Environmental Management
DOI 10.1007/s00267-017-0908-2
Determinants of Urban Expansion and Agricultural Land
Conversion in 25 EU Countries
Eda Ustaoglu1 Brendan Williams1
●
Received: 20 February 2017 / Accepted: 17 June 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Abstract Agricultural land conversion is resulting from
ongoing complex interaction between the physical envir-
onment, policy settings and socio-economic factors. Case
studies of the determinants of agricultural land conversion
potentially contribute to the analysis of the main causes of
land-use change. This can assist authorities and policy
makers in understanding the relative importance of a wide
range of factors on urban expansion and associated agri-
cultural land-use change. This paper explores the determi-
nants of agricultural land conversion to urban uses in the
studied 25 European Union countries between 2000 and
2006. European-level as well as region-specific land-use
changes are studied. The research is using the spatial data
adapted from European Corine Land Cover maps of 2000
and 2006 and utilised other European sources regarding
socio-economic, natural, geological, climate, and policy-
related data. The differences in urbanisation processes
observed in different regions in Europe emphasise the
regional variations of urban conversion process of agri-
cultural land use. This study identifies a combination of
socio-economic drivers, policy-related factors, nature and
location-based factors as key influences on agricultural land
conversion processes in Europe. Specifically we found that
the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies were
influential in curbing urbanisation and reducing agricultural
land consumption.
* Eda Ustaoglu
eda.ustaoglu@ucd.ie
Brendan Williams
brendan.williams@ucd.ie
1 Despite the pace of urban expansion in the European
School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy,
University College Dublin, Richview, Clonskeagh, Dublin 4,
Ireland
Keywords Urbanisation Agricultural land conversion
● ●
Urban land-use change Drivers of land-use change
● ●
European countries
Introduction
The European landscape has a great variety of regional
characteristics and a dynamic structure in which agriculture is
one of the most dominant land uses. Agricultural land use
covers more than 35% of the total land area which is almost
ten times higher than urban land (FAO 2014; EEA 2010).
The changing rural landscape of Europe is the topic of
research publications pointing to significant changes in rural
landscapes (Verburg et al. 2010; van Vliet et al. 2015; Levers
et al. 2016). These studies confirmed that there are con-
siderable decreases of areas of agricultural land use cover
during the last two decades. Between 2000 and 2006, the
European Environment Agency (EEA) (EEA 2010) docu-
mented a considerable decline of agricultural land areas in
excess of 50,000 hectares and increases in urban areas in the
25 European states covered in the study. Land converted
from agricultural to urban uses can significantly impact on
the sustainability of the wider environment (ecosystem
functioning and biodiversity, soil and water resources, carbon
sequestration, climate change), as well as economic and
social welfare (Swart et al. 2003; Swift et al. 2004; Bossio
et al. 2010; Wu 2013; van Vliet et al. 2015). Understanding
the underlying processes and identification of driving forces
of agricultural land conversion is an important subject of
research to assess existing policies and develop new policies
that would result in environmentally sustainable solutions.
landscape, there is only limited research analysing the pat-
terns and underlying processes of urban to rural land-use

change at the pan-European level. Most of the research
related to land-use change patterns has consisted of case
studies of local areas, specific regions or countries (Mottet
et al. 2006; Sluiter and de Jong 2007; Hersperger and Burgi
2009; Bieling et al. 2013; Primdahl 2014). Among the few
studies at the European scale, there are examples of studies
on drivers of agricultural land-use change through appli-
cation of meta-analyses focusing on the results of selected
case studies of different regions in Europe (Rudel 2008; van
Vliet et al. 2015; Plieninger et al. 2016). There are also
examples of research on the changes of specific land uses or
land-use systems based on time-series spatial data analysis
(Gerard et al. 2010; Hatna and Bakker 2011; Fuchs et al.
2015; Levers et al. 2016), and qualitative/quantitative ana-
lysis of drivers of landscape change in total or part of the
European Area (Antrop 2004; Serra et al. 2008; Hersperger
and Burgi 2009; Primdahl et al. 2013). Other European
studies examine the process of urban expansion using sys-
tematic methods at the regional or country level (Azadi
et al. 2010; Diogo and Koomen 2012; Mazzocchi et al.
2013) or from the perspective of economic geography
(Krugman 1999; Cheshire and Magrini 2009). Some others
follow a scenario-oriented perspective that focus on possi-
ble future policy alternatives and the interaction between
many factors that drive land-use change through application
of land-use modelling (Verburg and Overmars 2009; Ver-
burg et al. 2010). There is only limited literature examining
urban conversion of cultivated agricultural land through
following a systematic approach that focuses on a multi-
disciplinary perspective at the pan-European level. As
highlighted by Diogo and Koomen (2012: p. 237), there is
no unifying theory that includes all processes of land-use
change. Therefore, the literature has not yet reached to a
consensus on the key drivers of land-use change, and the
topic remains a major challenge in the field of land-use
change analysis and modelling.
Case studies at local level provide evidence on the drivers
of land-use change in a more detailed local context. However
they are frequently highly specific in contexts, actors, main
processes, resolution and scale (Burgi et al. 2004). By con-
trast, the application of a systematic approach in the European
framework can lead to a more generalised insight considering
that the analysis of landscape change and the drivers can be
generalised and transferred across locations (Rindfuss et al.
2007). An Econometric estimation approach/technique is
potentially a promising systematic approach and can be used
to quantify and evaluate the most significant drivers of
landscape change at a more general level. While there are
examples of landscape research applying econometric
approaches, there have been very few studies synthesising
different drivers of agricultural land-use change to examine
urban landscape at the Pan-European perspective through
application of econometric analysis as provided in this paper.
Environmental Management
Verburg et al. (2004), Chakir and Parent (2009), Jiang
et al. (2012) and Mazzocchi et al. (2013) provide some
examples of a multi-disciplinary approach to examine the
determinants of land-use conversion at the country or
regional level in Europe and internationally. The multi-
disciplinary approach in these studies aims at explaining the
impacts of different determinants on various land-use
changes derived from different theories explaining land-
use allocation. The key economic theories mentioned here
derive from earlier theoretical works of Ricardo (1817),
Von Thunen (1826), Alonso (1964) and others who assume
that land moves towards the uses that generate the highest
potential income, reflected in bid-prices. The micro-
economic theory of land-use change is also utilised to
explain the conversion to urban development of agricultural
land which is viewed as the outcome of decisions of com-
peting individual land users who seek to maximise profits
from individual parcels of land (Bockstael 1996; Jiang et al.
2012). These studies also cover the theories originating in
natural and social sciences, and in interdisciplinary research
that has been introduced to the literature more recently to
explain land-use/cover change (Briassoulis 2008).
What are the driving forces of land use change and are
such processes dominated by market processes and natural
local factors including demographics or do political/insti-
tutional factors including Pan European policies also
have a significant impact. The use of mainly individual local
studies in the literature to date creates a risk that results
may tend to represent the personal interpretation of authors
and local circumstances rather than the application of sys-
tematic methods. This research instead develops and
explores the significant data relating to the proven drivers of
agricultural land use change on a Pan European basis to
establish key trends and linkages over the recent period in
the study area.
This paper aims at contributing to this literature specifi-
cally through our evidence-based synthesis of underlying
drivers of urban conversion of agricultural land across 25
European Union (EU) member states. We ask how different
driving forces influence the agricultural land-use change
process in the studied period i.e., 2000–2006. In this study,
the Corine Land Cover (CLC) maps for 2000 and 2006 that
were produced by the EEA were used for the land-use
change analysis (EEA 2016).
A New Approach to Exploring the Drivers of
Agricultural Land-Use Change
Landscape changes are linked with complex processes
where multiple social, economic, political and environmental
factors are in effect driving the land-use conversion process
(Burgi et al. 2004). From the empirical literature, the key
Environmental Management
drivers of land-use change include: socio-economic forces,
urbanisation, technological developments, biophysical fac-
tors, land-use policies, and new demands of land for nature
conservation and ecosystem protection (Burgi et al. 2004;
Verburg et al. 2004; Hersperger and Burgi 2007; Diogo and
Koomen 2012; Plieninger and Bieling 2012).
Economic Factors
The urban bid-rent model is recognised as being core to the
urban land-use change analysis in the most recent literature.
The bid-rent theory is based on the assumption that, in
equilibrium, land is allocated to the economic use which
generates the highest income. The theory indicates that
distance from the city centre is the main determinant of land
rents and the resultant distribution of land uses. This theory
in effect assumes a market which is unregulated and all
actors are free to change uses. Such conditions are rarely
present in European urban areas where historic urban con-
centrations, sector preferences and land uses dominate while
planning and regulatory processes can provide a high level
of control militating against change.
The early theory developed by Ricardo (1817) explained
differences in land prices according to the differences in soil
fertility levels. This theory implies that higher quality land is
more profitable than lower quality land, and hence generates
higher income. Von Thunen (1826) considered the impact of
distance and market ranges or thresholds, and therefore
locational accessibility to explain land-use patterns and land
prices. Modern economic analysis of land use often takes the
well-known theory of Alonso (1964) as a starting point,
which focuses on a number of economic and environmental
factors such as infrastructure and soil quality to explain the
relationship between urban land use and land rents. Later the
bid-rent model has been expanded incorporating the inter-
actions of supply of land with demand (Muth 1969); spatial
heterogeneities in terms of geological, climatic and natural
resource endowments (Moses and Williamson 1967); influ-
ence of income (Barlowe 1978), heterogeneous agents (Anas
1990), provision of local public goods (De Bartolome and
Ross 2003), and improved transportation (Baum-Snow
2007). The bid-rent theory has constructed a framework
for various studies of land-use modelling in the recent lit-
erature explaining urban land expansion and industrialisation
(Deng et al. 2010), conversion of land use/cover (Serra et al.
2008), and the spatial scale of cities (McGrath 2005). The
detailed literature can be seen in Koomen et al. (2007).
Bio-Physical Factors
There are different theories originating in the natural sci-
ences, in particular physical geography factors and agro-
ecological sciences that have been advanced to explain
physical constraints and potentials in the natural environ-
ment steering land use/cover change. Each land parcel has
different biophysical and climatic characteristics that
determine suitability for a range of uses. Given these
characteristics, a parcel of land may be used for agriculture
(crops, pasture etc.), forestry, residential, industrial,
recreational and other purposes. A variety of land evalua-
tion techniques have been used to determine the potential
use of a parcel of land in a given location that is based on
the biophysical characteristics of that location (Fischer et al.
2002). Related to biophysical characteristics, the literature
refers to: local climate and weather conditions (temperature,
rainfall, wind, moisture etc.), topographical conditions
(slope, aspect), drainage conditions, soil type, bedrock type
and water resources (surface/ground water, access to water).
These factors are also important in determining the suit-
ability of a location for residential or industrial/commercial
development. For instance, among the most important fac-
tors leading to quality of life differences between the
regions can be climate and local weather conditions (Rap-
paport 2007). Levia and Page (2000) researched the driving
forces of agricultural land conversion to urban uses, and
concluded that farm size, land gradient/slope, and distance
to developed urban areas and transport infrastructure are the
key factors influencing farmland conversion in the US.
From a real estate developer’s point of view, construction
costs on steep lands are generally more than those on flat
lands, and large farms are preferable to small farms due to
scale economies (Levia and Page 2000). This implies that
land value could increase with the farm size, as real estate
developers would choose large farms rather than smaller
ones as the former ensures higher profitability. On the other
hand, large farms provide greater possibilities for agri-
cultural production and potential diversification, which
could slow agricultural land consumption (Mazzocchi et al.
2013). Azadi et al. (2010) reviewed potential drivers of
agricultural land conversion and highlighted the correlation
between land productivity and the increase in agricultural
land conversion. They noted that high productivity land is
generally fertile, well drained, often closer to water sources
and urban areas, and mostly located on flat areas (see also
Firman 1997). The development of urban land is mostly
associated with those lands having the stated advantages of
the landscape.
Small fragmented farm units with high costs of man-
agement are more likely to have difficulties to access to
production inputs, credit and other financial and institu-
tional services (OECD 2008). Fragmentation is negatively
related to the distance from the city implying that it is fre-
quently observed close to the city boundaries where the
urban development pressure is higher (Carrion-Flores and
Irwin 2004).

Demographic and Social Factors
Demographic and social characteristics of agricultural land
owners/farmers can be considered as important in farmland
conversion decisions. These factors can affect the decisions
of land users to maintain or to change the current use and
utilisation of the land. Among the demographic factors, the
most cited are: population, age and gender of the household
members, family status, and size of the household. Popu-
lation generally relates to the category of cultural driving
forces, and is a significant variable explaining land-use
change. Single agricultural land owners/farmers have gen-
erally different life expectations than married land owners,
and older land owners show more resistance to changes than
younger counterparts. Kristensen et al. (2004) highlighted
the relationship between a farmer’s age and landscape
changes and showed that farmland extensification and
abandonment are likely to occur when the farmer is older
and close to retirement. Riedel et al. (2007) revealed that the
young farm owners are capable of adapting new production
systems while the older farm owners engaged in less eco-
nomic improvements as they approach their retirement
which could lead to cessation of agricultural processing and
land abandonment.
The socio-cultural characteristics of the farmers, which
are influential on the decisions of land-use change are:
education, place of living (rural vs. urban), employment
status (single, multi-employment, family labour, owner vs.
tenant etc.), values, norms, attitudes and preferences (Pahl
1975). Primdahl et al. (2013: p. 804) mentioned that ‘the
farmer has three key roles that are functional in landscape
change: Being a producer, the farmer makes decisions on
farming practices that are crucial for the local ecological
conditions and landscape sustainability. Being a property
owner, the farmer decides on major and long-term land-use
changes. Finally, a farmer is a citizen who may participate
in collective decisions regarding the agricultural landscape’.
Technological Factors
Technological factors affect land-use change decisions of
landowners through their influence on the productivity of
labour and capital that are employed in the agricultural
production process. Technological improvements in agri-
culture can lead to less labour demanded with the rural work
force moving to employment in/within metropolitan areas
due to the growing labour surplus in the agricultural sector.
Alternative employment opportunities in other sectors and
the low proportion of full-time worker in agriculture are
among factors that increase the probability of land-use
change (Rickebusch et al. 2007). In turn, the newly added
labour force to the metropolitan economy would require
more land to service the growing economy and population.
Environmental Management
Therefore, there will be an expansion of cities to their
outskirts, and consequently a competition for different land
uses at the urban-rural fringe. Following the advances in
technology in the agricultural sector, the number of agri-
cultural workers has already decreased particularly in
developed countries (Azadi et al. 2010). This implies that an
increase in capital-labour ratio in agricultural sector is
associated with an increase in conversion of cultivated land.
Urbanisation
The urbanisation and rural-urban migration processes are
linked with a transition from an agricultural economy to
industrial and service-based activities which are the key
factors resulting in agricultural land conversion. Rural-urban
migration is a major driving force of urbanisation and
remains significant both in developed and developing
countries (Piorr et al. 2010). Urbanisation competes for rural
resources as the development of commercial and industrial
sites in cities offer new jobs, higher wages and new life close
to those of newly developed sites (Champion 2001). This
situation creates further demand for residential and other
urban facilities resulting in expansion of built-up areas. Due
to high prices of land in the city centre, most commercial
and industrial development is taking place in suburban areas
resulting in urban expansion of formerly rural land (Antrop
2004). This results in urban generated housing and devel-
opment demand impacting on rural areas within commuting
distance of growing urban areas (Piorr et al. 2010).
This transition of urban related functions such as trans-
port infrastructure, commercial centres, high-tech industries
and recreational facilities to rural land close to urban centres
contributes to uncontrolled dispersion of urban generated
land demands and developments known as urban sprawl
(EEA 2006; Girardet 2015). Counter urbanisation is another
process explaining the movement of people and capital to
rural fringe areas in search of a rural life style for retirement,
as commuters or as IT-based home workers (Champion
2001). This process can lead to gentrification of the for-
merly agricultural areas and increasing use of the land for
recreational purposes such as hobby farming (Busck et al.
2006). The result is changing agricultural functions and
landscape patterns, and increased levels of new develop-
ments on agricultural land (Primdahl et al. 2013).
Spatial Policies
Spatial development policies affect the functional use of
landscape and could influence the conversion of one land
use to other uses. For instance, public policy and regulations
(e.g., nature conservation, land zoning etc.) can determine
whether an area becomes residential, industrial/commercial,
agricultural, natural protection area or other uses. These
Environmental Management
policies influence conversion of agricultural land to urban
uses or regulate for protection of agricultural land given that
it has high nature value (HNV).
Along with national regulatory systems there are three
sets of policies at the Pan European level which are
explored in this study that affect rural landscapes in Europe:
First, there are the NATURA2000 network and HNV
designated farming sites aiming at promoting sustainable
management through ecological and economic means. The
NATURA2000 is a network of natural protected areas in the
EU that has been established under the 1979 EU Birds
Directive and 1992 Habitats Directive. All member states
must designate the areas that make up the NATURA2000
network to assure long-term protection of Europe’s most
valuable and threatened species and habitats (EC 2016).
HNV farming was first used in the early 1990s to describe
the importance of low-intensity farming, mostly in marginal
agricultural areas, for the continuing preservation of the
structural diversity and the accompanying flora and fauna in
EU (Beaufoy et al. 1994; Bignal and McCracken 1996).
The HNV approach emphasises the biodiversity protection
goals in EU policy that cannot be met by protecting parti-
cular habitats or species under the EU Birds and Habitats
Directives or designating certain areas for their management
i.e., NATURA2000 sites. HNV farming is characterised by
‘low-intensity and complex farming systems using labour
intensive practices, livestock breeds and crops adapted to
local soil, vegetation and climate conditions’ (Keenleyside
et al. 2014). Landscapes that are managed under low-
intensity HNV farming systems are amongst the most
important habitats for biodiversity in Europe.
The other important policy affecting agricultural land uses
are the subsidies of the European CAP. The CAP is under
reform and transforming from a production support subsidy
system towards an income support subsidy system (Primdahl
et al. 2013). CAP reforms now also include environmental
sustainability measures, and together with cross-compliance
requirements, the CAP programme is described as a ‘bridge
between the market policy agenda and the sustainability
agenda’ (Primdahl et al. 2013: p. 803). Subsidies in the form
of farm income support affect farmers’ labour allocation
decisions through increasing the marginal value of farm
labour, increasing household wealth, and reducing income
variability (Olper et al. 2012). Farmers receiving the CAP
subsidies may prefer to maintain agricultural activities and a
commitment to farming on the land in many regions with
policies supporting small scale family farms.
The public regulation and planning structure of the
countries show considerable variety in EU and is influential
concerning land-use change decisions at local, regional and
country levels. The type of spatial planning policy (i.e.,
regional or national level) can range from non-
interventionist where local governments have the freedom
to take their own decisions to controlled systems where
land-use changes have to be in line with the higher level
plans and policies. Based on a systematic review of existing
planning and administrative systems that are influenced by
direct and indirect policies on national and EU level, Tosics
et al. (2010) quantified values measuring the potential
strength of public regulation over land-use change in dif-
ferent EU countries. Tosics et al. (2010) stated that Northern
European countries (e.g., Denmark, Netherlands and UK)
show higher levels of potential control. Southern European
countries (e.g., Cyprus, Greece, Portugal) were described as
showing higher potential values having more fragmented
local government systems with a stronger control at regional
and national levels. The potential values measuring the
strength of public regulations developed in Tosics et al.
(2010) will be used in the current study as a proxy to
indicate the strength of public control over agricultural land-
use changes across different EU countries. The details of the
analysis and the values specified for each of the EU coun-
tries are outlined in Tosics et al. (2010).
Literature on the Studies of Drivers of Agricultural
Land-Use Change in Europe
On the European scale, in Burgi et al.’s (2004) explanation,
most landscapes are affected by the potential driving forces
from the five major groups of driving forces (socio-
economic, political, technological, natural and cultural).
Focusing on meta analysis of the selected case studies of
landscape change across Europe, Plieninger et al. (2016)
found that distinct combinations of political/institutional,
cultural, natural/spatial drivers are determining landscape
change, rather than single key drivers. Related research by
Seto et al. (2011) showed that agricultural to urban land
conversion is driven mainly by different mixes of factors
i.e., demographic and economic factors in the fastest
growing regions around the World. They highlighted the
existence of other additional factors interacting with popu-
lation and economic factors such as international capital
flows, the informal economy, land use policy, and trans-
portation costs which influence urban land expansion pro-
cess across the globe.
There are many local studies focusing on land-use
change processes and causes of land-use change at the
regional or local level in Europe. For instance, Bieling et al.
(2013) emphasised the existence of socio-economic factors
at the regional scale and human agency at the local scale
fostering the land-use change process of expansion of urban
areas, forests and conversion of grassland and heathland in
central Europe. Mottet et al. (2006) pointed out that the
existence of local factors (e.g., location, accessibility) sup-
ports the analysis of socio-economic drivers and their

relationship with natural drivers. Therefore, agricultural
land-use change in the mountain landscapes of France can
be explained by the combination of policy, biophysical and
socio-economic factors, as well as specific local factors.
According to Serra et al. (2008), the main driving forces of
land-use/land cover change in Mediterranean region are
specified as biophysical and human factors and policy
variables. As highlighted by the findings of the local case
studies, local factors often intervene with the other drivers
of the land-use change.
Methods and Data
Methodology
This study examines the conversion of agricultural land to
urban uses in the selected EU countries for the time interval:
2000–2006 by adapting spatial data from the European CLC
maps. Since agricultural land is converted to different urban
uses (e.g., residential, industrial/commercial, recreational), it
can be assumed that the probability of conversion of a certain
amount of agricultural land to an urban use is correlated with
the probability of conversion to another urban use. The shift
from an agricultural-based economy to services and
industrial-based sectors leads to conversion of cultivated land
to industrial and commercial uses along with residential
developments. Therefore, agricultural land conversion to
different urban uses can be represented through a set of
equations where their disturbances are correlated. Following
the seminal work of Zellner (1962), a seemingly unrelated
regression (SUR) system will be utilised in this study.
The set of equations in the SUR system referred to
comprise a simultaneous equations model if one or more
regressors in one or more of the equations is itself the
endogenous variable associated with another equation in the
full system. Even if none of the variables in the system are
simultaneously explanatory and dependent in nature, there
may be still interactions between individual equations if the
disturbances of the different equations are correlated with
each other. In other words, ‘the equations may be linked
statistically, but not structurally, through the correlation of
error terms and the non-dioganality of the associated
variance-covariance matrix’ (Srivastava and Giles 1987: p.
2). In the SUR system, each equation is a valid linear
regression and can be estimated separately using standard
OLS technique. Though such estimates are consistent, they
are generally not as efficient as the SUR estimation, which
complies with feasible generalised least squares with a
specific form of the variance-covariance matrix (Greene
2012). The set of equations that comprise the structure of
the SUR model introduces additional information over that
which is available when each of the equations is considered
Environmental Management
separately. The asymptotic efficiency of the estimated
parameters in the SUR model is a significant factor moti-
vating the work of Zellner (1962). Following Zellner
(1962), there are increasing numbers of studies that have
applied SUR model in empirical analysis. For instance,
Lundberg (2006) examined the spillovers of recreational
and cultural services using a spatial SUR model. Zhou and
Kockelman (2009) addressed spatial dependence between
household and employment distributions in determining
travel demand through the application of the SUR model
with two spatial processes. Gatto et al. (2015) analysed the
impact of socio-economic and policy factors that affect
changes of different land uses through estimation of dif-
ferent equations in the SUR system.
In the empirical model, there are dependencies emerging
from two sources: First error terms are spatially correlated
across different regions, implying that development of dif-
ferent urban land uses are interrelated as such developments
do not occur individually. Second, these error terms are
correlated across equations leading to use of SUR structure.
In the model, there are three types of urban uses to be
considered: (a) residential use, (b) industrial/commercial
use, and (c) recreational use. To represent the relationship
between agricultural land conversion and the drivers of the
subject land-use conversion, six groups of variables will be
considered in the current study. These will be elaborated
later in the following sections.
Following the literature, the drivers of land-use change
utilised in the model are (Fig. 1): socio-economic
characteristics, location-based characteristics, regional
characteristics, geological and climatic characteristics,
soil characteristics and policy-related factors. Assuming that
E, a Kt × 1 vector of socio-economic characteristics, L, a
Kt × 1 vector of locational characteristics, R, a Kt × 1 vector
of regional characteristics, G, a Kt × 1 vector of geological
and climatic characteristics, S, a Kt × 1 vector of soil
characteristics, and P, a Kt × 1 vector of policy-related
factors, the system of SUR equations can be written as:
yi1 ¼ α1 þ β1 Ei1 þ γ 1 Li1 þ ρ1 Ri1 þ μ1 Gi1 þ τ1 Si1
þδ1 Pi1 þ ui1
yi2 ¼ α2 þ β2 Ei2 þ γ 2 Li2 þ ρ2 Ri2 þ μ2 Gi2 þ τ2 Si2
ð1Þ
þδ2 Pi2 þ ui2
yi3 ¼ α3 þ β3 Ei3 þ γ 3 Li3 þ ρ3 Ri3 þ μ3 Gi3 þ τ3 Si3
þδ3 Pi3 þ ui3
Environmental Management
Fig. 1 Spatially explicit factors
considered in this study FACTORS DETERMINING
AGRICULTURAL LAND
CONVERSION
Location-based
characteristics
Policy related factors
Here yi1, yi2, yi3 represents the amount of agricultural
land in a region that has been converted to residential uses,
industrial/commercial uses, and recreational uses, respec-
tively. β, γ, ρ, μ, τ, δ are the coefficients of the related
explanatory variables, α is the constant, u is the error term,
and all the other parameters are as described before. The
coefficients specified in each set of the equations in Eq. (1)
were estimated with the SUR technique using the STATA
software.
Since many of the explanatory variables are linked to
socio-economic conditions, physical, spatial and policy-
related characteristics of the regions, multicollinearity is a
significant issue to deal within the context of econometric
modelling. As applied in the OLS model, collinearity pro-
blems were initially identified by computing bivariate cor-
relation coefficients (i.e., pearson’s correlation coefficients)
for all the variables listed in Table 1, and next highly cor-
related variables were identified and dropped from the
analysis.
Data
Land use
In this study, the CLC maps for 2000 and 2006 that were
produced by the EEA were used for the land-use change
analysis (EEA 2016). These maps have 100 × 100 m reso-
lution with an inventory of 44 land cover classes. The land-
uses that have been used in the current analysis consist of 11
different types of land-use classes (residential use, indus-
trial, commercial and services use, ports, airports, road and
rail, mine, dump and construction sites, recreational use,
agricultural use, forests and semi-natural areas, wetlands,
and water). Regarding this classification, industrial, com-
mercial and services land uses are combined in one land use
i.e., industrial and commercial land use, and from here on
Socio-economic characteristics
Regional characteristics:
urban-rural typology of the
regions
Agricultural land conversion to
urban uses
Geological and climatic
characteristics
Soil characteristics
this grouping maybe be referred as ‘industrial/commercial
land use’ or simply ‘industrial use’1. From the data, three
dependent variables as specified in the SUR model (equa-
tion 1) were computed where the dependent variables are:
the total agricultural land area (in hectares) converted to
residential, industrial/commercial and recreational uses in a
region. To illustrate the scope of urban expansion that has
been experienced between the subject time period, the maps
representing the land conversions to residential, industrial/
commercial and recreational uses are given in Figs. 2–4,
respectively.
All EU countries (which were member states during the
study period 2000–2006) are included in the analysis with
an exclusion of three countries i.e. Greece, Cyprus and
Malta. Greece is not represented in the European CLC map
between 2000 and 2006 while with Cyprus and Malta, there
are data availability issues regarding socio-economic and
location-based data which would make findings using such
data unreliable. For ease of interpretation, urban conversion
of agricultural land between 2000 and 2006 are displayed in
Fig. 5.
Among developed countries in Fig. 5, Austria, Lux-
embourg, Netherlands and UK had experienced the
highest rates of agricultural land conversion to residential
uses. Italy, Luxembourg and Netherlands are associated
with the highest rates of changes of agricultural land
converted to industrial uses. Agricultural land converted
1
Industrial sectors include: ‘manufacturing, electricity, gas, steam and
air conditioning supply, water supply, sewerage, waste management
and remediation activities’, commercial sectors are ‘wholesale and
retail trade, repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, accommodation
and food service activities, transportation, storage and information and
communication’, and finally services sectors cover ‘financial and
insurance activities, real estate and renting activities, professional,
scientific and technical activities, administrative and support service
activities (these correspond to NACE Rev.2 classification detailed in
Eurostat 2008)
Table 1 Variable descriptions
Variable Description Scale Source of the data

Socio-economic characteristics
CAP_LABOUR Agricultural capital to labour ratio NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
HOLDINGS Number of agricultural holdings NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
HOLDER Number of agricultural holders NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
FAMILY_LABOUR Family labour force in agricultural sector in a region NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
OWNER_TENANT Percentage of farm owner to tenant ratio in a region NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
POP Population of a region NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
PATENT Number of patent applications in a region NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
AGRI_RESI_LANDRENT Agricultural-residential land rent ratio [Agricultural NUTS 2 GDP, Agricultural and industrial/commercial GVA, and households
GVA (€) per agricultural land (Ha) in a region] ÷ [GDP income are from Eurostat (2016); agricultural land, residential and
(€) per residential land (Ha) in a region] industrial land in a NUTS 2 region were obtained from CORINE Land
Cover (CLC) data (2000, 2006); obtained from: European Environment
Agency (2016). Available from: http://eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps
AGRI_IND_LANDRENT Agricultural-industrial land rent ratio [Agricultural NUTS 2
GVA (€) per agricultural land (Ha) in a region] ÷
[Industrial/Commercial GVA (€) per industrial/
commercial land (Ha) in a region]
AGRI_REC_LANDRENT Agricultural-recreational land rent ratio [Agricultural NUTS 2
GVA (€) per agricultural land (Ha) in a region] ÷
[Households income (€) per recreational land (Ha) in a
region]
Regional characteristics
URBAN Regions classified as predominantly urban regions NUTS 2 Dijkstra and Poelman (2011) in European Union, DG for Regional Policy,
Regional focus: Regional typologies: a compilation, No:01/2011
RURAL Regions classified as predominantly rural regions NUTS 2
INTERMEDIATE Regions classified as predominantly intermediate NUTS 2
regions
CAPCITY_METROPOL Regions classified as capital city and/or metropolitan NUTS 2
regions
Soil characteristics
FERTILE Percentage of converted land classified as fertile soil in Calculated for each NUTS 2 EC-JRC (2013) European Soil Portal- Soil Data and information system:
a region region using Arc-GIS European Soil Database Version 2, 1 km resolution. Available from:
http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
MANAG Percentage of converted land classified as manageable
soil in a region
AGRI_SUIT Percentage of converted land classified as suitable for
agriculture in a region
Environmental Management
Table 1 continued
Variable Description Scale Source of the data

SOC Soil organic carbon content of converted land in a

region
Geological and climatic characteristics
PLAIN RATIO Ratio of land with a slope less than 10 degrees in a Calculated for each NUTS 2 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (2013) Shuttle
region region using Arc-GIS Radar Topography Mission. Available from: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/
Environmental Management

srtm
ASPECT Aspect majority of converted land in a region
SLOPE Average slope of converted land (%)
TEMPERATURE Average annual temperature of a region (°C) Average values for each NUTS EC-JRC (2013) European Soil Portal- Soil Data and information system:
2 region were computed using European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Spatial Data Version 1.1, and 1
Arc-GIS km resolution. Available from: http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/library/Data/
EFSA
PRECIPITATION Average annual precipitation of a region (mm/year)
Location-based characteristics
MOTORWAYS Total length of motorways in a region NUTS 2 Eurostat (2016)
DIST_ROAD Average distance to major roads Average Euclidian distance
were computed for each NUTS
2 region using Arc-GIS
DIST_WATER Average distance from water sources CORINE Land Cover (CLC) data (2000, 2006), Data Version 16, 100 m
resolution, obtained from: European Environment Agency (2016).
Available from: http://eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps
DIST_CENTRE Average distance to urban centres
DIST_AIRPORT Average distance to airport
DIST_PORT Average distance to port
DIST_HNVFARM Average distance to highly valued farmland European Environment Agency (2004) High nature value farmland:
Characteristics, trends and policy challanges. No:1/2004. Spatial data
available from: http://eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps
DIST_CITY Average distance to core city boundaries Eurostat, GISCO, Urban Audit (2004), Area management dataset.
Available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/
gisco_Geographical_information_maps/popups/references
/administrative_units_statistical_units_1
Policy-related factors
NATURA2000 Total area of NATURA2000 sites in a region NUTS 2 European Environment Agency (2016) Natura 2000 Data. Available from:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-1
POLICY Public policy strictness of a country represented by NUTS 0 Source: Tosics et al. (2010)
values from 1 to 6
INCOME/CAP Income to CAP subsidies ratio at the regional or country NUTS 0, NUTS1 and NUTS2 EC-Agriculture and Rural Development-Farm Accountancy Data
level Network (FADN) Dataset (2014). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/rica/database/database_en.cfm
 Environmental Management

Fig. 2 Percentage of agricultural

land converted to residential
uses in the EU between 2000
and 2006

to recreational uses is the highest in Netherlands and UK
among others. Within moderately developed countries,
Portugal and Czech Republic reported the highest rates of
agricultural land conversion to residential uses. Land
converted to industrial and recreational uses are the
highest in Czech Republic among others. In the less
developed countries, the highest rates of agricultural land
conversion to residential uses are observed in Poland,
Slovakia and Romania. These findings point to regional
differences in urban conversion of agricultural land in
Europe stemming from general levels of economic
development and other drivers of land-use change as
detailed in the previous section.
Driving factors of land-use change
To explain agricultural land conversion, a set of explanatory
variables representing socio-economic, political, locational
Environmental Management
Fig. 3 Percentage of agricultural
land converted to industrial uses
in the EU between 2000 and
2006
and natural driving forces of land-use change is utilised in
the model. The variables of the socio-economic character-
istics comprising population, gross domestic product
(GDP), agricultural capital investments, agricultural and
industrial gross value added (GVA), number of patents
granted to industrial sectors, urban households’ income,
numbers of agricultural holdings of different size, agri-
cultural holders of different age, total labour and
family labour force in agriculture, total number of farm
holders and tenants were collected from Eurostat’s
online database (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database)
at NUTS2 (nomenclature of terrestrial units for statistics)
regional level2 (see Fig. 7 in Appendix for the representa-
tion of NUTS regions). This data representing socio-
2
The NUTS classification subdivides economic territory of the EU
member states into territorial units (i.e. regions) for the production of
regional statistics and for targeting political interventions at a regional
level (Eurostat 2015). The NUTS classification includes three hier-
archical levels: the country boundaries of each member state form the
NUTS0 level, which is divided into NUTS 1 regions, which in turn are
subdivided into NUTS 2 regions and then further divided into NUTS 3
regions (see Fig. 7 in Appendix). Existing administrative units of the
member states comply with the definition of the NUTS regions, and
the NUTS are complemented at the lower level by local administrative
units (Eurostat 2015).

Fig. 4 Percentage of agricultural
land converted to recreational
uses in the EU between 2000
and 2006.
economic characteristics of the regions are represented at
the NUTS 2 level that is the most detailed regional level
where socio-economic data is available at Eurostat’s data-
base. Since there is no further detailed information on the
socio-economic data from other data sources, the current
analysis utilises NUTS2 level as the statistical unit of the
analysis.
As suggested by the bid-rent theory, land rents and
income are the key factors explaining land-use changes in
urban areas and regions. The conversion of agricultural land
Environmental Management
to urban uses is strongly influenced by land rents and prices
of different land uses. Therefore, in the current study a land
rent ratio is defined as the ratio of agricultural land rent to
urban land rent in a NUTS 2 region. Following Seto and
Kaufmann (2003), and Jiang et al. (2012), the value of gross
agricultural output divided by agricultural land area is used
as a proxy for agricultural land rent while the value for
gross industrial and commercial output divided by industrial
and commercial land area is used as a proxy for industrial/
commercial land rent. Regarding values of residential land
Environmental Management
Fig. 5 Percentages of
agricultural land converted to
urban uses in developed, less
developed and moderately
developed countries in EU,
2000–2006. Note: The
classification of countries i.e.,
developed, moderately
developed and less developed
countries in EU are specified in
EC (2014)
uses, there is no consistent data on residential land rents (or
prices) at the regional level in EU countries. In the litera-
ture, the growth rate of GDP, which provides a measure of
the state of the business cycle and household income, is
used as one of the key determinants of house price growth
rates (Tsatsaronis and Zhu 2004; Abelson et al. 2005;
Plakandaras et al. 2015). Following this literature, the value
of gross domestic output (i.e., GDP) divided by residential
land area is considered as a proxy for residential land rent in
the current study.
There is no direct measure of price to relate to the con-
sumption of recreation land-based services considering that
many of the recreational facilities are offered at very small
charges or free at the point of consumption. Therefore,
several methods such as contingent valuation, travel costs
and hedonic pricing models are used to generate proxies for
the prices of recreation-based services (Curry and Raven-
scroft 2001). There is limited research on the valuation of
recreational uses at the regional level across EU countries.
Considering that there is no consistent available data across
the regions, the recreational land values cannot be repre-
sented through application of the contingent valuation and
other approaches. Recreation expenditures can be expressed
as a share of disposable personal income. For instance, it
has been shown in the literature that the higher the levels of
income the higher the consumption of countryside recrea-
tion and associated land uses (Gratton and Taylor 1985;
Curry 1994, 2005). Therefore, it can be argued that the
increase in income will lead to increase in leisure, and
consequently will increase the expenditures on recreation-
related goods and services (Costa 1999). Considering the
direct relationship between income levels and willingness-
to-pay values (Kong et al. 2014), households’ income per
recreational land is specified as the ratio of the households’
disposable income over total recreational land area in a
region and used as a proxy for the recreational land rent.
Finally, to compute the land rent ratio between agricultural
land and the converted urban use, the corresponding land
areas of agriculture and urban uses (i.e., residential, indus-
trial/commercial, recreational) at the NUTS2 regional level
were obtained from the CLC data.
Regional characteristics that are important for the allo-
cation decisions particularly for the residential, industrial
and commercial uses are the existence of a capital city or
metropolitan area in a region, and the NUTS2 region either
being classified as predominantly urban, predominantly
intermediate or predominantly rural regions. The urban-
rural typology of the regions was originally provided at the
more detailed NUTS3 regional level (see Dijkstra and
Poelman 2011)., and to provide statistics at the NUTS2
level, urban-rural typologies of the NUTS3 regions were
aggregated to the NUTS2 level and the dominant urban-
rural typology in a NUTS2 region was assigned to the
corresponding region. This implies that if there are higher
numbers of NUTS3 regions of rural areas in a NUTS2
region, then the region is assigned to predominantly rural. If
the number of rural and urban areas in a NUTS2 region is
equal, the region is considered as an intermediate region.
Finally if the NUTS2 regions have higher numbers of
NUTS3 urban areas, they are assigned to predominantly
urban. Industrial and commercial businesses are mostly
located in the regions of capital city or metropolitan areas
where there are benefits from the existence of required
infrastructure services and agglomeration economies of
being close to the existing industrial and commercial sites
located in these regions. On the other hand, residential and
recreational uses may be located in regions specified as
predominantly rural or intermediate where there is

abundance of greenfield land at a cheaper price. The main
underlying reason of the location of residential and recrea-
tional uses in rural areas is the counter-urbanisation process
previously highlighted which has started in the late 1950s in
the Northern and Western Europe and 1970s in the South-
ern Europe (Antrop 2004; Johannson 2015). The spatial
data on the classifications of the regions in the EU used in
this research were adapted from Dijkstra and Poelman
(2011).
A set of soil, geological and climatic characteristics were
considered in the analysis to capture natural and geologic-
based differences across the regions. The data representing
soil and climatic characteristics of the converted cultivated
land and the corresponding NUTS 2 regions were devel-
oped from the European Commission (EC)-Joint Research
Centre’s (JRC) (2013) European Soil Portal. From the
European soil map, different soil types were grouped under
three main categories: fertile soil, manageable soil and poor
soil. Among these, fertile soil is the most preferable soil of
good physical and chemical properties for cultivation3;
manageable soil refers to soil types that could be productive
with adequate soil management (i.e., installation of a drai-
nage system, availability of water and fertilisation); and
poor soil is the most inappropriate one that is characterised
as unsuitable for agricultural processing. Regarding climatic
factors, there are two variables included in the model:
measures of mean annual precipitation in (mm/year)
and mean annual temperature in °C both from the EFSA
(European Food Safety Authority) spatial data. Other geo-
logical characteristics such as aspect, slope, and plain ratio
of the landscape were calculated from the spatial data
obtained from NASA (2013). Here aspect is calculated as
the majority of aspect values of converted land in a region,
the slope is the average slope of the converted land devel-
oped with the use of the slope map4, and plain ratio is a
variable indicating the converted land area in a region that
has a slope that is less than 10 degrees.
Among location factors that are crucial for the allocation
decisions of industrial/commercial uses are average distance
to airports and ports. Location to the closest motorway,
urban centre and city boundaries are also important parti-
cularly for industrial/commercial estates. Being close to
3
The following soil types are classified as fertile soil: Andosols (AN),
Cambisols (CM), Chernozems (CH), Fluvisols (FL), Histosols (HS),
Luvisols (LV), Phaeozems (PH). The following are classified as
manageable soil: Arenosols (AR), Calcisols (CL), Gleysols (GL),
Gypsisols (GY), Vertisols (VR). The rest are classified as unsuitable
for agriculture i.e., Acrisols (AC), Albeluvisols (AB), Kastanozems
(KS), Leptosols (LP), Planasol (PL), Podsols (PZ), Regosols (RG),
Solonchaks (SC), Solonetzes (SN), Umbrisols (UM) (the details of soil
types can be seen from Toth et al., 2008).
4 marised in Table 1, and descriptive statistics of the variables
In the slope map, the following values correspond to the following
percentages of slope: 1: 0–2%; 2: 2–5%; 3: 5–8%; 4: 8–16%; 5:
16–30%; 6: > 30%.
Environmental Management
water for residential and recreational uses is important as
water areas have high amenity and visual qualities and
provides visual aesthetics to the residents and other users.
The location factors were included in the model by calcu-
lating the average (Euclidian) distance of converted agri-
cultural land to the location of ports, airports, roads, water
sources, city boundaries and urban centres at the NUTS 2
regional level. The Euclidian distances were initially cal-
culated at the cellular level by using the CLC data and then
summarised to NUTS2 level by using the regional boundary
maps of the EU countries. Another important factor con-
sidered for the decisions of land-use allocation is the dis-
tance to HNV areas. The land being close to these sites have
high nature value and highly prone to be converted to other
uses, particularly recreational and residential uses. To
account for the impact of nature quality on converted land,
the average distance to HNV sites were calculated at the
regional level and incorporated in the model. The spatial
data of the HNV sites were obtained from European
Environment Agency (2004).
The existence of NATURA2000 sites is considered as a
development constraint in this current study since urban
development is strictly restricted in these areas. Total areas
of NATURA2000 sites were included in the model as an
explanatory variable inferring development constraints in
the regions. Finally, the share of CAP subsidies in farm net
income is used as an indicator considering that many agri-
cultural holdings largely depend on EU support to maintain
their activities. The data used on CAP subsidies are sourced
from EC (2014)-Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN),
and cover 118 regions of the 24 countries with some regions
not included due to lack of data. Table 2 shows the dis-
tribution of countries and regions to which data on CAP
subsidies and farm income are assigned as provided by EC
(2014)-FADN. In the EC (2014)-FADN, although all
NUTS2 regions receive CAP subsidies, the data set joined
some NUTS2 regions to NUTS1 level or joined these
regions to NUTS0 (i.e., country) level. This implies that the
CAP data is represented at the NUTS2 level for some
countries and NUTS 1 or NUTS0 levels for others
(Table 2). Considering that there is no homogeneous dis-
tribution of the data across NUTS regions in the EC (2014)-
FADN and there is no data provided at this detail from other
sources, the different regional levels (Table 2) for each
corresponding country was used in the current study. Since
the FADN regional classification does not always match the
NUTS2 level, related regression model in the current study
utilises NUTS0, NUTS1 and NUTS 2 levels as presented in
Table 2.
A summary of the data included in the analysis is sum-
are provided in Table 3.
Environmental Management

Table 2 Sample of country/regions considered in the study significant contributions to the explanation of the spatial
Country NUTS Number of regions pattern of residential, industrial and recreational land
developments. The significant positive coefficients of soil
Austria (0) 1
variables indicate that the converted land is mostly located
Belgium (1) 3 on high quality or manageable soils that are suitable for
Bulgaria (2) 6 agriculture. This is in line with the findings of other studies
Czech Republic (0) 1 focusing on the analysis of changes in European landscape
Denmark (0) 1 (Collantes 2009; Van Der Krabben 2009; Lasanta et al.
Estonia (0) 1 2017). The positive association with climate variables
Finland (0) 1 relates to converted land (to residential and industrial uses)
France (2) 22 that is generally located in regions having relatively high
Germany (1) 15 temperatures or high precipitation levels. This indicates that
Hungary (2) 7 agricultural land-use change and climate are interrelated:
Ireland (0) 1 Climate factors as in the case of high temperature and
Italy (1) 20 precipitation levels significantly influence agricultural pos-
Latvia (0) 1 sibilities and have resulted in land-use change accordingly.
Lithuania (0) 1 The slope is negatively related to urban land conversions
Luxembourg (0) 1 indicating that urban developments take place on flat areas.
Netherlands (0) 1 This is also confirmed by the positive coefficient of the
Poland (0) 1 plain ratio (see Levia and Page 2000). Distance to roads,
Portugal (0) 1 water sources, and city boundaries, airport, port and HNV
Romania (2) 8
sites mainly show positive correlations with land develop-
Spain (2) 16
ments. The general expectation is that farms located far
from city boundaries are less exposed to land consumption
Slovenia (0) 1
(Mazzocchi et al. 2013). However, the positive correlation
Slovakia (0) 1
with the city boundaries variable indicate the reverse i.e. the
Sweden (0) 1
farms situated farther away from city boundaries can be
UK (1) 6
more exposed to land consumption. This raises the issue of
Total 118
development of rural areas that are located far from city
Note: Missing is information on some countries including Greece, boundaries and consequent consumption of fertile agri-
Cyprus, Malta, Croatia due to lack of data. Several NUTS1 regions in cultural land. There are also negative coefficients estimated
UK were lumped into one region (i.e., UKC, UKD and UKE forms
one region; UKF, UKH, UKI, UKJ forms another region, and UKG for the subject variables including distance of recreational
and UKK is other region) as originally provided by the EC (2014)- developments to airport, and distance of residential and
FADN industrial developments to urban centres. The latter implies
that the smaller the distance from the urban centre, the
bigger the urban pressure on the agricultural land. This
Results finding is consistent with the other studies suggesting that
distance from urban centre provides a relative measure of
Equation (1) was first estimated for the 25 EU countries for influence on the urban area (Bell and Irwin 2002; Carrion-
all the explanatory variables excluding the income-CAP Flores and Irwin 2004).
ratio, which will be included in the analysis in the following The significant positive sign of capital-to-labour ratio
stages. All the variables summarised in Table 3 were used in related to residential and industrial developments indicates
the regressions except those indicating high correlations that technological improvements in agriculture results in
with other explanatory variables included in the model. The urban conversion of agricultural land to house the activities
presented values in Table 4 show the elasticity of a per- of the newly emerged labour force in the economy which
centage change in the dependant variable of a percentage shifted from agriculture to industrial/commercial sectors
change in the independent variable. The R-square values (see Azadi et al. 2010). Population changes have a direct
indicate that changing pattern of recreational developments correlation with agricultural land conversions and are a
can be relatively explained well by the independent vari- highly significant explanatory variable in the model that
ables despite the existence of few significant coefficients in explains changing patterns of different urban developments.
the estimated model. Land rent ratio is another significant explanatory variable in
A number of soil, geological and climate variables, the model indicating a negative correlation with urban
socio-economic and location-based characteristics have conversion of agricultural land. This implies that lower
 Environmental Management

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of explanatory variables

Variable name (ABBREVIATION) Mean SD Max Min

Agricultural capital to labour ratio (CAP_LABOUR) 17,634 26,042 162,951 110

Number of agricultural holdings less than 5 ha (HOLDINGS_5H) 36,616 94,803 748,010 0
Number of agricultural holdings between 5 and 30 ha 11,288 18,028 128,650 0
(HOLDINGS_5_30H)
Number of agricultural holdings greater than 30 ha 4446 5450 40,140 33
(HOLDINGS_30H)
Number of agricultural holders less than 35 years old 6068 31,309 462,396 1
(HOLDER_35Y)
Number of agricultural holders between 35 and 55 years old 22,507 43,147 334,214 100
(HOLDER_35_55Y)
Number of agricultural holders more than 55 years old 32,114 75,578 570,590 80
(HOLDER_55Y)
Family labour force in agricultural sector in a region 108,251 231,045 1,765,130 410
(FAMILY_LABOUR)
Percentage of farm owner to tenant ratio in a region (%) 2.3 2.7 18.4 0.09
(OWNER_TENANT)
Population of a region (POP) 1,958,775 1,524,225 11,300,000 252,683
Dummy for predominantly urban regions (URBAN) – – 1 0
Dummy for predominantly rural regions (RURAL) – – 1 0
Base category: predominantly intermediate regions
Dummy for capital city and/or metropolitan regions – – 1 0
(CAPCITY_METROPOL)
Total length of motorways in a region (MOTORWAY) 10.63 75.25 1045.8 0
Ratio of land with a slope less than 10 degrees in a region (PLAIN 0.1 0.02 0.13 0.02
RATIO)
Average annual temperature of a region (°C) (TEMPERATURE) 8.7 2.6 16.01 −0.41
Average annual precipitation of a region (mm/year) 763 185 1353 366
(PRECIPITATION)
POLICY 4.40 1.63 6 1
NATURA2000 291,613 553,664 4,217,212 20
INCOME/CAP 2.704 4.677 43.949 0
Agricultural land converted to residential uses
Average distance from water (DIST_WATER) 7023 3329 19,600 682
Average distance to major roads (DIST_ROAD) 3001 2421 19,609 556
Average distance to urban/rural centres (DIST_CENTRE) 28,902 41,695 338,289 254
Average distance to core city boundaries (DIST_CITY) 27,330 22,849 180,852 0
Average distance to airport (DIST_AIRPORT) 22,418 11,039 69,640 5032
Average distance to port (DIST_PORT) 65,028 53,998 300,323 4264
Average distance to highly valued farmland (DIST_HNVFARM) 1845 1553 11,622 124.4
Aspect majority of converted land in a region (ASPECT) 129 111 315 0
Average slope of converted land (%) (SLOPE) 2.05 0.65 3.8 1
Agricultural-residential land rent ratio (LANDRENT RATIO) 0.57 4.04 38.3 0.0001
Percentage of converted land classified as fertile soil in a region 71.3 26.5 100 0.001
(FERTILE)
Percentage of converted land classified as manageable soil in a region 7.6 14.7 100 0
(MANAG)
Percentage of converted land classified as suitable for agriculture in a 58.8 29.9 100 0
region (AGRI_SUIT)
Environmental Management

Table 3 continued
Variable name (ABBREVIATION) Mean SD Max Min

Dummy for high/moderate level of soil organic carbon content of – – 1 0

converted land (SOC)-base category: low level of soil organic carbon
content
Agricultural land converted to industrial uses
Average distance from water (DIST_WATER) 6202 3280 20,015 576
Average distance to major roads (DIST_ROAD) 1883 1712 18,379 383
Average distance to urban/rural centres (DIST_CENTRE) 26,391 43,052 354,919 1476
Average distance to core city boundaries (DIST_CITY) 23,837 23,854 201,281 0
Average distance to airport (DIST_AIRPORT) 19,543 11,202 90,234 2321
Average distance to port (DIST_PORT) 65,521 55,036 298,322 3922
Average distance to highly valued farmland (DIST_HNVFARM) 1995 1515 9409 116
Aspect majority of converted land in a region (ASPECT) 139.3 112 341 0
Average slope of converted land (%) (SLOPE) 1.57 0.37 3.22 1
Agricultural-industrial land rent ratio (LANDRENT RATIO) 0.00005 0.00006 0.00039 0.00001
Percentage of converted land classified as fertile soil in a region 72.9 26.2 100 0.001
(FERTILE)
Percentage of converted land classified as manageable soil in a region 7.71 15.1 90 0.001
(MANAG)
Percentage of converted land classified as suitable for agriculture in a 60.8 32.6 100 0
region (AGRI_SUIT)
Number of patent applications in a region (PATENT) 215 401 3123 0
Dummy for high/moderate level of soil organic carbon content of – – 1 0
converted land SOC-base category: low level of soil organic carbon
content
Agricultural land converted to recreational uses
Average distance from water (DIST_WATER) 6304 4933 32,112 159
Average distance to major roads (DIST_ROAD) 2786 3090 27,266 100
Average distance to urban/rural centers (DIST_CENTRE) 23,789 32,021 29,230 298
Average distance to core city boundaries (DIST_CITY) 26,328 25,900 182,056 0
Average distance to airport (DIST_AIRPORT) 22,028 14,381 99,319 265
Average distance to port (DIST_PORT) 64,276 57,894 316,936 1638
Average distance to highly valued farmland (DIST_HNVFARM) 1798 1762 13,633 100
Aspect majority of converted land in a region (ASPECT) 115 98 356 0
Average slope of converted land (%) (SLOPE) 2.04 0.70 4.75 1
Agricultural-recreational land rent ratio (LANDRENT RATIO) 0.00003 0.00006 0.0005 0.00001
Percentage of converted land classified as fertile soil in a region 69.8 31.1 100 0.001
(FERTILE)
Dummy for high/moderate level of soil organic carbon content of – – 1 0
converted land (SOC)-base category: low level of soil organic carbon
content
Percentage of converted land classified as manageable soil in a region 7.68 16.8 100 0.001
(MANAG)
Percentage of converted land classified as suitable for agriculture in a 56.7 34.8 100 0
region (AGRI_SUIT)

returns to agricultural uses may result in conversions of
agricultural land to urban uses. This finding is in line with
the assumptions of the bid-rent theory.
Specific policy interventions such as the regulation
(EEC) 2079/92 in Europe which permitted the early
retirement of people over the age 55 can contribute to
abandonment of farmland or land-use changes considering
that farmers are less likely to make large investments on
their farms in the years before retirement as it may
not be regarded as worth the investment of resources
 Environmental Management

Table 4 Results of the seemingly unrelated regression model for the EU countries
Dependent variable: Log agricultural land Log agricultural land converted Log agricultural land converted
converted to residential to industrial to recreational
Variables Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

Constant −3.578 3.020 −10.305** 2.600 6.152** 2.075

Log DIST_ROAD 0.271** 0.112 0.171** 0.079 0.008 0.054
Log DIST_WATER 0.243** 0.114 0.075 0.080 −0.049 0.050
Log DIST_CENTRE −0.048 0.080 −0.171** 0.064 0.055 0.057
Log DIST_CITY 0.041** 0.021 −0.010 0.012 0.006 0.009
Log DIST_AIRPORT 0.070 0.155 0.183** 0.095 −0.177** 0.074
Log DIST_PORT −0.046 0.072 0.075* 0.052 0.110** 0.049
Log DIST_HNVFARM −0.059 0.084 0.156** 0.067 0.061 0.055
Log CAP_LABOUR 0.128** 0.064 0.118** 0.053 −0.033 0.046
Log HOLDINGS_5H 0.157** 0.062 −0.047 0.053 −0.139** 0.053
Log HOLDINGS_30H 0.231** 0.068 0.243** 0.058 0.394** 0.057
Log OWNER_TENANT 0.144** 0.061 −0.036* 0.049 −0.015 0.047
Log HOLDER_35Y −0.156** 0.069 −0.191** 0.059 −0.107** 0.057
Log HOLDER_55Y 0.297** 0.093 0.196** 0.082 0.103* 0.078
Log POP 0.514** 0.100 0.623** 0.100 0.925** 0.084
URBAN −0.024 0.014 0.030 0.125 0.028 0.121
RURAL 0.157 0.126 −0.039 0.109 −0.147 0.106
CAPCITY_METROPOL 0.023 0.115 −0.065 0.097 0.052 0.095
POLICY −0.020 0.053 −0.099** 0.049 0.007 0.043
Log LANDRENT RATIO −0.036* 0.025 −0.212** 0.060 −0.927** 0.019
Log PATENT – – 0.031 0.037 – –
Log NATURA2000 −0.011 0.050 0.030 0.042 −0.037 0.040
Log TEMPERATURE 0.092 0.193 0.762** 0.173 0.096 0.144
Log PRECIPITATION 0.405* 0.248 0.377* 0.207 −0.103 0.199
Log ASPECT 0.057** 0.022 −0.040** 0.017 0.001 0.005
Log SLOPE −0.599** 0.237 −0.462** 0.219 −0.074 0.154
Log PLAIN RATIO 0.187 0.513 0.270* 0.179 0.700** 0.164
Log AGRI_SUIT −0.019 0.051 −0.064* 0.040 0.014** 0.008
Log FERTILE 0.092** 0.023 0.127** 0.027 0.004 0.013
Log MANAG 0.027** 0.010 0.029** 0.008 0.016** 0.006
SOC 0.148* 0.107 −0.031 0.083 −0.022 0.094
Number of observations 241 241 241
R-square 0.61 0.70 0.93
χ (probability)
2
382.28 (0.000) 608.54 (0.000) 3689.65 (0.000)
Breusch–Pagan test of independence: χ2 (3) = 45.34; Probability = 0.000
*significant at 10%, **significant at 5%

(Ingram et al. 2013). The positive association with the
variable HOLDER_55Y relates to farmers who made land-
use change decisions, as they may not want to invest on
their farms and cease agriculture before their retirement. By
contrast, the negative coefficient on HOLDER_35Y indi-
cates that younger holders would like to continue invest-
ments on their farms-rather than initiate land use change- as
they have a long career to earn back a return on such
investments (Moreno-Perez and Ortiz-Miranda 2008).
Owner-to-tenant ratio is another factor explaining urban
conversion of agricultural land. In many regions of Europe
historically farms are family owned and the ownership is
passed to the successor upon retirement. When there is no
successor, land is frequently rented out or sold to other
farmers (Inwood and Sharp 2012). The negative association
of owner-to-tenant ratio with the land conversion implies
that the land that is rented to other farmers is more likely to
be converted to urban uses. If there are no successors
Environmental Management

Table 5 Results of the seemingly unrelated regression model for Eastern European Countries
Dependent variable: Log agricultural land Log agricultural land Log agricultural land
converted to residential converted to industrial converted to recreation
Variables Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

Constant 20.268** 6.507 7.401* 5.235 5.512** 1.391

Log DIST_ROAD 0.361** 0.180 0.305** 0.110 0.076** 0.037
Log DIST_WATER – – −0.341** 0.147 – –
Log DIST_CENTRE −0.516** 0.129 – – 0.054* 0.037
Log DIST_CITY 0.263** 0.064 0.093** 0.020 0.020** 0.008
Log DIST_HNVFARM 0.626** 0.152 0.202* 0.115 – –
Log DIST_AIRPORT – – −0.398** 0.149 – –
Log DIST_PORT – – – −0.148** 0.033
Log CAP_LABOUR 0.195** 0.096 0.292** 0.086 – –
Log HOLDINGS_5H 0.404** 0.073 – – 0.934** 0.036
Log HOLDINGS_30H −0.356** 0.091 – – 0.108** 0.075
Log OWNER_TENANT – – – – −0.089** 0.033
Log HOLDER_35Y 0.681** 0.118 – – 0.219** 0.075
Log HOLDER_55Y −0.663** 0.189 – – −0.188** 0.096
Log POP 0.598** 0.204 1.278** 0.154 0.655** 0.076
Log POLICY −0.441** 0.098 −0.374** 0.084 – –
Log LANDRENT RATIO 0.516** 0.015 0.693** 0.091 0.982** 0.017
Log TEMPERATURE −2.072** 0.529 1.079** 0.435 −1.201** 0.192
Log PRECIPITATION −1.615** 0.518 −1.321** 0.393 – –
Log SLOPE – – −0.757* 0.397 – –
Log PLAIN RATIO 1.557** 0.295 1.010** 0.314 – –
Log FERTILE 0.213** 0.043 0.162** 0.035 – –
Log MANAG 0.056** 0.018 – – −0.007* 0.005
Number of observations 56 56 56
R-square 0.89 0.82 0.97
χ2 (probability) 527.08 (0.000) 293.29 (0.000) 6198.49 (0.000)
Breusch–Pagan test of independence: χ2 (3) = 25.327; Probability = 0.000
Note: Eastern European countries include: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania
*significant at 10%, **significant at 5%

identified because a new generation chooses a lifestyle
different than agriculture, farmers rent this land to other
farmers and eventually this land may be abandoned or sold
to real estate interests/property developers (Kizos et al.
2011). The policy environment is another significantly
influential variable in decisions of agricultural land con-
versions. The coefficient shows elasticity of control and the
potential of government structures and planning systems to
influence land-use change. The negative sign indicates a
strong control potential-that is mostly the case in the
Northern EU countries (e.g., Denmark, Ireland, Belgium) is
unlikely to result in land-use changes.
Region-specific regression models that were estimated
for the three land-use changes for only the significant
variables indicating either 5 or 10% significance levels are
given in Tables 5–7. The regions considered in the analysis
are Northern and Western Europe, Southern Europe, and
Eastern Europe, which are consistent with the United
Nations Statistics Division geo-scheme that assigns coun-
tries to regions and sub-regions for statistical purposes (UN
2016) (Fig. 6). One reason behind the use of this sub-
division in the current study is the existence of different
urbanisation phases observed in these regions in Europe.
Cheshire (1995) examined the concept of functional urban
regions (FURs) in Europe, for which the urbanisation phase
was evaluated in five time periods. The findings revealed
that Northern and Western (including France and Northern
Italy) Europe and Southern Europe showed different tra-
jectories and a clear shift in time according to the cycle of
urbanisation phases. For instance, the shift from urbanisa-
tion to suburbanisation phase is situated early in the 1950s
in Northern Europe while for the Western Europe it takes
 Environmental Management

Table 6 Results of the seemingly unrelated regression model for Southern European Countries
Dependent variable: Log agricultural land Log agricultural land Log agricultural land
converted to residential converted to industrial converted to recreation
Variables Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

Constant −19.185** 2.536 4.283* 3.194 2.559** 0.962

Log DIST_ROAD – – −0.201** 0.096 −0.166** 0.041
Log DIST_WATER 0.903** 0.203 0.565** 0.163 – –
Log DIST_CENTRE – – −0.209** 0.096 0.102** 0.042
Log DIST_CITY – – 0.464** 0.098 0.016** 0.006
Log AGRI_SUIT – – −0.130** 0.052 – –
Log FERTILE 0.122** 0.031 −0.807** 0.318 – –
Log CAP_LABOUR 0.321** 0.058 – – – –
Log HOLDINGS_5H – – 0.442** 0.099 – –
Log HOLDINGS_30H 0.196** 0.063 – – 0.424** 0.054
Log OWNER_TENANT – – −1.013** 0.138 – –
Log HOLDER_35Y – – – – −0.483** 0.065
Log POP 0.462** 0.071 – – 0.880** 0.047
Log POLICY 0.967** 0.109 0.192* 0.132 −0.215** 0.074
Log LANDRENT RATIO −0.531** 0.138 – – 0.952** 0.015
Log PATENT – – 0.419** 0.048 – –
Log NATURA2000 – – −0.301** 0.118 0.222** 0.085
Log TEMPERATURE 1.803** 0.229 1.366** 0.270 0.602** 0.140
Log PRECIPITATION 0.946** 0.232 −1.014** 0.251 – –
Number of observations 41 41 41
R-square 0.89 0.91 0.97
χ2 (probability) 361.52 (0.000) 518.44 (0.000) 8173.21 (0.000)
Breusch–Pagan test of independence: χ2 (3) = 24.04; Probability = 0.000
Note: Southern European countries include: Italy, Portugal and Spain
*significant at 10%, **significant at 5%

place around 1970s and for Southern Europe between 1975
and 1980 (Antrop 2004). The countries in Eastern Europe,
on the other hand, have experienced a shift from socialist to
post-socialist era by the end of the 20th century, which had
significant consequences on the spatial patterns of their
functional areas. Since the mid-1990s, the cities in Eastern
Europe experienced a transformation of functional spatial
arrangement due to commercialisation in city centres and
deindustrialisation, followed in some regions by revitalisa-
tion of industrial, railway and military brownfield sites
(Kubes 2013).
Based on this regional classification, the regression
results for Eastern Europe (Fig. 6) can be seen in Table 5.
Location-based characteristics contribute significantly to the
conversion of cultivated land to urban uses. The signs of the
location-based characteristics are positive except few of
negative coefficients including distance to airport, port and
urban centres, and distance to water sources. The negative
signs on these coefficients imply that the closer the distance
to the subject land use the greater the conversion of
agricultural land to urban uses. The temperature and pre-
cipitation levels of the regions also strongly determine the
spatial pattern of urban development. Temperature and
precipitation are negatively correlated with residential and
recreational developments implying that people prefer
relatively low temperatures and precipitation levels in their
living and leisure spaces. By contrast, industrial develop-
ments are located in the places with high temperatures and
low precipitation levels. Unlike previous model estimations
incorporating all 25 EU countries, the estimated signs of
land-rent-ratio, small plots of land, and holders younger
than 35 years are positive implying a positive association
with urban land developments, while large plots of land and
holders older than 55 years are negative.
One likely explanation for such trends is that the tran-
sition period of the Eastern countries started in the late
1990s. The transition period was accompanied by major
changes in agriculture and land market structure in most
countries, generally involving the break-up of large farms
and massive land ownership transfers following the collapse
Environmental Management

Table 7 Results of the seemingly unrelated regression model for Northern and Western European Countries
Dependent variable: Log agricultural land Log agricultural land Log agricultural land
converted to residential converted to industrial converted to recreation
Variables Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

Constant 2.844** 1.196 −6.240** 1.622 0.435* 1.859

Log DIST_PORT – – 0.151** 0.046 – –
Log DIST_ROAD −0.172** 0.081 – –
Log DIST_CENTRE −0.141** 0.066 −0.149** 0.067 – –
Log DIST_CITY 0.034** 0.015 – – −0.038** 0.014
Log DIST_HNVFARM – – 0.114* 0.069 – –
Log CAP_LABOUR – – 0.339** 0.083 0.249** 0.113
Log HOLDINGS_5H 0.371** 0.072 0.255** 0.066 – –
Log HOLDINGS_30H 0.221** 0.120 0.348** 0.104 0.785** 0.092
Log OWNER_TENANT 0.259** 0.066 0.113* 0.063 – –
Log HOLDER_35Y 0.150** 0.052 – – – –
Log HOLDER_55Y −0.270* 0.147 −0.361** 0.131 −0.469** 0.064
Log POP 0.272** 0.069 0.447** 0.068 0.939** 0.077
Log POLICY – – 0.222** 0.058 – –
Log LANDRENT RATIO −0.086** 0.017 – – −0.880** 0.025
Log PATENT – – – 0.074 – –
Log NATURA2000 0.061* 0.038 0.071* – – –
Log TEMPERATURE – – 0.484** 0.161 – –
Log SLOPE – – −0.350* 0.191 −0.349** 0.200
Log PLAIN RATIO – – −0.421** 0.179 0.579** 0.212
Log FERTILE 0.048** 0.019 0.046* 0.025 – –
Log MANAG 0.025** 0.008 0.021** 0.008 – –
Number of observations 141 141 141
R-square 0.73 0.77 0.92
χ (probability)
2
408.49 (0.000) 514.41 (0.000) 1810.47 (0.000)
Breusch–Pagan test of independence: χ2 (3) = 41.514; Probability = 0.000
Note: Northern European countries include: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, UK; Western European countries include: Austria, Germany,
France, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands
*significant at 10%, **significant at 5%

of Soviet style socialist economies (Lerman et al. 2004).
The resulting smaller units faced considerable challenges
including lack of equipment, credit and capital constraints,
scarcity of technical support, difficulties with markets, and
low levels of government support (Prishchepov et al. 2013;
Keenleyside and Tucker 2010). This situation strongly
affected land-use decisions, and triggered widespread land-
use change including farmland abandonment and
urbanisation.
The positive coefficient on small plots of land and
holders younger than 35 years explain such land-use
changes; the former relates to conversions of small plots
of land resulting from break-up of large farms while the
latter suggests that young individuals searching jobs dif-
ferent from agriculture are selling their land to real property
developers. Following the post-socialist land reform,
redistribution of land to new owners resulted in tenure
insecurity, insufficiently defined property rights, and lack of
operational land markets (FAO 2006). For instance, new
owners may not know the exact location or boundaries of
their land and sometimes tenure over particular fields was
unclear (Kuemmerle et al. 2009). Farmland was sometimes
allocated to individuals who were not interested in farming
and keeping land solely for speculative purposes (Van Dijk
2003). These situations lowered the incentives of indivi-
duals to manage agricultural land, which resulted in aban-
doned or set aside land. Even if agricultural land generates
higher income than urban land, due to the stated reasons
above; agricultural land remained either abandoned or
developed for urban services.
The results for Southern European countries (as repre-
sented in Fig. 6) are presented in Table 6. From the Table,

Fig. 6 Regional Classification
of the EU Countries as Used in
the Current Study. Note: Source:
adapted from UN (2016)
the agricultural land converted to urban uses is positively
associated with the distance to water sources. Therefore, the
larger the distance from water the greater the development
implying that the land close to water sources is still utilised
for agricultural purposes whereas the distant land from
water is converted to urban uses. Being close to water
sources is very important in Mediterranean areas where
water is a scarce resource (García-Ruiz et al. 2011).
Accessibility is important for the two land-use changes: the
closer the distance to roads, the greater the development of
Environmental Management
industrial and recreational sites. Industrial developments are
located close to urban centres but not close to city bound-
aries. Recreational developments, on the other hand, can
take place in distant locations from urban centres and from
city boundaries. Average regional temperature is a sig-
nificant factor influencing urban land conversions in
Southern Europe. High temperature levels and scarce rain-
fall have made it difficult to sustain agriculture usage and
resulted in land-use changes particularly in the central and
southern hillside areas in Spain (Arnáez et al. 2011).
Environmental Management
Residential land conversions took place in locations with
high precipitation levels while conversions to industrial land
are observed in areas with low precipitation levels. From the
regressions, it can be followed that the most fertile soil is
converted to residential uses while land that is unsuitable for
agriculture is converted to industrial uses. The positive sign
on small plots of agricultural land converted to industrial
uses points to poor conditions for mechanisation or trans-
port accessibility considering small size of the working
fields. Sluiter and de Jong (2007) claimed that steep slopes,
small plots and areas with poor accessibility are no longer
cultivated, which has resulted in land-use changes con-
sidering also that manual production techniques make pro-
ducts uncompetitive in global product markets. This is the
case in most mountainous or hillside areas in the Medi-
terranean countries which were abandoned or converted to
other uses due to bad conditions for mechanisation rather
than to soil fertility (Arnáez et al. 2015).
Small size of farmland can also be associated with lack
of capitalisation, small land markets, high economic cost of
land and difficulty in renting the land; and therefore, result
in abandonment or urban development in the areas where
there is pressure of intense urbanisation (Feranec et al.
2010). In the Mediterranean coast and the areas surrounding
cities, urban expansion has caused many fields to be
abandoned where some has been urbanised and some others
remained abandoned awaiting urbanisation (Salvati et al.
2012; Lasanta et al. 2017).
Regarding the POLICY variable, the positive sign indi-
cates that a relatively strong control potential in Southern
European countries-observed with the example of Portugal
resulting in land development for residential and industrial
estates. This result contradicts the expectations that the
existence of a strict government control would lead to a
decline in agricultural land conversion. By contrast, the
negative sign shows the existence of strong control potential
limiting the recreational land development in these coun-
tries. This finding implies that market forces for urban
development are in practice more dominant than govern-
ment regulations and institutional structure in Southern
countries. NATURA2000 is a restrictive factor regarding
industrial land developments in southern countries, however
it is not restrictive for the recreational land developments
given the positive sign of the estimated coefficient.
Table 7 gives the results of the model estimates for
Western and Northern European countries (as represented in
Fig. 6). The accessibility of locations is strongly influential
in determining the spatial pattern of urban uses. Access to
roads, ports, urban centres and cities strongly affected urban
conversion of agricultural land due to low transport costs of
access to the required infrastructures. Both small and large
plots of land are converted to urban uses in northern-
western countries. The converted land is mostly fertile and
manageable, located on plain areas or areas with less slope.
Differing from Southern Europe, younger holders are more
prone to convert their land while holders older than 55
prefer keeping their land for rural use. The studies by
Hansson et al. (2010) and Barness et al. (2015) found that
young farmers are likely to extensify rather than intensify
their land through diversifying their farm business. As
highlighted by the negative sign of the HOLDER_55Y
variable, there are a growing number of individuals who
own agricultural land to enjoy a rural lifestyle rather than
generating income (Sutherland 2012; Orsini 2013). Also
retired farmers may want to keep their farms either to
maintain family property or to supplement their pension
(Kizos et al. 2011). Policy is influential in decisions of
industrial land conversions: The positive sign indicates a
strong control potential is positively related to agricultural
land conversion. It is observed that in UK and Netherlands
there is considerable conversion of agricultural land to
urban uses due to strong levels of economic development
and growth despite their consolidated local government
systems. Temperature and precipitation are not significant in
steering urban development in Northern and Western Eur-
ope. The only exception is industrial land developments that
are positively correlated with temperature. Industrial
developments take place far from HNV sites and NAT-
URA2000 is not a restrictive factor in northern/western
countries regarding agricultural land conversions. The rural
land surrounding the urban areas provide attractive land-
scapes and recreational activities such as golf courses and
horse riding especially in the wealthier regions in North-
Western Europe (Bomans et al. 2010). This rural land is
often characterised as HNV sites or located in NAT-
URA2000 network.
Finally, Table 8 reports the regression estimates of the
model including the income-CAP ratio for the 24 EU
countries. The income-CAP ratio exerts a negative and
significant impact on the urban conversion of agricultural
land. The estimated elasticity range between −0.11 and
−0.14 suggesting that 1 per cent increase in the income-
CAP ratio results in 0.11 per cent decrease in land con-
versions to industrial use and 0.14 per cent decrease in
conversions to residential use. Thus, the CAP played a
significant role in influencing the agricultural land conver-
sions in the 2000–2006 period. The other estimates in
Table 8 are consistent with the previous findings having the
expected coefficient signs.
Limitations of the Study
The presented model cannot capture some of the observed
variation in the agricultural to urban land conversion pro-
cess related to local factors. This relates to a variety of
 Environmental Management

Table 8 Results of the seemingly unrelated regression model including the CAP subsidies for the EU countries
Dependent variable: Log agricultural land Log agricultural land Log agricultural land
converted to residential converted to industrial converted to recreation
Variables Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

Constant −0.245 1.779 −0.631 2.112 5.824** 1.605

Log INCOME/CAP −0.149** 0.075 −0.117* 0.076 −0.130* 0.067
Log CAP_LABOUR 0.053 0.062 0.058** 0.065 0.015 0.054
Log HOLDINGS_5H 0.178 0.169 0.086 0.178 −0.151 0.146
Log HOLDINGS_30H 0.328** 0.105 0.198* 0.107 0.332** 0.092
Log OWNER_TENANT 0.164** 0.081 −0.127* 0.082 −0.300** 0.069
Log FAMILY_LABOUR −0.579* 0.377 −0.789** 0.383 −0.311 0.328
Log HOLDER_35Y −0.354** 0.173 −0.012 0.176 −0.217* 0.150
Log HOLDER_55Y 0.092 0.254 0.921** 0.264 0.572** 0.220
Log POP 0.654** 0.087 0.687** 0.117 0.698** 0.075
Log LANDRENT RATIO −0.037** 0.041 0.100 0.072 −0.830** 0.029
Log PATENT – – 0.032 0.050 – –
Log NATURA2000 −0.013 0.077 −0.178** 0.078 −0.060 0.066
Number of observations 115 115 115
R-square 0.72 0.64 0.94
χ2 (probability) 290.61(0.000) 219.20 (0.000) 2118.86 (0.000)
Breusch–Pagan test of independence: χ2 (3) = 25.657; Probability = 0.000
Note: The EU countries are the same with those previously specified with an exclusion of Croatia from the analysis as there is no data on CAP
subsidies for the period 2000–2006
CAP subsidies represent total payments including Pillar I and Pillar II payments, coupled and decoupled payments, payments for agrienvironment,
less favoured areas and investment aids
*significant at 10%, **significant at 5%

factors that are difficult to capture at the European level
such as the decisions of individual actors or agents that
execute land-use change. In relation to this issue, Her-
sperger et al. (2010) developed different conceptual models
to highlight the interrelations of the actors, driving forces
and land-use change. Following Hersperger et al. (2010),
the actors that affect driving forces such as policies and
markets were included in the present model to an extent.
However, actors that are directly responsible for land-use
changes (e.g., farmers and urban investors) were not con-
sidered in detail in our model due to data availability issues.
Further progress in land-use research is required through
development of theoretical and empirical models that link
land-use change with driving forces and actors (Hersperger
et al. 2010). Data on actors are generally based on surveys
or face-to-face interviews. Consequently, substantial data
requirements and methodological efforts to integrate the
data are challenging particularly for the analysis of land-
scape change at the Pan European scale.
The current study has included various socio-economic
factors as drivers of urban conversion of agricultural land.
However, data availability issues at the European level have
limited the number of local factors such as characteristics of
farms and farmers to be included in the model. Among the
characteristics of farmers, motivation for farming is one of
the most appropriate characteristic determining land-use
change decisions (Kizos et al. 2011; Van Vliet et al. 2015).
The characteristics of farmers defining their motivation for
farming can be specified as: full-time commercial farmers,
part-time commercial farmers, lifestyle farmers, retired
farmers and subsistence farmers (see Van Vliet et al. 2015).
Other characteristics of farmers that influence their deci-
sions are education level, income status and attitudes.
Among the characteristics of farms that affect the land-use
change decisions through technological improvements are
mechanisation, land improvement, and new breeds and
cultivars (Van Vliet et al. 2015). Since there is no complete
data on the stated characteristics of farms and farmers at the
regional level in Europe, these will be considered as a future
research focus.
Discussions
Underlying drivers for urban conversion of agricultural land
use in Europe can be evaluated by the international standard
land-use change drivers as used in other studies. The results
from almost all regressions reported a combination of
Environmental Management
underlying drivers i.e., socio-economic drivers, policy-
related factors, location and nature-based factors as causes
of agricultural land conversion processes observed in
2000–2006 period in Europe. This result coincides with the
findings of the study conducted by Van Vliet et al. (2015)
where main drivers of disintensification of agricultural land
in Europe are identified as economic drivers, institutional
drivers and location factors. In contrast with the findings of
Van Vliet et al. (2015), which mentioned demographic
drivers as drivers of disintensification as less influential, the
current study has found that demographic factors, particu-
larly population is highly influential in agricultural land
conversions to urban uses. Indeed, demographic factors
play a key role in land-use change observed in different case
study areas in Europe and internationally including wetland
conversion (Van Asselen et al. 2013) deforestation (DeFries
et al. 2010), afforestation, grassland conversion, and urban
expansion (Mottet et al. 2006; Seto et al. 2011).
Regression results of the current study for the different
regions in Europe have confirmed the findings of the studies
of Burgi et al. (2004), Seto et al. (2011), Plieninger et al.
(2016) given that combinations of major driving forces
foster the process of urban conversion of agricultural land in
these regions. In Eastern Europe, for instance, all the driv-
ing forces are significant in explaining urban expansion
process while in Southern Europe; all the forces except
geological factors are found significant. Plieninger et al.
(2016) noted that most studies in Europe identified under-
lying drivers of landscape change through personal inter-
pretation of authors rather than application of systematic
methods. Through application of an econometric approach
for the identification of key drivers of urban land-use
change in Europe, the current study fills this gap in the
literature.
Another significant factor influencing land-use changes
is the CAP subsidies affecting all the European countries.
According to the findings of this study, CAP payments have
promoted agricultural production, and this has reduced the
conversion of cultivated land for urban uses. This result
supports the findings of Olper et al. (2012) suggesting that
the CAP policies assisted job creation in agriculture across
EU countries over the 1990–2008 period. Through trans-
ferring income to farmers, the CAP subsidies contributed to
a reduction in the rate of out-farm migration (Olper et al.
2012). This reduction in out-farm migration and the pro-
motion of agricultural production through subsidies have
resulted in the reduction of conversion of cultivated land.
Therefore, CAP policy has played a role in keeping labour
force in agriculture and reducing agricultural land
consumption.
The results show clearly that access to urban centres is an
important condition for urban conversion of agricultural
land as highlighted by the estimates of the subject
coefficients from different regressions. The results also
indicate positive correlation with the city boundaries vari-
able implying that the farms situated farther away from city
boundaries are more exposed to land consumption. This
raises the issue of development of rural areas that are
located far from city boundaries and uncontrolled devel-
opment of the land. This land is generally characterised as
fertile soil that is highly suitable for agricultural production.
The uncontrolled growth of such land development trends is
observed even in regions with decreasing population,
notably Portugal, Spain, Italy and Eastern Germany (EEA
2006). There are other regions facing with the problem of
uncontrolled urban development including Netherlands,
Belgium, Poland and UK. The Mediterranean Region of
Spain also faces with the serious problem of urban expan-
sion and sprawl (Piorr et al. 2010). To address the issue of
development opportunities and challenges facing diverse
types of rural areas in Europe, there are various continuing
policy activities of the EU that are of particular relevance
for spatial planning and territorial development such as
ESPON and PLUREL projects. The former project analysed
the territorial impact of European environmental policy
while the latter aimed at understanding the dynamic rela-
tionship between urban and rural land use with an emphasis
on the changing patterns of peri-urban areas.
The land rent ratio was included in the model to capture
the bid-rents assigned to different land uses. This variable
was found significant in all regressions with the expected
coefficient signs verifying the bid-rent model. The simplest
version of the bid-rent model encapsulated transportation,
land use and population issues into the monocentric city
model. However, this earlier version of the model neglects a
number of key urban futures. For instance, cities have
experienced a more dispersed patterns of development and
have become less monocentric by contrast to their initially
observed compact urban structures. Increasingly, secondary
business centres have emerged in more polycentric metro-
politan regions with rising number of jobs and employment
(Anas et al. 1998).
In the current study, distance to urban centres with dif-
ferent sizes was included as an explanatory variable in the
model to consider the impact of multiple centres on new
urban development. It is noteworthy to mention that the
distribution of jobs and associated urban centres where the
jobs are located should be endogenously determined in the
model interacting with the distribution of residents. There
are contributions to earlier version of the bid-rent model to
explain the existence of edge cities (Henderson and Mitra
1996), multiple centres and agglomeration of industrial/
commercial activities (Fujita and Thisse 2013). Further
contributions to the bid-rent model are based on endogen-
ous changes of the structural characteristics of housing
where the dynamic monocentric model with perfect

foresight can generate leapfrog development where land is
not developed continuously from the CBD (Fujita 1982).
The existence of development lags in the real property
market may also lead to leapfrog development patterns
considering that developers may prefer to convert urban
land that is further away from the city centre leaving more
central locations undeveloped in the short term (Bar-Ilan
and Strange 1996). Hence, the discussed issues can be
considered in the model to explain the complex patterns of
development increasingly observed in metropolitan areas
and regions in Europe. However, considering the difficulties
of endogenous modelling of different parameters of land use
and extensive data requirements at the European level
would make this a challenging task.
Conclusion
This study presents a promising example of land-use chan-
ges in Europe concerning urban conversion of agricultural
land. The analysis covers a wide range of drivers of land-use
change comprising socio-economic drivers, policy-related
factors, nature and location-based factors. The combinations
of different drivers were found significant with estimated
coefficients of varying sign and magnitude across different
regions in Europe. This implies that the landscape dynamics
and drivers of land-use change are highly diverse: Differ-
ences in urbanisation process, economic development and
social differences, differences in land markets, institutions
and policy settings are the notable reasons for the regional
variations of land-use change in Europe.
In the regressions estimated for 25 EU countries, the
study has found that a number of soil, geological and
Environmental Management
climate variables, socio-economic and location-based
characteristics have significant contributions to the devel-
opment of spatial pattern of residential, industrial and
recreational land uses. The regression results for Eastern
Europe highlight the strong influence of location-based
characteristics and climatic factors in explaining the con-
version of agricultural land to urban uses. The model
resulted in unexpected signs for a number of estimated
socio-economic parameters including land-rent-ratio, plot
size and age of the landholder for the Eastern countries. The
results for Southern European countries point to the exis-
tence of factors highly influential in determining the spatial
pattern of urban development. These comprise: location-
based characteristics, soil, geological and climatic char-
acteristics and policy-related factors. Similar to southern
countries, in Northern and Western European countries,
locational characteristics, policy-related factors and geolo-
gical characteristics influence conversion of agricultural
land to urban uses. In contrast to southern countries, socio-
economic factors have a stronger effect in the agricultural
land use conversion decisions in Northern and Western
European countries. Finally, the CAP subsidies have a
negative and significant impact on the urban conversion of
agricultural land which imply that CAP has a significant
role in influencing land-use change decisions in EU coun-
tries. The current study provides an evidence-based frame-
work for the identification and quantification of the most
significant drivers of urban conversion of agricultural land
at the European scale. Based on availability of further data
in the future, the results of this study can be used to com-
plement findings from other research that assess a wide
range of underlying drivers at the European level.
Environmental Management
Appendix
Fig. 7
Fig. 7 Spatial Representation of NUTS Regions in EU. Note: source: Eurostat (2015)
References
Abelson P, Joyeux R, Milunovich G, Chung D (2005) Explaining
house prices in Australia: 1970–2003. Econ Rec 81:S96–S103
Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA
Anas A (1990) Taste heterogeneity and urban spatial structure: the
logit model and monocentric theory reconciled. J Urban Econ 28
(3):318–335
Anas A, Arnott R, Small KA (1998) Urban spatial structure. J Econ
Liter 36(3):1426–1464
Antrop M (2004) Landscape change and the urbanization process in
Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 67:9–26
Arnáez J, Lasanta T, Errea MP, Ortigosa L (2011) Land abandonment,
landscape evolution, and soil erosion in a Spanish Mediterranean
mountain region: the case of Camero Viejo. Land Degrad Dev
22:537–550
Arnáez J, Lana-Renault N, Lasanta T, Ruiz-Flaño P, Castroviejo J
(2015) Effects of farming terraces on hydrological and geomor-
phological processes. A review. Catena 128:122–134
Azadi H, Ho P, Hasfiati L (2010) Agricultural land conversion drivers:
a comparison between less developed, developing and developed
countries. Land Degrad Dev. doi:10.1002/ldr.1037
Bar-Ilan A, Strange WC (1996) Urban development with lags. J Urban
Econ 39(1):87–113
Barlowe R (1978) Land resource economics. Prentice-Hall, Inc,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Barnes AP, Hansson H, Manevska-Tasevska G, Shrestha SS, Thom-
son SG (2015) The influence of diversification on long-term
viability of the agricultural sector. Land Use Pol 49:404–412
Baum-Snow N (2007) Suburbanization and transportation in the
monocentric model. J Urban Econ 62(3):405–423
Beaufoy G, Baldock D, Clark J (1994) The nature of farming: low
intensity farming systems in nine European countries. The Insti-
tute for European Environmental Policy, London
Bell KP, Irwin EG (2002) Spatially explicit micro-level modeling of
land use change at the rural–urban interface. Agri Econ
27:217–232
Bieling C, Plieninger T, Schaich H (2013) Patterns and causes of land
change: empirical results and conceptual considerations derived
from a case study in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Land Use Pol
35:192–203
Bignal EM, McCracken DI (1996) The ecological resources of Eur-
opean farmland. In: Whitby M (ed) The European environment
and CAP reform: policies and prospects for conservation. Centre
for Agriculture and Biosciences International, Wallingford, CT

Bockstael NE (1996) Modeling economics and ecology: the impor-
tance of a spatial perspective. Am J Agri Econ 78(5):1168–1180
Bomans K, Steenberghen T, Dewaelheyns V, Leinfelder H, Gulinck H
(2010) Underrated transformations in the open space-The case of
an urbanized and multifunctional area. Landsc Urban Plan
94(3–4):196–205
Bossio D, Geheb K, Critchley W (2010) Managing water by managing
land: addressing land degradation to improve water productivity
and rural livelihoods. Agricul Water Manag 97(4):536–542
Briassoulis H (2008) Land-use policy and planning, theorizing, and
modeling: lost in translation, found in complexity? Environ Plan
B 35:16–33
Burgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N (2004) Driving forces of
landscape change—current and new directions. Landsc Ecol
19:857–868
Busck AG, Kristensen SP, Praestholm S, Reenberg A, Primdahl J
(2006) Land system changes in the context of urbanization:
examples from the periurban area of Greater Copenhagen. Dan J
Geog 106(2):21–34
Carrion-Flores C, Irwin E (2004) Determinants of residential land-use
conversion and sprawl at the rural urban fringe. Am J Agri Econ
86(4):889–904
Chakir R, Parent O (2009) Determinants of land use changes: a spatial
multinomial probit approach. Pap Reg Sci 88(2):327–344
Champion T (2001) Urbanisation, suburbanisation, counter-
urbanisation and reurbanisation. In: Paddison R (ed) Handbook of
urban studies. SAGE Publications, London
Cheshire P (1995) A new phase of urban development in Western
Europe? The evidence for the 1980s. Urban Stud 32:1045–1063
Cheshire P, Magrini S (2009) Urban growth drivers in a Europe of
sticky people and implicit boundaries. J Econ Geog 9(1):85–115
Collantes F (2009) Rural Europe reshaped: the economic transfor-
mation of upland regions, 1850–2000. Econ Hist Rev 6
(2):306–323
Costa D (1999) American living standards: evidence from recreational
expenditures. Working Paper 7148, National Bureau of Economic
Research, US
Curry NR (2005) Countryside recreation, access and land use plan-
ning. E & FN Spon, London
Curry N, Ravenscroft N (2001) Countryside recreation provision in
England: exploring a demand-led approach. Land Use Pol
18:281–191
De Bartolome CAM, Ross SL (2003) Equilibria with local govern-
ments and commuting: income sorting vs income mixing. J Urban
Econ 54(1):1–20
De Fries RS, Rudel T, Uriarte M, Hansen M (2010) Deforestation
driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the
twenty-first century. Nat Geosci 3:178–181
Deng X, Huang J, Rozelle S, Uchida E (2010) Economic growth
and the expansion of urban land in China. Urban Stud 47
(4):813–843
Dijkstra L, Poelman H (2011) Regional typologies: a compilation.
European Union Regional Policy No:01/2011
Diogo V, Koomen E (2012) Land-use change in Portugal, 1990-2006:
main processes and underlying factors. Cartographica 47
(4):237–249
European Commission (EC) (2014) Investment for jobs and growth:
Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and
cities. Sixth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohe-
sion. EC, Brussels
European Commission (EC) (2016) Natura 2000. http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm
European Commission-JRC (2013) European Soil Portal-Soil Data and
Information System: European Soil Database Version 2. http://
eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Environmental Management
European Environment Agency (2004) High nature value farmland:
Characteristics, trends and policy challenges. No:1/2004. http://
eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2006) Urban sprawl in Eur-
ope: The ignored challenge. EEA Report No: 10/2006. European
Commission JRC, Brussels
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2010) The European
environment-State and outlook 2010: synthesis. EEA, Copenhagen
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2016) Data and Maps: Sharing
European Environmental Datasets, Maps, Charts and Applica-
tions. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps
Eurostat (2008) Statistical classification of economic activities in the
European community. Methodologies and Working Papers
ISSN1977-0375, Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg
Eurostat (2015) Regions in the European Union: Nomenclature of
territorial units for statistics NUTS2013/EU-28. Publication
Office of the EU, Luxembourg
Eurostat (2016) Brussels. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed
April, 2016
Eurostat-Urban Audit (2004) Area management dataset. http://epp.
eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco_Geographical_
information_maps/popups/references/administrative_units_
statistical_units_1
FAO (2006) Agriculture and the environment: changing pressures,
solutions and trade-offs. FAO, Rome
FAO (2014) The agri-environmental statistics of the Food and Agri-
culture Organisation of the United Nations. http:www.fao.org/
Feranec J, Jaffrain G, Soukup T, Hazeu G (2010) Determining changes
and flows in European landscapes 1990–2000 using CORINE
land cover data. App Geog 30(1):19–35
Firman T (1997) Land conversion and urban development in the
Northern region of West Java, Indonesia. Urban Stud
34:1027–1046
Fischer G, Velthuizen H, Shah M, Nachtergaele F (2002) Global
Agro-ecological assessment for agriculture in the 21st Century:
methodology and results. International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis, Austria
Fuchs R, Herold M, Verburg PH, Clevers JGP, Eberle J (2015) Gross
changes in reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe
between 1900 and 2010. Glob Chan. Biol 21(1):299–313
Fujita M (1982) Spatial patterns of residential development. J Urban
Econ 12(1):22–52
Fujita M, Thisse J-F (2013) Economics of agglomeration: cities,
industrial location and regional growth. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, MA
García-Ruiz JM, López-Moreno JI, Vicente-Serrano S, Lasanta T,
Beguería S (2011) Mediterranean water resources in a Global
Change scenario. Earth-Scien Rev 105(3-4):121–139
Gatto M, Wollni M, Qaim M (2015) Oil palm boom and land-use
dynamics in Indonesia: The role of policies and socio-economic
factors. Land Use Pol 46:292–303
Gerard FF, Petit S, Smith G et al. (2010) Land cover change in Europe
between 1950 and 2000 determined employing aerial photo-
graphy. Prog Phys Geog 34:183–205
Girardet H (2015) Creating regenerative cities. Routledge, UK
Gratton C, Taylor P (1985) Sport and recreation: an economic ana-
lysis. E & FN Spon, London
Greene WH (2012) Econometric analysis. Pearson Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hansson H, Ferguson R, Olofsson C (2010) Understanding the
diversification and specialization of farm businesses. Agri Food
Scien 19(4):269–283
Hatna E, Bakker MM (2011) Abandonment and expansion of arable
land in Europe. Ecosystems 14(5):720–731
Environmental Management
Henderson JV, Mitra A (1996) The new urban landscape: developers
and edge cities. Reg Sci Urban Econ 26(6):613–643
Hersperger AM, Burgi M (2009) Going beyond landscape change
description: quantifying the importance of driving forces of
landscape change in a Central Europe case study. Land Use Pol
26(3):640–648
Hersperger A, Burgi M (2007) Driving forces of landscape change in
the urbanizing Limmat Valley, Switzerland. In: Koomen E,
Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten H (eds) Modelling land use
change. Springer, Dordrecht
Hersperger AM, Gennaio M-P, Verburg PH, Burgi M (2010) Linking
land change with driving forces and actors: four conceptual
models. Ecol Soc 15(4):1
Ingram J, Gaskell P, Mills J, Short C (2013) Incorporating
agri-environment schemes into farm development pathways: a
temporal analysis of farmer motivations. Land Use Pol
31:267–279
Inwood SM, Sharp JS (2012) Farm persistence and adaptation at the
rural-urban interface: succession and farm adjustment. J Rural
Stud 28(1):107–117
Jiang L, Deng X, Seto KC (2012) Multi-level modeling of urban
expansion and cultivated land conversion for urban hot-spot
counties in China. Landsc Urban Plan 108:131–139
Johannson M (2015) Demographic trends in rural Europe. In: Copus
AK, De Lima P (eds) Territorial cohesion in rural Europe: the
relational turn in rural development. Routledge, Oxon
Keenleyside C, Beaufoy G, Tucker G, Jones G (2014) High Nature
Value farming throughout EU-27 and its financial support under
the CAP. Report Prepared for DG Environment, Contract No
ENV B.1/ETU/2012/0035. Institute for European Environmental
Policy, London
Keenleyside C, Tucker G M (2010) Farmland abandonment in the EU:
an assessment of trends and prospects. Report prepared for WWF,
Institute for European Environmental Policy, London
Kizos T, Vasdeki M, Chatzikiriakou C, Dimitriou D (2011) For my
children: different functions of the agricultural landscape and
attitudes of farmers on different areas of Greece towards small
scale landscape change. Dan J Geog 111(2):117–130
Kong F, Xiong K, Zhang N (2014) Determinants of farmers’ will-
ingness to pay and its level for ecological compensation of
Poyang Lake Wetland, China: a household-level survey. Sus-
tainability 6:6714–6728
Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A, Scholten HJ (2007) Modelling
land-use change: progress and applications. Springer, Netherlands
Kristensen LS, Thenail C, Kristensen SP (2004) Landscape changes in
agrarian landscape in the 1990s: the interaction between farmers
and the farmed landscape. A case study from Jutland, Denmark. J
Environ Manag 71(3):231–244
Krugman P (1999) The role of geography in development. Inter Reg
Scien Rev 22:142–161
Kubes J (2013) European post-socialist cities and their near hinterland
in intra-urban geography literature. Bull Geog-Socio-econ Series
19:19–43
Kuemmerle T, Müller D, Griffiths P, Rusu M (2009) Land use change
in Southern Romania after the collapse of socialism. Reg Environ
Chang 9:1–12
Lasanta T, Arnaez J, Pascual N, Ruzi-Flano P, Errea MP, Lana-
Renault N (2017) Space-time process and drivers of land aban-
donment in Europe. Catena 149:810–823
Lerman Z, Csaki C, Feder G (2004) Evolving farm structures and land-
use patterns in former socialist countries. Quar J Inter Agri
43:309–335
Levers C, Müller D, Erb K et al. (2016) Archetypical patterns and
trajectories of land systems in Europe. Reg Environ Chan 1–18.
doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0907-x
Levia DF, Page Jr. DR (2000) The use of cluster analysis in distin-
guishing farmland prone to residential development: a case study
of Sterling, Massachusetts. Environ Man 25:541–548
Lundberg J (2006) A spatial interaction model of spillovers from
locally provided public services. Reg Stud 40:631–644
Mazzocchi C, Sali G, Corsi S (2013) Land use conversion in metro-
politan areas and the performance of agriculture: sensitivity index
of agricultural land (SIAL), a tool for territorial analysis. Land
Use Pol 35:155–162
McGrath DT (2005) More evidence on the spatial scale of cities. J
Urban Econ 58(1):1–10
Moreno-Perez OM, Ortiz-Miranda D (2008) Understanding structural
adjustment in Spanish arable crop farms: policies, technology and
multifunctionality. Span J Agri Res 6(2):153–165
Moses L, Williamson Jr HF (1967) The location of economic activity
in cities. Am Econ Rev 57(2):211–222
Mottet A, Ladet S, Coque N, Gibon A (2006) Agricultural land-use
change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: a case study in the
Pyrenees. Agri Eco Environ 114:296–310
Muth RF (1969) Cities and housing. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL
Müller K, Steinmeier C, Küchler M (2010) Urban growth along
motorways in Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plan 98(1):3–12
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (2013) Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission. http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm
OECD (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators.
OECD, Paris
Olper A, Raimondi V, Cavicchioli D, Vigani M (2012) Reallocation of
agricultural labor and farm subsidies: evidence from the EU
regions. Paper presented at the International Association of
Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Brazil,
18–24 August 2012
Orsini S (2013) Landscape polarisation, hobby farmers and a valuable
hill in Tuscany: understanding landscape dynamics in a peri-
urban context. Geografisk Tidsskrift 113(1):53–64
Pahl RE (1975) Whose city and further essays on urban society.
Penguin Books, Harmondsworth
Piorr A, Ravetz J, Tosics I (eds) (2010) Peri-urbanization in Europe:
towards European policies to sustain urban-rural futures.
PLUREL 6th Framework Programme Synthesis Report
Plakandaras V, Gupta R, Gogas P, Papadimitriou T (2015) Forecasting
the U.S. real house price index. Econ Model 45:259–267
Plieninger T, Bieling C (2012) Connecting cultural landscapes to
resilience. In: Plieninger T, Bieling C (eds) Resilience and the
cultural landscape. Understanding and managing change in
human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA
Plieninger T, Drauxa H, Fagerholma N, Bieling C, Bürgi M, Kizos T,
Kuemmerle T, Primdahl J, Verburg PH (2016) The driving forces
of landscape change in Europe: a systematic review of the evi-
dence. Land Use Pol 57:204–214
Primdahl J, Andersen E, Swaffield S, Kristensen L (2013) Intersecting
dynamics of agricultural structural change and urbanisation
within European landscapes: change patterns and policy impli-
cations. Landsc Res 38(6):799–817
Primdahl J (2014) Agricultural landscape sustainability under pressure:
policy developments and landscape change. Landsc Res 39
(2):123–140
Prishchepov AV, Müller D, Dubinin M, Baumann M, Radeloff VC
(2013) Determinants of agricultural land abandonment in post-
Soviet European Russia. Land Use Pol 30(1):873–884
Rappaport J (2007) Moving to nice weather. Reg Sci Urban Econ
37:375–398
Ricardo D (1817) Principles of political economy and taxation. Pen-
guin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx, Reprinted in 1971

Rickebusch S, Gellrich M, Heike Lischke H, Guisan A, Zimmermann
N (2007) Combining probabilistic land-use change and tree
population dynamics modelling to simulate responses in moun-
tain forests. Ecol Model 209:157–168
Riedel JL, Casasús I, Bernués A (2007) Sheep farming intensification
and utilization of natural resources in a Mediterranean pastoral
agro-ecosystem. Livest Sci 111:153–163
Rindfuss RR, Entwisle B, Walsh SJ, Mena CF, Erlien CM, Gray CL
(2007) Frontier land use change: synthesis, challenges, and next
steps. Ann Am Assoc Geog 97:739–754
Rudel TK (2008) Meta-analyses of case studies: a method for studying
regional and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chan
18:18–25
Salvati L, Gemmiti R, Perini L (2012) Land degradation in Medi-
terranean urban areas: an unexplored link with planning? Area 44
(3):317–325
Serra P, Pons X, Sauri D (2008) Land-cover and land-use change in a
Mediterranean landscape: a spatial analysis of driving forces
integrating biophysical and human factors. App Geog 28:189–209
Seto KC, Kaufmann RK (2003) Modeling the drivers of urban land use
change in the Pearl River Delta, China: integrating remote sen-
sing with socioeconomic data. Land Econ 79(1):106–121
Seto KC, Fragkias M, Güneralp B, Reilly MK (2011) A meta-analysis
of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE 6(8):e23777
Sluiter R, de Jong SM (2007) Spatial patterns of Mediterranean land
abandonment and related land cover transitions. Landsc Ecol
22:559–576
Srivastava VK, Giles DEA (1987) Seemingly unrelated regression
equation models: estimation and inference. Marcel Dekker, Inc,
New York, NY
Sutherland LA (2012) Return of the gentleman farmer? Con-
ceptualising gentrification in UK agriculture. J Rur Stud 28
(4):568–576
Swart R, Robinson J, Cohen S (2003) Climate change and
sustainable development: expanding the options. Climate Pol 3
(1):S19–S40
Swift MJ, Izac AMN, van Noordwijk M (2004) Biodiversity and
ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes-are we asking the
right questions? Agri Eco Environ 104(1):113–134
Tosics I, Szemzo H, Illes D, Gertheis A (2010) National spatial
planning policies and governance typology. PLUREL-Peri-Urban
Environmental Management
Land Use Relationships-Strategies and Sustainability Assessment
Tools for Urban-Rural Linkages. D2.2.1, EC-6th Framework
Programme
Tsatsaronis K, Zhu H (2004) What drives housing price dynamics:
cross-country evidence. BIS Quar Rev March: 65–78. BIS
Publishing
Van Asselen S, Verburg PH, Vermaat JE, Janse JH (2013) Drivers of
wetland conversion: A global meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 8(11):
e81292
Van Der Krabben E (2009) Urban containment strategies in the
Netherlands. Urbanistica 138:89–96
Van Dijk T (2003) Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation.
Land Use Pol 20:149–158
Van Vliet J, de Groot HLF, Rietveld P, Verburg PH (2015) Mani-
festations and underlying drivers of agricultural land use change
in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 133:24–36
Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, van Doorn AM, van Eupen M, van den
Heiligenberg HAR (2010) Trajectories of land use change in
Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc Ecol
25:217–232
Verburg PH, Ritsema van Eck JR, de Nijs TCM, Dijst MJ, Schot P
(2004) Determinants of land-use change patterns in the Nether-
lands. Environ Plan B 31:125–150
Verburg PH, Overmars K (2009) Combining top-down and bottom-up
dynamics in land use modelling: exploring the future of aban-
doned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landsc
Ecol 24:1167–1181
Von Thunen J (1826) The isolated state english edition. Pergamon,
London
United Nations-UN (2016) Composition of macro geographical
regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and
other groupings. http://millenniumindicators.un.org/
Wu JG (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services
and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol
28:999–1023
Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unre-
lated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc
57:348–368
Zhou BB, Kockelman KM (2009) Predicting the distribution of
households and employment: a seemingly unrelated regression
model with two spatial processes. J Trans Geog 17:369–376