siedentop et al. 2009; Siedentop

1 A Knowledge-Based European Perspective on Sustainable Land … 3
and Fina 2010; Weber and Höferl 2009; Plieninger et al. 2016; EEA 2017), there is
no accepted model that provides a comprehensive explanation of land use change.
One important factor for land use change is interaction between population and
economic dynamics (cf. Storper and Scott 2009). On a global scale, the population
is increasing, particularly in economically prosperous regions and in metropolitan
areas (UN 2014), putting pressure on the land by using space for settlement activi-
ties. In Europe—the spatial focus of our book—75% of the population live in urban
areas, which is expected to increase to over 80% by 2020 (EEA 2017: 29). Due to
urban–rural linkages, rural areas are likewise affected by this development. Land use
and environmental impacts therefore depend not only on the size of the population,
but also on its spatial distribution (Zasada 2011).
The persistent gap between the sustainability goals and spatial developments that
are noncompliant with those goals raises questions about methods of governance to
ensure compatibility with the goals. At first glance, the land use system in Europe,
includingGermany,seemstobeorganisedwithinsophisticatedlandusepolicyframe-
works, comprising land use planning and impact analysis tools. This assumption
also seems to reinforce the fact that, against the backdrop of the aforementioned, the
annual land use change rate is low relative to the total amount of land (EEA 2017).
However, land use is influenced by a complex interaction of more or less coor-
dinated governance patterns, referring to a variety of sectoral administrative and
disciplinary activities. Quite often, there is no integration of these complex factors.
Although functional perspectives are required, territorial and sectoral powers domi-
nate (Hooghe and Marks 2003; Blatter 2004; Sikor et al. 2013). In 2002, Young
mentioned deficits with respect to fit, interplay and scale that hamper the successful
implementation of sustainable land use strategies, e.g. in settlement development.
He explained governance mismatches as drivers of land use conflicts by referring
to incongruity between ecosystems and institutional arrangements (fit), a lack of
adequateinteractionbetweeninstitutions(interplay),aswellasalackofinterrelations
between temporal and spatial scales.
As yet, there is no integrated approach to land use governance that provides
applicable inter-sectoral governance to handle multi-stakeholder interrelations. In
particular, current land use decisions are based on an insufficient poly-rational under-
standing of actors’ positions (Davy 2012, 85), as well as deficits in knowledge provi-
sion (Salet 2014; Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2015; Giebels et al. 2016). This includes
knowledge gaps, also related to the complexity in land use governance, which is
characterised by high levels of uncertainty (unpredictable developments and inter-
relations), disagreement (conflicting aims and demands) and distributed capacities
(multi-actor landscape) (cf. Hummelbrunner and Jones 2013, 2).
In conclusion, contemporary land use governance systems are characterised by
gaps, mismatches, or other dysfunctionalities that lead to the promotion of unsus-
tainable land use. Above all, integrative land use regulations are lacking, particularly
at the EU level. This deficit can be traced back to path dependencies (Getimis et al.
2014), based on closed disciplinary debates in science that are continued and reflected
by sectoral perspectives in land use governance.

4 T. Weith et al.
It therefore appears necessary to broaden the understanding of the system that
influences land use by elucidating the interrelationships between different land use
sectors, integrating diverse knowledge bases, and intermediating between stake-
holders’ various action patterns (Ison et al. 2013). Besides the need for a better
understanding of land use systems, there is also a need for concrete future action.
We argue that this requires new governance approaches that integrate different
knowledge types and perspectives, and that develop new socio-technical solutions in
a continuous process to narrow the persistent gaps and contribute to more sustainable
land use.
The concept of sustainable land management (SLM) is being increasingly
discussed against this backdrop. “Land management” refers primarily to the
procedural dimension of land use and land development for coordinating spatial,
sectoral and temporal aspects in multi-level governance processes (see Engelke and
Vancutsem 2010: 70). Central aspects include the integration of multi-stakeholder
perspectives by linking ecological, socio-economic and political aspects as well as
intertemporal dimensions (Hurni 2000; Schwilch et al. 2012). Management includes
reconfigurations of the set of instruments as well as “technological, political and
legal measures and activities” (Haber et al. 2010, 378–379). Land management takes
into account interactions among different land use types and land-related sectors,
explicitly incorporating rural and urban demands as well as economic, social and
ecosystem functions of land. It is suggested as a framework to provide system-
oriented solutions for dealing with land use conflicts (Repp and Weith 2015). In
this regard, land management is strongly linked to debates on environmental and
landscape governance (EEA 2017).
Understanding and managing land resources on a landscape level calls for
systemic knowledge of the diverse actor groups that influence land use, and a coherent
approach towards possible sustainable futures and adequate measures. This cannot be
provided by science alone because normative aspects play a decisive role. It is there-
forecrucialforsustainablelandmanagementtointegrateandutilisedifferentperspec-
tives and knowledge types from academia and practice. To that effect, we advocate
a conception of SLM that refers to ongoing debates on new “modes” of knowledge
production, reflecting the demand of real-world problem orientation, actor orienta-
tion and implementation (Zscheischler and Rogga 2015). In this context, co-design
processes can be considered as a central instrument of SLM with different applica-
tions and purposes: starting at the co-design of just and acceptable processes, through
the co-production of knowledge to the co-design of socially robust orientations and
solutions (Moser 2016; Mauser et al. 2013).
Based on the challenges, state and drivers of land use trends in Europe described
above, the central question is how to produce and handle new knowledge about land
management to create innovative and actionable solutions towards sustainability. One
special focus of this book is therefore co-design- processes and the co-production of
knowledge to foster new modes of land use governance.
The book is organised following the “co-design and co-creation” concept as
proposed by Mauser et al. (2013) as part of the sustainability discourse. It deals with

the role and significance of different actors and their inclusion in (political) plan-
ning processes, emphasised for more than a decade in institutionalist approaches
(cf. Ostrom 2011). Particular attention is paid to the knowledge stocks of these
actors, including their experience-based knowledge (co-production of knowledge).
This knowledge is not only used for a better understanding of problems and starting
situations, but also to prepare and implement decision processes. Thus, implementa-
tion orientation plays a special role. All this takes place in the highly complex context
of spatial and landscape development organised in a multi-level system (Reimer et al.
2014).
Co-design processes are increasingly assessed in science with regard to their
effects in decision-making processes. It is assumed that co-design processes can
raise acceptance because of their integrational and participative nature (Busse and
Siebert 2018) and can support the development and implementation of social inno-
vations. That is why they play an important role in the discussion about change and
transition processes (Tschakert et al. 2016). At the same time, they are associated
with developing action possibilities for stakeholders and increasing the resilience
of decisions. In consequence, co-design approaches are much more than “simple”
participation processes, which have been known for a long time and in some cases
are applied in a formalised way (e.g. Arnstein 1969). They also go beyond the mere
application of learning loops or transdisciplinary concepts.
We therefore stress the early and ongoing involvement of a broad variety of actors
in solution-oriented processes that take up the role as knowledge providers along-
side academic and technical experts. Ideally, the process consists of three steps:
the analysis of the state and drivers of change; the co-design and co-production of
knowledge; and the co-evolution and co-dissemination of that knowledge. We argue
that the comprehensive approach to sustainable land management should follow this
concept, and take up these three steps.
To conclude, the book is based on the assumption that successful—and hence
sustainable—landmanagement(SLM)requiresroutinesofknowledgeco-production
to put sustainable land use into practice. It thus refers to ongoing debates on new
“modes” of science, which stress problem orientation, action, and negotiation of
research activities—as it is highlighted in the following chapters.
1.2 Overview of the Main Parts and the Single Chapters
The book starts with a foreword and this introductory overview. The main body is
subdivided accordingly into three main parts:
• “Land use: state and drivers in Europe”,
• “Co-production of knowledge”, and
• “Co-evolution: New system solutions and governance”.
• The book closes with a concluding and summarising “Outlook”.

6 T. Weith et al.
The chapters in part one focus on the development of different forms of land use
as a result of the interplay between societal demands on land and physical-ecological
conditions. Society is in a situation of ongoing changes and developments. Impor-
tant framing factors are the social and economic system, population development
and economic driving forces, urbanisation and spatial interrelations. These factors
influence the development of regions and landscapes with their infrastructure, agri-
culture in its respective intensity, forestry in form and extent, the use of resources and
raw materials as well as the preservation of specific landscapes and their character-
istics. The chapters in part one highlight these interlinkages and provide overviews
and current states and drivers of land use change, as well as describing any lack of
knowledge.
The chapter on Landscape change in Europe by García-Martín, Quintas-Soriano,
Torralba, Wolpert and Plieninger provides a first introductory overview of the evolu-
tion and change of landscapes throughout history. In this emerging research field
on landscape change in Europe, the authors explain why these changes happen, and
what they fully entail. They embed the evolution of landscapes in an understanding of
complex social-ecological systems and the drivers behind them. In consequence, they
gain a better understanding of complex, dynamic and interlinked change processes
that are characterised inter alia by environmental degradation and increased land use
conflicts. While considering these challenges, the authors provide guidance for co-
designed sustainable landscape management. The results are based on a combination
of quantitative analysis with participatory approaches on the one hand, and diverse
spatial and temporal scales on the other to achieve a comprehensive understanding
of past changes and future trajectories.
From an economic point of view, land is a limited and scarce natural resource
that faces competing and rising demands. These demands refer to different types of
land use, such as agriculture, nature and natural resource protection, industrial areas,
human settlements and infrastructure. Land use conflicts have evolved and are driven
by various factors. Based on a previous study, Kirschke et al. focus on the economic
aspects of sustainable land management in the chapter about New trends and drivers
for agricultural land use in Germany. This chapter provides an overview of the
main economic drivers of land use change in Europe, bringing together theoretical
approaches from regional economics, economic geography, agricultural economics,
environmental and resource economics, and infrastructure planning. New develop-
ments in agricultural land use in Germany are analysed based on general land use
trends. Indicators for agricultural land use changes that create conflicts include rising
land prices, deteriorating environmental conditions and changing land use structures.
The authors describe major drivers behind this development, which basically reflect
market forces and new policy frameworks such as the Renewable Energy Act (REA)
and particularities related to German reunification.
Besides economic pressure, demographic change is described as one of the central
factors of human influence on land use change. But does demographic change really
contribute directly to land use change? Do changes in population size and composi-
tion directly affect changes in land use? Hoffmann reflects in his chapter on Demo-
graphic change and land use the questions of (a) whether and to what degree clear

correlations between demographic change and observable land use changes could be
found in the existing literature, and (b) what the result of the literature review means
for regional studies and regional development policies. The chapter contributes to a
more evidence-based view of the topic, helping to avoid misleading simplifications
and even myths on interlinkages that often influence concepts, values and decisions
in politics and policies shaping land use.
Urbanisation is seen as one of the major driving forces of today’s land use systems.
This phenomenon involves the usually irreversible conversion of mainly agricultural
land. Urban land use change can occur in quite different forms in terms of spatial
layout, building density and speed of change, to name but a few aspects. The global
dimension of urbanisation and related land use change is now on the agenda of
policy-makers and researchers worldwide. To provide an overview of these complex
processes, Nuissl and Siedentop endeavour in their chapter on Urbanisation and land
usechangetoachieveconceptualclarification,highlightingdriversandimpacts.They
provide a systematic overview of influencing instruments and strategies for coping
with urban land use change.
In contrast to the urbanisation focus of the previous chapter, Doernberg and Weith
seek to expand the view towards an urban–rural interrelations perspective. Urban and
rural regions are no longer seen as distinct places, but as functionally connected in
the context of the sustainable use of land-related resources, quite often with blurring
boundaries. In recent years, both scientific and societal discourses have given new
impetus to this thematic debate. At the same time, it becomes quite obvious that there
are currently no conceptual approaches available that are comprehensive in terms
of content, and can capture the complexity of regional urban–rural interrelation-
ships. In consequence, concepts are missing to provide practical support for regional
planning and regional development policies. The chapter on Urban–rural interrela-
tions outlines the existing approaches, and highlights opportunities for developing
new concepts, especially by defining requirements of new concepts to overcome the
shortcomings of models currently in place in science and practice.
The chapters in part two “Co-production of knowledge” explain and discuss
explicit ways of knowledge co-production and co-dissemination to foster sustain-
able land management. In recent years, new ways of integrative knowledge genera-
tion have been developed and applied to find new solutions to complex real-world
problems. This includes land use issues, starting with problem definition through
identifying and describing land use conflicts to developing new land governance
processes. The involvement of various actor groups, such as political and admin-
istrative decision-makers, is an immanent part of the co-design and co-production
process. Especially transdisciplinary approaches, translated into the field of land
use sciences, are seen as adequate methodological ways to be tested and imple-
mented in the context of land use challenges. They also show great promise for
creating social innovation processes. Various forms of simulation games and real-
world labs are being discussed to support creative ways of handling new challenges
in land use. Quite often, these knowledge production processes are supported by new
ways of knowledge management, implementation and transfer, using the manifold
opportunities offered by digitalisation processes.

8 T. Weith et al.
The first chapter in this part explains additional values of transdisciplinary
approaches for solving land use problems against the backdrop of urgent complex
real-world challenges and changed societal demands on knowledge. In Transdisci-
plinarity in land use sciences, Zscheischler states that transdisciplinarity is no longer
just about the production of new scientific insights, but also about the solution-
oriented goal and action knowledge that support sustainable development and land
management.However,theextenttowhichtheseprojectshavesucceededhasincreas-
ingly been critically questioned in recent years. The chapter introduces the devel-
opment of the concept on transdisciplinary research (TDR), describes the current
criticism of TDR and presents a critical assessment based on empirical findings from
research practice. The results reveal several unsolved implementation challenges
that can be traced back to a misfit with academic structures and a lack of empirical
knowledge.
Fordecades,fosteringinnovationswasseenasakeyapproachforproblemsolving,
also in sustainable development. Socio-technological change and transformations
should lead to more sustainable land use practices. However, new perspectives on
innovation emerge when addressing long-term societal goals, the variety of actor
groups involved, multi-level governance and a lack of usual commercialisation poten-
tials. Sustainability innovations frequently contradict social practices, regulations
and existing infrastructure, and focus on social innovation processes. Since there is
little understanding of how transformation and socio-technological change can be
effectively governed and supported in the specific field of sustainable land use and
management, the chapter contributes specifically to this knowledge gap. In Innova-
tions for sustainable land management, Zscheischler and Rogga refer to nine projects
that address that specific issue. The authors identify different types and degrees of
innovations, approaches to manage innovation processes, and the leverage points of
these solutions in the governance system of sustainable land management. The results
stress the need for reflexive processes of social learning and cognitive reframing
by embedding experimental innovation management approaches such as real-world
laboratories into larger transdisciplinary and participatory processes.
One of the key aspects in change and innovation processes is quite often underes-
timated or misunderstood: how to transmit knowledge from one actor to another. In
the article on Knowledge exchange at science-policy inter-faces in spatial planning,
land use and soil management, Pütz and Brassel investigate this topic in detail in the
context of land use change. Based on literature review and expert interviews, they
identify six types of knowledge exchange and examine barriers and opportunities for
knowledge exchange. This offers a better understanding of processes, and provides
suggestions for knowledge exchange activities. However, this will be a challenging
task for the future, due to actors’ different expectations and experiences of how
knowledge is to be exchanged.
Knowledge-driven change and innovation processes will be supported by new
integrative methodological approaches. Maaß addresses this in her chapter entitled
Serious games in sustainable land management by the using the method of exper-
imental games. She presents an integrated approach that combines a serious game
with a land use and transport model for analysing the effects of high prices for fossil

fuels on land use. This approach opens up the possibility to simulate the complexity
of sustainable land management and to incorporate learning aspects for decision-
makers. Participants in the serious game came from the Hamburg Metropolitan
Region. The decision-makers attended several meetings to develop their individual
strategies on how to cope with rising energy prices.
Beyond simulation, it has always been a great challenge to test and imple-
ment sustainability-driven processes of change and innovation. Real-world labo-
ratories have gained in importance as an adequate research format in recent years in
Europe and especially in Germany. The underlying assumption is that transformation
processes towards sustainability can be investigated under real-world conditions in
order to gain knowledge of their dynamics, to identify characteristics of successful
transformation processes, and to be able to transfer this knowledge to other cases. The
chapter by Kanning, Richter-Harm, Scurrell and Yildiz entitled Real-world laborato-
ries initiated by practitioner stakeholders for sustainable land management analyses
existing types of real-world labs, and reflects on the possibilities generated by real-
world laboratories that have been initiated by practitioner stakeholders. “Energiea-
vantgarde Anhalt” provides evidence for such labs, which contributes to sustainable
land management in the context of the energy transition in rural areas, featuring
small and medium-sized towns. The practicability and variability of real-world lab
approaches pave the way for future options for application.
Another dimension of transitions is highlighted in the chapter on Knowledge
management for sustainability: The spatial dimension of higher education as an
opportunity for land management by Schulz, Köhler and Weith. In this case, digi-
talisation offers new opportunities for knowledge creation and dissemination, which
are an essential part of sustainable land management. Digitalisation will support
collaborative activities related to land use, bringing together diverse interests and
help detect new patterns of cooperation. These developments will also have conse-
quences for knowledge spaces and the institutional and personnel knowledge carriers
established within them. The chapter outlines these consequences in the context of
higher education research. Concepts from both domains—higher education and land
management—are combined in a fruitful way, facilitating new interpretations of
spatial and digital artefacts as well as debates about knowledge dissemination.
In recent years, the modes of knowledge transfer from science to society, and vice
versa, have been changing. Our traditional understanding of scientific knowledge
transfer in the form of unidirectional modes of communication is supplemented
by new ways of knowledge exchange and knowledge production. As such, the
notion of transfer and implementation should be discussed with a new focus in
mind. Based on a framework for transfer and implementation activities in transdis-
ciplinary research settings, Rogga discusses specific paths of knowledge dissem-
ination, and especially of knowledge transfer, in his article on Transcending the
loading dock paradigm—rethinking science-practice transfer and implementation in
sustainable land management. He discusses the systemic understanding of transfer
and implementation regarding unidirectional approaches, and provides definitions
for transfer and implementation in sustainable land management. He recommends

10 T. Weith et al.
taking a deeper look into knowledge management and considering what it means for
sustainable land use management.
In part three Co-evolution: new system solutions and governance, the authors
suggest and discuss various ways to integrate co-design and co-production
approaches into applicable as well as integrative concepts, instruments and measures.
In the cases outlined, system solutions are a result of co-design and co-production
processes that demonstrate the complexity of interaction and competing targets.
Starting with embedded change projects, a description is given of small-scale
system solutions that combine settlement development, water, and energy supply.
Second, the new approach of urban agriculture combines different fields of action in
cities, such as urban land use policy, development of open spaces, food security and
social integration. Third, conceptual improvements reflect on the functional aspects
of ecosystem services and the development of green infrastructure. The chapter ends
with a broad discussion about upcoming challenges in land use science.
Changes towards meeting the ambitious 2030 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) demand new systemic approaches to resource management. Material Flow
Management (MFM) is regarded as a vital tool for complex systems. Heck explains
in the chapter entitled Small-scale system solutions—material flow management in
settlements how MFM will contribute to the protection of land, the conversion of
abandoned land and upcycling of degraded land. He demonstrates the usefulness of
the concept, despite its relative novelty, by showing practical applications of MFM
in small-scale systems characterised by decentralised material and energy flows. The
chapter pays special attention to augmenting source and sink capacity, employing
MFM to reduce impacts on ecosystems both upstream and downstream, i.e. on the
use of resources as well as on the amount of emissions.
Specht, Schimichowski and Fox-Kämper illustrate another applicable concept.
They focus on a concept that combines urban and rural potentials of co-production of
goods as a (business) model in the chapter on Multifunctional urban landscapes: The
potential role of urban agriculture as an element of sustainable land management.
They explore how urban agriculture can contribute to sustainable land management
and co-production. To this end, background information is given on the (re-)emerging
phenomenon of urban food production and on what motivates those involved to
implement collaborative practices. The functions and services provided by urban
agriculture as an element of sustainable land management are explored using the
three pillars of sustainability. It is shown that urban agriculture may reduce land use
conflicts, and support new social activities for saving and qualifying open spaces.
In recent years, new scientific concepts for the assessment, and hence develop-
ment, of ecosystems have also been established in science and land use planning.
In the chapter on Integrating ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-
based solutions, Haase includes three perspectives for developing new solutions to
save urban nature as a habitat for humans, flora and fauna. Complementary paths to
increased urban sustainability are shown, combining knowledge for action. Nonethe-
less, implementation is still a long way off, and there are also unsolved issues, such
as the social inclusiveness of the three approaches.

Part three closes with a chapter on Upcoming challenges in land use science—
an international perspective by Fürst. This chapter complements and extends the
discussion on important concepts such as multifunctionality and social-ecological
frameworks applied in land use science. The author also reflects on current political
debates and challenges in terms of methodological aspects, actor involvement and
project designs—in the context of sustainable land management. Future research
topics related to the UN Sustainable Development Goals are raised, along with
proposals for advancing land use science. As a future perspective, Fürst discusses
how the co-development of knowledge and the co-design of land use system research
could be conceived.
An Outlook is given in the final chapter of the book, entitled Conclusions and
research perspectives. Here, the editors reflect on the different aspects of knowledge
based on sustainable land management. They develop an integrative view on the
topic and point out options for improving in particular the science-policy interface
in the European context.
Acknowledgements This book would not have possible without the dedicated work of many
committed supporters. First of all, we thank the German Funding Agency BMBF Ministry of
Education and Research and the project management agency PTJ for their financial and adminis-
trative support in the context of the Scientific Accompanying Research Project “Sustainable Land
Management (module B)” (FKZ 033L004). We are also very grateful to all of the contributing
authors. Special thanks go to Petra Koeppe and Alice Baumgärtner as well as to Teresa Gehrs
(Lingua Connect) and agrathaer for helping us finalise the book. Last but not least, we thank the
Springer team for their support and patience.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). The ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners., 35(4), 216–224.
Blatter, J. (2004). From ‘spaces of place’ to ‘spaces of flows’? Territorial and functional gover-
nance in cross-border regions in Europe and North America. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 28(3), 530–548.
Busse, M., & Siebert, R. (2018). Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and system-
atic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability. Land Use Policy,
76, 235–245.
Davy, B. (2012). Land policy: Planning and the spatial consequences of property. Farnham,
Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
EEA. (2017). Landscapes in transition. An account of 25 years of land cover change in Europe.
EEA Report No 10/2017: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/landscapes-in-transition/at_
download/file.
Engelke, D., & Vancutsem, D. (2010). Sustainable land use management in Europe. Lyon: Providing
strategies and tools for decision-makers.
Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2015). Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for
urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany.
Environmental Science and Policy, Online First.

12 T. Weith et al.
Getimis, P., Reimer, M., & Blotevogel, H. (2014). Conclusion: Multiple trends of continuity and
change. In: M. Reimer & H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe.
London and New York: Routledge.
Giebels, D., van Buuren, A., & Edelenbos, J. (2016). Knowledge governance for ecosystem-based
management: Understanding its context-dependency. Environmental Science and Policy, 55, 424–
435.
Haber, W., Bückmann, W., & Endres, E. (2010). Anpassung des Landmanagements in Europa an
den Klimawandel. Natur und Recht, 32, 377–383.
Hersperger, A. M., & Bürgi, M. (2009). Going beyond landscape change description: Quantifying
the importance of driving forces of landscape change in a Central Europe case study. Land Use
Policy, 26, 640–648.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the Central State, but how? Types of multi-level
governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.
Hummelbrunner, R., & Jones, J. (2013). A guide for planning and strategy development in the face
of complexity. ODI Background Notes. [Online] Available from: https://www.odi.org/publicati
ons/7325-aid-development-planning-strategy-complexity. Accessed on May 26, 2016.
Hurni, H. (2000). Assessing sustainable land management (SLM). Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 81, 83–92.
IPBES/Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., & Brainich, A. (Eds.). (2018). The IPBES assessment report
on land degradation and restoration. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, pp. 744.
IPCC. (2019). Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertifica-
tion, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes
in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-
Compiled-191128.pdf.
Ison, R., Blackmore, C., & Iaquinto, B. L. (2013). Towards systemic and adaptive governance:
Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors.
Ecological Economics, 87, 34–42.
Jepsen, M., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, P., Haberl, H., et al. (2015). Transitions
in European Land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy, 49, 53–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003
Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Geist, H. J., Agbola, S. J., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J. W., et al. (2001).
The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental
Change, 11(4), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3
Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., et al. (2013). Framing sustainability in
a telecoupled world. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05873-180226
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H.
(2013).Transdisciplinaryglobal change research: The co-creationofknowledge forsustainability.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431.
Moser, S. C. (2016). Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20, 106–115.
Niewöhner, J., Bruns, A., Hostert, P., Krueger, T., Nielsen, J. Ø, Haberl, H., et al. (Eds.). (2016).
Land use competition. Switzerland: Springer.
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy
Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x.
Plieninger, T., Draux, H., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., Bürgi, M., Kizos, T., et al. (2016). The driving
forces of landscape change in Europe: A systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy, 57,
204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040
Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. (2014). Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe.
Taylor and Francis.
Repp, A., & Weith, Th. (2015). Building bridges across sectors and scales: Exploring systemic
solutions towards a sustainable management of land. Land, 4, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land4020325

Salet, W. (2014). The authenticity of spatial planning knowledge. European Planning Studies, 22,
293–305.
Schwilch, G., Bachmann, F., Valente, S., Coelho, C., Moreira, J., Laouina, A., et al. (2012).
A structured multi-stakeholder learning process for sustainable land management. Journal of
Environmental Management, 107, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.023
Siedentop, S., Junesch, R., Straßer, M., Zakrzewski, P., Samaniego, L., & Weinert, J. (2009).
Einflussfaktoren der Neuinanspruchnahme von Flächen. Bonn: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und
Raumordnung.
Siedentop, S., & Fina, S. (2010). Monitoring urban sprawl in Germany: Towards a GIS-based
measurement and assessment approach. Journal of Land Use Science, 5, 73–104.
Sikor,T.,Auld,G.,Bebbington,A.J.,Benjaminsen,T.A.,Gentry,B.S.,Hunsberger,C.,etal.(2013).
Global land governance: From territory to flow? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
5, 522–527.
Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (2009). Rethinking human capital, creativity and urban growth. Journal
of Economic Geography., 9(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbn052
Tschakert, P., Tuana, N., Westskog, H., Koelle, B., & Afrika, A. (2016). TCHANGE: the role of
values and visioning in transformation science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
20, 21–25.
UN. (2014). World urbanisation prospects—United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division (2014).
Weber, G., & Höferl, K.-M. (2009). Schrumpfung als Aufgabe der Raumplanung – eine
Annäherung aus Österreichischer Sicht. In Th. Weith (Ed.), Alles Metropole? (pp. 121–129).
Berlin-Brandenburg zwischen Hauptstadt: Hinterland und Europa. Planungsrundschau. Kassel.
Weith, Th., Warner, B., & Susman, R. (2019). Implementation of international land use objectives—
Discussions in Germany. Planning Practice and Research, 34(4), 454–474.
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change. Fit, Interplay, and
Scale. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Zasada, I. (2011). Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—A review of societal demands and the
provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy, 28, 639–648.
Zscheischler, J., & Rogga, S. (2015). Transdisciplinarity in land use science—a review of concepts,
empirical findings and current practices. Futures, 65, 28–44.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

Part I
Land-Use: State and Drivers in Europe

Chapter 2
Landscape Change in Europe
María García-Martín, Cristina Quintas-Soriano, Mario Torralba,
Franziska Wolpert, and Tobias Plieninger
Abstract The study of the evolution and change of landscapes’ ecological condi-
tions through history has fascinated professional and amateur scientists for centuries.
However, the understanding of why these changes happen and what these changes
fully entail is still an emerging field of research, which nowadays broadly covers
the study of the evolution of landscapes as complex social-ecological systems. This
field has become particularly relevant in the current context of rapid global change,
widespread environmental degradation and increasing land use conflicts, as an impor-
tant source of information to facilitate sustainable landscape management. In this
chapter, we provide an overview of the current state of landscape change research
in Europe and of the main findings and methodological challenges therein. These
methodological challenges are bound up with the complex, dynamic and interlinked
nature of landscapes, which require co-designed approaches that combine different
perspectives, such as quantitative analysis with participatory approaches, and that
capture diverse spatial and temporal scales. Together, these make it possible to
achieve a comprehensive understanding of past changes and future trajectories.
Keywords Land use and land cover change · Intensification · Abandonment ·
Drivers of change · Transdisciplinary approaches
M. García-Martín · T. Plieninger (B)
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Platz
der Göttinger Sieben 5, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
e-mail: plieninger@uni-kassel.de
M. García-Martín
e-mail: maria.garcia-martin@uni-goettingen.de
C. Quintas-Soriano · M. Torralba · F. Wolpert · T. Plieninger
Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen,
Germany
e-mail: cristina.quintas@uni-kassel.de
M. Torralba
e-mail: mario.torralba@uni-kassel.de
F. Wolpert
e-mail: franziska.wolpert@uni-kassel.de
17

18 M. García-Martín et al.
2.1 Introduction
Landscapes are dynamic; the use of the land is in constant change as societal aspi-
rations and natural conditions evolve. The ever-growing human capacity to modify
landscapes raises concerns about the consequences these changes will bring for
humans’ and nature’s well-being. Knowing more about land use patterns, rates of
land use change and the drivers behind them are all important in preventing and
reducing tensions between conflicting land uses, predicting future scenarios, devel-
oping strategies to achieve more desirable futures and designing adequate policies.
In Europe, the study of landscape changes is currently developing rather vividly, in
part driven by initiatives by the Council of Europe and the European Union. Here,
we refer to “landscape change” as an umbrella concept for the different forms of land
use change and land cover change.
In this chapter, we present an overview of landscape change research developed
in Europe, focusing on meta-studies, case-study research and cross-site comparison
studies of European landscapes that identify processes and trajectories in land use
changes and the driving forces behind them. This chapter is organised into five
sections: Sect. 2.2 an introduction to the current state of landscape change research
in Europe, where we also present the studies included in this overview; Sects. 2.3,
2.4 and 2.5 a review of the main findings of these studies on the trends, drivers and
future scenarios of landscape change; and Sect. 2.6 a summary of research gaps and
possible ways forward for landscape research towards sustainable land management.
2.2 Landscape Change Research in Europe
In Europe, landscape research dates back to the nineteenth century, when Alexander
von Humboldt (1769–1859) and Carl Ritter (1779–1859) introduced the term “land-
scape” (Landschaft in German) as a scientific concept (Kirchhoff et al. 2013). Since
then it has developed as a vibrant field of study, particularly after the beginning of the
twenty-first century, when the German geographer Carl Troll (1899–1975) coined
the term “landscape ecology” to examine the reciprocal interactions between social
and ecological processes (Turner 2005). At a political level, landscape research has
received increasing attention since the 1970s. It was at this time that environmental
sustainability concerns gained momentum and became a target of United Nations
development programmes, and scholars and policymakers realised the need to over-
come the shortcomings of single-sector policies and management strategies, which
prompted the adoption of the “landscape approach” (Sayer et al. 2013). One of the
milestones in the inclusion of the landscape approach in the political agenda was the
European Landscape Convention, in which landscapes were defined as the result of
the interaction of natural and human factors (Council of Europe 2000).
Overall, there have been concerns that landscape changes are of such magnitude
that societies can no longer accept them without putting landscape sustainability

2 Landscape Change in Europe 19
at risk (Antrop 2005; Bürgi et al. 2017; Plieninger et al. 2016). According to this
perspective, understanding the causes, processes and outcomes of landscape change
is becoming absolutely crucial (Plieninger et al. 2016). For this reason, landscape
change research has become an emerging field, in which quantitative approaches to
measure the expansion or decline of different land covers and changes in land use
intensity have coevolved with more qualitative studies that have tried to understand
what is driving such changes. More specifically, landscape researchers argue that
being aware of and understanding the rates and patterns of change, as well as the
driving forces behind them is necessary for context-specific and effective policy-
making and for taking action towards more sustainable land management (Jepsen
et al. 2015; Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Levers et al. 2015). Here, we understand “sus-
tainable land management” as a multidimensional and evolving concept, in which
a diverse range of stakeholders are involved and where ecological, economic and
social aspects need to be integrated; this means that no single definition is explanatory
enough (Weith et al. 2013). Such knowledge on the trends and drivers of landscape
change contributes to exploring and mitigating trade-offs and impacts on biodiver-
sity and ecosystem services. These trade-offs result from land management practices
(Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Levers et al. 2015) in the context of increasing competition
for land for multiple and sometimes incompatible uses (Levers et al. 2016; Pérez-
Soba et al. 2015; Verkerk et al. 2018). Finally, a comprehensive understanding of
how and why landscapes have changed facilitates the anticipation and projection of
possible future scenarios, which in turn may be used to develop land management
strategies and policy decisions to avoid undesirable futures (van Vliet et al. 2015;
Verkerk et al. 2018).
The study of landscape change can be broadly divided into: (1) land cover change
and (2) land use and management intensity change (Erb 2012; Levers et al. 2015).
Land cover change is understood as the “alterations of biophysical characteristics
of the Earth’s surface”, such as the spreading of forests or the reduction of agri-
cultural land; while land use and management intensity change are defined as the
“changes in the levels of socioeconomic inputs (e.g., labour, resources, water, energy
or capital) and/or altered outputs (value or quantity) per unit area and time” (Erb
2012, p. 8). Erb (2012) and Verburg et al. (2013a) suggested that the former has
been more commonly studied due to the availability of land cover datasets and the
methodological challenge of quantifying and understanding land use intensity and
intensification processes. However, in the past decade, the study of intensification
processes has become a significant topic (e.g. Levers et al. 2014, 2016). In addi-
tion to that, substantial research has focused on identifying drivers of change to
understand why landscapes change or remain unchanged, why they evolve faster or
slower and to identify the causal mechanisms of regime shifts (Kizos et al. 2018).
Studies typically differentiate between proximate drivers—i.e. the human actions
that have a direct effect on the landscape changes; and underlying drivers—i.e. the
social and ecological factors that trigger those human actions (van Vliet et al. 2015).
In recent years, the study of landscape change has further broadened to identify
patterns of landscape stability (i.e. land cover types that remain unchanged over
a certain period; Lieskovský and Bürgi 2018) and their related stabilising factors.

This knowledge can help to protect and manage valuable landscapes in a rapidly
changing world and regulate undesirable land use changes (Lieskovský and Bürgi
2018). Finally, there has been a focus on analysing how current trends would evolve
in the future under different political, environmental and socioeconomic scenarios
(Verburg et al. 2013a; Stürck et al. 2018; Verkerk et al. 2018). In this sense, the imple-
mentation of transdisciplinary projects has been discussed as a promising approach
in land use science in order to address complex multifaceted “real-world problems”
and to design strategies and solutions for sustainable development (Zscheischler
et al. 2017). Transdisciplinary approaches are defined as a collaborative process of
knowledge production that involves scientists from different disciplines and societal
actors to address highly complex, real-world problems (e.g. Pohl 2008; Wickson
et al. 2006). Transdisciplinary research has become a widespread research approach
in sustainability science and is increasingly promoted by research programmes and
agencies (e.g. Future Earth). It can develop collaborative research approaches in land
use science to bring promising means of initiating change in the current course of
action (Zscheischler et al. 2017).
The study of agricultural and forestry changes has become particularly exhaus-
tive, not only because agriculture and forestry are the most extensive land cover
types in Europe, but also because they have significant impacts on the provision of a
wide range of services (regulating, provisioning and cultural) (van Vliet et al. 2015)
and on the environment at large (Levers et al. 2016). The study of agricultural and
forestry intensification has gained attention (Levers et al. 2014, 2016; van der Sluis
et al. 2016) under the assumption that knowledge on the processes and trade-offs of
intensification is necessary to mitigate its negative impacts in a context of rapidly
changing resource demand (Erb 2012; van der Sluis et al. 2016). While some areas
faceprocesses of intensification, landusedisintensificationandabandonment arealso
important landscape change processes occurring in Europe (Plieninger et al. 2016).
“Disintensification” refers to changes to reduce the intensity of land management
and the contraction of agricultural land, including abandonment (see van Vliet et al.
2015); while “abandonment” describes the abandonment of any area previously used
for agricultural purposes, including croplands and grazing areas (see Benayas et al.
2007). Both intensification and its counterpart have important social and ecolog-
ical consequences, and have become equally important in sustainable landscape
management research (Alcantara et al. 2012; Levers et al. 2016; Plieninger et al.
2014).
Considering the different objectives and questions addressed, Bürgi et al. (2017)
identified three main approaches to landscape change research:
• Local case studies to grasp the specifics of a place and its development, which
is essential for the systematic understanding of local changes. Research usually
takes place via oral history interviews, local texts and historical maps (e.g. Bürgi
et al. 2017; Lieskovský and Bürgi 2018).
• Large-scale analyses to search for the main trends and processes over large areas
using European spatial and statistical data analysis (e.g. Kuemmerle et al. 2016)
and broad-scale narratives (e.g. Jepsen et al. 2015).

• Meta-analyses and overview publications to identify general patterns within the
case studies on how specific landscape characteristics and socioeconomic circum-
stances in combination with potential driving forces can lead to predictable change
(e.g. van Vliet et al. 2015).
In the next section, we present an overview of the findings of 18 studies on recent
major landscape change trends and driving forces at the European level (from a few
decades to 200 years). These studies have been carried out taking a pan-European
approach, including both European large-scale analysis studies and meta-analysis
of case studies (see Table 2.1). These studies were performed within two collabora-
tive projects sponsored by the EU—HERCULES (Sustainable Futures for Europe’s
Heritage in Cultural Landscapes) and VOLANTE (Visions of land use transitions in
Europe). Both projects share many features with the BMBF’s Programme on Sustain-
able Land Management, such as in taking a systems perspective on landscapes, in
investigating the links between land management and ecosystem services and in
creating actionable knowledge for land use policy and practice.
2.3 Trends in Land Use and Land Cover Change
A recent large-scale analysis of land use changes in Europe between 1990 and 2006
undertaken by Kuemmerle et al. (2016) serves as an appropriate starting point to
introduce this section. The current composition of land cover types in Europe is
dominated by agricultural land (representing 41.1% of the territory, mainly dedicated
to arable land, permanent crops and grassland), followed by forest land (32.6%)
and unused or abandoned land (15.8%), leaving the remaining land to urban and
industrial areas and infrastructure (Eurostat 2017). The main land cover change in
recent decades identified in this study is a decrease in croplands, followed by an
expansion of areas covered by pastures and forests (partly due to the aforementioned
decrease in crop production) and, to a lesser extent, by an increase in urban land
(Fig. 2.1; Kuemmerle et al. 2016). The most dramatic declines in croplands were
found in the east of Europe and the Mediterranean, while some hotspots for their
expansion were found in areas of the Netherlands, Germany, France and Ireland
(Kuemmerle et al. 2016). The expansion of urban land happened mainly around
capital cities and along the Mediterranean coast (Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Levers
et al. 2015).
Interestingly, in contrast to the widespread perception that landscapes have been
undergoing intense transformation in Europe, Levers et al. (2015) and Kuemmerle
et al. (2016) identified stability in land cover as one of the most common recent trajec-
tories, particularly in Central, Western and Northern Europe. Lieskovský and Bürgi
(2018) carried out a study of the persistence of the land cover across Europe since
1900 (Fig. 2.2) and found that the most persistent land covers were forests and settle-
ments (about 80% of the 1900-era forest cover and settlement areas were persistent),
while grasslands and croplands were the most dynamic and least persistent ones.

Table 2.1 Studies synthesised in this chapter
Study Approach Major contribution to landscape
change research in Europe
Alcantara et al. (2012) Large-scale analysis
(Eastern Europe)
Advanced research methods for
mapping abandoned agricultural
land at broad scales by using
coarse-resolution satellite
imagery and plant phenology
data. It also provided some
insights into agricultural
abandonment trends in Eastern
Europe
Prishchepov et al. (2012) Large-scale analysis
(Eastern Europe)
Used the case of the collapse of
socialism in Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union as a
natural experiment to
investigate whether the rates of
agricultural land abandonment
responded to different types of
institutional changes, based on
multi-seasonal Landsat
TM/ETMC satellite images
Griffith et al. (2013) Large-scale analysis Assessed agricultural land
change in the Carpathian
ecoregion from 1985 to 2010,
using Landsat imagery
Verburg et al. (2013b) Review Provided an overview of current
research practices in landscape
assessments and advocated a
land use change research
approach that would not only
focus on dominant land covers,
but also on the landscape
structure and composition, and
its importance for the
functioning of the landscape
Levers et al. (2014) Large-scale analysis Compiled time series of
sub-national forest harvesting
intensity patterns in Europe
from 2000 to 2010 and
quantified the influence of a
wide set of biophysical,
infrastructure-related and
socioeconomic variables in
shaping these patterns
(continued)

Table 2.1 (continued)
Munteanu et al. (2014) Meta-analysis Analysed broad landscape
change configurations and
processes over the past
250 years as well as the
underlying drivers. This
meta-analysis covered the
Carpathian region, using 102
case studies from 66
publications
Plieninger et al. (2014) Meta-analysis
(Mediterranean Basin)
Examined the consequences of
land use abandonment on
biodiversity in the
Mediterranean Basin and found
that the directions and
intensities of response in species
richness and abundance to land
abandonment were
heterogeneous and
context-dependent throughout
the Mediterranean region
Estel et al. (2015) Large-scale analysis
(Europe)
Developed a new methodology
to map the extent and spatial
patterns of active and fallow
farmland annually at a
continental scale based on
MODIS satellite data
Jepsen et al. (2015) Large-scale analysis
(Europe)
Went back 200 years to identify
broad management regimes and
the institutional, social and
technical forces within each
regime that drove land use
changes in Europe. The study
combined narratives of change
compiled by land use experts
with quantitative data
Levers et al. (2015) Large-scale analysis Identified and mapped
landscape archetypes as well as
archetypical change trajectories
of landscapes between 1990 and
2006 using a clustering
approach based on
self-organising maps and 12
land use indicators
(continued)

van Vliet et al. (2015) Meta-analysis Systematically analysed case
studies on land use change to
provide a review of the
manifestations and underlying
drivers of agricultural land
change in Europe in recent
decades
Kuemmerle et al. (2016) Large-scale analysis Studied spatial patterns in the
distribution of hotspots and cold
spots of land cover and land use
intensity changes across Europe
between 1990 and 2006. The
study made use of European
statistical data to compile a
database of high-resolution land
use change indicators
Levers et al. (2016) Large-scale analysis Provided insights into
broad-scale agricultural
intensity patterns in Europe
between 1990 and 2007 by
focusing on yields and fertiliser
application for six major
crop-type groups
Plieninger et al. (2016) Meta-analysis Systematically reviewed 144
studies to provide insights into
the driving forces of landscape
change in Europe
van der Sluis et al. (2016) Cross-site comparison Analysed 437 landowner
interviews in relation to changes
in land use intensity and
agricultural production in six
case studies in Europe between
2001 and 2011
Bürgi et al. (2017) Cross-site comparison Analysed landscape changes in
the last 150 years, their drivers
and the perception of these
changes by locals in six
European municipalities. The
study combined land use and
land cover analysis based on
historical maps with oral history
interviews
(continued)

Lieskovský and Bürgi (2018) Cross-site comparison and
large-scale analysis
Presented an innovative
approach to studying patterns of
landscape stability and the
corresponding stabilising
factors. The paper developed a
persistence index, and combined
different scales of analysis using
historical land cover and
topographic maps
Verkerk et al. (2018) Large-scale analysis Built on existing participatory
scenarios of desired land use
configuration in Europe and
plausible future projections
based on current conditions to
identify potential policy
pathways to link the two
Fig. 2.1 Relative area changes in the extent of: a cropland, b pasture, e forestland and f urban land
in Europe between 1990 and 2006. Source Kuemmerle et al. (2016) (images C and D in the original
figure have not been included here)
Some crops, such as vineyards, agriculture mosaics and orchards, displayed a larger
degree of persistence than others. For example, olive groves persist in a landscape
over long timelines even after being abandoned. Hotspots of persistence were found
in remote areas where conversion into intensive agriculture would not be viable, but
also in areas particularly suitable for agriculture that have remained stable. Hotspots
of change were also found in areas of major political instability, such as in the Baltic
area or in areas in the south of Europe.
While land cover in Europe has remained relatively stable, the level of inten-
sity in which the land has been used and managed has not. In fact, in the past
few decades, European land use has predominantly changed along intensification
gradients (Kuemmerle et al. 2016). In light of these changes, land use intensity as

Fig. 2.2 Persistence index for Europe (years needed for the transformation of land cover if it would
occur at the same speed as it occurred in the time period 1900–2010). Source Lieskovský and Bürgi
(2018)
such has become a key area of study. Comparing these levels of intensity provides a
comprehensivepictureofhowEuropeanlandscapeshaveevolved(e.g.croplandsmay
present very different characteristics depending on the intensity of how agricultural
production is carried out).
There are two main processes of intensity changes: disintensification and intensi-
fication (Plieninger et al. 2016) of agriculture and of forestry. van Vliet et al. (2015,
p. 28) reviewed 218 case study research articles on agricultural land use change, and
defined these processes in the following way:

• “Intensification of agricultural land primarily manifests itself as an increase in
land management intensity, for example through increase in livestock density
or mechanization. In addition, intensification was observed as an expansion of
agricultural land, a decrease in landscape elements, changes toward more intensive
agricultural activities and specialization of land use activities”
• “Disintensification of agricultural land is primarily manifested as contraction,
partly caused by farmers abandoning their land, but also partly caused by conver-
sion to urban land and natural areas. To a lesser extent, disintensification is mani-
fested as a decrease in land management intensity, as a change to a less intensive
agricultural activity, as on-farm diversification and as an increase in landscape
elements.”
The most prominent process, as highlighted by several authors, is the disintensifi-
cation of land use (Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Plieninger et al. 2016). Kuemmerle et al.
(2016) found this process in approximately 30% of Europe’s coverage, while intensi-
fication processes were present only in about 11%. Expansion and contraction of the
agricultural land area and agricultural abandonment has always occurred (Alcantara
et al. 2012); however, agricultural land abandonment in Europe became the most
prominent change after 1990 (Estel et al. 2015; Levers et al. 2016; Plieninger et al.
2016). This is partly due to the drastic institutional and socioeconomic reorganisation
that occurred after 1990 in former socialist countries, where land abandonment has
been particularly prominent (Griffiths et al. 2013; Levers et al. 2015; Prishchepov
et al. 2012). For instance, cropland abandonment was the most common land use
change in the Carpathians (Griffiths et al. 2013; Munteanu et al. 2014). Land aban-
donment has also been particularly intense in remote mountain areas, less produc-
tive soils and areas where urbanisation processes have been intense, such as on the
Mediterranean coast (Levers et al. 2015). Notwithstanding the magnitude of this
process, some authors have claimed that land abandonment has not yet received
enough attention, in part due to general attention to the worldwide expansion of
land management activities and accelerating competition for land (Estel et al. 2015;
Plieninger et al. 2016).
Land use intensification was most pronounced between 1960 and 1980, and since
that decade, intensity levels have remained stable (Fig. 2.3; Kuemmerle et al. 2016;
vanderSluisetal.2016).Whenlookingatcropyieldsandtheamountsofnitrogenand
pesticide application as indicators of land use intensity in recent decades, crop yields
have stabilised, while nitrogen and pesticide use has generally decreased thanks to
increased farming efficiency, greater environmental awareness and more restrictive
regulations (van der Sluis et al. 2016). These increasing yields were most pronounced
in Western Europe (Kuemmerle et al. 2016). It is also in Western Europe where
nitrogen application rates were higher, although the use of nitrogen has decreased
since the 1990s. As for the use of fertilisers, declines were observed in Southeastern
Europe (e.g. in Romania) and in some countries from Central and Western Europe
(e.g. in Germany and France), while there were increases in some Eastern countries
(e.g. in Poland) (Kuemmerle et al. 2016).

Fig. 2.3 Spatial patterns of changes in intensity: a fertiliser use on cropland, b crop yields, c live-
stock density, d biomass removal from grazing land and e roundwood production within broad land
use classes in Europe between 1990 and 2006. Source Kuemmerle et al. (2016)
Summing up, in line with the geographic patterns of land cover change, since the
1990s intensification of agriculture has mainly taken place in Northern and Western
Europe, while land abandonment and disintensification has prevailed in Eastern and
Southern Europe (Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Levers et al. 2015; Plieninger et al. 2016).
However, when narrowing down the scale of analysis, land use intensification
and abandonment often appear together within the same landscape (Plieninger et al.
2016). van Vliet et al. (2015) identified this mutual occurrence as a major trajectory of
land use change in Europe as a result of the globalisation of agricultural markets. This
polarising trend leads to a homogenisation of the landscape, where more productive
areas are immersed in specialisation and intensification processes, concentrating
most of the production, while marginal areas are abandoned as its use as agricultural
land turns unprofitable (Levers et al. 2015), with the loss of traditional agricultural
landscapes as one of the consequences (Kuemmerle et al. 2016). In the same vein,
due to differences in the productivity of regions, the intensification of forestry did
not necessarily happen in areas where forest land cover was expanding (Levers et al.
2015). In fact, forest cover expanded in areas that had been abandoned (Kuemmerle
et al. 2016; Levers et al. 2015).

2.4 Drivers of Landscape Change
Plieninger et al. (2016) identified five groups of underlying drivers of landscape
change: political/institutional (e.g. agricultural and forest policy, spatial development
policy and property rights); economic (e.g. structural changes in agriculture, prices
for agricultural products, market growth and commercialisation); technological (e.g.
modernisation of society and land management, such as introduction of mineral
fertiliser and tractors; Jepsen et al. 2015); cultural (e.g. demography, attitudes and
behaviour); and natural/spatial (e.g. climate, topography and spatial configuration).
It is important to note that these different types of drivers are usually combined
(Plieninger et al. 2016). Here, we describe some of the most frequently mentioned
ones.
2.4.1 Political and Institutional Drivers
Political and institutional factors, such as policies that regulate agriculture, forestry
and spatial development, land reforms and property rights, appear as the dominant
drivers of change in various studies (e.g. Jepsen et al. 2015; Munteanu et al. 2014;
Prishchepov et al. 2012).
On a broad political and institutional scale, Jepsen et al. (2015) reviewed narratives
on the drivers of land use change to provide a broad storyline of the succession of the
main land management regimes in Europe in the last two centuries. They described
two main regimes after World War II that were to have an important impact on
land use across Europe. These two regimes help scholars understand the frequently
mentioned East–West dichotomy (Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Levers et al. 2015; van
Vliet et al. 2015): in Western Europe, the industrialisation regime; in Eastern Europe,
the establishment and subsequent collapse of the collectivisation regime (Jepsen
et al. 2015). The industrialisation regime in Western Europe was characterised by the
introduction of new technologies and the adoption of commercial farming specialised
incroporlivestockproductionorientedtowardstheglobalmarket(Jepsenetal.2015).
In the Eastern European countries, there were two distinct phases. The first phase
was the collectivisation regime between 1945 and 1991, characterised by major land
reform and the establishment of large collective and state farms and centrally planned
intensification of agriculture (Jepsen et al. 2015). The second phase was characterised
by the collapse of these collectivisation regimes and the consequent dismantling of
the collective farm structure, as well as the state-supported, capital-intensive socialist
farming model. Here, the intensity of farming practices persisted, but according to
commercial premises. Since then, two trends have been observed in Central and
Eastern Europe: on the one hand, the acquisition of former state and collective farms
by large agro-businesses and, on the other hand, the orientation towards subsistence
farming or the abandonment of the most marginal land (Jepsen et al. 2015).

This East–West dichotomy is particularly recognisable in changes to cropland
systems, with fairly constant cropland area but stable or increasing land manage-
ment intensity in the West, partly due to the strategic support from the EU’s Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) (Kuemmerle et al. 2016); and abandonment in the East
(Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Plieninger et al. 2016; Prishchepov et al. 2012). However,
there are also regional differences on how institutional and political drivers have
affected landscape change patterns. For example, national policies during Soviet
times led to agricultural expansion in some areas (e.g. Hungary) and to abandon-
ment of agriculture in others (e.g. Romania) (Munteanu et al. 2014). Prishchepov
et al. (2012) observed higher abandonment rates in countries with changing or inad-
equately established institutions designed to regulate land use changes (e.g. Latvia,
Lithuania and Russia).
Since the entry of Eastern countries into the EU starting in 2004, the situation has
changed. Jepsen et al. (2015) identified a new regime beginning in the 1990s all over
Europe driven by environmental awareness of the impact of agricultural production,
triggering agro-environmental policies that have subsequently had an impact on land
use and land cover across Europe.
Political and institutional drivers are also important explanatory factors of the
prevalent land cover stability observed especially in Western Europe. Land use poli-
cies frequently hinder drastic changes in landscapes across the EU, for example by
providing economic support to farmers in less favoured areas (Levers et al. 2015).
The CAP plays a crucial role in this stability, with the decoupling of CAP payments
regarded to be an important element for preserving extensive grazing systems that
otherwise would be abandoned (Levers et al. 2015). However, the CAP has also had
the opposite effect in some places, leading to land abandonment (Bürgi et al. 2017)
and changes in land use when the EU implemented eligibility criteria for payments
based on a quota system.
2.4.2 Economic, Technological and Cultural Drivers
of Change
Of the driving factors that shape society as a whole, urbanisation in particular appears
to be a prominent factor triggering landscape change (Bürgi et al. 2017). In Europe,
almost 75% of the population nowadays live in urban areas (Eurostat 2016), which
typically have expanded at the expense of agricultural land. The rural exodus due to
diminishing income opportunities in marginal areas in contrast to increasing oppor-
tunities in urban areas is one of the most recurrent sociocultural drivers explaining
land abandonment (Levers et al. 2015). Moreover, with an increasingly urban society,
new uses such as recreation activities have emerged around urban areas that can
compete with agriculture and forestry activities (van Vliet et al. 2015). Urbanisation
is typically accompanied by an increased purchasing power and higher demand for

commodities. This in turn translates into increasing pressure on ecosystems and a
specialisation of the service supply of many landscapes (Verburg et al. 2013b).
Globalisation and other related economic drivers have also brought about impor-
tant changes in land use. The global agriculture market has pushed farmers to inten-
sify their production methods in order to remain competitive, while those that do not
succeed have had to find their livelihood outside agriculture. This has often led to the
abandonment of areas with less favourable conditions (van Vliet et al. 2015). Another
consequence of globalisation is the specialisation of farm production, with the expan-
sion of monocultures and the “outsourcing” of, for example, fodder production not
only outside of livestock farms, but even outside Europe. This decreases the need to
intensification of production in Europe and contributes to the abandonment of those
areas that are less suitable for agriculture (Levers et al. 2015). The technological inno-
vations associated with globalisation have also brought about important changes in
farming systems (Bürgi et al. 2017). Mineral nitrogen application is one of the most
mentioned technological innovations when studying the intensification of agricul-
ture. This has important effects on landscape configuration, with the disappearance
of traditional features and a loss of biodiversity (van Vliet et al. 2015).
Apart from these commonly mentioned drivers of change, growing environmental,
social and political awareness is reflected in land use policies and subsidies, with an
increasing focus on environmental management, nature preservation and landscape
restoration, rather than on agricultural production (van Vliet et al. 2015). But beyond
these institutional levels, farmers’ decisions are also an important factor that can
ultimately lead to diverging land use trajectories (van Vliet et al. 2015). Most of
these decisions are the result of the behaviour of land owners and land managers
responding to market prices and policy incentives in varying ways (Verburg et al.
2013b). While farmers’ attitudes (e.g. productivist or environmentalist) may not be an
important driver of land cover changes, they do influence the intensity of management
practices (van Vliet et al. 2015).
2.4.3 Spatial and Natural Factors
In the context of urbanisation and globalisation, accessibility is another important
factor when explaining the geographic distribution of more intensively or less inten-
sively managed areas. In areas with good accessibility, land use management is often
more intensive; in more remote areas, land abandonment is more frequent (Levers
et al. 2015). Bürgi et al. (2017) analysed narratives on the driving forces of land-
scape change, using oral history interviews with local residents in six case studies.
They found that access and infrastructure (e.g. railways and highways) were impor-
tant drivers in most of the cases (Bürgi et al. 2017). With respect to agricultural
and forestry production, this means that local products can be exported and there-
fore, production patterns might change. However, at the same time farmers reported
that they needed to become more competitive against products that came from the
outside. The flow of people also increases with better accessibility and can bring

about significant changes in the landscape if, for instance, the surrounding areas of
a big city turn into commuter cities or second-home areas.
Finally, as Levers et al. (2015) observed, notwithstanding technical improvements
and the increasing capacity of humans to modify the land, agro-climatic conditions
still constitute an important factor to take into consideration. Intensified crop produc-
tion prevails in areas with favourable conditions; forest and grasslands dominate in
areas with disadvantageous edaphic and climatic conditions, although institutional
and socioeconomic factors can alter this pattern to a certain extent. Nevertheless,
climate change as a driver of landscape change has still not played a very evident
role in the studies considered in this chapter, except for the melting of the glaciers
in the Alps (Bürgi et al. 2017).
2.5 Operationalising Current Trends and Drivers
of Change Towards Developing Future Scenarios
of Landscape Change
In an effort to hinder the tendency towards polarisation of the landscape (intensifi-
cation or abandonment) and the landscape homogenisation and loss of multifunc-
tionality that results from it, some authors have worked together with stakeholders
in the visualisation of future landscape change trajectories. Pérez-Soba et al. (2015)
worked with stakeholders representing the main land use sectors in Europe to develop
three overarching visions of the desired futures envisaged for Europe. These three
visions shared a common ambition: to generate multifunctional land uses in Europe
that would integrate multiple social, ecological, economic and cultural demands.
Recently, Verkerk et al. (2018) studied potential pathways and policies required to
achieve these visions of multifunctionality. These pathways would vary in the specific
mechanisms involved, but all of them would entail major interventions across Europe,
depending on the environmental and socioeconomic context. In general, the space
dedicated to agricultural land would need to be severely restricted in favour of larger,
interconnected natural areas. These studies highlighted the challenge of identifying
a pathway toward reaching landscape multifunctionality at the local level. This was
mostly due to methodological constraints; models still cannot capture many of the
complexities associated with multifunctionality at a local-scale resolution. However,
Verkerk et al. (2018) pointed out that the policy interventions that were needed to
navigate that pathway would necessarily require the strengthening and maintenance
of Europe’s existing traditional multifunctional landscapes, most of which have been
subject to long-term trends of decline.

2.6 Research Gaps and Ways Forward Towards Landscape
Sustainability
Without fundamental social and economic changes, the demand for natural resources
will multiply in the next few decades. The effects of this growing demand will
intensify current land use trends, increasing the impacts described in the previous
sections. Therefore, one of the greatest sustainability challenges in landscape change
research is to identify strategies that will meet society’s demands without further
threatening and degrading European landscapes and their functioning. In light of this,
a broad array of literature has identified pathways towards tackling the challenges of
landscape change research in Europe and beyond (e.g. Bürgi et al. 2004; Plieninger
et al. 2016). Here, we use our review to summarise the major contributions and derive
key opportunities to make advancements in landscape change science:
• Research for more context-specific, regionalised policymaking (Kuemmerle
et al. 2016). A deeper understanding of the outcomes of land use change for
ecosystem service flows and biodiversity can contribute to mitigating the trade-
offs among different land uses. In that regard, one interesting arena for future
research would be to derive typologies of typical land use changes and the effects
of policy interventions that characterise Europe (e.g. Levers et al. 2015; Kuem-
merle et al. 2016). There is also a need for research that advances the study of
landscape stability patterns and the drivers behind these patterns (Plieninger et al.
2016) in the local context, which could be very relevant for landscape management
and policy.
• Uncovering the complexity behind the drivers. Comprehension of the under-
lying drivers of landscape change remains partial (Jepsen et al. 2015). Landscape
research has traditionally considered the spatial determinants of land use changes
(e.g. topography, soil quality, market access) and land use decisions as separate
items. Future research should incorporate joint analysis that favours an under-
standing of complex behaviour and the linkages behind the various drivers. In
addition, future studies should acknowledge that the landscape change effects of
different underlying drivers reveal themselves at different time intervals, making
attribution difficult if only short time spans are considered in the analysis (Jepsen
et al. 2015).
• Avoiding oversimplification of the complex realities of the land. Verburg et al.
(2013a) criticised global and supra-regional assessments for oversimplifying the
complex reality of landscapes. In that regard, performing cross-site comparison
studies based on place-based research (e.g. Bürgi et al. 2017) could help scholars
grasp these complex realities behind landscapes. Beyond the spatial scale, another
important gap in landscape change studies is the identification and comprehension
of the diversity of actors and their role in landscape changes (Plieninger et al. 2016;
Kizos et al. 2018). Understanding the inherent complexities of landscape change
imply the incorporation of a plurality of research approaches and of underlying

conceptualisations of human–environment interactions that can encompass the
full complexity of land use developments.
• Jointly analysing changes in the extent and intensity of land use and disparate
linkages. In an increasingly connected world, the already ongoing trend of
spatial disconnection between production and consumption landscapes will only
increase. This entails considerable challenges to sustainability understood as
imbalances in environmental degradation. Therefore, it is important to analyse
how spatial patters in changes in the extent and intensity of land use relate to
changes in distant places (Kuemmerle et al. 2016).
• Incorporating innovative approaches to evaluating landscape change, and
promoting the co-design of research to address societal problems. The impor-
tance of producing actionable knowledge in collaboration with stakeholders is
gaining significance across landscape research (Verburg et al. 2013a). For this, a
more participatory approach, in which local knowledge and perceptions are taken
into account, is needed. In that regard, previous authors have discussed the impor-
tance of combining information on land use changes derived from field and GIS
procedures with perceptions of the local population. This facilitated the develop-
ment of mixed-method approaches and takes advantage of the complementarity
and the specific strengths of the inclusion of a variety of types of data sources
(e.g. Bürgi et al. 2017).
2.7 Conclusions
Land cover in Europe in the past few decades has remained relatively stable. In
those areas where it changed, it has predominately been towards the diminishing
of cropland area in favour of grasslands, and a general increase in urban areas. A
more nuanced perspective emerges when looking at how the intensity of landscape
management has changed. Here, two opposing but co-occurring processes can be
seen: the intensification of agriculture on the one hand, and the abandonment of
farming activities on the other. Both of these processes generally involve the loss of
biodiversity, an erosion of cultural heritage and a diminishing of landscape multi-
functionality. These trends have pushed European social-ecological systems beyond
the boundaries of environmental and societal well-being. In order to change these
trajectories, it is crucial to identify and understand the factors that drive them. Polit-
ical and institutional drivers seem to be the most prominent ones, but economic,
technological, cultural and natural aspects also play a very important role, and need
to be considered as well. In this sense, although European-scale studies provide
extremely relevant information to identify broad trends and drivers of land cover and
land use change, more place-based analyses are needed where different sources of
information are combined (by engaging with local stakeholders), various approaches
and disciplines are brought together and several temporal and spatial scales are taken
into account. This is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of how and why
landscapes are changing, and what the consequences of these changes will be.

References
Alcantara, C., Kuemmerle, T., Prishchepov, A. V., & Radeloff, V. C. (2012). Mapping abandoned
agriculture with multi-temporal MODIS satellite data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 124,
334–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.05.019
Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 70(1–2), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
Benayas, J. M. R., Martins, A., Nicolau, J. M., & Address:, J. J. S. (2007). Abandonment of agricul-
tural land: an overview of drivers and consequences. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2(57). https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNN
R20072057.
Bürgi, M., Hersperger, A. M., & Schneeberger, N. (2004). Driving forces of landscape change—
Current and new directions. Landscape Ecology, 19(8), 857–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-
005-0245-3
Bürgi, M., Bieling, C., von Hackwitz, K., Kizos, T., Lieskovský, J., Martín, M. G., & Printsmann, A.
(2017). Processes and driving forces in changing cultural landscapes across Europe. Landscape
Ecology, 32(11), 2097–2112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0513-z
Council of Europe. (2000). The European Landscape Convention. October 2000, Florence.
Erb, K. H. (2012). How a socio-ecological metabolism approach can help to advance our under-
standing of changes in land-use intensity. Ecological Economics, 76, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.
1002/hbm.22248
Estel, S., Kuemmerle, T., Alcántara, C., Levers, C., Prishchepov, A., & Hostert, P. (2015). Mapping
farmland abandonment and recultivation across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series. Remote
Sensing of Environment, 163, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.03.028
Eurostat. (2016). Urban Europe—Statistics on cities, towns and suburbs—Working in cities—
Statistics Explained. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/
Urban_Europe_-_statistics_on_cities,_towns_and_suburbs_-_working_in_cities.
Eurostat. (2017). Land use statistics (Vol. 2015). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/sta
tistics-explained/index.php?title=Land_use_statistics.
Griffiths, P., Müller, D., Kuemmerle, T., & Hostert, P. (2013). Agricultural land change in the
Carpathian ecoregion after the breakdown of socialism and expansion of the European Union.
Environmental Research Letters, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045024.
Jepsen, M. R., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, P. H., Haberl, H., & Reenberg, A.
(2015). Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use
Policy, 49, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003
Kirchhoff, T., Trepl, L., & Vicenzotti, V. (2013). What is landscape ecology? An analysis and
evaluation of six different conceptions, landscape research. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.
2011.640751.
Kizos, T., Verburg, P. H., Bürgi, M., Gounaridis, D., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., & Balatsos, T. (2018).
From concepts to practice: Combining different approaches to understand drivers of landscape
change. Ecology and Society, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09910-230125.
Kuemmerle, T., Levers, C., Erb, K., Estel, S., Jepsen, M. R., Müller, D., & Reenberg, A. (2016).
Hotspots of land use change in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 11(6), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064020
Levers, C., Verkerk, P. J., Müller, D., Verburg, P. H., Butsic, V., Leitão, P. J., & Kuemmerle, T. (2014).
Drivers of forest harvesting intensity patterns in Europe. Forest Ecology and Management, 315,
160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.12.030
Levers, C., Müller, D., Erb, K., Haberl, H., Jepsen, M. R., Metzger, M. J., & Kuemmerle, T. (2015).
ArchetypicalpatternsandtrajectoriesoflandsystemsinEurope.RegionalEnvironmentalChange,
18(3), 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0907-x
Levers, C., Butsic, V., Verburg, P. H., Müller, D., & Kuemmerle, T. (2016). Drivers of changes in
agricultural intensity in Europe. Land Use Policy, 58, 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landus
epol.2016.08.013

Lieskovský, J., & Bürgi, M. (2018). Persistence in cultural landscapes: A pan-European analysis.
Regional Environmental Change, 18(1), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1192-7
Munteanu, C., Kuemmerle, T., Boltiziar, M., Butsic, V., Gimmi, U., Halada, L., & Radeloff, V. C.
(2014). Forest and agricultural land change in the Carpathian region—A meta-analysis of long-
term patterns and drivers of change. Land Use Policy, 38, 685–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lan
dusepol.2014.01.012
Pérez-Soba, M., Paterson, J., & Metzger, M. (2015). Visions of future land use in Europe Stakeholder
visions for 2040.
Plieninger, T., Hui, C., Gaertner, M., & Huntsinger, L. (2014). The impact of land abandonment on
species richness and abundance in the Mediterranean Basin: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(5).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098355.
Plieninger, T., Draux, H., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., Bürgi, M., Kizos, T., & Verburg, P. H. (2016).
The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: A systematic review of the evidence. Land
Use Policy, 57, 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040
Pohl, C. (2008). From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science
& Policy 11.1, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001.
Prishchepov, A. V., Radeloff, V. C., Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., & Müller, D. (2012). Effects of
institutional changes on land use: Agricultural land abandonment during the transition from state-
command to market-driven economies in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Environmental Research
Letters, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024021.
Sayer,J.,Sunderland,T.,Ghazoul,J.,Pfund,J.L.,Sheil,D.,Meijaard,E.,etal.(2013).Tenprinciples
for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349–8356. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1210595110
Stürck, J., Levers, C., van der Zanden, E. H., Schulp, C. J. E., Verkerk, P. J., Kuemmerle, T.,
et al. (2018). Simulating and delineating future land change trajectories across Europe. Regional
Environmental Change, 18, 733–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0876-0.
Turner, M. G. (2005). Landscape ecology: What Is the state of the science? Annual Review of
Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 36, 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.
102003.152614
van der Sluis, T., Pedroli, B., Kristensen, S. B. P., Lavinia Cosor, G., & Pavlis, E. (2016). Changing
land use intensity in Europe—Recent processes in selected case studies. Land Use Policy, 57,
777–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.005
van Vliet, J., de Groot, H. L. F., Rietveld, P., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Manifestations and underlying
drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 24–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.001
Verburg, P. H., Mertz, O., Erb, K. H., Haberl, H., & Wu, W. (2013a). Land system change and
food security: Towards multi-scale land system solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 5(5), 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.003.
Verburg, P. H., van Asselen, S., van der Zanden, E. H., & Stehfest, E. (2013b). The representation
of landscapes in global scale assessments of environmental change. Landscape Ecology, 28(6),
1067–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9745-0.
Verkerk, P. J., Lindner, M., Pérez-Soba, M., Paterson, J. S., Helming, J., Verburg, P. H., & van der
Zanden, E. H. (2018). Identifying pathways to visions of future land use in Europe. Regional
Environmental Change, 18(3), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1055-7
Weith, T., Besendörfer, C., Gaasch, N., Kaiser, D. B., Müller, K., Repp, A., et al. (2013). Nach-
haltiges land management: Was ist das? Diskussionspapier Nr. 7, April 2013, Leibniz-Zentrum
für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e.V.
Wickson, F., Carew, A. L., & Russell, A. W. (2006). Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics,
quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046–1059.
Zscheischler, J., Rogga, S., & Busse, M. (2017). The adoption and implementation of transdisci-
plinary research in the field of land use science—A comparative case study. Sustainability, 9(11),
1926. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111926

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

Chapter 3
New Trends and Drivers for Agricultural
Land Use in Germany
Dieter Kirschke, Astrid Häger, and Julia Christiane Schmid
Abstract Agricultural land use in Germany is faced with new drivers and conflicts.
There has been a continuous downward trend in agricultural land use since reunifica-
tion, and agriculture seems to be increasingly squeezed by various land use demands.
Whereas land prices and land rents have stayed rather stable during the 90ies and at
the beginning of the new millennium, they have started to go up considerably during
the last ten years. At the same time the agricultural sector is faced with deteriorating
environmental indicators and a changing land use structure and concentration. Inter-
nationalagriculturalpriceshavebecomeakeydeterminantforlandpricesinGermany
contributing to increasing land prices. Equally, new demands for nature conserva-
tion and natural resource protection under the Common Agricultural Policy have
contributed to make agricultural land scarcer, and bioenergy production under the
Renewable Energy Act has considerably affected land demand and prices in various
regions. In East Germany, some land market specialties relate to the farm structure
and the land privatization process after reunification. In view of these developments,
there is a new policy debate on agricultural land market interventions.
Keywords Agricultural land use · Land markets · Common Agricultural Policy
3.1 Introduction
Land is a limited and scarce natural resource faced with competing and rising
demands. These demands, basically, comprise land use for agriculture, nature and
natural resource protection, industrial areas and human settlements, and infras-
D. Kirschke (B) · A. Häger · J. C. Schmid
Faculty of Life Sciences—Thaer-Institute—Department of Agricultural Economics,
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany
e-mail: dieter.kirschke@hu-berlin.de
A. Häger
e-mail: astrid.haeger@agrar.hu-berlin.de
J. C. Schmid
e-mail: j.c.schmid@agrar.hu-berlin.de
39

40 D. Kirschke et al.
tructure. Consequently, land use conflicts evolve, and these conflicts may change
over time and are driven by various factors. A study by Kirschke et al. (2013)
gives a comprehensive overview on land use and land use change in Europe and
the main economic drivers behind, bringing together theoretical approaches from
regional economics, economic geography, agricultural economics, environmental
and resource economics, and infrastructure planning.
Our paper is based on these general findings and specifically looks into new
developments in German agricultural land use. Are there new trends for agricultural
land use change in the new millennium and, if so, what are the new conflicts and
drivers?
In Sect. 3.2, we briefly sketch out the background for our discussion, addressing
general land use trends in Germany after reunification. We will then discuss ongoing
and new conflicts in agricultural land use in recent years in Sect. 3.3. The section
focusses on rising land prices, deteriorating environmental indicators, and land use
structure. In Sect. 3.4, we will look at major drivers behind this development which,
basically, reflect market forces and a new policy framework. We will discuss interna-
tional agricultural price developments, technological developments, Common Agri-
cultural Policy (CAP) reforms, the Renewable Energy Act (REA), and particularities
related to German reunification. Some concluding remarks are given in Sect. 3.5.
3.2 General Land Use Trends
Land use in Germany is characterized by industrial development and high popula-
tion density, but also by agriculture. In the “Land use and cover area frame survey
(LUCAS)”, Eurostat (2012) has compared land use in EU member states. They
find a higher share of human settlements and transport infrastructure in Germany as
compared to the EU average. Also, the forest share in Germany (33%) is lower than
in the EU (37%). However, the share of permanent grassland is somewhat higher
(22% as compared to 19%), and the share of arable land is considerably higher (32%
as compared to 23%).
Overall trends in land use have been similar in Germany and the EU. According
to the “Coordination of information on the environment (CORINE)-Project” there
has been a continuous decline of agricultural areas and a continuous increase of areas
for human settlements and transport infrastructure. Table 3.1 shows a more detailed
picture of land use change in Germany from 1992 to 2015/16.
According to Table 3.1, areas for human settlements and transport infrastruc-
ture have considerably increased since reunification, but this trend has come down
in the recent period. This picture holds for both human settlements and transport
infrastructure individually. For industrial areas and recreation areas there has been
an increasing demand over the whole period whereas changing trends can rarely be
identified.

3 New Trends and Drivers for Agricultural Land Use in Germany 41
Table 3.1 Absolute and relative land use change in Germany, 1992–2015/16
1992–2000 2000–2008 2008–2015 Land use 2015
(ha)
Hectares % Hectares % Hectares %
Human
settlements and
transport
infrastructure
363,373 9.0 319,832 7.3 192,914 4.1 4,906,641
of which
Human
settlements
234,745 11.3 133,541 5.8 66,047 2.7 2,507,666
Industry 18,268 33.2 5500 7.5 26,222 33.3 104,961
Recreation 40,379 17.9 112,867 42.5 66,764 17.6 445,484
Transport
infrastructure
67,680 4.1 67,229 3.9 31,812 1.8 1,810,805
Cemeteries 2,301 7.0 696 2.0 2,069 5.8 37,725
Extraction land −8,180 −4.4 −12,696 −7.1 −11,012 −6.6 155,871
Total
agricultural
area
−408,408 −2.1 −338,197 −1.8 −331,346 −1.8 18,433,248
of which
Agricultural
area used
117,263 0.7 −141,633 −0.8 −266,800a −1.6 16,658,900a
of which
Arable land 336,019 2.9 128,991 1.1 −169,500a −1.4 11,763,000a
Permanent
grassland
−195,030 −3.7 −258,943 −5.1 −94,200a −2.0 4,694,500a
Forest 77,858 0.7 203,477 1.9 216,569 2.0 10,951,461
Water 24,761 3.2 39,688 4.9 7,063 0.8 855,213
Source Own compilation according to Statistisches Bundesamt (2017a); aData from 2016
For agriculture, there has been a continuous and considerable downward trend
regarding total agricultural area. For the agricultural area used, there has been an
increase in the 90ies which may be explained by adjustment processes in East German
agriculture after reunification. Since 2000, however, agricultural area used is contin-
ually going down with an increasing trend. In contrast to agriculture, forest areas
have increased over the whole period, with an increasing trend since 2000.
Within agriculture, interesting changes of trends for arable land and permanent
grassland can be noted. Whereas arable land use has increased during the first periods
considered—though with a downward trend in the second period—arable land use
has considerably declined in the last period. For permanent grassland, land use has
continuously declined over the whole period, though with a less dramatic trend in
recent years. Indeed, a more detailed, yearly breakdown of the figures for permanent

42 D. Kirschke et al.
Table 3.2 Permanent grassland in Germany, 2013–2018
Permanent grassland 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1,000 ha 4,621.0 4,650.7 4,677.1 4,694.5 4,710.2 4,713.4
% of agricultural area used 27.7 27.8 28.0 28.2 28.2 28.3
Source Own compilation according to Statistisches Bundesamt (various years), Fachserie 3, Reihe
3.1.2
grassland shows that from 2013 onwards a slight but visible positive trend can be
observed (Table 3.2).
In sum, agricultural land use seems to be increasingly squeezed between various
non-agricultural land use demands. Whether or not these developments should be
restricted, and if so in which way, have become popular policy topics. The German
government (Bundesregierung) has claimed that the increase of areas for human
settlements and for transport infrastructure should not surpass 30 ha per day until
20301
(it has been 63 ha per day in 2014) (Die Bundesregierung 2016, pp. 158–159).
The German Farmers Association (Deutscher Bauernverband—DBV) argues that the
loss of agricultural land is still about 70 ha per day and demands a legal framework
for the conservation of agricultural areas (DBV et al. 2016, p. 2). Within agriculture,
the increase of arable land, at the cost of permanent grassland, has equally been
blamed by various actors (e.g. DAFA 2015, p. 11).
3.3 Ongoing and New Conflicts in Agriculture Land Use
The trends for agricultural land use in Germany in recent years indicate that there are
both ongoing as well as potentially new land use conflicts. These conflicts will prob-
ably result in changes on land markets. In what follows we will look into the devel-
opment of land market prices first, and then turn to ongoing major conflicts between
agricultural land use and nature and natural resource protection. Furthermore, we
will focus on land use structure and concentration in German agriculture.
3.3.1 Rising Land Prices
Despite high demand for land and conflicts between different actors, land prices have
remained quite stable during the 90ies and at the beginning of the new millennium,
both in Western and Eastern Germany. Since 2007/08, however, land prices have
gone up considerably.
1The Bundesregierung recently had to shift the objective year from 2020 to 2030 (Die
Bundesregierung 2016, p. 159).

3 New Trends and Drivers for Agricultural Land Use in Germany 43
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
€/hectare
year
Germany Former federal territory New federal states
Fig. 3.1 Agricultural land prices in Germany, 2001–2018, e/ha (Source Own compilation
according to Statistisches Bundesamt (various years), Fachserie 3, Reihe 2.4, Tab. 1.4.)
Figure 3.1 shows the development of agricultural land prices in the period 2001–
2018. The figure shows average land purchase values of around 10,000 e/ha until
2007, with around 4,000 e/ha in East Germany and around 17,000 e/ha in West
Germany. Since then, land prices almost doubled in West Germany and more than
quadrupled in East Germany, which is a remarkable increase in a few years. Though
there has been some convergence of land prices in East and West Germany in relative
terms, the absolute difference has remained at around 15,000 e/ha for many years,
and increased to 22,000 e/ha in 2018.
The rise in land prices is only partly accompanied by more active land markets in
terms of the number of sales and the area sold. The number of sales has been around
45,000 between 2010 and 2014, with a slightly increasing trend since then. Half of
this increased land market activity takes place in East Germany. The area sold has
been around 40,000 ha per year in West Germany over the whole period whereas
it has been around 65,000 ha per year in East Germany for many years, decreasing
from 2015 to 45,000 ha in 2018.
The overall share of land market sales in total agricultural land used is rather
small, with 0.7% for Germany in total and 0.3% for West Germany. However, the
picture is different for East Germany: Here, the land mobility has evolved from 1% in
2004 to 1.2% in 2007, to 1.4% in 2015 and 0.8% in 2018 (Statistisches Bundesamt,
various years, Fachserie 3, Reihe 2.4).

Other documents randomly have
different content

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Bath Keepers;
Or, Paris in Those Days, v.2

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
Title: The Bath Keepers; Or, Paris in Those Days, v.2
Author: Paul de Kock
Release date: August 17, 2012 [eBook #40518]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images available at The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BATH
KEEPERS; OR, PARIS IN THOSE DAYS, V.2 ***

Copyright 1903 by G. Barrie & Sons
LEODGARD CALLED TO
ACCOUNT
Landry uttered a sort of hollow
growl which presaged a storm on the
point of bursting. Bathilde hid her
face in her hands, and Ambroisine
squeezed her father's arm.

NOVELS
BY
Paul de Kock
VOLUME VIII
THE BATH KEEPERS;
OR,
PARIS IN THOSE DAYS
VOL. II
THE JEFFERSON PRESS
BOSTON NEW YORK

Copyrighted, 1903-1904, by G. B. & Sons.
THE BATH KEEPERS;
OR,
PARIS IN THOSE DAYS
[CONTINUED]

CONTENTS
XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI,
XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLI, XLII, XLIII, XLIV, XLV, XLVI,
XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L, LI, LII, LIII, LIV, LV

XXIX
AN UNFORTUNATE GIRL
The storm which Plumard feared for the next day burst that same
evening, very shortly after the solicitor's clerk delivered the plume. At the
bath keeper's house on Rue Saint-Jacques, Ambroisine was alone, listening
to the roar of the thunder and the rain as she awaited her father's return.
Master Hugonnet had gone to visit his neighbor the keeper of the wine
shop; but he had prolonged his stay there beyond his usual hour, and his
daughter was beginning to be anxious, when she heard at last a knock at the
street door; by the sound of the knocker, she recognized her father's hand,
which was more or less heavy according as his libations had been more or
less frequent during the evening.
This time, Ambroisine knew by the sound that her father was drunk.
She made haste to open the door. Master Hugonnet was leaning on the
arm of the keeper of the wine shop, his neighbor, who had deemed it
prudent to escort his customer to his home.
While the bath keeper stumbled into the house, urging his neighbor to
come in, the latter said in Ambroisine's ear:
"Your father has thrashed, beaten, half killed a little solicitor's clerk, who
was regaling himself at my place. He is a regular hothead when he is sober;
but now he's a perfect lamb; and he embraced his victim! He ought to be
drunk all the time, mademoiselle, for he is much more agreeable in
company then."
The cabaretier took his leave, and Ambroisine returned to her father, who
had seated himself at a table and was striking it with his hand, crying:
"Ambroisine, give us some wine and goblets; our neighbor is going to
take a glass with me.—Well! where is our neighbor?"
"He has gone back, father; for it is very late. It is time for everyone to be
getting to bed, and you will do well to go; you are not thirsty now—you
have drunk enough."

Hugonnet seemed not to have heard his daughter; he passed his hand
over his eyes, sighed profoundly, and stammered:
"Poor little solicitor—for I think he was a solicitor—the idea of beating
him like that! A boy no taller than my cane! It's a shame! it's disgusting!
there are people who abuse their strength over feeble creatures!"
"But, father, I understand that it was you who beat this little clerk! What
had he done to you, pray? for you certainly don't pick quarrels with people
without some reason!"
"I! it is impossible! He is my friend, that little dwarf; I would like to
embrace him. Poor boy! he wanted pomade; I told him I hadn't any. He
insisted on having some, and declared that a barber ought to make pomade.
Poor fellow!"
"And you beat him because he asked you for some pomade! A pretty
subject for a quarrel that!"
"I, beat him! Who says that?—He said to me: 'Do you know how to
make hair grow? give me a receipt. Do you think that by mixing soot with
horse droppings one would obtain a good result?'—Ha! ha! stupid nonsense
that!—Where's our neighbor?"
"I tell you again that he has gone home to bed, father, and that you
would do well to do the same, instead of staying in this room."
"Poor little solicitor! Mon Dieu! such a little fellow!—Think of beating a
mere piece of a man! It's outrageous! And if I knew the villain who did it!—
To be sure, you can't make pomade with horse droppings and soot—
nonsense! It's making fun of a barber to ask him such questions!—The idea
of putting pomade made like that on your customers' heads! Never! What
do you take me for?—Embrace me! Someone has made a bump on your
forehead, let me shed tears on it."
"For heaven's sake, father, go to your room! Listen; the thunder is very
loud! Everybody in the house has gone to bed, and I would like to do the
same. You will be much more comfortable in bed."
"Isn't our neighbor coming back?"
"In such weather as this, when the rain is falling in torrents! when the
sky is so black!—Ah! what a flash! it is frightful!—Who on earth do you
suppose would go out in such horrible weather?—If my deadliest enemy
were in my house, I would not turn him out of doors!"

At that moment, someone knocked at the barber's door. Ambroisine was
thunderstruck, and Master Hugonnet hiccoughed:
"There—you hear—someone knocked; it's our neighbor come back."
"Oh, no! it is impossible," said Ambroisine; "it cannot be he. We must
have been mistaken; it was the roar of the storm that we heard."
Two more blows, struck with a feeble hand, but very near together,
removed all doubt from the girl's mind. She shuddered, unable to assign a
cause for her emotion; but she hastily seized a lamp and darted into the hall
that led to the street door, exclaiming:
"Somebody out of doors in this terrible storm! I must not keep him
waiting."
She drew the bolts and opened the heavy door. A woman stood before
her, pale, dishevelled, trembling, and with water dripping from all her
garments.
Ambroisine uttered a cry and stood for a moment without moving; she
could not believe her eyes, she was suffocated with emotion.
"Bathilde!" she whispered; "you—in this condition! No, no! it is
impossible!"
"Yes, it is I," replied a faint voice. "It is really Bathilde, driven from her
father's house, cursed by her father and mother, who comes to you to beg
for shelter! For I have no home, they have turned me out of doors. If you
spurn me, Ambroisine; if you too turn me away—then I shall remain in the
street; but it will soon be over!"
"I, turn you away! I, refuse you shelter, my friend, my sister!—Oh! mon
Dieu! I cannot speak!"
Tears choked Ambroisine, and deprived her of the use of her voice. But
she led Bathilde into the house. She embraced her, strained her to her heart;
she strove to warm her by her caresses; and the poor girl, reanimated by
such a welcome, tried to calm her sobs, saying:
"You do not turn me away—you still love me, do you not?—Ah! I am
less unhappy than I was!"
"Poor child! Come with me—we must dry you first of all, change your
clothes. You cannot stay like this. Ah! if my father should see you in this
state!"

"Your father! Perhaps he would not receive me in his house; for I am
very guilty, and if you knew——"
"Hush! you must not talk about that now.—Wait a moment; I have an
idea that he is asleep; I will just go to make sure."
Ambroisine returned to the room where she had left her father. Master
Hugonnet was sound asleep, with his head resting on the table.
"Come to my room," said Ambroisine, returning to Bathilde and taking
her hand; "father is asleep, and I did not wake him."
Having reached the bedroom, the two girls threw themselves into each
other's arms once more, Bathilde finding relief in weeping on her friend's
breast, and Ambroisine already trying to devise a method of diminishing her
companion's distress in some measure.
Ambroisine first disengaged herself from that loving embrace, saying:
"Mon Dieu! I forget that you are all wet, drenched! Take off all your
clothes in the first place, and get into my bed; I will cover you up carefully,
and you will get warm sooner."
"And you, Ambroisine?"
"I? oh! I will lie beside you; the bed is wide enough for us two. But first
—here is some wine; you must drink some to put your blood in circulation.
—Poor sister! you were out of doors in this storm!"
"Oh! it had begun when my mother drove me from the house, despite my
prayers and supplications. I knelt to her; she pushed me away. I threw
myself at her feet—she was inexorable!"
"Don't tell me that.—O my God! I do not know if Thou wilt ever grant
me the happiness of being a mother; but if I do have children some day, I
swear to Thee, O my God, that, whatever fault they may have committed,
whatever their crimes, I will never curse them, I will never close my arms
to them!"
Bathilde had fallen on her knees; she clasped her hands, held them up
toward heaven, and her tears flowed freely as she faltered:
"Forgive me, mother! forgive me, father, for the sin of which I am
guilty! Ah! I am well punished! And when you drove me from your house, I
would have killed myself, if that would not have been a greater crime.—
Indeed, I had no right to take that step, for I too am a mother, and I will love
my child so dearly!"

"A mother! you, a mother!" cried Ambroisine, running to Bathilde and
pressing her to her heart again. "But your mother cannot have known that
when she turned you out of her house in this frightful storm!"
"Yes, she knew it; I had just confessed everything to her—told her that I
bore within me the fruit of my sin. That is why she turned me out and
cursed me!"
"Come, my poor girl, calm yourself a little; try not to grieve so.
Remember that now you are not alone in your suffering, that I will assume
half of your troubles, and that I will not rest until I have relieved them; for
something tells me that I am in a measure the cause of what has happened
to you."
In a few moments Bathilde was undressed and lying in Ambroisine's
bed. Her friend begged her to try to sleep, but Bathilde shook her head.
"To sleep would be utterly impossible for me at this moment," she
murmured. "If you are willing, I would prefer to tell you everything; but
you are tired, you need rest, do you not?"
"No, I am too excited. I had too violent a shock when I saw you in the
street just now. I feel that I cannot sleep, either; and I prefer to listen to you.
Tell me everything. But wait; I will sit here by the bed, close beside you—
there; now, go on."
"The man whom I love, Ambroisine—do I need to tell you his name?"
"Oh, no! it is Comte Léodgard. I have had a sort of presentiment of it
ever since that evening, at the Fire of Saint-Jean. Mon Dieu! how I regret
that I ever had the unfortunate idea of taking you there with me!"
"Do not reproach yourself, Ambroisine; was it your fault that the count
found me—to his liking; and that I could not help feeling the most tender
affection for him? You did all that you could do to keep me from loving
him. You advised me like a mother. But the wound was inflicted—my heart
had already ceased to be mine. It was no longer possible for me to shield
myself against that love, which was stronger than my reason.—Ah! if you
knew how sweet it is to love! Look you, even at this moment, when I am so
miserably unhappy, I do not curse my troubles when I remember that it is
for Léodgard that I am subjected to them!"
"And to think that I believed you to be cured of that love! Because for a
long time you had not mentioned the letter that the count wrote you; you
never asked me for it!"

"What need had I of the letter, when I could see every day the man who
wrote it?—How shall I tell you, Ambroisine? My mother was away; all day
long I could see him from the windows looking on the street. At night I was
imprudent enough to go there still and look. And one night—I don't know
how he did it—I found him there, before me, then at my feet, swearing that
he would always love me; and I had not the courage to send him away."
"The harm is done and cannot be undone. Well?"
"Two months passed—oh, so quickly! My mother was still absent, and I
saw Léodgard almost every night. How many times during those two
months, when you came to see me, I was tempted to make you the
confidante of my love and my sin! It was painful to me to have a secret
from you, but he had enjoined upon me the strictest secrecy, he had made
me promise that I would tell you nothing, and I did not want to disobey
him.—At last, about a month ago, I learned that my mother was coming
home. My blood ran cold with fear, and I begged Léodgard to delay no
longer asking my parents for my hand. He promised to do it; but I have not
seen him since that day! It is true that I ceased to be free of my movements
in the house. My mother had returned; she watched me, kept me in sight, as
before. For the last two days it seemed to me that she was harsher than ever
with me; her face was dark; when her eyes met mine, I could not sustain
them; I felt that I turned pale and trembled. More than once I was on the
point of falling at her feet and confessing all. But I waited, I still hoped. I
said to myself: 'To-day, perhaps, he who made me a guilty woman will
come to ask my parents for my hand. And as the reparation will follow the
confession of my sin, they will not refuse to forgive us.'"
"Yes," said Ambroisine, with a sigh; "but your seducer did not keep his
promise!"
"Oh! he will keep it, Ambroisine; I refuse to doubt it. If he had known, if
I had dared to tell him, that I was a mother, I am sure that he would have
come before this to dry my tears! But I had not dared to make that
confession to him before my mother's return parted us so abruptly."
"Ah! he does not know—— But finish your story, I beg you!"
"Mon Dieu! I have nothing left to tell but what took place at our house
this evening. I was working with my mother, in a room away from the
street. We were perfectly silent; but from time to time I saw that my
mother's eyes were fixed on my person. I trembled lest she should discover

what I still tried to conceal. But suddenly my father entered the room; and
he, usually so kind and gentle, also had a lowering, troubled expression. He
came to me and held out a white plume, which I recognized as one I had
seen on Léodgard's hat.
"'Here,' he said, 'here is something that a lover of yours sends you! But
the fellow will not be tempted to try it again, I fancy; for I treated him in a
way to take away any such desire.'
"I was pale and speechless, for it seemed to me that nobody but
Léodgard could have brought that plume.
"But my mother instantly cried:
"'A lover! so it's true that she has a lover, is it? My suspicions are well
founded!—Ah! you wretched, shameless girl!'
"I fell on my knees, stammering: 'Pardon! pardon! yes, I am guilty; but
he will marry me! he has sworn it, and he will keep his oath!'
"When they heard an avowal which doubtless they were far from
expecting, my father hid his face in his hands. But my mother—oh! her
wrath was terrible! She strode toward me to strike me, but I think that my
father caught her arm. She heaped insults upon me, and questioned me. I
was so terrified that I could not speak.
"'But,' she cried, 'that villain—her seducer—who is he? Did you see him,
Landry?'
"'I don't understand it,' said my father; 'it was a wretched little solicitor's
clerk—horribly ugly and a perfect idiot—who ran away when I thrashed
him!'
"I knew then, of course, that Léodgard had not brought the white plume,
and I faltered:
"'It is not he, father; no, I don't know the man you saw.'
"'But, in that case, who is your seducer? Tell me his name—his name,
instantly, that I may go and wash away in his blood the affront put upon my
honor!'
"My father's eyes were threatening; he meant to kill my lover; so I
refused to name him.
"'Very well!' said my mother; 'go and join the man for whom you have
forgotten your duty; the man who has brought shame into our house; go—

you can live with us no longer; you are no longer worthy to live under our
roof; we turn you out. Begone!'
"In the hope of moving her, I told her then that I bore within me a
helpless creature, innocent of my sin! But, far from appeasing her anger, it
seemed to redouble when she heard that. She called me a—— But what
need is there for me to tell you more? You saw me in the street, when the
storm, increasing in violence to crush me, seemed to say to me that the
wrath of God had joined forces with my mother's to punish the girl who had
forfeited her honor, who had brought a blush to her father's brow!"
Bathilde's eyes filled with fresh tears as she finished her story.
Ambroisine allowed her grief to vent itself; there are times when words
of consolation buzz in our ears without reaching the heart.
At last Bathilde took her friend's hand and pressed it, saying:
"Forgive me for causing you so much distress. But your father—if he
learns that you have taken in the child whom her parents have cursed,
perhaps he too will turn me out of doors. I will remain hidden in your
chamber, Ambroisine; I will not stir from it. You will not tell your father
that I am here; for where should I go, if he too should turn me away?—With
no roof to shelter me, I should die of grief and want. And I do not want to
die, because there is a little being to whom I must give life."
"Calm your fears, my poor darling! I shall tell my father all, for I should
not like to have any secrets from him; but I am not at all alarmed; he is soft-
hearted, is my father; although he shouts and storms, he has a kind heart;
and, far from blaming me for taking you in, he will approve of it, he will
say that I did quite right; and then he will go to see your parents and plead
for you; for it is not possible that they do not regret having turned you
away."
"You do not know my mother, Ambroisine; she never recedes from her
resolutions; and my father is so exacting with respect to honor! he had such
perfect confidence in his daughter! Believe me, your father would take an
absolutely useless step; but there is someone whom I would like much to
see; someone whom I must inform of my condition, my present plight; for
then he will be able—at least, I hope so—to allay the anger of my parents
by telling them that he means to repair his wrongdoing—and to console me
a little for all my suffering by telling me that he still loves me. That
someone—you know who it is, do you not, Ambroisine? Well, you can

easily find his home—the Hôtel de Marvejols is on Place Royale.—You are
so kind, Ambroisine, that I know that you will go to see him, and tell him
all that has happened, and give him a letter which I will write to him,
begging him to put an end to our misery, and telling him also that—that
there is another person to whom he owes aid and protection.—You will see
Léodgard, will you not?—Ah! if he knew that I had been cursed by my
mother, he would have come here ere this to comfort me."
"I will do whatever you wish, my poor love!" Ambroisine replied,
forcing back a sigh. "But, sleep a little, take a little rest; remember that you
need it, and that you must be careful of your health."
Bathilde made no reply, but closed her eyes. Fatigue brings sleep at last,
as time always brings forgetfulness. Which proves that in us mortals the
mind is always vanquished by the body.

XXX
GOOD FRIENDS
On waking the next morning, Master Hugonnet remembered nothing of
his debauch except his dispute with the little clerk, with whom he was now
furiously angry. As he arranged his shop, he cried:
"Can anyone imagine such a sly, impertinent knave! To propose to me to
make pomade for him out of vile things, and to ask me if it would make hair
grow!—He had a very cunning leer as he said that, the horrible dwarf!—
Just imagine, my girl, a little man with a nose so turned up that you can see
nothing but two holes in his face; and making sport of me for all that,
because he had a few crowns in his pocket, won in gambling hells, no
doubt. If I find him again, I'll give him another good thrashing! I don't
propose to have the Basoche insult bath keepers!"
Ambroisine let her father give vent to his bile. Then she approached him
and smiled.
"Father," she said, "you didn't talk like that last night when you came
home from the wine shop! Then you adored this little dwarf; you shed tears
of regret because someone had beaten him."
"Really! I must have been drunk then?"
"Why, yes! rather."
"I must cure myself of that failing."
"Oh! father, a single failing may be excused in one who has so many
good qualities; the world is not perfect."
"You spoil me, my child; but as for you, I know of none but good
qualities, not a single fault!"
"Do you remember, father, that someone knocked last night, near
midnight, during the storm?"
"No, I don't remember."
"But you do remember at least the horrible storm, that lasted almost all
night?"

"Very vaguely; why?"
"If someone had come to ask me for hospitality in that weather, should I
have done wrong to grant it?"
"It is never wrong to do a good deed, even though it fall upon ingrates."
"Well, father, someone came—all drenched and shivering; that person
was very unhappy—with no place to go for shelter. And so I took her in and
gave her a night's lodging; she passed the night in this house, and is here
still."
"She is here—where, pray?"
"In my room."
"In your room!"
And Master Hugonnet's brows began to contract, but Ambroisine
hastened to add:
"That person, father, is Bathilde, the daughter of your friend Landry."
"Landry's daughter here! and she passed the night here, you say? What
on earth has happened at her father's house? What's the trouble?"
"Oh! father, some very terrible things have happened in your friend's
house."
"Tell me all about it, my child."
Ambroisine, with downcast eyes, told the story of Bathilde's liaison with
the young Comte de Marvejols, of Dame Ragonde's return, and of the
terrible catastrophe which had followed the discovery of that mystery.
Hugonnet listened, his face betraying the interest he took in the story; at
times he clenched his fists, his features contracted, his eyes blazed with
anger; but at the last, when Ambroisine described the condition in which
she had found Bathilde in the street, at midnight, when the rain was falling
in torrents and the thunder roaring almost incessantly, then Master
Hugonnet could no longer resist his emotion; tears dimmed his eyes, and he
could not help muttering:
"Ah! that was too much! they were too harsh! they were without pity in
their anger!—Why, the poor girl might have died!"
"Yes, indeed! a little later, and I should have found her dead!" cried
Ambroisine, putting her arm about her father's neck. "Ah! you would not be
the man to drive your daughter away like that, without pity, without mercy

—to turn her out of doors, where she would be exposed to the fury of such a
storm! No, no! no matter how guilty I might be, you would not treat me so,
father! you love your girl too dearly!"
Hugonnet had not the strength to reply; he could do no more than wipe
his eyes and kiss his daughter.
"I have told you all, father," Ambroisine continued; "I have even told
you the name of Bathilde's seducer; but I implore you to keep the secret; for
if Master Landry should discover it, he would fight with the count; and if
either of them should be killed, the poor girl would be still more to be
pitied."
"Very good, I will hold my tongue! but this seducer must be punished!
Let me undertake that duty."
"No, father, no; you must not interfere in this business at all. I beg you
not to. I propose to see Comte Léodgard. Bathilde believes that he still
loves her, she is convinced that he will repair his wrongdoing, that he will
restore her honor by marrying her."
"He! Comte Léodgard! that scapegrace, marry Landry's daughter! the
daughter of a bath keeper!—Do not hope for that! He will never marry
Bathilde, never!"
"Oh! father, if she should hear you, think of her despair!—Well, I shall
take no rest until the count has undone the wrong he has done her; nothing
will stop me, nothing deter me from attaining that end! You see, I am strong
and determined, father; I resemble you—I am brave. Let me act, I beg you;
let me see the count myself, and take whatever steps are necessary to make
Bathilde happy once more!—I do not know whether it is simply my longing
for success, but something tells me that I shall succeed."
Hugonnet pressed Ambroisine's hand.
"Do as you think best; you are a good girl, and I have confidence in
you."
"Oh! thanks, father! And now, won't you come with me and say a word
of consolation to poor Bathilde, who will not stir from my room and dares
not show herself to you?—Come, father, and see her, I beg you; if you do
not, she will think that you are angry because I made her welcome; that will
add to her grief, and she has quite enough now."

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Sustainable Land Management In A European Context A Codesign Approach Thomas Weith

More Related Content

Similar to Sustainable Land Management In A European Context A Codesign Approach Thomas Weith (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Sustainable Land Management In A European Context A Codesign Approach Thomas Weith