**3. Results and discussion**

The results come from the analysis of the land uses for each of the European countries in the years 1990, 2000, 2006 and 2012. The results will be exposed through the graphs, tables and thematic cartography. This typology of results allows to extract the most relevant information and to characterize each of the European countries on the basis of the 44 uses of the soil determined by CLC—through an easy read.

Latvia does not seem to highlight by a specific land use as all the land uses in 2012 comprised 0–16%. The major land uses are vineyards (211), mixed forests (313), transitional woodland

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

141

**Countryt Area (hectares) Country Area (hectares)** Austria 8,728,000 Italy 31,300,000 Belgium 3,086,000 Latvia 6,914,000 Bulgaria 12,620,000 Lithuania 6,950,000 Croatia 5,977,000 Luxembourg 2,631,000 Cyprus 1,215,000 Malta 33,180 Czech Republic 8,228,000 Netherlands 3,766,000 Denmark 4,379,000 Poland 33,010,000 Estonia 4,834,000 Portugal 9,267,000 Finland 35,320,000 Romania 26,690,000 France 55,190,000 Slovakia 5,240,000 Germany 36,540,000 Slovenia 2,119,000 Greece 14,970,000 Spain 50,660,000 Hungary 9,969,000 Sweden 46,000,000 Ireland 7,013,000 United Kingdom 24,490,000

shrub (324), coniferous forests (312) and pastures (231).

**Figure 1.** EU Member States (authors).

**Table 3.** Surface of EU Member States (authors).

According to the latitude, EU Member States have been classified into three groups: (i) further to the North—'North EU group countries'; (ii) further to the South—'South EU group countries'; (iii) countries that occupy an intermediate position—'Central EU group countries' (**Figure 1**). Also, the obtained surfaces can be observed in **Table 3**.

Initially, the 'North EU group countries' have been analysed—Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden (**Table 4** and **Figure 2**).

Estonia seems to be a country dominated by two land uses—mixed forest (313) and coniferous forest (312), corresponding to the forest and semi-natural areas. The following higher percentage of land use corresponds to non-irrigated arable land (211). Therefore, if there was a greater exploitation of agricultural resources, there would be an increase in food production. In fact, the abovementioned land uses present an expansion; however, it does not differ significantly, considering the extension of the rest of the land uses—which are from 5–10%, corresponding to transitional woodland-shrub, broad-leaved forest, pastures and land occupied by agriculture (324, 311, 231, 243).

Finland is a predominantly forest country, characterized by two major land uses: coniferous forest (312) and mixed forests (313). Surprisingly, between 2000 and 2006, the extension occupied by those land uses was approximately similar; nevertheless, in 2012, coniferous forest cover increased. Therefore, it seems that the use of the coniferous forest land has increased in detriment of the mixed forest. The third land use with major relevance in Finland is transitional woodland shrub (324). However, this land use has decreased in 2012, until reaching an area similar to water bodies' land use (512).

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258 141

**Figure 1.** EU Member States (authors).

countries. Taking into account that four countries in the EU 28 Members had no registered

Subsequently, all these geo-database alphanumeric information were analysed by country and by year basis, using the Microsoft Access database. For each of these geo-databases there was a table of alphanumeric information, applying a query that is based on the Standard Query Language (SQL). In this regard, the surface of EU Member States has been summarized through CLC land use (**Table 2**). Relating the number of hectares of each country allocated to particular land use (**Table 2**), it was possible to characterize the EU countries according to land uses and determine what changed according to hectares' numbers dedicated to different land uses in the years 1990, 2000, 2006 and 2012. Also, this synthetic methodology has been based on actual and open-access EU data—possible to replicate in future years/periods.

The results come from the analysis of the land uses for each of the European countries in the years 1990, 2000, 2006 and 2012. The results will be exposed through the graphs, tables and thematic cartography. This typology of results allows to extract the most relevant information and to characterize each of the European countries on the basis of the 44 uses of the soil

According to the latitude, EU Member States have been classified into three groups: (i) further to the North—'North EU group countries'; (ii) further to the South—'South EU group countries'; (iii) countries that occupy an intermediate position—'Central EU group countries'

Initially, the 'North EU group countries' have been analysed—Estonia, Finland, Latvia,

Estonia seems to be a country dominated by two land uses—mixed forest (313) and coniferous forest (312), corresponding to the forest and semi-natural areas. The following higher percentage of land use corresponds to non-irrigated arable land (211). Therefore, if there was a greater exploitation of agricultural resources, there would be an increase in food production. In fact, the abovementioned land uses present an expansion; however, it does not differ significantly, considering the extension of the rest of the land uses—which are from 5–10%, corresponding to transitional woodland-shrub, broad-leaved forest, pastures and land occu-

Finland is a predominantly forest country, characterized by two major land uses: coniferous forest (312) and mixed forests (313). Surprisingly, between 2000 and 2006, the extension occupied by those land uses was approximately similar; nevertheless, in 2012, coniferous forest cover increased. Therefore, it seems that the use of the coniferous forest land has increased in detriment of the mixed forest. The third land use with major relevance in Finland is transitional woodland shrub (324). However, this land use has decreased in 2012, until reaching an

CLC land uses for the year 1990, 432 geodatabases were obtained in total.

**3. Results and discussion**

140 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

determined by CLC—through an easy read.

Lithuania and Sweden (**Table 4** and **Figure 2**).

pied by agriculture (324, 311, 231, 243).

area similar to water bodies' land use (512).

(**Figure 1**). Also, the obtained surfaces can be observed in **Table 3**.

Latvia does not seem to highlight by a specific land use as all the land uses in 2012 comprised 0–16%. The major land uses are vineyards (211), mixed forests (313), transitional woodland shrub (324), coniferous forests (312) and pastures (231).


**Table 3.** Surface of EU Member States (authors).


**Estonia**

> 311

312 313 321 322 323 324 331 332 333 334 335 411 412 421 422 423 511 512 521 522 523 **Table 4.**

0.48

0.48

0.49

0.49

0.28

0.28 Percentage of land use from 1990 to 2012 for Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden (authors).

0.32

0.11

0.11

0.12

0.12

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

143

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

4.53

4.53

4.55

4.55

9.14

9.14

9.28

1.62

1.61

1.74

1.75

1.63

1.64

1.65

1.66

0.01

0.01

0.01

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.20

0.21

0.18

0.23

0.23

0.25

0.25

0.28

0.27

0.28

0.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2.69

2.71

2.90

2.90

6.58

6.52

6.30

2.02

2.08

2.26

2.27

0.60

0.60

0.62

0.62

0.01

0.01

0.01

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

1.59

1.60

1.71

1.71

0.08

0.08

0.10

0.38

0.36

0.30

0.30

0.28

0.28

0.30

0.30

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.57

0.57

0.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.32

0.32

0.13

0.01

0.01

0.06

0.06

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.42

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.02

8.06

8.06

8.06

7.93

8.85

9.98

9.03

14.14

13.91

9.61

6.48

8.46

11.27

14.19

2.51

3.40

4.20

4.53

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6.29

6.32

6.32

0.31

0.31

0.20

0.20

1.24

1.23

2.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.13

0.14

0.14

0.82

0.80

0.71

0.71

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.10

0.08

0.12

0.13

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.06

0.06

0.06

18.80

18.43

19.23

20.04

26.19

27.39

17.87

19.59

18.52

17.64

16.33

11.55

11.23

11.44

11.42

1.52

1.52

1.52

18.55

18.09

17.99

18.00

29.51

28.47

41.70

15.26

14.61

14.15

12.98

11.58

11.20

11.06

11.00

0.83

0.84

0.84

9.56

9.57

8.22

8.40

2.20

2.23

2.03

8.94

8.71

8.38

7.96

6.45

6.47

6.65

6.65

9.82

11.25

7.01

**Finland**

**Latvia**

**Lithuania**

**Sweden**


**Table 4.**

Percentage of land use from 1990 to 2012 for Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden (authors).

**Estonia**

> LEVEL 3

111 112 121 122 123 124 131 132 133 141 142 211 212 213 221 222 223 231 241 242 243 244

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6.13

6.14

6.14

8.20

8.20

6.56

6.58

3.93

3.65

3.96

6.76

6.75

5.21

5.22

8.08

7.91

7.85

7.79

0.43

0.43

0.43

3.53

3.91

3.27

3.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

8.54

8.40

8.19

8.21

12.27

12.72

13.48

13.45

3.63

3.68

4.52

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

47.95

46.37

49.74

6.14

5.68

6.78

6.71

0.01

0.01

0.01

14.43

13.21

11.91

11.48

7.55

6.54

6.18

5.93

4.42

4.45

4.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.11

1.25

1.24

1.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.27

0.26

0.26

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

14.59

14.62

15.15

15.11

4.76

5.09

4.58

14.07

15.41

16.34

16.68

33.63

34.17

32.79

32.86

6.67

6.66

6.65

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.14

0.14

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.10

0.12

0.12

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.13

0.10

0.10

0.10

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.07

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.15

0.13

0.13

0.17

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.09

0.09

0.07

0.06

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.09

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.41

0.40

0.37

0.39

0.15

0.15

0.19

0.23

0.26

0.36

0.37

0.58

0.57

0.51

0.51

0.14

0.15

0.15

142 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

1.08

1.12

1.25

1.27

1.05

1.07

0.96

0.80

0.82

1.17

1.20

2.26

2.26

2.29

2.33

0.89

0.90

0.91

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

1990

2000

2006

2012

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

2000

2006

2012

**Finland**

**Latvia**

**Lithuania**

**Sweden**

**Figure 2.** Trend of land uses higher than 5% for the North EU group countries (authors).

Lithuania stands out as an eminent agricultural country—once approximately one-third of the land comprised vineyards (211). Additionally, the area designated for vineyards tends to be fairly constant. Even this percentage is far superior to the second major land use, corresponding to complex cultivation (242). The following land uses with the highest percentage correspond to the forest and semi-natural areas, mixed forests (313) and coniferous forests (312).

Sweden stands out as a prominent agricultural country with approximately half of the territory earmarked for annual crops associated with permanent crops (241). Additionally, this trend over the analysed period seems to increase. Thus, it is possible that such values will increase even further in future. However, the second major land use in Sweden should also be considered, corresponding to forestry use, which is broad-leaved forest (331) (**Tables 5**–**7** and **Figure 3**).

Through the analysis of the developed graphics for the Central EU countries, it is possible to verify that the trend of variation of the land uses in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherland, Poland, Romania and Slovakia is low or very low. So, constant and stable land use models predominate in this area.

**Austria**

> CODE

111 112 121 122 123 124 131 132 133 141 142 211 212 213 221 222 223 231 241 242 243 244

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

145

1.41

1.98

3.07

3.07

6.26

6.16

6.16

6.16

8.53

8.95

8.97

9.01

8.26

8.13

7.86

7.86

2.44

2.43

2.53

0.25

7.54

6.80

4.49

4.49

17.84

17.55

17.47

17.47

0.55

0.62

0.61

0.60

2.49

2.48

2.15

2.15

5.79

5.76

6.09

0.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

9.86

8.91

8.26

8.26

11.78

11.59

11.57

11.57

3.21

8.17

9.11

10.08

1.27

1.28

1.32

1.32

12.38

12.66

12.26

17.98

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.25

0.27

0.26

0.26

0.42

0.38

0.40

0.37

0.01

0.01

0.09

0.09

0.42

0.34

0.34

0.42

0.83

0.84

0.79

0.79

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.14

0.16

0.20

0.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.36

0.36

0.36

0.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

13.16

13.90

15.37

15.35

22.06

21.94

21.82

21.82

45.03

39.07

37.90

36.75

64.79

64.21

64.12

64.12

38.96

38.21

37.81

37.93

0.02

0.15

0.30

0.32

0.62

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.15

0.18

0.20

0.22

1.18

1.29

1.44

1.44

0.22

0.27

0.30

0.45

0.03

0.04

0.06

0.06

0.14

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.25

0.26

0.24

0.24

0.12

0.12

0.12

0.20

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.05

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.20

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.07

0.10

0.11

0.11

0.25

0.23

0.24

0.24

0.23

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.08

0.12

0.09

0.09

0.33

0.29

0.28

0.20

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.18

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.16

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.11

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.17

0.20

0.23

0.23

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.30

0.35

0.34

0.34

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.11

0.19

0.33

0.34

1.32

1.67

1.79

1.79

0.66

0.73

0.76

0.80

0.50

0.58

0.68

0.68

0.69

0.86

0.93

1.38

3.64

4.10

4.47

4.49

16.47

16.75

16.82

16.82

4.54

4.73

4.80

4.85

4.27

4.37

4.59

4.59

5.94

6.20

6.42

6.93

0.09

0.10

0.12

0.12

0.16

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.04

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

**Belgium**

**Czech Republic**

**Denmark**

**Germany**


Lithuania stands out as an eminent agricultural country—once approximately one-third of the land comprised vineyards (211). Additionally, the area designated for vineyards tends to be fairly constant. Even this percentage is far superior to the second major land use, corresponding to complex cultivation (242). The following land uses with the highest percentage correspond to the forest and semi-natural areas, mixed forests (313) and coniferous forests (312). Sweden stands out as a prominent agricultural country with approximately half of the territory earmarked for annual crops associated with permanent crops (241). Additionally, this trend over the analysed period seems to increase. Thus, it is possible that such values will increase even further in future. However, the second major land use in Sweden should also be considered, corresponding to forestry use, which is broad-leaved forest (331) (**Tables 5**–**7**

**Figure 2.** Trend of land uses higher than 5% for the North EU group countries (authors).

144 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

Through the analysis of the developed graphics for the Central EU countries, it is possible to verify that the trend of variation of the land uses in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherland, Poland, Romania and Slovakia

is low or very low. So, constant and stable land use models predominate in this area.

and **Figure 3**).


**Hungary**

> CODE

111 112 121 122 123 124 131 132 133 141 142 211 212 213 221 222 223 231 241 242 243 244

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

147

1.79

1.63

1.78

1.78

6.04

6.28

6.92

6.92

10.09

9.96

8.44

8.44

2.92

2.92

3.13

3.11

4.90

4.64

4.09

4.07

3.45

2.68

3.06

3.11

1.62

2.04

0.89

0.84

23.83

23.67

17.92

17.80

15.26

14.79

14.43

14.22

5.58

4.54

2.76

2.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.58

0.52

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7.31

7.28

7.35

7.39

54.23

51.13

54.65

54.90

11.91

11.78

14.58

14.55

30.41

28.63

27.38

27.09

8.87

8.70

8.88

8.80

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.69

0.79

0.90

0.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.19

0.21

0.20

0.19

0.29

0.41

0.51

0.52

1.63

1.54

1.26

1.20

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.60

0.57

0.61

0.59

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.16

0.13

0.12

0.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

53.29

53.56

52.07

51.59

5.73

7.71

5.18

4.87

8.74

8.62

12.37

12.28

21.14

20.61

20.10

19.77

44.83

44.67

43.77

43.61

0.33

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.12

0.23

0.29

0.30

0.03

0.12

0.17

0.18

0.82

1.10

1.30

1.38

0.11

0.17

0.19

0.19

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.12

0.27

0.30

0.37

0.39

0.09

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.01

0.02

0.07

0.03

0.01

0.04

0.05

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.10

0.35

0.34

0.48

0.38

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.06

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.23

0.25

0.15

0.14

0.01

0.02

0.06

0.06

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.06

0.07

0.10

0.10

0.08

0.11

0.13

0.13

0.09

0.12

0.11

0.12

0.04

0.07

0.11

0.12

0.10

0.12

0.12

0.16

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.13

0.14

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.16

0.18

0.19

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.27

0.33

0.34

0.37

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.10

0.00

0.03

0.07

0.09

0.12

0.14

0.20

0.19

0.14

0.15

0.22

0.25

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.08

0.51

0.56

0.62

0.66

0.05

0.11

0.17

0.18

0.71

0.82

1.16

1.23

1.02

1.64

2.00

2.18

0.31

0.33

0.37

0.39

4.44

4.58

4.66

4.70

0.99

1.31

1.53

1.56

6.36

6.74

7.38

7.44

6.79

7.98

8.59

8.89

2.47

3.13

4.54

4.57

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.07

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.28

0.28

0.27

0.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

**Ireland**

**Luxembourg**

**The Netherlands**

**Poland**


**Austria**

> 311

312 313 321 322 323 324 331 332 333 334 335 411 412 421 422 423 511 512 521 522 523 **Table 5.**

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02 Percentage of land use from 1990 to 2012 for Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany (authors).

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.37

1.36

1.34

1.34

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.13

0.13

0.14

0.14

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.20

0.22

0.22

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.54

0.56

0.57

0.57

0.30

0.33

0.34

0.34

0.62

0.65

0.66

0.67

0.83

0.85

0.88

0.88

0.83

0.88

0.93

0.91

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.16

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.45

0.49

0.53

0.53

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.16

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.59

0.57

0.56

0.56

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.21

0.26

0.25

0.24

0.24

0.14

0.09

0.10

0.10

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.68

0.68

0.66

0.66

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.10

0.65

0.52

0.43

0.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.40

3.59

3.62

3.62

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.12

0.13

0.09

0.03

3.33

2.90

3.00

3.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.18

0.19

0.22

0.22

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.09

0.09

0.25

0.40

0.74

0.54

0.60

0.60

3.14

2.30

2.02

1.93

1.07

1.92

2.07

2.07

0.40

0.59

0.59

0.63

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.26

2.92

2.63

2.63

0.57

0.55

0.52

0.52

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.02

1.11

1.14

1.16

1.16

0.16

0.16

0.15

0.27

6.48

7.14

7.22

7.26

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.51

0.35

0.33

0.32

0.55

0.54

0.51

0.51

0.55

0.49

0.47

0.42

146 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

15.19

13.39

12.12

12.11

8.55

8.64

8.70

8.70

7.41

7.77

7.82

8.03

3.16

3.04

3.16

3.16

6.57

6.61

6.69

4.07

25.52

26.25

26.87

26.69

4.60

4.63

4.48

4.48

21.01

21.59

21.86

21.73

4.61

4.16

3.93

3.93

15.83

15.73

15.70

16.56

4.10

4.89

5.26

5.25

6.59

6.67

6.70

6.70

3.17

3.52

3.53

3.60

1.63

1.62

1.68

1.68

6.69

6.70

6.74

9.72

**Belgium**

**Czech Republic**

**Denmark**

**Germany**


**Romania Slovakia United Kingdom** CODE 1990 2000 2006 2012 1990 2000 2006 2012 2000 2006 2012 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.13 5.39 5.40 4.59 4.59 4.54 4.43 4.68 4.72 4.95 5.28 5.31 0.57 0.58 0.43 0.43 0.56 0.56 0.61 0.63 0.57 0.79 0.82 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.22 0.28 0.29 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.93 1.13 1.13 34.04 34.19 36.48 36.48 34.12 34.27 32.98 32.88 24.79 27.18 27.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 1.72 1.32 1.32 0.57 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.56 1.52 1.52 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.63 10.59 10.39 10.39 6.51 5.58 5.31 5.27 27.34 28.43 28.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.55 3.32 3.32 0.50 1.24 1.25 1.25 3.79 0.13 0.13 4.96 4.98 4.00 4.00 8.17 6.60 7.32 7.31 2.24 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.20 20.40 20.65 20.65 21.26 21.97 22.14 22.10 2.70 2.15 2.16 4.85 4.72 5.41 5.41 10.97 10.81 10.52 9.81 5.17 5.45 5.13 4.19 4.21 4.22 4.22 7.26 8.09 8.80 8.92 0.21 1.11 1.10 1.46 1.46 2.48 2.48 0.66 0.59 0.57 0.57 7.96 5.78 5.79 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.31 11.83 7.37 7.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.64 2.55 1.36 1.36 2.99 3.50 3.36 4.02 0.78 1.08 1.34 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.39 1.05 1.05

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

149

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258 149


**Hungary**

> 311

312 313 321 322 323 324 331 332 333 334 335 411 412 421 422 423 511 512 521 522 523 **Table 6.**

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.65

0.64

0.64 Percentage of land use from 1990 to 2012 for Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Poland (authors).

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.18

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.08

0.10

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

1.32

1.37

1.39

1.40

1.75

1.68

1.61

1.61

0.23

0.23

0.22

0.22

7.07

7.16

7.20

7.23

1.18

1.22

1.25

1.26

0.51

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.13

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.09

0.09

0.08

0.07

1.24

1.24

1.24

1.24

0.24

0.24

0.24

0.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.22

0.26

0.23

0.23

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.26

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.21

0.22

0.22

0.22

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.13

0.10

0.10

0.10

17.60

15.84

14.60

14.56

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.21

0.21

0.22

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.98

0.82

0.83

0.83

0.26

0.23

0.27

0.27

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.79

0.90

0.90

0.97

0.34

0.31

0.32

0.32

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.28

0.29

0.76

0.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.24

0.20

0.22

0.22

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.13

0.09

0.11

0.11

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.37

0.32

0.28

0.28

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

2.61

2.61

3.60

4.12

3.05

5.20

4.00

4.13

0.19

0.95

0.20

0.20

0.02

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.59

0.96

1.81

1.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.82

0.77

1.31

1.31

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.01

1.07

1.13

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

2.42

2.45

2.45

2.45

1.31

1.25

0.61

0.62

0.07

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.68

0.84

1.11

1.25

0.14

0.12

0.11

0.11

148 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

1.62

1.68

1.66

1.63

0.33

0.41

0.99

0.99

6.20

5.95

6.83

6.81

2.50

2.52

2.52

2.53

7.09

7.39

7.79

7.89

1.04

1.08

1.02

0.98

3.55

3.34

3.93

3.92

4.87

4.57

4.54

4.50

4.35

4.32

4.29

4.25

17.77

17.86

17.94

18.04

15.41

15.90

15.81

15.88

0.43

0.41

0.41

0.41

24.56

24.29

24.39

24.46

1.33

1.55

1.62

1.62

4.71

4.82

4.90

4.92

**Ireland**

**Luxembourg**

**The Netherlands**

**Poland**


**Table 7.** Percentage of land use from 1990 to 2012 for Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom (authors).

Focusing on Austria, the country shows that the land use for the coniferous forest (312) predominates above others. In fact, it occupies more than one-quarter of the Austrian territory—so, the country is considered forest. The following major land uses correspond to non-irrigated arable land and mixed forests (211 and 313).

The most representative land use in Belgium corresponds to non-irrigated arable land (211). The second most widespread use corresponds to complex cultivation (242). However, it practically occupies the same extension to discontinuous urban fabric (111), equivalent to most of the land covered by structures, buildings, roads and artificially surfaced areas associated with vegetated areas and bare soil, occupying discontinuous but significant surfaces. Therefore, even though it can be said that this country is eminent in agriculture, there is also the development of associated structures indicating the degree of development of the country. Also, this model seems consolidated and not variable in future years—once the lines that describe land uses are mostly horizontal and parallel.

Although the area destined to non-irrigated arable land (211) has been descending in Czech Republic, its extension is far above other land uses, occupying more than one-third of the country. The second relevant land use corresponds to the coniferous forest (312) occupying almost one-fifth of Czech Republic surface. It also should be highlighted that the third major land use corresponding to pastures (231) has increased significantly in 2000.

Denmark presents a surface of approximately 65% occupied by non-irrigated arable land (211). The country's agricultural character seems such that it will not change in the next few years—once the line that determines the percentage of land use (211) remains horizontal.

Germany and Hungary have repeated the model of land uses with a high predominance of non-irrigated arable land (211). Non-irrigated arable land in Germany occupies approximately

**Figure 3.** Trend of land uses higher than 5% for the Central EU group countries (authors).

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

151

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258 151

Focusing on Austria, the country shows that the land use for the coniferous forest (312) predominates above others. In fact, it occupies more than one-quarter of the Austrian territory—so, the country is considered forest. The following major land uses correspond to non-irrigated

**Table 7.** Percentage of land use from 1990 to 2012 for Romania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom (authors).

**Romania Slovakia United Kingdom** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 1.60 1.29 1.29 0.12 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 9.31 9.31 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.68 0.68 0.74 0.74 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.31 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.54 0.54

The most representative land use in Belgium corresponds to non-irrigated arable land (211). The second most widespread use corresponds to complex cultivation (242). However, it practically occupies the same extension to discontinuous urban fabric (111), equivalent to most of the land covered by structures, buildings, roads and artificially surfaced areas associated with vegetated areas and bare soil, occupying discontinuous but significant surfaces. Therefore, even though it can be said that this country is eminent in agriculture, there is also the development of associated structures indicating the degree of development of the country. Also, this model seems consolidated and not variable in future years—once the lines that describe land uses are mostly horizontal and parallel. Although the area destined to non-irrigated arable land (211) has been descending in Czech Republic, its extension is far above other land uses, occupying more than one-third of the country. The second relevant land use corresponds to the coniferous forest (312) occupying almost one-fifth of Czech Republic surface. It also should be highlighted that the third major

Denmark presents a surface of approximately 65% occupied by non-irrigated arable land (211). The country's agricultural character seems such that it will not change in the next few years—once the line that determines the percentage of land use (211) remains horizontal.

Germany and Hungary have repeated the model of land uses with a high predominance of non-irrigated arable land (211). Non-irrigated arable land in Germany occupies approximately

land use corresponding to pastures (231) has increased significantly in 2000.

arable land and mixed forests (211 and 313).

150 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

**Figure 3.** Trend of land uses higher than 5% for the Central EU group countries (authors).

52% of the territory and in Hungary approximately 40% of the territory. In Germany, land use stands out for coniferous forests (312) and pastures (231), which increased substantially between 2006 and 2012. In 2012, some land uses clearly increase as is the case of broad-leaved forests (311), discontinuous urban fabric (112) and others; on the contrary, mixed forests (313) descend, some of them suddenly becoming almost non-existent complex cultivation (242), and land principally is occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (243). Conversely, in Hungary, the model is very steady and is similar to what occurs in Denmark due to the great dominance of single land use—non-irrigated arable land (211).

in moors and heathland (322), complex cultivation (242) and natural grasslands (321) (**Tables** 

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

153

Curiously, all South European countries with an exception for Portugal have shown a welldefined land use model in which there is one or two dominant land uses that determine the

In the Bulgarian case, the land use is denominated by non-irrigated arable land (211) and occupies approximately one-third of the country's territory— which is clearly superior to the second major land use in Bulgaria, broad-leaved forests (311). Thus, a consistent land use model is identified in the Bulgarian territory and is possible that it will remain in the coming

A similar scenario occurs in Croatia, where there is clearly a dominant land use, the broadleaved forest (311), prevailing over others and occupying approximately 30% of the country. There is also a second land use with relevance, corresponding to complex cultivation (242) occupying approximately 17%. The situation is similar to Bulgaria but with some disparities in the period from 1990 to 2000 where a significant variability in these land uses is observed; the situation has stabilized from 2000 and in fact is similar to what occurred in the United

Once, in the case of Cyprus, there was a dominance of non-irrigated land (211), which occupied about one-quarter of the country. However, different from what occurs in Bulgaria and Croatia, there is also a single secondary major land use, but Cyprus presents two land uses side by side that virtually occupies the same surface extension: *sclerophyllous* vegetation (323)

The same that has been seen in Cyprus is verified in France, where the dominant land use is above the 25%, the non-irrigated arable land (211). Additionally, two land uses exist with major relevance: broad-leaved forests (311) and pastures (231). The rest of the uses are in

A considerable amount of land uses have been developed in Greece. Here, it should be highlighted that the predominant land use is *sclerophyllous* vegetation (323), occupying below 18% of the territory. Thus, Greece presents a great diversity of land uses. Also, it's possible to notice that the land uses whose percentage of extension is between 3% and 12% have suffered the vast majority of variability between the years 2000 and 2006. Such changes contrast with the constancy shown in 1990 and then in 2012. Land use, where a decrease has been identified between 2000 and 2006, corresponds to arable land (211)—land mostly occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (243)—transitional Woodland shrub (324) and natural grassland (321). On the contrary, land uses that have increased are permanently

Once again, in Italy, a predominant land use is also found—arable soil land (211), occupying more than one-quarter of the Italian territory. A second predominant land use—but in much lower amount, occupying approximately 18%—is the former broad-leaved forest (311) and finally, the rest of the soils due to the supremacy of the first use of the soil is virtually stagnant.

percentages lower than 11% while remaining stable over the analysed years.

irrigated land (212), olive groves (223) and mixed forests (313).

**8** and **9** and **Figure 4**).

years.

Kingdom.

country's land use pattern.

and coniferous forests (312).

Regarding Ireland a clear dominance of single land use is also possible to verify—pastures (231), occupying more than half of the territory surface. In fact, this land use is much higher than the second most relevant land use in Ireland, peat bogs (412).

Luxembourg is a clear example of a country where the opposite happens, noting a very variable land use model. Though there is a clear dominant land use, broad-leaved forests (311), such use occupies about one-quarter of the country area. The second most relevant use is complex cultivation (242), which has greatly declined since 2000. There are also other two significant land use: pastures (231) and non-irrigated arable land (211). Therefore, it seems that the agricultural production model is changing and as a result, the model of land use is changing as a whole.

The Netherlands like Ireland has pastures (231) as the dominant land use, occupying approximately 27% of the territory. However, its dominance is not as clear as in other cases such as Ireland—once the second major land use corresponding to non-irrigated arable land (211) and occupies approximately 20%, and the third land use complex cultivation (242) reaches approximately 15% of territorial occupation. However, these three dominant land uses imply that this country is predominantly agricultural.

Poland, Romania and Slovakia are other three examples of dominant land use and also the remaining uses slightly vary. In these three countries, the dominant land use clearly corresponds to non-irrigated arable land (211). This scenario is more visible in Poland where the land use is above 40%, which is also clearly the dominant land use scenario in Romania and Slovakia, both above 30%. Therefore, these countries are characterized by agricultural land uses.

In the Polish case, the second major land use corresponds to coniferous forests (312). In Romania and Slovakia, the second most relevant land use corresponds to broad-leaved forests (311).

Interestingly, a country where there is not only one clearly dominant land use but two is the United Kingdom. Although something similar happened in Finland, none of the two dominant land uses—pastures (231) and non-irrigated arable land (211)—has descended to please each other throughout the analysed years. Possibly, this effect would occur if natural resources are explored, that is, pastures in the non-irrigated arable land. However, the tendency notes great stability and uniformity. So, it is possible to say that the land use model varied between 2000 and 2006 and has been more stable in the 2006–2012 period. In fact, between 2000 and 2006, a tremendous increase of peat bogs (412) has occurred; as well as the significant decline in moors and heathland (322), complex cultivation (242) and natural grasslands (321) (**Tables 8** and **9** and **Figure 4**).

52% of the territory and in Hungary approximately 40% of the territory. In Germany, land use stands out for coniferous forests (312) and pastures (231), which increased substantially between 2006 and 2012. In 2012, some land uses clearly increase as is the case of broad-leaved forests (311), discontinuous urban fabric (112) and others; on the contrary, mixed forests (313) descend, some of them suddenly becoming almost non-existent complex cultivation (242), and land principally is occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (243). Conversely, in Hungary, the model is very steady and is similar to what occurs in Denmark

Regarding Ireland a clear dominance of single land use is also possible to verify—pastures (231), occupying more than half of the territory surface. In fact, this land use is much higher

Luxembourg is a clear example of a country where the opposite happens, noting a very variable land use model. Though there is a clear dominant land use, broad-leaved forests (311), such use occupies about one-quarter of the country area. The second most relevant use is complex cultivation (242), which has greatly declined since 2000. There are also other two significant land use: pastures (231) and non-irrigated arable land (211). Therefore, it seems that the agricultural production model is changing and as a result, the model of land use is

The Netherlands like Ireland has pastures (231) as the dominant land use, occupying approximately 27% of the territory. However, its dominance is not as clear as in other cases such as Ireland—once the second major land use corresponding to non-irrigated arable land (211) and occupies approximately 20%, and the third land use complex cultivation (242) reaches approximately 15% of territorial occupation. However, these three dominant land uses imply

Poland, Romania and Slovakia are other three examples of dominant land use and also the remaining uses slightly vary. In these three countries, the dominant land use clearly corresponds to non-irrigated arable land (211). This scenario is more visible in Poland where the land use is above 40%, which is also clearly the dominant land use scenario in Romania and Slovakia, both above 30%. Therefore, these countries are characterized by agricultural land

In the Polish case, the second major land use corresponds to coniferous forests (312). In Romania and Slovakia, the second most relevant land use corresponds to broad-leaved forests

Interestingly, a country where there is not only one clearly dominant land use but two is the United Kingdom. Although something similar happened in Finland, none of the two dominant land uses—pastures (231) and non-irrigated arable land (211)—has descended to please each other throughout the analysed years. Possibly, this effect would occur if natural resources are explored, that is, pastures in the non-irrigated arable land. However, the tendency notes great stability and uniformity. So, it is possible to say that the land use model varied between 2000 and 2006 and has been more stable in the 2006–2012 period. In fact, between 2000 and 2006, a tremendous increase of peat bogs (412) has occurred; as well as the significant decline

due to the great dominance of single land use—non-irrigated arable land (211).

than the second most relevant land use in Ireland, peat bogs (412).

changing as a whole.

152 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

uses.

(311).

that this country is predominantly agricultural.

Curiously, all South European countries with an exception for Portugal have shown a welldefined land use model in which there is one or two dominant land uses that determine the country's land use pattern.

In the Bulgarian case, the land use is denominated by non-irrigated arable land (211) and occupies approximately one-third of the country's territory— which is clearly superior to the second major land use in Bulgaria, broad-leaved forests (311). Thus, a consistent land use model is identified in the Bulgarian territory and is possible that it will remain in the coming years.

A similar scenario occurs in Croatia, where there is clearly a dominant land use, the broadleaved forest (311), prevailing over others and occupying approximately 30% of the country. There is also a second land use with relevance, corresponding to complex cultivation (242) occupying approximately 17%. The situation is similar to Bulgaria but with some disparities in the period from 1990 to 2000 where a significant variability in these land uses is observed; the situation has stabilized from 2000 and in fact is similar to what occurred in the United Kingdom.

Once, in the case of Cyprus, there was a dominance of non-irrigated land (211), which occupied about one-quarter of the country. However, different from what occurs in Bulgaria and Croatia, there is also a single secondary major land use, but Cyprus presents two land uses side by side that virtually occupies the same surface extension: *sclerophyllous* vegetation (323) and coniferous forests (312).

The same that has been seen in Cyprus is verified in France, where the dominant land use is above the 25%, the non-irrigated arable land (211). Additionally, two land uses exist with major relevance: broad-leaved forests (311) and pastures (231). The rest of the uses are in percentages lower than 11% while remaining stable over the analysed years.

A considerable amount of land uses have been developed in Greece. Here, it should be highlighted that the predominant land use is *sclerophyllous* vegetation (323), occupying below 18% of the territory. Thus, Greece presents a great diversity of land uses. Also, it's possible to notice that the land uses whose percentage of extension is between 3% and 12% have suffered the vast majority of variability between the years 2000 and 2006. Such changes contrast with the constancy shown in 1990 and then in 2012. Land use, where a decrease has been identified between 2000 and 2006, corresponds to arable land (211)—land mostly occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (243)—transitional Woodland shrub (324) and natural grassland (321). On the contrary, land uses that have increased are permanently irrigated land (212), olive groves (223) and mixed forests (313).

Once again, in Italy, a predominant land use is also found—arable soil land (211), occupying more than one-quarter of the Italian territory. A second predominant land use—but in much lower amount, occupying approximately 18%—is the former broad-leaved forest (311) and finally, the rest of the soils due to the supremacy of the first use of the soil is virtually stagnant.


**Bulgaria**

> 311

312 313 321 322 323 324 331 332 333 334 335 411 412 421 422 423 511 512 521 522 523 **Table 8.**

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.91

0.91

0.91 Percentage of land use in 1990, 2000, 2006, and 2012 for Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France and Greece (authors).

0.91

1.50

1.49

1.49

0.06

0.06

0.13

0.13

1.46

1.47

1.46

1.46

155

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.03

0.08

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.13

0.13

0.12

0.12

0.07

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.57

0.57

0.59

0.59

0.53

0.53

0.53

0.52

0.17

0.22

0.23

0.36

0.39

0.38

0.39

0.65

0.65

0.69

0.73

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

0.27

0.27

0.31

0.31

0.43

0.44

0.44

0.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.21

0.21

0.22

0.22

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.07

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.11

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.22

0.22

0.21

0.21

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

0.08

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.31

0.33

0.33

0.34

0.06

0.05

0.05

0.13

0.14

0.34

0.34

0.18

0.18

0.17

0.17

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.00

0.04

1.22

0.02

0.22

0.05

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.14

0.38

0.38

0.35

0.35

1.07

1.01

0.84

0.85

1.30

1.33

1.30

0.76

0.78

0.78

0.78

1.38

1.39

1.67

1.80

0.10

0.10

0.11

0.11

0.21

0.19

0.06

0.06

0.24

0.12

0.12

0.78

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.12

0.11

0.21

0.22

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.55

0.49

0.49

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.21

0.22

0.20

0.20

6.69

6.68

6.53

6.62

10.36

10.16

11.13

11.36

3.20

4.33

4.33

1.95

2.23

2.39

2.52

8.80

9.31

8.42

8.61

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

2.29

2.41

1.85

1.80

17.01

16.62

16.44

0.87

1.04

1.04

1.05

17.45

17.26

17.48

17.35

0.29

0.29

0.24

0.24

0.12

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.82

0.70

0.73

0.73

0.40

0.41

0.38

0.38

3.59

3.54

3.65

3.65

1.33

4.38

4.39

4.40

3.18

2.80

2.80

2.46

2.27

2.23

2.23

8.90

8.81

7.87

7.87

5.49

5.53

5.86

5.84

4.77

4.72

4.77

4.75

0.04

0.04

0.04

3.43

3.55

3.51

3.52

3.10

3.08

4.20

4.10

4.89

4.86

4.90

4.87

1.75

1.79

1.75

1.72

16.49

16.42

16.38

6.76

6.48

6.21

5.96

5.84

5.49

5.73

5.52

21.00

21.07

20.73

20.70

29.87

29.87

29.40

29.15

0.08

0.07

0.07

16.18

16.04

16.97

17.07

9.38

9.34

9.32

9.35

**Croatia**

**Cyprus**

**France**

**Greece**


**Table 8.**

Percentage of land use in 1990, 2000, 2006, and 2012 for Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France and Greece (authors).

**Bulgaria**

> CODE

111 112 121 122 123 124 131 132 133 141 142 211 212 213 221 222 223 231 241 242 243 244

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

8.94

8.94

9.48

9.48

9.00

9.23

9.60

9.57

4.39

5.03

5.01

2.68

2.72

2.86

2.86

10.66

10.67

9.49

9.47

1.78

1.79

2.33

2.33

18.06

17.91

17.72

17.73

7.76

7.62

7.55

10.78

10.71

10.45

10.40

5.74

5.71

5.60

5.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.56

3.46

3.45

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

3.74

3.72

3.59

3.55

8.34

5.39

5.02

4.98

0.13

0.10

0.10

16.03

15.87

15.30

15.25

0.55

0.53

0.78

0.75

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.30

0.33

0.36

0.36

0.70

0.77

0.77

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

4.56

4.58

5.45

5.44

0.66

0.58

0.46

0.45

0.17

0.17

0.14

0.14

1.72

1.79

1.77

0.34

0.32

0.34

0.34

0.91

0.91

0.96

0.96

1.36

1.32

1.12

1.15

0.50

0.51

0.47

0.49

1.52

1.51

1.51

2.24

2.09

1.94

1.94

0.69

0.65

0.62

0.62

0.21

0.08

0.17

0.17

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.19

0.22

0.28

0.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.17

0.17

0.19

0.19

2.06

2.73

2.73

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

4.63

4.75

5.92

5.91

34.98

35.20

34.65

34.64

6.68

6.53

6.80

6.82

25.77

24.58

24.49

27.91

28.08

27.44

27.40

11.80

11.58

9.75

9.73

0.08

0.08

0.10

0.11

0.08

0.08

0.10

0.11

0.39

0.56

0.66

0.16

0.19

0.20

0.21

0.05

0.05

0.09

0.10

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.12

0.11

0.11

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.13

0.24

0.15

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.05

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.25

0.27

0.30

0.31

0.06

0.08

0.08

0.09

0.30

0.28

0.27

0.14

0.14

0.15

0.16

0.13

0.20

0.23

0.24

0.03

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.27

0.27

0.28

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.06

0.07

0.09

0.09

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.02

0.02

0.14

0.18

0.03

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.07

0.09

0.09

0.01

0.07

0.12

0.15

0.69

0.69

0.68

0.69

0.19

0.20

0.21

0.24

1.36

1.50

1.55

0.50

0.58

0.64

0.69

0.21

0.26

0.36

0.38

154 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

3.68

3.68

3.48

3.48

2.32

2.38

2.56

2.57

4.41

5.06

5.25

3.48

3.70

3.99

4.07

1.16

1.21

1.57

1.59

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.12

0.12

0.18

0.18

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

**Croatia**

**Cyprus**

**France**

**Greece**


**Italy**

> 311

312 313 321 322 323 324 331 332 333 334 335 411 412 421 422 423 511 512 521 522 523 **Table 9.**

0.41

0.41

0.41

0.41

6.81

6.79

6.79 Percentage of land use in 1990, 2000, 2006, and 2012 Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain (authors).

6.79

1.34

2.21

2.45

2.38

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

4.01

4.43

4.31

4.81

157

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.31

0.31

0.31

0.31

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.18

0.18

0.51

0.48

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.02

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

0.56

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.14

0.13

0.14

0.14

0.02

0.02

0.04

0.02

0.16

0.16

0.15

0.15

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.26

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.20

0.19

0.18

0.18

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.07

0.08

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.49

0.32

0.40

0.21

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.16

0.15

0.11

0.05

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.12

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2.48

2.45

2.38

2.38

0.13

0.12

0.12

0.12

10.85

10.54

10.25

9.80

0.18

0.15

0.14

0.14

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.20

1.07

1.50

1.48

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.30

1.28

1.27

1.72

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.02

2.85

3.07

3.48

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.41

3.54

3.65

4.47

1.60

1.38

1.19

1.19

1.63

1.52

1.52

1.52

2.25

2.43

2.30

2.32

0.53

0.52

0.52

0.52

1.65

1.63

1.64

2.12

1.58

1.47

1.43

1.43

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.60

0.59

0.46

0.50

0.84

0.84

0.83

0.83

0.20

0.26

0.28

0.27

0.27

0.25

0.25

0.25

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.32

0.39

0.66

0.68

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.40

0.48

0.49

0.51

3.35

3.55

3.45

3.46

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.23

0.23

0.21

0.21

2.11

2.15

1.90

1.90

0.09

0.09

0.10

0.09

3.14

3.28

3.31

3.31

12.85

12.75

13.01

12.94

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.91

0.48

0.50

0.50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

1.12

1.12

1.12

1.12

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.09

4.81

4.88

4.58

4.58

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.03

1.02

1.02

1.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.42

3.63

3.66

3.65

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

0.89

1.14

0.95

0.95

22.08

22.14

22.35

22.34

1.82

1.82

1.83

1.47

4.38

4.27

4.30

4.28

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.21

0.48

0.26

0.04

0.04

12.24

12.25

12.19

12.16

0.41

0.41

0.47

0.56

18.16

18.20

18.42

18.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

9.21

11.24

16.63

16.29

21.86

21.82

21.88

21.88

8.77

8.82

9.16

4.03

**Malta**

**Portugal**

**Slovenia**

**Spain**


**Italy**

> CODE

111 112 121 122 123 124 131 132 133 141 142 211 212 213 221 222 223 231 241 242 243 244

0.62

0.58

0.57

0.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.29

3.41

3.95

3.98

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.89

1.84

1.85

3.88

6.59

6.79

7.03

7.02

46.35

46.18

45.88

45.88

2.39

2.19

1.32

1.32

8.98

8.94

8.95

8.95

5.33

5.16

5.22

7.76

7.30

7.17

7.27

7.23

3.26

3.26

3.26

3.26

6.09

6.06

5.59

5.60

13.70

13.72

13.72

13.54

2.86

2.96

2.95

2.76

1.30

1.26

0.68

0.68

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

8.57

7.84

5.61

5.37

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7.98

7.87

7.61

9.08

1.51

1.42

1.42

1.42

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

12.89

12.62

10.87

11.56

5.73

5.74

5.69

5.69

7.47

7.51

7.39

10.04

4.17

4.02

4.00

3.99

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6.19

6.85

6.85

6.82

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.72

4.84

4.90

4.86

1.32

1.33

1.40

1.39

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

8.40

8.19

8.91

8.90

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.17

4.90

4.89

4.90

2.80

1.77

1.75

1.91

1.91

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

7.11

6.81

6.96

6.96

0.77

0.76

0.76

0.76

7.62

7.63

7.60

3.66

0.92

0.95

0.98

0.98

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.86

4.41

3.57

3.57

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.29

0.28

0.28

0.06

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.14

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.04

1.10

0.87

0.88

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.57

1.67

1.75

2.26

26.74

26.88

26.82

26.78

0.48

0.39

0.39

0.39

12.73

11.16

9.80

9.36

5.54

5.51

5.55

5.55

20.49

19.76

19.09

19.68

0.05

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.69

0.69

0.69

0.69

0.05

0.10

0.13

0.15

0.06

0.06

0.08

0.07

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.09

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.06

0.07

0.05

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.06

0.14

0.17

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.11

0.13

0.20

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.14

0.16

0.16

0.17

1.10

1.04

1.04

1.04

0.07

0.14

0.16

0.16

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.09

0.13

0.15

0.16

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.08

1.19

1.19

1.19

1.19

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.63

0.67

0.67

0.67

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.02

0.08

0.11

0.06

0.09

0.09

0.29

0.01

0.01

0.04

0.08

0.64

0.75

0.89

0.94

2.12

2.35

2.35

2.35

0.17

0.33

0.40

0.43

0.32

0.33

0.33

0.33

0.15

0.24

0.29

0.48

156 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

2.89

3.07

3.31

3.34

20.10

20.34

20.36

20.36

1.43

2.34

2.65

2.67

2.05

2.05

2.07

2.07

0.44

0.54

0.67

0.97

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.46

1.20

1.20

1.20

1.20

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.49

0.52

0.57

0.42

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

1990

2000

2006

2012

**Malta**

**Portugal**

**Slovenia**

**Spain**

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258 157

Also, a low variability pattern of land use is seen in Malta. Nevertheless, the most relevant land use is occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (243)—representing approximately half of the extension of the country. Additionally, the second major land use is

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

159

A pattern of land use that breaks with the shown tendency of conservative models over the analysed years is found in the Portuguese case. In Portugal, the extension of the different uses of the soil has varied considerably. The increase in the broad-leaved forest (311) from 9.21% in 1990 to 16.29% in 2012 should be highlighted. It is also noteworthy that the land use pastures (231) and non-irrigated arable land (211) have both decreased. In fact, this last one (non-irrigated arable land) presents similar values to vineyards (221) in 2012. However, if there is variability in the extent of the land uses, what occurred in other countries like Austria, Luxembourg or the United Kingdom should be taken into account, between 2006 and 2012,

Slovenia is another example of highly stable and consolidated land use patterns, once all tendency lines are horizontal. In this case, two land uses co-exist, mixed forests (313) and broad-leaved forests (311), both over 20%. The combination of these two land uses—40% of the territory—establishes a forest character for Slovenia. As an example, the fourth important use of the land corresponds to the coniferous forest (312) and the third to the complex

In context, Spain does not escape from the predominance of a single land use pattern, the nonirrigated arable land (211), which occupies approximately one-fifth of the Spanish mainland. Additionally, the remaining land use covers an area below 11%. Regarding the surface extension variability for each land use, although there was a trend of low variability between 1990 and 2006, between 2006 and 2012, this trend broke with high variability. In this sense, increases in the land use include pastures (231), annual crops associated with permanent crops (241), land principally occupied by agriculture with significant areas of natural vegetation (243) and burnt areas (334) and in a lower level of increase comes the land use agro-forestry areas (244), permanently irrigated land (212), glaciers and perpetual snow (335), discontinuous urban fabric (112); in terms of decreasing more dramatically, the land uses include broad-leaved forests (311), vineyards (221), fruit and three berry plantations (222) and less-pronounced inland marshes (411). Therefore, it seems that this model in the future can present great variability

After the analysis of the EU territories, the major land uses are represented on a map (**Figure 5**). The map enables us to verify that most of the land use corresponds to agricultural and forestry, the two being the most predominant agricultural uses. Even within agricultural use, it is possible to notice that the majority corresponds to non-irrigated land (211). Therefore, it can be argued that EU territories are characterized by agricultural and forest uses—mostly

Also, in countries located in the North of Europe, their land uses are both agricultural and forestry. In Central EU territories, under the use of agricultural land, the non-irrigated land is the predominant one (211). This is similar to what happens in the EU South territories. However, in this area, the predominance of agricultural use is not so dominant, alternating in

which seems to play a critical role in the decrease of data variability.

and probably will need time to be able to stabilize.

intended for agricultural-use non-irrigated land.

some countries the majority use to forestry use.

the discontinuous urban fabric (112).

cultivation (242).

**Figure 4.** Trend of the land uses of percentage higher than 5% for the South EU group countries (authors).

Also, a low variability pattern of land use is seen in Malta. Nevertheless, the most relevant land use is occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation (243)—representing approximately half of the extension of the country. Additionally, the second major land use is the discontinuous urban fabric (112).

A pattern of land use that breaks with the shown tendency of conservative models over the analysed years is found in the Portuguese case. In Portugal, the extension of the different uses of the soil has varied considerably. The increase in the broad-leaved forest (311) from 9.21% in 1990 to 16.29% in 2012 should be highlighted. It is also noteworthy that the land use pastures (231) and non-irrigated arable land (211) have both decreased. In fact, this last one (non-irrigated arable land) presents similar values to vineyards (221) in 2012. However, if there is variability in the extent of the land uses, what occurred in other countries like Austria, Luxembourg or the United Kingdom should be taken into account, between 2006 and 2012, which seems to play a critical role in the decrease of data variability.

Slovenia is another example of highly stable and consolidated land use patterns, once all tendency lines are horizontal. In this case, two land uses co-exist, mixed forests (313) and broad-leaved forests (311), both over 20%. The combination of these two land uses—40% of the territory—establishes a forest character for Slovenia. As an example, the fourth important use of the land corresponds to the coniferous forest (312) and the third to the complex cultivation (242).

In context, Spain does not escape from the predominance of a single land use pattern, the nonirrigated arable land (211), which occupies approximately one-fifth of the Spanish mainland. Additionally, the remaining land use covers an area below 11%. Regarding the surface extension variability for each land use, although there was a trend of low variability between 1990 and 2006, between 2006 and 2012, this trend broke with high variability. In this sense, increases in the land use include pastures (231), annual crops associated with permanent crops (241), land principally occupied by agriculture with significant areas of natural vegetation (243) and burnt areas (334) and in a lower level of increase comes the land use agro-forestry areas (244), permanently irrigated land (212), glaciers and perpetual snow (335), discontinuous urban fabric (112); in terms of decreasing more dramatically, the land uses include broad-leaved forests (311), vineyards (221), fruit and three berry plantations (222) and less-pronounced inland marshes (411). Therefore, it seems that this model in the future can present great variability and probably will need time to be able to stabilize.

After the analysis of the EU territories, the major land uses are represented on a map (**Figure 5**). The map enables us to verify that most of the land use corresponds to agricultural and forestry, the two being the most predominant agricultural uses. Even within agricultural use, it is possible to notice that the majority corresponds to non-irrigated land (211). Therefore, it can be argued that EU territories are characterized by agricultural and forest uses—mostly intended for agricultural-use non-irrigated land.

Also, in countries located in the North of Europe, their land uses are both agricultural and forestry. In Central EU territories, under the use of agricultural land, the non-irrigated land is the predominant one (211). This is similar to what happens in the EU South territories. However, in this area, the predominance of agricultural use is not so dominant, alternating in some countries the majority use to forestry use.

**Figure 4.** Trend of the land uses of percentage higher than 5% for the South EU group countries (authors).

158 Land Use - Assessing the Past, Envisioning the Future

**Author details**

Patrícia Escórcio<sup>8</sup>

Algarve, Algarve, Portugal

University of Évora, Évora, Portugal

University of Madeira, Funchal, Portugal

Badajoz, Spain

Portugal

**References**

jag.2017.07.001

DOI: 10.1080/01431160412331291297

José Cabezas Fernández2,5, Luis Fernández-Pozo<sup>5</sup>

\*Address all correspondence to: jnaranjo@unex.es

1 Polytechnic School, University of Extremadura, Caceres, Spain

José Manuel Naranjo Gómez1,2\*, Luis Carlos Loures2,3,4, Rui Alexandre Castanho2,5,6,7,

3 Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Portugal and Research Centre for Spatial and

4 Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs), University of

Organizational Dynamics (CIEO), University of Algarve, Algarve, Portugal

2 VALORIZA – Research Centre for Endogenous Resource Valorization, Portalegre, Portugal

5 Environmental Resources Analysis Research Group (ARAM), University of Extremadura,

6 Department of Landscape, Environment and Planning, School of Science and Technology,

7 ICAAM—Institute for Agrarian and Environmental Sciences, University of Évora, Évora,

8 Department of Civil Engineering and Geology, Faculty of Exact Sciences and Engineering,

[1] Neumann K, Herold M, Hartley A, Schmullius C. Comparative assessment of CORINE2000 and GLC2000: Spatial analysis of land cover data for Europe. International Journal of Applied

[4] García-Álvarez D, Camacho Olmedo MT. Changes in the methodology used in the production of the Spanish CORINE: Uncertainty analysis of the new maps. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2017;**63**:55-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.

[5] Bartholomé E, Belward AS. GLC2000: A new approach to global land cover mapping from earth observation data. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2005;**26**(9):1959-1977.

Earth Observation and Geoinformation. 2007;**9**(4):425-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2007.02.004 [2] Herold M, Woodcock CE, Di Gregorio A, Mayaux P, Belward AS, Latham J, et al. A joint initiative for harmonization and validation of land cover datasets. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2006;**44**(7):1719-1727. DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2006.871219 [3] Delgado J, editor. Armonización de las bases de datos de ocupación del suelo y su importancia en la evaluación de parámetros e indicadores medioambientales. In: Congreso

Nacional de Medio Ambiente Cumbre Del Desarrollo Sostenible. 2008

, Sérgio António Neves Lousada<sup>8</sup>

Assessing Land-Use Changes in European Territories: A Retrospective Study from 1990 to 2012

and

161

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78258

**Figure 5.** Major land uses in EU territories (authors).
