Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26

Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe

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

Abstract
Urbanization is one of the fundamental characteristics of the European civilization. It gradually spread from Southeast
Europe around 700 b.c., across the whole continent. Cities and the urban networks they formed were always an important
factor in the development and shaping of their surrounding regions. Polarization of territory between urban and rural and
accessibility are still important aspects in landscape dynamics. Urbanization and its associated transportation infrastructure
define the relationship between city and countryside. Urbanization, expressed as the proportion of people living in urban
places shows a recent but explosive growth reaching values around 80% in most European countries. Simultaneously the
countryside becomes abandoned. Thinking, valuing and planning the countryside is done mainly by urbanites and future
rural development is mainly focused upon the urban needs. Thinking of urban places with their associated rural hinterland
and spheres of influence has become complex. Clusters of urban places, their situation in a globalizing world and changing
accessibility for fast transportation modes are some new factors that affect the change of traditional European cultural
landscapes. Urbanization processes show cycles of evolution that spread in different ways through space. Urbanization phases
developed at different speeds and time between Northern and Southern Europe. Main cities are affected first, but gradually
urbanization processes affect smaller settlements and even remote rural villages. Functional urban regions (FURs) are a new
concept, which is also significant for landscape ecologists. Local landscape change can only be comprehended when situated
in its general geographical context and with all its related dynamics. Patterns of change are different for the countryside
near major cities, for metropolitan villages and for remote rural villages. Planning and designing landscapes for the future
requires that this is understood. Urbanized landscapes are highly dynamic, complex and multifunctional. Therefore, detailed
inventories of landscape conditions and monitoring of change are urgently needed in order to obtain reliable data for good
decision-making.
© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Urbanization; Landscape change; Rural; Countryside; Europe

1. Introduction landscapes become extremely devastating and many

Landscapes are on the political agenda today.
Natural and cultural aspects of landscapes receive
increasing attention from researchers, planners and
policy makers (Anonymous, 2000; Council of Europe,
2000; Brandt, 2000; Klijn and Vos, 2000). The main
reason is the general observation that the changes in
∗ Tel.: +32-9-264-4705; fax: +32-9-264-4985.
E-mail address: marc.antrop@rug.ac.be (M. Antrop).
heritage values and resources become irreversibly
lost. The speed of the changes, their frequency and
magnitude increased unprecedented in the second
half of the 20th century (Antrop, 2000a). Many new
elements and structures are superimposed upon the
traditional landscapes that become highly fragmented
and lose their identity. New landscapes are created,
which are characterized by a functional homogeneity.
They form new challenges for landscape research as
they are highly dynamic and little is known about the

0169-2046/$20.00 © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4
10 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
ongoing processes (Brandt et al., 2001). Planners and
policy makers are in growing need of new significant
data and scientific knowledge. Urbanization, effects
of transportation networks and globalization are the
important driving forces of these changes and the
emergence of new landscapes.
Urbanization is a complex process of change of
rural lifestyles into urban ones. It showed an almost
exponential growth since the end of the 19th century
(Champion, 2001; Pacione, 2001a; Antrop, 2000a;
Bryant et al., 1982). This process is intimately related
to the introduction of new modes of transportation, in
particular those that allowed mobility of the masses
such as the railroad. After the Second World War, the
use of the automobile started a new era of mobility
and landscape change. Accessibility became the most
important factor in landscape change and even in the
remote countryside urbanization processes can be no-
ticed when the region is disclosed by transportation.
Finally, the growing globalization of all activities and
decision-making causes changes at the local level that
are difficult to handle by the people living there. What
new tools and methods do researchers, planners and
policy makers need or have already at their disposal
to cope with these processes? The task will be dif-
ficult as transdisciplinary approach is recommended
and good communication is required.
Earlier views considered urbanization as a diffu-
sion process starting from the growing urban centers
that affected the countryside in concentric spheres of
differentiated influence (Burgess, 1925; Mann, 1965;
Bryant et al., 1982). The reality proved to be much
more complex and many city models and models
for urban land use structure have been made since
(Pacione, 2001b). Lewis and Maund (1976) stressed
the importance of accessibility of places and the
transportation infrastructure. Antrop (2000b) defined
urbanization as a complex process that transforms the
rural or natural landscapes into urban and industrial
ones forming star-shaped spatial patterns controlled by
the physical conditions of the site and its accessibility
by transportation routes. The relation between urban
and rural becomes extremely complex and receives a
growing attention in spatial and environmental plan-
ning (SPESP, 2000; Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995).
Typical is the transition between an urban center or ag-
glomeration and the countryside becoming unclear and
diffuse. The urban fringe or suburban landscapes are
characterized by a wide variety of land uses, which is
expressed in a complex, diverse and highly fragmented
morphology. Suburbs and urbanized rural landscapes
consist of a mosaic of varied land cover, constructions
and transportation infrastructures. The delimitation
between urban and rural becomes a difficult task in-
volving a lot of uncertainty and it is very unlikely
that land zoning borders remain a stable delineation.
Nowadays, urbanization is no longer typical for
the growth of cities or towns only but it influences
the processes in the rural countryside as well. The
actual changes of landscapes are induced by urban-
ization processes such as residential or industrial land
development and new communication infrastructures.
These processes are mainly controlled by social and
economic factors that exceed the local conditions.
These changes are characterized by a generalized
homogenization of the existing traditional landscape
diversity and the creation of largely chaotic patterns.
Such a chaotic development is typical for complex
systems and is also referred to as autonomous devel-
opment (Antrop, 1998). New forms of land use are
not ecologically related any more with the land and
the place. Spatial and environmental planning aims
to steer and control these changes, but the lack of
concerted actions at the appropriate scale level might
enhance this chaotic character.
This article discusses the main phases and trends of
the urbanization processes in Europe and how it acts
upon the actual rural landscapes, illustrated by some
case studies near large cities and in remote rural areas.
2. Urbanization Europe: a diffusion process
of shifting core areas
2.1. The advantages of agglomerated economies
and the power of geographical localization
Permanent human settlement is a direct result of
the success of agriculture, which created a food sur-
plus and allowed labor, so new activities could de-
velop. The success of the sedentary life resides mainly
in a concentration of different complementary activ-
ities in one place. These agglomeration economies
allowed specialization and stimulated trade, offering
win–win situations for all (Pacione, 2001a). Cities
were efficient structures to harbor such activities and
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26 11

to form the necessary route network for trading. Ur-
ban places relied their subsistence on a much larger
hinterland than rural villages. The difference between
villages and urban places do not differ in population
size and morphology only, but also in a different con-
centration of multiple activities, people and cultures
in one place (Pacione, 2001a). Cities had advantages
that were legally protected by privileges. During most
of the history cities were manifestly walled and physi-
cally separated from the surrounding rural land. Cities
rapidly became almost autonomous centers of inno-
vation from which new ideas, technology and goods
spread out over the trading world. The combination be-
tween the natural conditions of the settlement site and
its possibility to grow lead to a unique development
that gave almost each place its proper identity. Acces-
sibility and adequate specialization were important
factors of urban growth and decline (Antrop, 2000b).
Cities became centers of control over vast territo-
ries which sometimes became consolidated into states.
They also formed the nodes in an international trade
network. History shows that these were not stable
constructions and core areas of power, economy and
culture shifted from region to region (Jordan-Bychkov
and Bychkova Jordan, 2002; Pregrill and Volkman,
1993). The shift of the urbanization, economical and
cultural core area in Europe can easily be followed
from the Eastern Mediterranean towards the North
Sea (Fig. 1).
2.2. The pre-industrial phase: one city, many
towns and a countryside
Initially, only a limited number of urban places
became real cities. The majority of settlements were
small towns, villages and hamlets and the countryside

Fig. 1. Diffusion of urbanization through Europe. The early urbanization in Greek and Roman times expands form the Southeast from
700 b.c. to the border of Scotland in 400 a.d. Universities are created in the cities and indicate an expanding urbanization from the south
before 1300 a.d. to the Northeast after 1500 a.d. The urban clusters from Northern Italy and Flanders in the 16th century shifts and
expands around the North Sea in the 19th century (after Jordan-Bychkov and Bychkova Jordan, 2002; Pregrill and Volkman, 1993; Clark,
1992; Antrop, 1992; Jordan, 1973; base map and cities according to ArcView GIS Esridata).
12 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26

was everywhere. The city was the exception; the coun-
tryside the common. Mobility remained restricted
and so were the daily travel distances. Long distance
traveling happened in stages of several days or weeks
and helped to shape the urban networks. It also stim-
ulated specialization of disclosed places according to
time distance to the major cities along the major trade
or pilgrim routes. Two types of urban patterns devel-
oped: one primary city dominating a vast hinterland,
and clusters of cities at relatively close distance. Good
examples of the first type can be found in the 16th
century with Paris, London, Lisbon, Naples, Con-
stantinople and the Hanseatic towns such as Danzig
and Novgorod. Examples of city clusters were found
in medieval Flanders and Northern Italy (Clark, 1992).
Although mutually competitive, these cities stimu-
lated prosperity in the whole region and had important
influence on the development of the countryside.

Table 1
Phases of innovation in transportation modes in Europe
Innovation phased and periods Transportation modes and infrastructure Comments and effects upon the landscape

16th to early-17th century Barge boats; canals, canalized rivers, harbors Fast expansion in early industrialization period;
waterways initiate important landscape changes:
fragmentation and new corridors; industrial
development along. Dense network of waterways in
England and the low countries. In the beginning of
the 19th most of Western Europe is connected by
inland waterways
18th century New ‘royal’ or ‘imperial’ roads At the end of the 18th century, the travel time from
the capital to the border is reduced by half in
England and France. The new road network reflects
the central or decentralized organized countries
1825 to ca. 1875 Railway railroad network The railroad network spread from Northern England,
covered Northwest Europe around 1850 and almost
the whole of Europe by 1875. When doubling
waterways, the railways take over the functionality
1919–1924 Airplane Most capitals of Europe (except Balkan and
Ireland) are connected by airways
1930s Car The first controlled access motorways are built in
Germany
1960 onwards Car Improvement of existing roads, new roads
superimposing the existing network; extension of
the motorway network follows international
European cooperation. Fragmentation effects by
roads increases rapidly
1960 onwards Sea ports Increasing sea traffic demands vast areas for storing
transit goods and larger harbor infrastructures;
mainly wetlands along river estuaries and coastal
areas are reclaimed
1960 onwards Energy lines: pipelines and power lines The diffusion follows international European
cooperation. The transport volume of pipelines
doubled between 1970 and 1990
1960 onwards Airplane Increasing mass transportation with an annual
growth rate of approximately 10% between 1970
and 1990; indirect effect upon the fast development
of new tourists resorts areas, mostly undeveloped
coastal areas are affected
1980 onwards High speed train new railroad network First high speed railway (TGV) in France. The new
railroads are characterized by a strong barrier effect
in the landscape
Sources: Jordan-Bychkov and Bychkova Jordan (2002), Antrop (1999a), Stanners and Bourdeau (1995), Blockmans (1992).
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
2.3. The first disclosure of the countryside: canals
and the railway
Gradually and certainly from the 18th century on,
city walls were broken down and the urban agglom-
erations started to grow and to spread out. The fast
population growth was linked to the development of
industry and commerce in and around cities which
caused an advantageous geographical situation fa-
vorable for the development of the new industries
and international commercial networks. The histori-
cal identity and structure of the major growing cities
changed abruptly, while others stagnated within their
medieval walls. The fast growth lead to congestion
within the old urban limits and a ‘spill-over’ occurred
into the surroundings, mainly following the access
routes (Stern and Marsh, 1997; Lewis and Maund,
1976). First, the railroad and new waterways were cru-
cial arteries for new development (Lucassen, 1992).
Later, in particular after the Second World War, the
generalized car use increased mobility dramatically,
allowing rapid urban sprawl and the formation of sub-
urbs and metropolitan villages (Antrop, 2000b) and
edge cities (Holden and Turner, 1997). Consequently,
the relations between the urban and the rural changed
deeply.
The mode of transportation determines largely the
possibilities of movement and accessibility. Technol-
ogy allowed an exponential increase of travel speed
as well as the number of travelers. Important steps in
the technological innovation of transportation modes
are given in Table 1, as well as some specific impacts
upon the landscape.
Mobility of the masses starts with the railway and
the steamship. They induce the rural to urban migra-
tions as well as the massive emigration from Europe
to the New World. The railway induced a selective
disclosure of the countryside. Villages that received a
station developed rapidly into urban-like centers and
their surroundings changed accordingly. The early in-
troduction of the automobile in Europe in the begin-
ning of the 20th century was not only status symbol
that was localized in the cities, but (as in the USA)
an important means of the disclosure of the country-
side (Dupuy, 1995). The massive individual movement
started mainly after the Second World War when the
automobile became the main transportation mode. Fast
long distance transportation came along with airplanes
13
and later with the high-speed railway. It also stimu-
lated new urban development in tourist resort areas that
once were remote rural regions with limited access.
All modes of transportation affected the landscapes
in a particular way. Although the visual impact of the
infrastructure upon the landscape is important, many
other indirect effects are important as well (Antrop,
1999a). Improved accessibility stimulated develop-
ment and increased the contrast with the isolated, not
disclosed regions. Planning roads is not merely an
economic task, but increasingly involves consider-
ing environmental aspects, such as ecological effects
(Forman, 1998a,b) and scenic aspects (Viles and
Rosier, 2001; Kent and Elliot, 1995; Preece, 1991).
The mobility of people did not only change with
increasingly faster modes of transportation; it was
also conditioned by the spatial reorganization of the
landscape, in particular as a consequence of previous
urban sprawl and new accessibility opportunities.
3. Stages in urbanization
3.1. Cycles of urbanization and
counterurbanization
Several phases in the urbanization have been rec-
ognized (Champion, 2001; Geyer and Kontuly, 1993;
Van der Berg et al., 1982; Klaassen et al., 1981).
The urbanization phases are defined according to the
combined growth and decline of the urban center and
the urban fringe area (Fig. 2). The first phase (called
‘urbanization’) consists of a concentration of the pop-
ulation in the city center by migration of the people
Fig. 2. Cyclic model of the stages of urbanization based upon the
population change in core and fringe zone of urban agglomera-
tions: U, urbanization; S, suburbanization; D, disurbanization or
counterurbanization; R, reurbanization phase (after Klaassen et al.,
1981; Van der Berg et al., 1982; Champion, 2001).
14 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
from the fringe. The second phase (‘suburbanization’)
still shows a growing population of the whole urban
agglomeration, but the inner city loses population
while the urban fringe zone is growing rapidly. The
third phase (referred to as ‘counterurbanization’ or
‘disurbanization’) consists of the beginning decline of
the urban population by loss of people in both center
and fringe. The fourth phase (called ‘reurbanization’)
shows recovering of the population starting in the
city center and later in the fringe zone. The 1970s
are a turning point. It is the period where in many
more developed regions with high levels of urbaniza-
tion, a population turnaround is noticed resulting in
a decline of population in the urban agglomeration
and a stage of counterurbanization starts. Some mod-
els suggest a cyclic development of urbanization—
counterurbanization—reurbanization, which however
has not been proven yet (Champion, 2001). An im-
portant problem here is the comparison between the
evolution of different urban places, because of very
different definitions of ‘urban place’ and because
mostly population data is used to compare the differ-
ential evolution. These data are aggregated by spatial
units such as districts, which not always reflect the
fast changing spatial structure city limits. In addi-
tion, cities evolve at different paces according to their
own history and the geographical situation they are
located in.
3.2. Urbanization as a diffusion process
Urbanization is closely related to industrialization
and economic growth and spread with the innova-
tions caused by the Industrial revolution. Also, the
consecutive phases of urbanization can be seen as a
diffusions wave (Pacione, 2001a). Geyer and Kontuly
(1993) introduced the concept of differential urbaniza-
tion, which is very significant for understanding the
change of the landscape in the countryside due to ur-
banization processes (Fig. 3). The phases of concen-
tration and de-concentration of population in urban
places should be considered as a diffusion wave that
first affects the major cities and consecutively spreads
towards smaller towns and settlements. The concept
of differential urbanization suggests that urbanization
gradually affects the whole countryside, which forms
an interesting hypothesis for defining indicators and
testing the results in landscape monitoring.
Fig. 3. Model of differential urbanization: U, urbanization
phase of population concentration; C, counterurbanization with
de-concentration of population; PR, population reversal. (1) Cycle
of a primate city, (2 and 3) cycle of intermediate and small cities
(after Geyer and Kontuly, 1993).
The change from one urbanization phase to another
depends mainly upon changing land qualities, some
of which are expressed in ‘hard’ currency such as
land price and availability of sufficient land for devel-
opment. Others are more ‘soft’ and relate to general
perception and evaluation of the environment and
landscape. Many factors determine the final assess-
ment, such as accessibility, mobility, safety, crime,
proximity of open green space, availability of ser-
vices and nuisance. Many suburban allotments are
recent and were developed in a short time. Traditional
history of the place is lost in many cases and no new
history or tradition could develop yet. Age structure
of the population and architectural style are reflecting
mainly one generation as well as their specific val-
ues. These values are seldom persistent and durable.
When suburban land becomes fully built-up and traffic
congestion increases, many of the initial values that
attracted new people to settle here are lost (Antrop,
2000b). New residential settlement sites are searched
in more remote, yet fast and easily accessible coun-
tryside. Smaller towns and villages are preferred and
new exurbs emerge (Lucy and Philips, 1997). Urban-
ization is affecting increasingly the whole countryside
and is no longer restricted to the urban fringe zones.
3.3. Thinking with functional urban regions
Urban and rural settlements are fundamentally
different, not only because of their difference in pop-
ulation size and thus density, but even more because
of their differences in the way of living, in their cul-
tural diversity and heterogeneous mix of activities
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26 15

(Paddison, 2001). The urban life style is gradually and make the distinction between urban and rural to
spreading even in small and remote rural settlements. become very diffuse.
When urbanites are spreading more loosely into the Nowadays, urban settlements consist of com-
countryside, they change the traditional life style there plex agglomerations of greatly varying buildings,

Fig. 4. Percentage of 241 functional urbanization regions of more than 330,000 inhabitants in Europe according to their urbanization phase
by decades: (a) Northern Europe (UK Ireland, Denmark, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands), (b) France and Northern Italy, (c)
Southern Europe. Circle indicates crossover period of between the urbanization and suburbanization phase (after Cheshire, 1995; Paddison,
2001).
16 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
Fig. 4. (Continued ).
constructions and infrastructures forming mosaics of
multifunctional use and with increasingly diffuse bor-
ders. Also, the surrounding countryside is affected by
urbanization processes changing lifestyle, functions
and morphology. This has lead to the introduction of
some new concepts. Instead of using morphological
agglomerations to define an urban place, the concept
of functional urban regions (FURs) or the similar
functional community areas were introduced to de-
scribe ‘units’ of urban place (Frey and Zimmer, 2001).
All are related to the interaction between cities and
their interrelated rural space. FURs include built-up
areas as well as the open space in between that is
functionally related. The concept is an extension of
the concept of metropolitan areas made applicable
upon smaller urban places.
Cheshire (1995) applied the concepts upon Europe
and defined 241 FURs of more than 330,000 inhabi-
tants for which the urbanization phase was evaluated
in five time periods (Fig. 4). Northern Europe, France
and Northern Italy and Southern Europe showed dif-
ferent trajectories and a clear shift in time according
to the cycle of urbanization phases. Very indicative is
the crossover point between the declining urbaniza-
tion phase and increasing proportion of FURs coming
in the phase of disurbanization. For Northern Europe,
this crossover is situated early in the 1950s–1960s
(Fig. 4a), in France and Northern Italy this happens
around the 1970s (Fig. 4b) and in Southern Europe
between 1975 and 1980 (Fig. 4c). This demonstrates
that the urbanization affects the countryside very dif-
ferently according to geographical region and time.
Indicators of urbanization such as the proportion of
the population living in urban places, and the applica-
tion of general evolution models should be used with
extreme caution.
4. Patterns of landscape change
4.1. The countryside in the urban shadow
of large cities
Large cities show most characteristic patterns of
star-shaped urban sprawl (Antrop, 2000b). Most urban
development starts along the main access roads. When
congestion occurs new peripheral motorways are built,
which stimulates the development of edge cities char-
acterized by new commercial and industrial activities.
Between these lobes of urban development, wedges
of remarkably untouched countryside can remain.
This phenomenon has been explained by the ‘urban
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26 17

implosion’ in time–space as larger urban places tend to
develop better connections amongst each other while
the accessibility of smaller places nearby diminishes
(Haggett, 1975). Rural areas close to cities falling in
such an ‘urban shadow’ (Bryant et al., 1982) do not
change fast and the countryside gains in open-space
value because of its lack of urban environment nearby.
The case of Brussels is very illustrative (Fig. 5) and
shows that even at close distance to the larger city cen-
ter, a visually intact traditional countryside can exist.
Although the landscape still has a rural appearance,
however, it has been urbanized functionally. Urban-
ites come to settle in former farms and restaurants,
and cafe’s in the village centers emerge, attracting
weekend recreants massively. The visual qualities of
the rural landscape are important in the assessment
and urbanites search sceneries reflecting their mental
conception of an unspoilt Arcadian countryside as
opposed to urban image (Kolen and Lemaire, 1999;
Van Zeylen, 1994; Mosser and Teyssot, 1991).

Fig. 5. Urban sprawl from a major city illustrating the urban shadow and urban implosion. Example of Brussels (Belgium): (a) land
use map from satellite image classification—black and dark gray, built-up areas; light gray, forest, white rural land; (b) phases of urban
development—(0) valley of the Zenne river as main physical structure for Brussels site and development, (1) 15th to 16th century walled
city, (2) 19th to early-20th century expansion, (3) post-1950 expansion, (4) main access motorways and peripheral motorway, (5) techno
pole development towards the airport, (6) emerging edge cities; (c) distance zones from historical city center; (d) traditional landscape near
Gaasbeek in the urban shadow of Brussels ((a) Land Use Map of Flanders, Support Center of GIS-Flanders, 1990).
18 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26

4.2. Urbanized villages
The urbanization pattern of rural village becoming a
metropolitan village is completely different (Pacione,
2001b). The disclosure of the place for transporta-
tion is of utmost importance here. The example of the
village of Drongen (Flanders, Belgium) is illustrative
(Fig. 6). It is localized approximately 5 km west of
the city of Ghent, a comparable distance as the village
of Gaasbeek in the previous case study of Brussels.
However, it was disclosed early by the railway and is
situated on a main access road to the city, which be-
came very important when connected to the main mo-
torway E40. It expanded first as a dormitory town in
the suburban fringe of Ghent. Traffic congestion of the
principal transit road decreased the environmental and
living qualities and a new larger peripheral road was
built to solve that problem. However, this improved the
accessibility and attracted even more new residential,
commercial and industrial development around the ac-
cess nodes of the motorway and along the older sec-
ondary roads. A typical complex and multifunctional

Fig. 6. Urbanization processes in an metropolitan village (Drongen, near Ghent, Belgium). The old village center is composed of an abbey
(a) situated at the edge of the alluvial plain of the Lys river, associated with a rural village along an ancient road (R1) from Ghent to the
West; early-20th century development of the village (b) and disclosure by the railway station (s). The road through the village center became
a major access road from the city of Ghent to the E40 motorway, at the connection (f) developed an industrial zone, traffic congestion in the
village center lead to the building of a peripheral road (R2), which increased accessibility causing new urban sprawl into the countryside
following older secondary roads going north filling the arable land (1, 2 and 3) while the wet valley land remained untouched; improved
access initiated new commerce and activity zones (4), even enhanced by new access possibilities of the peripheral motorway R4 along the
new ring-canal around the city of Ghent (g) (Orthophotomap of Flanders, 1990, Eurosense N.V./Support Center GIS-Flanders).
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26 19

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

suburban landscape emerged. It is interesting to note Lys river. The initial rural village had its open-field
the asymmetry of the development: the site of the vil- cropland stretching upon the well-drained soils to the
lage of Drongen was on an ancient road following north, while the wetland along the river was used as
the high grounds longing the alluvial valley of the hay land and a hedgerow landscape developed. This

Fig. 8. Remote rural villages that become ‘opened’ by improved accessibility will explode. Video and computer shops rise next to traditional
farms (Kastelli, central Crete).
20 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26

rich landscape diversity still is one of the important

qualities of the actual urbanized village. Rural open
space and natural green areas are always close for its
inhabitants and easily accessible for the inhabitants of
the nearby city of Ghent.

4.3. Remote rural villages

Improved accessibility also initiated urbanization

processes in the remote countryside. Most striking is
the new urban development in ‘the middle of nowhere’
at the crossing of new or improved roads (Fig. 7).
The easy and fast access and the availability of cheap
open space rapidly attract new small industries, com-
merce and exhibition halls, hotels and restaurants. Re-
mote rural villages ‘where time stood still’, suddenly
‘explode’ when disclosed by a new or improved road
as the case of Kastelli in the mountainous inland of
Crete illustrates (Fig. 8). Morphological and functional
urbanization suddenly and simultaneously invade the
traditional rural village, causing profound social, eco-
nomic and cultural changes. A wide spread form of
this type of development occurs when rural places are
‘discovered’ by tourism.
According to the initial structure of the village, its Fig. 9. Some models of changing patterns of rural villages in
Europe due to urbanization processes in the countryside: (a) ex-
geographical context and properties of the improved panded, (b) axial extended, (c) exploded, (d) beady ring develop-
accessibility, different patterns of urbanization of ru- ment, (e) satellite extension. Circle indicates old village center;
ral villages can be recognized (Fig. 9) (Van Eetvelde different hatches indicate different building styles and land uses.
and Antrop, 2001). Besides expanding the built-up
area, new, more scattered patterns can emerge, such as
the ‘beady ring’ pattern (Saunders, 2001; Hillier and favorable, forest and wasteland take over (Vos and
Hanson, 1984), or extended development in the vicin- Stortelder, 1992).
ity of the rural village that remains rather untouched.
Axial extension occurs when the new development
follows the corridor with improved accessibility. 5. The importance of urbanization
Also, the functional differentiation within the new
development can differ a lot. Expanding the village 5.1. Urban population and urban land
can be mainly residential (Fig. 9a) or really ‘explode’
by multiple new functions coming in and disturb- Although most of the population is living in cities,
ing the original structure (Fig. 9c) as in the Kastelli only one percent of the land area of Europe is esti-
case. mated to be urban (Table 2). However, comparable
Villages in the remote countryside that are not dis- data about the built-up land are rare and hard to find.
closed by new and fast roads suffer of severe isolation It is significant that the HABITAT reports (United
in modern society and might become gradually aban- Nations Center for Human Settlement, 1996, 2001) do
doned. In agricultural fertile regions, scale enlarge- not give any data about the areas occupied by urban
ment in agriculture and concentration of population in settlements.
larger settlements is one trend (Vos and Klijn, 2000). The high level of urbanization in the world is a re-
In regions where land suitability for agriculture is less cent phenomenon that was initiated by the industrial
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
Table 2
Main land use/land cover categories in Europe (after Van de Velde
et al., 1994 in Stanners and Bourdeau, 1995)
Land use/land cover
Forest
Extensive agriculture, natural areas and mixed
land use
Arable land
Permanent crops
Grassland
Urban
revolution and many accompanying social, cultural,
economical, political and military changes, which
caused profound changes in our society. Estimates
indicate a level of urbanization in the world of only
1.6% around a.d. 1600 and 2.2% at the beginning
of the 19th century and this is estimated to fluctuate
between 4 and 7% in the mid-19th century (United
Nations Center for Human Settlement, 1996, 2001).
The first accelerated increase of urbanization was
noted in the early industrializing regions of Northern
America and Western Europe. Today, in most of these
regions the degree of urbanization, expressed as the
percentage of the population living in urban places,
exceeds 80% where it seems to stabilize between 80
and 90% (Fig. 10). Although, the population growth
in these developed countries is generally decreas-
ing, cities and towns are still slightly growing, while
the rural population is dropping down rapidly. An
annual loss of 1.5% in rural population is expected
in these more developed regions (Frey and Zimmer,
2001).
Fig. 10. Evolution of the level of urbanization in the main European
regions between 1950 and 2030 (after United Nations Center for
Human Settlement (HABITAT), 1996, 2001).
21
Table 3
Types of functional urban areas in Europe (after the Study Pro-
gramme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP), 2000)
Area (%) Regions dominated by a large metropolis
Polycentric regions with high urban and rural densities
33 Polycentric regions with high urban densities
24 Rural areas under metropolitan influence
Rural areas with networks of medium-sized and small towns
24 Remote rural areas
16
2
1
Consequently, most of the thinking and planning of
the land use and organizing the landscape is nowadays
done by urbanites. The concept, vision, values and util-
ity of the rural land and the countryside is nowadays
largely defined by people living and working in the
city. The significance and function of the countryside
has changed profoundly since urbanization started in
the 19th century. The future rural countryside will be
planned in function of the needs of the urbanites. This
new approach becomes already clear when looking at
the types of FUAs in Europe and the relationship be-
tween the urban and the rural proposed in the final re-
port of Study Program on European Spatial Planning
(SPESP, 2000) (Tables 3 and 4).
5.2. Lack of reliable data
The level of urbanization of a country is expressed
as the percentage of the population living in urban
places and is the complement of the ‘rural’ population
living in smaller settlements. Usually, two criteria are
used for the definition of an urban place: population
size and spatial clustering of their housing. However,
the definition and delineation of an urban place varies
a lot between countries. For example, in the USA a
Table 4
Types of relations or partnership between urban and rural formu-
lated in the SPESP (2000)
Home–work relationships
Central place relationships
Relationships between metropolitan areas and urban centers in
rural and intermediate areas (in fact, urban hierarchy)
Relationship between rural and urban enterprises
Rural areas as consumption areas for urban dwellers
Rural areas as open spaces for urban areas
Rural areas as carriers of urban infrastructure
Rural areas as suppliers of natural resources for urban areas
(example: water)
22 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26

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

settlement of more than 2500 inhabitants is considered
as urban, in France an agglomeration of contiguous
housing with more than 2000 inhabitants is an urban
place, while more than 10,000 inhabitants are needed
in Portugal to consider a settlement agglomeration as
urban. There is no point in the continuum from large
agglomerations to small clusters or scattered dwellings
where urbanity disappears and rurality begins (United
Nations Center for Human Settlement, 1996). Thus,
the division between urban and rural is necessarily
arbitrary. Moreover, urban agglomerations seldom co-
incide with administrative boundaries and their areas
change rapidly. This makes it even more difficult to use
criteria as population size and density to define urban
places, as most census data rely on administrative spa-
tial units. These problems are well illustrated with the
Belgian situation (Antrop, 1999b). Belgium had the
highest urbanization level in 2000 with 97.3%. How-
ever, the population density map based upon census
districts (Fig. 11) shows densely scattered urban places
and a clear difference between the northern part (Flan-
ders) and the southern part (Wallonia). The average
population density of more than 400 inhabitants/km2
and the spatial pattern of numerous towns and
urbanized villages make Flanders a highly urbanized
region. Wallonia on the contrary shows a concentra-
tion of dense urban settlement in the old industrial
belt, but most of the region is almost empty, indicated
by an average population density of less than 50
inhabitants/km2 . Clearly, general and aggregated data
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26 23

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

about the level of urbanization are not related to land-
scape patterns and should be used with extreme care.
Urban and industrial areas are highly dynamic and
changes occur rapidly. Also the pace seems still to
accelerate. Reliable and actual land use data is needed
for policy making and planning for the fast growing
mega cities in the world and for the depopulating
rural areas. Census data is mostly based upon ad-
ministrative units, which change rapidly and do no
longer reflect the characteristics of the fast changing
land units they represent. Monitoring of environmen-
tal quality often uses networks for measuring mainly
data about air and water quality and waste deposits,
but no generally accepted and systematic monitoring
of the land use and landscape exists (Stanners and
Bourdeau, 1995). The European Landscape Conven-
tion (Council of Europe, 2000) and many other ini-
tiatives (Jongman et al., 2000) stress the urgent need

Fig. 13. Severe fragmentation due to urbanization breaks the traditional cultural landscapes into numerous unconnected relics of countryside;
the example of Flanders (Belgium): relic zones of traditional landscapes (light gray) occupy 36% of the area and highly valuable core areas
(dark gray) occupy 16%. Average size of relic zones is 1029 and 580 ha for the core areas (after the Landscape Atlas of Flanders, 2001).
24 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
for landscape inventorying and monitoring. Remote
sensing and the use of satellite imagery offer interest-
ing possibilities for monitoring changes in land cover
in a synoptic view. However, in the heterogeneous
and fine grained suburban and industrial landscapes,
which are characterized by a strong fragmentation by
transportation infrastructure, only sub-5 m-resolution
offers satisfactory results to map the land cover in
such a way the real land use can be deduced from.
Also, many differences exist in the definition of urban
land use and built-up land, giving strongly differing
results (Antrop and Van Eetvelde, 2000).
How much land is urbanized? How much traditional
landscapes are affected? These questions remain dif-
ficult to answer as they depend largely upon the scale
of the inventories are carried out. The example of
Flanders (Belgium) illustrates how the well-connected
countryside becomes fragmented by urbanization re-
lated developments in densely populated regions. Nev-
ertheless, even when inventories of built-up land and
infrastructures result in maps where almost all the rural
seems to have disappeared (Figs. 11 and 12), specific
landscape inventories indicate that still many valuable
fragments of traditional landscapes remain and de-
mand special attention (Fig. 13) (Antrop, 2001, Tack
and Van den Bremt, 2001).
6. Conclusions
Urbanization is primarily a complex of functional
changes, followed by morphological and structural
ones. It occurs near cities as well as in the rural coun-
tryside. It should be regarded as a diffusion wave of
changing life-style mainly controlled by the chang-
ing accessibility of places offering new opportunities.
Urbanization causes a polarization of space by chang-
ing population densities, economical activities and
mobility. Remote rural areas with poor accessibility
become abandoned and in many cases forests ex-
pand. The countryside that is affected by urbanization
becomes a complex intensively and multifunctional
used space within a larger urban network frame. Tra-
ditional landscapes with their ecological and cultural
values become highly fragmented and gradually lose
their identity. Regional landscape diversity decreases
and a new diversity emerges with land use designed
for urbanites. Many of these changes are gradually
accepted and integrated as part of the local landscape
character.
Important research, planning issues and questions
arise. What to do with the traditional cultural land-
scapes? The general principle that landscape struc-
tures and functioning continuously interact (Forman
and Godron, 1986) applies here as well. It seems that
elements and structures that are no longer functional
for the new needs of the majority of the population
living in cities, will disappear. So, what will be the
future of the past? How to plan and manage the
emerging ‘interurban’ multifunctional landscapes?
How to assess the character or identity of a changing
landscape and decide what is valuable for the future
and might become traditional or heritage? There is a
need to shift from a created landscape to a designed
environment. This can be achieved in a responsible
and sustainable manner only when reliable data and
meaningful indicators become available. Therefore,
monitoring landscape changes, including the new
complex and urbanized ones, is urgently needed.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Margareta Ihse and
Prof. Dr. Ülo Mander, the organizers of the IALE 2001
European Conference on the Development of Euro-
pean Landscapes, for inviting me to present this topic
at the plenary session. I would also like to thank the
Ministry of the Flemish Community and the Support
Center of GIS Flanders for the maps and orthophotos
in Figs. 5 and 6.
References
Anonymous, 2000. Get Connected To Your Place! The
Dornach Landscape Document, Discussion Document of
the International Conference, The Culture of the European
Landscape as a Task, Dornach, Switzerland.
Antrop, M., 1992. Geografische aspekten van de Europese cultuur.
De Aardrijkskunde 2, 87–125.
Antrop, M., 1998. Landscape change: plan or chaos? Landsc.
Urban Plann. 41, 155–161.
Antrop, M., 1999a. Transport routes in the landscape:
about connectors, dividers, initiators, attractors and views.
In: Kristensen, L., Petersen, E.H. (Eds.), Transport og
Landskab. Landskabsøkologiske skrifter nr. 13. Center for
Landskabsforskning, pp. 21–39.
 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
Antrop, M., 1999b. Ruimtelijke ordening en milieu. Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and International Cooperation,
Brussels.
Antrop, M., 2000a. Background concepts for integrated landscape
analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 17–28.
Antrop, M., 2000b. Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside
of Western Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 15, 257–270.
Antrop, M., 2001. De landschapsatlas, Methode. In: Hofkens, E.,
Roossens, I. (Eds.), Nieuwe impulsen voor de landschapszorg.
De landschapsatlas, baken voor een verruimd beleid. Ministerie
van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Monumenten en
Landschappen, Brussel, pp. 21–43.
Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V., 2000. Holistic aspects of suburban
landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics.
Landsc. Urban Plann. 50, 43–58.
Brandt, J., 2000. Demands for future landscapes research on
multifunctional landscapes. In: Proceedings of the Conference
on Multifunctional Landscapes—Interdisciplinary Approaches
to Landscape Research and Management. Roskilde, October
18–21.
Brandt, J., Holmes, E., Skriver, P., 2001. Urbanization of the
countryside—problems of interdisciplinarity in the study of
rural development. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the
Open SPACE Functions under URBAN Pressure. Ghent, 19–21
September 2001.
Bryant, C., Russwurm, L., McLellan, A., 1982. The City’s
Countryside: Land and its Management in the Rural Urban
Fringe. Longman, London.
Burgess, E., 1925. The growth of the city. In: Park, R., Burgess,
E. (Eds.), The City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.
47–62.
Champion, T., 2001. Urbanization, suburbanisation, counterurbani-
sation and reurbanisation. In: Paddison, R. (Ed.), Handbook of
Urban Studies. Sage, London, pp. 143–161.
Cheshire, P., 1995. A new phase of urban development in Western
Europe? The evidence for the 1980s. Urban Stud. 32, 1045–
1063.
Clark, P. (Ed.), 1992. Ontwikkeling van de stad. De wording
van Europa. HD Communication Consultants, Hilverum, M&P
Uitgeverij, Weert.
Council of Europe, 2000. The European Landscape Convention.
Strasbourg.
Dupuy, G., 1995, Les territoires de l’automobile. Anthropos-
Economica, Paris.
Forman, R.T.T., 1998a. Road ecology: a solution for a giant
embracing us. Landsc. Ecol. 13, iii–v.
Forman, R.T.T., 1998b. Roads and their major ecological effects.
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29, 207–231.
Forman, R., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley, New
York.
Frey, W.H., Zimmer, Z., 2001. Defining the city. In: Paddison, R.
(Ed.), Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage, London, pp. 14–35.
Geyer, H.S., Kontuly, T.M., 1993. A theoretical foundation for
the concept of differential urbanization. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 15,
157–177.
Haggett, P., 1975. Geography: A Modern Synthesis. Harper &
Row, London.
25
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge
University Press, London.
Holden, R., Turner, T., 1997. Western Europe, current city
expansion and the use of GIS. Landsc. Urban Plann. 36, 315–
326.
Jongman, R.H.G., Klijn, J., Pedroli, G.B.M., 2000. Landscape
Europe. International Center of Expertise on Landscapes.
Position paper, WUR/ALTERRA, Wageningen.
Jordan, T., 1973. The European Culture Area. Harper & Row,
London.
Jordan-Bychkov, T.G., Bychkova Jordan, B., 2002. The European
Culture Area. A Systematic Geography. Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, New York.
Kent, R.L., Elliot, C.L., 1995. Scenic routes linking and protecting
natural and cultural landscape features: a greenway skeleton.
Landsc. Urban Plann. 33, 341–355.
Klaassen, L.H., Molle, W.T.M., Paelinck, J.H.P. (Eds.), 1981.
Dynamics of Urban Development. Aldershot, Gower.
Klijn, J., Vos, W., 2000. A new identity for landscape ecology in
Europe: a research strategy for next decade. In: Klijn, J., Vos,
W. (Eds.), From Landscape Ecology to Landscape Science.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, WLO, Wageningen, pp. 149–161.
Kolen, J., Lemaire, T. (Eds.), 1999. Landschap in meervoud.
Perspectieven op het Nederlandse landschap in de 20ste/21ste
eeuw. Utrecht, Uitg. J. van Arkel.
Landscape Atlas of Flanders, 2001. Ministry of the Flemish
Community. Support Center GIS-Flanders, Brussel (CD-ROM
in Dutch).
Lewis, G.J., Maund, D.J., 1976. The urbanization of the
countryside: a framework for analysis. Geografiska Annaler
58B, 17–27.
Lucassen J., 1992. Europese ontwikkelingen vanaf de Romeinse
tijd tot heden. In: Bolckmans, W. (Ed.), De mens in beweging.
De wording van Europa. HD Uitgevers, Hilversum, M&P
Uitgeverij, Weert, pp. 9–32.
Lucy, W., Philips, D., 1997. The post-suburban era comes
to Richmond: city decline, suburban transition and exurban
growth. Landsc. Urban Plann. 36, 259–275.
Mann, P., 1965. An Approach to Urban Sociology. Routledge,
London.
Ministry of the Flemish Community, 2001. Master Plan Mobility
Flanders. Brussel (in Dutch).
Mosser, M., Teyssot, G. (Eds.), 1991.The History of Garden
Design. The Western Tradition from the Renaissance to the
Present Day. Thames & Hudson, London.
Pacione, M., 2001a. Urban Geography: A Global Perspective.
Routledge, London.
Pacione, M., 2001b. Models of urban land use structure in cities
in the developed world. Geography 86, 97–119.
Paddison, R. (Ed.), 2001. Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage,
London.
Preece, R.A., 1991. Designs on the Landscape. Belhaven Press,
London.
Pregrill, P., Volkman, N., 1993. Landscape in History. Design and
Planning in the Western Tradition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
Saunders, P., 2001. Urban ecology. In: Paddison, R. (Ed.),
Handbook of Urban Studies. Sage, London.
26 M. Antrop / Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9–26
SPESP, 2000. Study Programme on European Spatial Planning
(SPESP). Final Report, 31 March 2000 (www.nordregio.a.se).
Stanners, D., Bourdeau, Ph. (Eds.), 1995. Europe’s Environment.
The Dobřı́š Assessment. European Environment Agency, EC
DG XI and Phare, Copenhagen.
Stern, M., Marsh, W., 1997. The decentered city: edge cities and
the expanding metropolis. Landsc. Urban Plann. 36, 243–246.
Tack, G., Van den Bremt, P., 2001. De Landschapsatlas, Resultaten.
In: Hofkens, E., Roossens, I. (Eds.), Nieuwe impulsen voor de
landschapszorg. De landschapsatlas, baken voor cen verruimd
beleid. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling
Monumenten en Landschappen, Brussel, pp. 44–62.
United Nations Center for Human Settlement (HABITAT), 1996.
An Urbanizing World. Global Report on Human Settlements
1996. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
United Nations Center for Human Settlement (HABITAT), 2001.
Cities in a Globalizing World. Global Report on Human
Settlements 2001. Earthscan Publications, London.
Van der Berg, L., Drewett, R., Klaassens, L.H., Rossi, A.,
Vijverberg, C.H.T., 1982. Urban Europe, vol. I. A Study of
Growth and Decline. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M., 2001. Comparison of the landscape
structure of traditional and new landscapes. Some European
examples. In: Mander, Ü., Printsmann, A., Palang, H. (Eds.),
Development of European Landscapes, vol. 2. Conference
Proceedings IALE European Conference 2001. Publicationes
Instituti Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis, Tartu, p. 275.
Van Zeylen, G., 1994. Tous les jardibns du monde. Gallimard,
Paris.
Viles, R.L., Rosier, D.J., 2001. How to use roads in the creation
of greenways: case studies in three New Zealand landscapes.
Landsc. Urban Plann. 55, 15–27.
Vos, W., Klijn, J., 2000. Trends in European landscape
development: prospects for a sustainable future. In: Klijn,
J., Vos, W. (Eds.), From Landscape Ecology to Landscape
Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, WLO, Wageningen,
pp. 13–30.
Vos, W., Stortelder, A.H.F., 1992. Vanishing Tuscan landscapes,
landscape ecology of a sub-mediterrann-montane area (Solano
basin, Tuscany, Italy). Pudoc, Wageningen.
Marc Antrop (1946) is geographer specialized in landscapes sci-
ences, remote sensing, GIS and planning. He is professor lectur-
ing at the University of Ghent (Belgium, Flanders) and at the
moment head of the Department of Geography. His interest in
the landscape is broad and holistic, covering and integrating as-
pects of landscape genesis (in particular, focusing upon the nat-
ural and cultural aspects of the European landscapes), landscape
perception, landscape evaluation and land assessment, landscape
ecology and landscape architecture. Practical application of this
knowledge is achieved in planning and environmental impact as-
sessment and monitoring land degradation. His main work areas
are Belgium, France, the Mediterranean, Egypt and Central Eu-
rope. His main research field are actually the elaboration of the
survey of the relicts of traditional landscapes of Flanders, the elab-
oration of methods for strategic environmental impact assessment
(SEA) and the development of new structural spatial planning. He
is member of the Royal Committee for Protection of Monuments
and Landscapes in Flanders and vice-president for the division
of landscape protection. He is a consultant for the Flemish and
Belgian government on the field of environmental impact assess-
ment and the implementation of GIS in administration, environ-
mental policy and planning and is member of the Scientific GIS
Committee.